In his confession/self-congratulation post detailing the Sierra Club’s former relationship with Chesapeake Energy, club chairman Michael Brune auditions some new terminology:
In the fall of 2005, Sierra Club staff and volunteer leaders agreed to make the enormous challenge of climate disruption the Club’s highest priority.
“Climate disruption.” How clever. It sounds both vaguely scientific and definitely violent and bad. It’s far more evocative than mere “climate change,” and less specific than “global warming.” When some people peddle change, such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, it’s sold as a good in and of itself and the only constant thing we can count on. So it was always going to be difficult to make any sort of “change” a villain.There’s too much invested in making “change” a good.
“Disruption” is so much more sinister and useful. Nobody likes disruptions. It’s also totally unfalsifiable. If you claim the planet is warming up, or going cold, you and others can measure whether you’re right about that or not (or you can make hockey sticks and hide declines). Making such claims opens up the possibility of peer review, and of being wrong. But “disruption” — how do you measure that? You can’t. You just say it’s happening and then point to the latest catastrophe — “That’s the disruption I’ve been warning everyone about!” And don’t talk about the overwhelming evidence that earth’s climate has changed and changed back again over the millennia without any help or hindrance from the hand of man.
Climate disruption. Too many syllables. It won’t go over well. But it is fanciful.
Fun to watch, isn’t it?
Disruption, indeed!! I wonder if they mean “disruption” to the world’s economy? Nah, they don’t care about that at all. On the other hand, some of us do care. See here, for example: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/huhne-is-no-loss/
It gets better, Bryan.
The next time New Yahk City is clogged by snow, you’ll hear it described as a “climate disruption,” and most non-poliical-geeks will conflate the “disruption” to their lives with the evils that carbon is supposedly doing to our planet.
Truly diabolical.
Climate Disruption as a term has been around for two years, and came into the fore after the record-setting snows of two winters ago.
How about “climate bitch?” I like “climate cluster f–k” but I can’t use it as much as I’d like so in the end I always use ” that darn climate snafu” and everyone knows what I mean and nods their heads in ironic self-hatred.
Darn human beings and their gasses anyways. Oh darn them!
Bryan, what happened to our old shill for AGW APhysicist? Shouldnt he be here switching his argument to defense of ‘climate disruption’?
He probably isnt around because he crashed his car into a ten-foot-high snowbank. Good riddance.
Bryan got tired of his thread-jacking about 3 months ago and banned him.
What CW said. Threadjackers tend to get put to the sword. Plus, he was becoming unusually personal in his treatment of a couple of our writers.
That would be Charlie and Patrick, I think. You should have seen some of the 3-way email conversations we had about him.
Ahh ok. I see what you mean, I know he was doing that to me and to others. In fairness I have to admit I was doing the same to him. I have no problem respecting anyone I am throwing ideas around with, or debating, even when we disagree vehemently, but to someone whose argument is a deliberately calculated deception I have no respect for. I have no problem calling out a bald-faced liar for what they are.
If John Sidles is a physicist, then he knows very well that what he was peddling is a crock of Bovinogenic Global Warming material.
He’s not a physicist. He’s a medical researcher. About the time I began asking him whether I should contact his employers about his daylighting as troll rather than working, Bryan dropped the hammer.
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if he were still reading threads like this, tho.
Though perhaps the agony of reading and not being able to “educate” us got too much for him and he left for good.
“Disruptive” comes right out of pomo critical theory, right alongside “transgressive.” Just check how many times the terms are paired, and in which writings:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=24&gs_id=21&xhr=t&q=disruptive+transgressive&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=disruptive+transgressive&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d4aea2a5825eafc1&biw=1129&bih=819
I do hasten to add, though, that in pomo critical theory, “disruptive” and “transgressive” are adjectives typically applied to what the authors consider to be GOOD things. Oh well; everything’s situational for them anyway, so I’m sure the terms can be…umm…adapted.
I can just see it now; people convicted of “climate transgressions” that it is claimed could lead to “climate disruption.”
Too bad the weather is not cooperating with their disruptive climate gate. The weather here is pretty nice. It just so turns out that oh about a million years ago or so we had an ice age, oh and what about that heat wave about a million years after that….all those core soil samples they have taken around the world seem to dispute their theories…
Bryan told you at the end of his column not to mention scientific fact. It’s an unacceptable gambit against those who worship at the Imbecilica of St. Marx.
“Imbecilica of St. Marx”, hah! I am so stealing that next chance I get.
Me too! Thanks, Howard!
” Disruption?”
To disrupt means to throw into confusion or disorder
So, then would the Great and the Good care to tell us what is the standard that is being disrupted? How much rainfall or snow? where? How warm the summers? What level of water in the seas? The lakes and rivers?
There is no baseline here from which to measure anything. And in that case, what is the norm- and who says so?
^^^ This ^^^
How about renaming AGW in Newspeak, i.e. “Climate Crime”? Certainly if you doubt Climate Crime then you are guilty of Thought Crime.
Climate crime is double-plus ungood!