It Says It All

It's All A Matter of Semantics

The cartoon below says it all.

It highlights the deliberate semantic change that was made about seven years ago.  "Global warming" was out.  The propagandists insisted upon a new term: "Climate change".



John Stringer Cartoon
H/T Kiwiblog

The significance of the change in terminology?  The gnomes and marketers argued that the appellation "Global Warming" restricted commentary and "argument" to events or data which arguably could be traced to rising temperatures.  "Climate Change", on the other hand, could (and now does) refer to any iteration in the earth's climate--whether heating up or cooling down--whether inundated or experiencing drought .  So, every day we could have--and do have--a jeremiad.  Every other day we could be told that we were on the very edge of global calamity.

And so it has come to pass.  Not the calamities, mind you,  but the daily propaganda about imminent catastrophes.

But--and this is a huge "BUT"--it meant that claims about climate catastrophic outcomes could never be falsified.
 Since the climate is changing all the time within pretty broad parameters, change cannot be offered as any kind of evidence or proof for global warming.  This, in turns, establishes beyond doubt that there is no scientific foundation or credibility that can be attached to "global warming".   The essence of the scientific method is to put forward hypotheses or propositions which can be tested for truthfulness.  The ultimate test is whether the proposition is subject to terms, conditions, and tests which can falsify the proposition.    

The proposition that the earth is warming can be scientifically tested, and, if not supported by the evidence, falsified.  Therefore, it is a scientific hypothesis.  But the proposition that the climate changes is not a scientific proposition but a marketing claim.  It is a tautology with as much meaning and significance as the proposition that "the red barn is red".  It is true by definition.  It is the tool of the propagandist.

This, in turn, explains--but does not justify--the systemic fiddling of data by "scientists".