Global Warming Theorists – A Modest Suggestion

I have a modest suggestion for the proper term to apply to those who advocate for Global Warming, Climate Change, Catastrophic Climate Change, Weather Weirding, Climate Chaos, {whatever rebranding marketing term of the week they are pushing now}.

There’s been an ongoing series of terms used. Warmers. Warmistas. Global Warming Advocates. Climate Nazis. It’s a long list. Some, like “Warmers” fairly polite. Others intended to denigrate and abuse. I’ve pondered for a while how best to combine a reasonable degree of respect for those who hold the “natural climate denier” POV and advocate for the CO2 driven warming position, while still preserving just a touch of “reservation” about the quality of their conclusions.

I think I’ve finally settled on one.

“Global Warming Theorists”

Sidebar on The History Channel

Just in case anyone doesn’t get the reference, on U.S.A. Television (cable and satellite) there are many channels with names that no longer quite describe their marketing nitche. A channel comes into being with a specific ‘theme’, then, over time, ratings drive it into other areas. Eventually the “theme” is left far behind. So, for example, The Weather Channel started out as all weather all the time. Folks headed to the airport could flip it on and inside 1/2 hour get local weather and weather at the other end. Farmers could look in the morning and know if they were planting or cleaning machinery in the barn. Over time, The Weather Channel has drifted and now is largely “Tangentially references weather Reality TV Channel”. MTV that was the Music TV Channel, last I looked has little music video on it. Which brings us to The History Channel.

The History Channel started out running documentaries and docu-dramas about history and historical moments. Somewhere along the line they ran some ‘Space Aliens & UFOs’ programs. Since those got good ratings, they ran more. And more. And more… Now you can’t hardly turn on The History Channel without running into an Ancient Astronauts or Space Aliens R Us program of some kind. (Many with the same players and same rehashed tenuously reasoned ‘excitement’ points…) In these, they almost universally refer to the folks doing the hyping of space aliens as shapers of the human race and history as “Ancient Astronaut Theorists”. Kinda catchy. Correctly labels them as theorists and their work as a theory (of whatever quality). Sounds vaguely sciency, while still being just a touch condescending (at least after you have heard it 1000 times in a week…).

Thus My Conclusion

And that is why I like the term “Global Warming Theorists”. It vaguely echos the “Ancient Astronaut Theorists” and other “Space Aliens R Us Theorists”, while still being politely respectful and, frankly, accurate.

Those folks who are advocating for the destructive power of CO2 on climate have a theory. They have a load of dodgy doctored data, and some woefully inadequate computer models. Their data is about as good as the “Ancient Astronauts Theorists” data (in some ways the AAT folks have better data since it is often physical drawings and ancient writings carved in stone and not adjusted, manipulated, or otherwise corrupted). Their computer models leave out the most important physical parts of the actual process (clouds, variable sun, tides variable with lunar cycles, etc.) and so are about as complete as the speculations of the Ancient Astronaut Theorists. And they have their cherished theory (in both cases).

So with that in mind, I have made the modest suggestion that in future they be called “Global Warming Theorists”. I think it fits, and is just about right on the emoto-meter.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and GIStemp Issues, Human Interest, Political Current Events and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Global Warming Theorists – A Modest Suggestion

  1. LeeHarvey says:

    Global Warming Theist?

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    @LeeHarvey:

    Cute. But a touch more snark than I was going for.

    Blame it on my Mum… from her I got that British penchant for shading things right on the edge. Humor that is only detected by the attentive, and insult you can deliver to the face in polite company and still be thanked for attending…

    Yes, I know. The non-Brits don’t get it why that is attractive… but it is :-)

  3. LeeHarvey says:

    Oh, I certainly appreciate the English affinity for understated derision. I almost inserted an (or) in the middle of Theist when I typed it.

  4. adrianvance says:

    Make mine “global-warmist.”

  5. Larry Ledwick says:

    I generally have gone with Catastrophic Global Warming Advocate, to stress the idea that they are advocating for an idea the global warming is catastrophic, without being too snippy. I do also often refer to the Global Warming Theory rather than just Global Warming to stress the idea that it is a theory and carries with that the obligation to show its work and provide some justification why it should be believed. Global Warming Theorist does imply that they are at least pretending to be scientific. I will probably include it in my acceptable use list of terms which do not imply blind acceptance and expresses reservations without being too trollish.

