Climate Change Or Global Warming? Three Reasons Not To Be Distracted By The Name Game

Social media is an interesting landscape of opinions, confirmation bias (consuming information that supports your beliefs), and expressions of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, a psychological term published in the literature that argues that people think they know more about topics than they actually do. This week two very worrisome but important climate change (or global warming) related studies were highlighted in the media. One study suggested an eastward shift in the well-known climate boundary near the 100-degree longitude line in the United States. This could have major implications for U.S. agriculture; productivity. The other study, actually two of them, revealed a slow down in a major ocean circulation that affects weather-climate patterns. In discussing both on Twitter, a few inevitable "Didn't they change the name to climate change because global warming wasn't happening" tweets appeared. While this is an oft-stated zombie theory, one that lives on though refuted by scientists, it is worth noting three reasons why you should not be distracted by this tactic.


Global warming is just one part of climate change. Before I go further, let's get this out of the way. Yes, climate changes naturally and it always has. Virtually every climate scientist knows this. Milankovitch cycles (changes in the Earth's orbit, tilt, and wobble), solar variations, and other natural processes have affected and will continue to affect our climate system. However, the science clearly shows that we now have a "human steroid" on top of the naturally-varying climate system. It is important to remember that it is not "either/or" it is "and." For example, grass grows naturally and "fertilized" soil will change how it grows. Global warming is one aspect of climate change in the same way that a fever is one aspect of the flu. A USGS website notes,


This is also consistent with a discussion on the Years of Living Dangerously documentary website,

Climate change or global climate change is generally considered a “more scientifically accurate term,” than global warming, as NASA explained in 2008, in part because “Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone.” When you consider all of the impacts scientists have observed in recent decades—including the acidifying ocean, worsening wildfires, and more intense deluges—climate scientists are likely to continue favoring the term climate change.


The terminology shift has political ties. It is well-known by those that have done the research that President George W. Bush's administration preferred the term "climate change" over "global warming." I was an Earth system scientist at NASA during this administration so I am very familiar with how things were unfolding at the time. A political strategist wrote a memo in 2002 urging Republicans to use the term "climate change" because it was less scary than "global warming." Here are some of the key statements in that memo by Mr. Lutz as published in The Guardian,

The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science............Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.......Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.....(the environment) is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable

The memo also urged other tactics to misinform or sway certain segments of the public. Such memos are why I urge scientists to engage because of we do not, people skilled in messaging will gladly fill the gap on behalf of clients or persuasive intent.

Public, media, and scientific usage varies. As Jason Samenow, in his excellent treatment of this topic in response to statements by President Trump, recently wrote in the Washington Post Capital Weather Gang, the National Academies of Sciences noted a preference for the term "climate change" because it was more scientifically-accurate. It has nothing to do with any "warming pauses" or lack of evidence of warming. Samenow writes,

“The contentious phrase global warming, first used by United Press International in 1969, seems to be undergoing a certain cooling; contrariwise, the more temperate phrase climate change is getting hot,” the New York Times’ William Safire wrote in his On Language column in 2005.

Dr. Theresa Andersen, a former doctoral student at the University of Georgia, conducted perhaps one of the first scholarly analyses of the terms and published it in IEEE Earthzine five years ago. She found that the media preferentially uses the term "global warming" while scientific researchers tend to use "climate change." She argued that "climate change is arguably the more meaningful term because it facilitates communication between scientists, the media, and the general public and it conveys that the range of risks associated with a warming climate are not limited to temperature alone." However, even today, the public probably still uses the term "global warming."

There are some that have argued for the use of the term "climate disruption."  Whatever it is called, do not fall for the attempt to discredit the science because of name... It is just a name game (and a deflection).

Earthzine/Theresa Andersen
Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website.
