Language can shift the paradigm

I would just like to point out the significance of the wording used to describe this international phenomenon. Some people call it "global warming" while others call it "climate change." The two phrases can easily demonstrate which side of the argument you stand on and it is a complete marketing ploy. Global warming alludes to a devastating crisis in which the average temperature is increasing, the ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, etc. etc. While climate change is a much more passive term which implies that the world's weather is changing, whether it be for better or for worse.

If you want a real life example of this propaganda look no further than political figures. Frank Luntz is a political consultant and after significant research he advised the Republican party to begin using the term "climate change" because it was believed to sound less severe. And if you think about, what did you most often hear Bush say? How about Al Gore?... (Granted both parties now use both terms, they did originally have a much more intense political agenda.) Language is a funny thing...

(To read more about Frank Luntz and his research see an interview he did with PBS for a show called "The Persuaders": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html. He specifically talks about how language can shift a paradigm.)