A rose is a rose - really?

In "1984", George Orwell warns us of the dangers of allowing central control of language. Here's an example: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), defines “climate change” as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

So now, the question: do you believe in "climate change"?

Hmm... Let's say "yes":

Ah ha! So you admit that emissions due to human activity are changing the atmosphere! Clearly we need to DO SOMETHING!!!! (Emissions trading scheme, global world government, shut down the western economies, bankrupt the only viable sources of power generation, you name it, it has actually been both proposed and attempted - whether successfully or not is yet to be seen.)

Okay then, let's say "no":

You are a DENIER! How can you POSSIBLY SAY that humans make NO difference to the atmosphere?

And, of course, that is correct - even an ant exhaling makes a change to the atmosphere, let alone all of human industry; but is it significant and dangerous (or even measurable)? The problem is, of course, that the choice of language definitions makes it impossible to think a simple thought: that human emissions of CO2 are not dangerous (and possibly even beneficial). It relies on a term (in this case "climate change") sounding like one thing (changing climate) and being defined as another (human-caused atmospheric changes). The game is to switch from one meaning to another as necessary to manipulate the argument in your favour. And that is the exact reason why this term is used in the first place.

The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change by Bray and Shackley (Tyndall Centre September 2004) is a cold, clinical analysis of whether people will be convinced of "climate change" or "global warming" as the weather changes - in particular, as it gets colder. And of course, "climate change" is more effective - that is, more deceptive. But far from warning authorities not to use "climate change", they merely say:

...in those scenarios where only warming conditions occur the framing of the issue has no impact. The value of the belief as framed by climate change reaches the highest level of all belief under conditions of maximum sustained variance ... . As framed as global warming, however, the highest level of belief is achieved with a gradually warming scenario.

In other words, their careful analysis shows that if you call warming "change" instead of "warming", people are more likely to get duped into thinking things have "changed" (i.e. warmed) when they get either warmer or colder! But they haven't "changed" at all, of course, if "change" is merely a subterfuge for warming. So, with Bray and Shackley's comments about the deceptiveness of the term "climate change" ringing in their ears, do you think politicians, the warming alarmists, the traders salivating over the profits to be made on the fictitious carbon market, and their cheer squads in the media, will all stop using the term "climate change" so as not to mislead you? You think? If so I've got a bridge in Sydney Harbour I can sell you.

Am I reading too much into all this? B&S quote a 1991 paper by W. Kempton that says:

‘To the lay ear “global warming” without further elaboration simply means “hotter weather”' ... 'This is an argument for referring to the anticipated changes as “global climate change”...’

Well B&S have shown us that the only reason for using the term "climate change" is that it confuses some people into believing claims that things have gotten hotter when they have in fact got colder. So the only reason to use "climate change" instead of "global warming" is to deceive people. B&S never denounce Kempton for recommending that people be deceived. Do they approve? What other conclusion is there?