In Defense of "Climate Change"

07 May, 2004

It has become conventional wisdom on the left that "global warming" is a preferrable term to "climate change" in describing the changes in the Earth's climate due to increased heat retention caused by a buildup of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere. The source of this belief is usually traced to a Republican strategy memo that advocated saying "climate change" instead of "global warming." The memo suggested that the fomer term is less frightening to the public, and will thus make them more amenable to Republican policies that do little to combat the phenomenon. If the Republicans think framing the issue a certain way is to their advantage, the logic goes, then it must be advantageous to liberals to do it the other way.

Now, perhaps it's just my interest in discursive democracy that makes me uncomfortable with this idea. I don't like the implicit postmodern assumption that politics is just a power struggle played out by manipulating people's epistemic conditions. Publicly affirming this reasoning can feed into the Republican line that environmentalists are mere fearmongers. But I think there's something to be said for the left using the term "climate change."

First, "climate change" is more scientific. A quick search of the Environmental Sciences & Pollution Management database suggests that "climate change" is almost twice as popular as "global warming" in the peer-reviewed literature. This is important not only because it confirms my own view that, whatever its political efficacy, "climate change" is a more accurate description of the phenomenon. It also harmonizes with one of the key arguments in favor of the theory. The fact that there is a near total consensus among reputable climatologists that the Earth's climate is changing is an important point in our favor. Republicans know this, which is why they -- in accordance with another one of the infamous memo's recommendations -- spend so much time emphasizing the uncertainties in the science. Further, if we want a public that is able to participate rationally in responding to climate change, rather than simply being frightened into agreement with one or the other interest group, a solid public understanding of climate science is necessary. It seems to me that the term "climate change" is more conducive to this engagement with science than "global warming."

Scientists are increasingly recognizing that elite technical science is not enough. "Local environmental knowledge," especially that posessed by indigenous people, has become an important source of information in some quarters. This is a positive development. But talking about "global warming" encourages a naive attempt to use people's local knowledge. I'm talking here about the "it's cold out today, therefore global warming isn't happening" argument. The problem here is twofold -- a combination of poor evidence with a misunderstanding of the concept of global warming/climate change. Local knowledge gains its validity from being rooted in day-to-day experience of the environment. People who spend decades or centuries making their living from the land accumulate a bank of practical experience that makes them alert to changes. But Americans are increasingly disconnected from their environments, compounding the problem of trying to connect your experience of the weather with the climate change theory. What's more, "is it cold today?" is not an appropriate test of the theory. "Global warming" is an accurate description insofar as there is an increase in average global temperature. But the term can create the false impression that there will be an increase in temperature everywhere. But this is not the case. There will be changes in the functioning of the system, rearranging global atmospheric and oceanic circulation in ways that could lead in some locations to cooling , or changes in variability (more blizzards and more heat waves), or changes primarily in precipitation. The term "climate change" does a better job of capturing the systemic and variable nature of the phenomenon. It serves as a reminder of the complexity of the phenomenon and hence the pointlessness of simply looking at your own thermometer as a check.

The framing of this issue shouldn't be the most important issue. We need a public that can think clearly about environmental changes. But of course we do need a name for the particular phenomenon I've been discussing, and in that regard I don't think we should count out "climate change."

Stentor Danielson