Share this Post:

Print this page

Email this page

Holdren's Remark Sets Off the Naysayers

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

YouTube

SIGN-UP for our latest news and action alerts:

Regular Blog Features:

Scope of Science:

Understanding environmental issues with science

Blog Categories:

Facebook Fans

Related Blog Entries

by Kari Birdseye:

Arctic Whales, Shell Execs & Spider Legs

if (window!= top) // if your website window is not top top.location.href=location.href Earthjustice received some superb video today from Dut...

by Brian Smith:

China to Introduce Carbon Fees

Climate change deniers in the U.S. once claimed there was no proof that pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere was changing our climate. This wor...

by Neil Gormley:

The Poverty of Mountaintop Removal Mining

Last month, Earthjustice Associate Attorney Neil Gormley took a trip to West Virginia to visit partners and clients and to see the effects of mountain...

Earthjustice on Twitter

Follow @Earthjustice

21 September 2010, 12:29 PM

Tom Turner

Holdren's Remark Sets Off the Naysayers

He proposes that we say "global climate disruption" not global warming

John Holdren, with President Obama.

In a speech in Oslo on September 6, John Holdren, President Obama's science advisor, suggested that 'global warming' be replaced by 'global climate disruption' as a more accurate expression. As The New York Times reported it, "changes to the climate are rapid when viewed in terms of the capacity of society and ecosystems to adjust; the impact is distributed unevenly; and the outcome will be overwhelmingly negative for most of the globe." Global warming implies slow changes that might even be benign.

Holdren (an old friend of mine and one of the smartest people in the universe) has long been a lightning rod for the right wing climate deniers owing largely to his long association with the population biologist Paul Ehrlich, with whom he wrote several books. Following Dr. Holdren's speech, the right blogosphere immediately accused the administration of playing politics, of trying to "rebrand" the subject preparatory to another push for a climate bill next year. The administration denied there's any rebranding going on.

I'm no expert, but John's suggestion makes good sense to me.