| September 28, 2010 |  |
Obama Science Advisor Holdren Ruffles Contrarians with Discussion of "Climate Disruption"
During a September 8 presentation (pdf) in Oslo, Norway, presidential science advisor John Holdren repeated a suggestion that the term “global climate disruption” is more accurate than “global warming” to describe the impact excess heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere have on nearly all aspects of life on Earth, including human civilization.
Holdren’s comment prompted a number of contrarian responses from various news organizations and blogs, including misleading interpretations of what Holdren’s speech meant, conspiracy theories about climate scientists and accusations that the Obama administration was changing how it talks about climate science. Fox News, for example, reported that the speech amounted to a new directive from the White House aimed at selling climate legislation.
But the article also correctly noted that Holdren has been using the term long before he started his position in the administration in 2009. The Washington Times, meanwhile, recycled the myth that scientists switched from the term “global warming” to “climate change” because average global temperatures have been dropping. The Times editorial board apparently didn’t get the memo that we’re currently experiencing the hottest decade since average temperatures were first recorded. In any case, scientists have been using both terms for decades.
In addition to ignoring the science, contrarians also are ignoring history. The term “climate change” was embraced by George W. Bush administration for political reasons. A 2003 messaging memo by consultant Frank Luntz advised the administration: “ ‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming.’ ...[C]limate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.” The Bush administration heeded Luntz’s advice, using the term “climate change” while attempting to block policies that would reduce heat-trapping emissions.
So how do scientists use these terms?
For scientists, “global warming” and “climate change” are two ways of talking about the same set of phenomena: all the natural and human-induced environmental changes that affect the Earth’s temperature, ecosystems and human civilization. Most scientists use the term “climate change” because they think it is more inclusive of all these phenomena, while the term “global warming” is often used to describe the “global warming potential” of various gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and others. Many scientists, including Holdren, think the term “global warming” narrowly focuses on temperature change and implies a steady, constant, global rise in temperature, when, in fact, climate change is much less uniform.
In any case, scientists understand that human activity has become the dominant driver of climate change, particularly the overloading of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and destroying tropical forests. “Climate change” includes a plethora of consequences, including more intense precipitation (including rain and snow), ocean acidification, more persistent El Ninos in the Pacific Ocean, animal behavior, and other effects.
Holdren argues that “climate disruption” more accurately describes the difficulty animals, ecosystems and human civilization adapting to modern, rapid climate change.
No matter what you call it, it’s real and it’s happening now. Unfortunately, climate contrarians would rather debate semantics than address the facts.
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