  6. BarryR says:

    I call the Mann lot Global Warming Hawks, the so-called lukewarmers Moderates and the other end of the spectrum Doves. It’s a Vietnam-era nomenclature, of course, but with the conservative and liberal ends flipped.

  7. RickA says:

    Is a lukewarmer a global warming theorist?

    Someone who believes in the direct effect of more CO2 – but not the indirect amplification.

    I believe in about 1.2C of direct warming from a doubling of CO2 – but really don’t see any evidence for the indirect effects which are supposed to boost the warming from 1.2C per doubling to 3C or even 4.5C.

    Just curious on your thoughts on this overlap.

  8. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    Global warming is so yesterday, we have to find something with climate. But who does not believe the climate is changing? Would Catastrophistas do.
    Just some thaughts on the strange language used around the Global Warming.
    IPCC has effectively made new defintions of the sentences, so that no one can express his meaning without a long explanation of what he means by the words. Real Orwellian.

  9. tom0mason says:

    When these climate worriers stop using the word ‘greenhouse’ for any effect that has nothing to do with hothouses or glasshouses, maybe then we should be slightly more polite to these Climate Misanthropists, and the massed ranks charlatan ‘green’ propagandists.
    Their deliberate misuse of this term is only to convey to the ordinary person the dual illusions of the earth’s atmosphere acting and reacting like the interior of a common greenhouse, and as such, is part of a global ‘oh-so-fragile’ natural shell. The use of this phraseology, and so much other sophistry, is evidence of how unscientific these dangerous dogma-driven, alarmist climate clown, activists are.
    Sorry EM but I see no reason to be overly polite to most of these political activists who are advocating the destruction of Westerner way of life in exchange for poorly green-washed eco-communism, commanded over by a Politburo of UN elitists. They are very dangerous Malthusian misanthropists and communists, intent on ensuring the downfall of market driven economies, and the destruction of millions, if not billions, of lives.

  10. tom0mason says:

    As I rarely watch television so I defer to a good friend of mine who used to call The History channel the Nazi Channel on account of all the WWII history programs on it, but now calls it ‘The Shouter Limits’, as it runs the audio very loud and appears to be out-takes from 1960s science fiction TV shows.

  11. Graeme No.3 says:

    I agree with Larry Ledwick, Global Warming Theorist implies that they are pretending to be scientific. Greenhouse Theorists? Greenhousians?
    Still it is better than Green Gulls (implying screeching, attention seeking, flying around demanding to be fed, or possibly just plain gullible).

  12. E.M.Smith says:

    @Rick A.:

    I’d likely go for “Global luke-Warming Theorist” for one who was explicitly demanding to be set apart from the general run of the mill Global Warming theorist… though in casual conversation, just saying “lukewarmer” is probably a whole lot more convenient…

    @Svend:

    How about “Global Climate Wierding Theorist”… as it is then just a touch ambiguous to which word the “Wierding” applies ;-)

    @TomOMason:

    Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m quite on board with using a clearly denigrating term if the context desires / warrants it. Just for the “other times” when one wishes to carve that line of “Looking Polite while mildly denigrating”, I’m rather fond of the “theorist” tag-on… but OTOH I have no idea of that “works” anywhere outside of the USA / CableTV group. (It REALLY does start to wear on you after the 10000th idiot with a crazy Space-Aliens-Invented-The-Wheel or Made-Us-From-Apes-Then-Had-Sex-With-Their-Creation “Theorist” gets trotted out … and the term theorist starts to conflate with “raving loon”…)

    So I guess mostly I’m asking if the “insult by association” carries over to others, or if it is just too much “inside-baseball” (which is itself a USA term for “inside private game semi-obscure”) to be of general use…?

    BTW, I’ve noticed that The History Channel seems to go in waves. It’s the Nazi Channel for a few months with endless repeats of everything W.W.II, then The Space Aliens Ate My Brain and “Ancient Astronauts Theorists” for another few months… then… but somehow never seems to really do much with actual diverse history. Can’t remember the last time I saw anything about The Holy Roman Empire or The Byzantine Empire or (horrors!) the invasions of Suleiman The Great and his near destruction of Europe (that begat the Crusades in reply). Oh Well…

    @All:

    BTW, posting this from CentOS 6.3 on a USB drive. Seems to work OK, but noticed no spell checking turned on by default. I’ll have to see how to make that part go. Also noticed a lot of %wa on the Linux “top” command, so when it has to hit the “disk” on the USB stick, it takes a lot of wait time. Most likely as the stick only does large block read/writes so if you want to change one letter, it’s a whole block of change…

    At any rate, more on that in another posting… this mention is just so folks will know why my spelling suddenly got worse ;-)

  13. Chuck L says:

    There a lot of ‘ists’ that are appropriate appellations for members of the Climate Nomenklatura I can think of and none of them are complimentary.

  14. John Robertson says:

    I like it, nicely understated and might make the more reasonable listener take a second thought.
    My favourite is far too antagonistic, as the Cult of Calamitous Climate irks me beyond reason.
    I have begun to suspect that these fools and bandits, who are using their wealth and leisure to attempt to help us back into slavery, are all my fault.
    Having been raised to play fair and not give the gullible what they are asking for, I have passed on too many opportunities to provide useless expensive services.
    By leaving these do-gooders their money, I have enabled this assault on our civilization.
    Therefore the mass hysteria, the pillaging of public treasuries to assuage Green Gods, the march into regulated hell… all the fault of myself and all other practical, honest tradesmen.
    The next time you feel the urge to help the misguided, stop and think…
    Save civilization..bankrupt your do-gooders and the insanely gullible..before they feel empowered to bring technological civilization grinding to a halt.

    Yes I am feeling nasty, I just filed my taxes.
    Who knew that productive work is a punishable offence in this culture?

  15. I wound up, years ago, settling on “catastrophist.” Everyone involved has theories on global warming, from the idea that there is little evidence for it at all to the idea that it is likely to be net-beneficial to the idea that it is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced. All of them could be called “global warming theorists,” it seems to me.

    But the latter group, the “greatest threat” folks, are captured by the term “catastrophists.” They believe in catastrophe resulting from Man’s actions, and this will still be true when/if they give up on warming and simply focus on “pollution” or “ocean acidification” or “ozone” or any of the other alleged ills that do not specifically require the Earth to be getting warmer.

    Take away the warming entirely; the catastrophists are still there. They were there decades ago, led by Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich in their demands for government control that had nothing to do with Earth temperatures. Warming was a convenient cause more recently, but the lust for control and taxation and reduction of US power (which suits bureaucracies, nations lining up for handouts, and nations looking to handicap their adversaries) means that there will always be such causes with us. And as fear is the primary motivator to goad the people into action, the catastrophists speak the language of doom in whatever accent is trendy for the day.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  16. omanuel says:

    BS Climatologist?

  17. Pingback: Name-calling « DeHavelle.com

  18. Graeme No.3 says:

    “Can’t remember the last time I saw anything the invasions of Suleiman The Great and his near destruction of Europe (that begat the Crusades in reply)”.

    Yes, high time for a refresh.

  19. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    Just thaught of Climateers.
    Even Obama has engaged the armed forces in the battle, and you often hear that we must fight for the climate (or against).

  20. Eric Barnes says:

    “Keith DeHavelle says:
    18 June 2015 at 5:00 am
    I wound up, years ago, settling on “catastrophist.””

    I’m with you Keith. It’s not just that it’s warming, it’s that it’s going to warm enough for us all to die (or nearly so).

  21. Larry Ledwick says:

    I suppose Global Warming Chicken Little’s would be a bit too snide??

  22. p.g.sharrow says:

    @ “catastrophist.” has been with us as long as there has been would be “community organizers”. This Religion of Disaster has been preached under different headings but is always the same, Give us power and wealth and we will save you from our perceived disaster. The gods must be placated! The time is very short, you must act NOW! em………. Sounds like Con-fidence Men to me. pg

  23. p.g.sharrow says:

    Speaking of Religions;
    The Summer solstice is
    at 9:38 am Sunday morning marking the longest period of daylight
    minutes of the year and the point where the sun reaches its
    farthest northern position over the Earth.

    Rejoice! Burnt offerings and Wave offerings, Blessings to all on the longest day of the year! pg

  24. Glenn999 says:

    The Hypothesis of Global Warming

  25. LeeHarvey says:

    @ sabretoothed –

    Of course tNGS loves alien theory… it makes their stance on CAGW seem all that much more plausible.

  26. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    Not enough to get excited about, but a nice approach and conclusion, and a simple, respectful, factual statement:
    “Those folks who are advocating for the destructive power of CO2 on climate have a theory. They have a load of dodgy doctored data, and some woefully inadequate computer models. Their data is about as good as the “Ancient Astronauts Theorists” data (in some ways the AAT folks have better data since it is often physical drawings and ancient writings carved in stone and not adjusted, manipulated, or otherwise corrupted). Their computer models leave out the most important physical parts of the actual process (clouds, variable sun, tides variable with lunar cycles, etc.) and so are about as complete as the speculations of the Ancient Astronaut Theorists. And they have their cherished theory (in both cases).

    So with that in mind, I have made the modest suggestion that in future they be called “Global Warming Theorists”. I think it fits, and is just about right on the emoto-meter.”
    I will adopt Mike’s term happily. Always unsure about “warmists” and “alarmists” which were the best that I could ever come up with.
    Come to think about, we all (global warming bloggers), are theorists, whichever way we lean, however, our theories are much closer allied to scientific methods and conclusions, that makes the difference.

  27. rogerthesurf says:

    Its because Skeptics and Deniers are supported by big oil! See my expose’ at “That Dreaded Fossil Fuel supporting Deniers and Skeptics!”
    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

    Cheers

    Roger

  28. Wayne Job says:

    I think any name for these people needs an ism on the end, most isms in history have been very bad for mankind.

  29. LeeHarvey says:

    @ Wayne Job –

    Is not an -ist simply one who adheres to or practices an -ism?

  30. p.g.sharrow says:

    To concentrate on “Global Warming” is as foolish as the previous meme of “Global Cooling” preached in the 1970s. The religion is one of “Human Caused” climate Change. This is where the malice/stupid argument lays. Religious Fanatics preach that Man is the Cause of all misfortune and must reform to insure their vision of Paradise will be attained. AGWism is a religious belief, not a science, created to gain wealth and power. A Skeptic questions all dogma. pg

  31. Global warming alarmists are “Watermelons” — they’re green on the outside and red on the inside.
    – Jeff

  32. S.R. Smith says:

    Back before Arnie signed ab32 (California’s Cap & Trade “taxation and robbery”), Mary Nichols was giving a presentation to a trade organization I attended. On direct questioning she referred to her technical assistant for better understanding. He preceded to inform us that “global warming” was an extinction event… Clearly one of the religious heretics in her crew.
    Your musings on the categories reminded me of the convergence of thoughts surrounding this issue. It may be difficult to get agreement on a defined theory in that group.
    Thanks for your many thoughts on this and other subjects.

  33. Gail Combs says:

    I settled on ClimAstrologist.

    Here is the computer they run their Climate Models on:

  34. WHO CONTROLS CLIMATE GOD OR MAN? BY STEVE FINNELL

    Can man control the earth’s climate, or is God in control of the weather? Do man-made carbon dioxide emission control the climate of the earth or does God control the weather? Who created the weather, man or God?

    Genesis 7:4 “For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”(NKJV)

    Question: Did man-made CO2 emissions cause it to rain forty days and forty nights, and destroy everything but what was on the ark with Noah?

    Matthew 8:24-27……26 But He said to them, “Why are you fearful, O you of little faith? Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea. And there was great calm………(NKJV)

    Questions: Did man-made CO2 emissions cause the storm. Did man calm the storm by controlling their carbon footprint?

    Job 37 1:24…. 6 For He says to the snow, ‘Be on the earth’: Likewise to the gentle rain and heavy rain of His strength……(NKJV)

    Question: Do men have the ability to control the climate by controlling man-made CO2 emissions?

    Psalm 135:6-7 Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and on earth, In the seas and in all deep places. 7 He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasuries.(NKJV)

    Question: Can men control the climate by controlling man-made CO2 emissions?

    Who is in control of the climate, God in heaven or puny men on earth?

    [NOTE: Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; neither is oxygen nor water. CO2, O, and H2O are necessary to sustain life.]

    YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com

Comments are closed.