It really doesn't matter that it is new or old, it has gained currency in the last few years to become a term used frequently by the talking heads on MSM and and a rag tag of politicians. 'Global warming' is not so frequently used as it once was? These fads and fashions change, like the weather.

So it is new in so far as it is more frequently used in discussion and propaganda about planetary climate than say, 5 years ago.

"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt", was a headline from the Washington Post* – dated from November 2nd 1922. But it could have been cribbed directly by any of a modern twenty first century copywriter. Of course glaciers have been retreating for hundreds of thousands of years, they have also been advancing for about the same amount of time too. Seals have mysteriously reappeared after their 1922 vanishing act, and well, we still despite the doom mongering, we still have icebergs. Icebergs being, by and large the most obvious manifestation of the retreat of the floating ice shelf during the normal seasonal variation of temperature most of us otherwise know as 'summer'.

Five hundred years ago, we would all have been herded into the churches and told by the clergy that the unseasonal weather was because we have sinned. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense today, the only difference is the clergy have changed, but the new priests are still trying to scare everyone into the cathedral of environmentalism.

*thanks to the fine whatsupwiththat web blog

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108237

Some quotes from Margaret’s speech:

“Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event. It is sensible to improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently; it’s sensible to develop alternative and sustainable and sensible … it’s sensible to improve energy efficiency and to develop alternative and sustainable sources of supply; it’s sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it’s sensible to re-examine industrial processes; it’s sensible to tackle the problem of waste. I understand that the latest vogue is to call them ‘no regrets’ policies. Certainly we should have none in putting them into effect.

“And our uncertainties about climate change are not all in one direction. The IPCC report is very honest about the margins of error. Climate change may be less than predicted. But equally it may occur more quickly than the present computer models suggest. Should this happen it would be doubly disastrous were we to shirk the challenge now. I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster. It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later.”

Way ahead of her time.

Until we start being governed by statesmen and not schoolboys, we will only decline even more. "Global Warming" is a tool by the new autocrats to control the population.

Argumentum ad hominem:
Listen to the language of the "alarmists" and you will soon see that their "evidence" is weak. Anyone who stiffles debate is not only unsure of his argument but also a bully.

Ronald Reagen and Mrs Thatcher defeated communism, but the "Global Warming" movement is far worse and more dangerous to our liberty, and when the conservatives actually try to be one up on the greens on who can cut the most "emmisions", then we are really in trouble. Alas, I can see no great statesman (or woman) in the wilderness to save us this time.

It's interesting you mention witch burnings. I saw a youtube video recently, and a climatologist was making the comparison between witches who were burned in the sixteenth century for "weather cooking" and blaming people who drive larger cars today for seemingly erratic weather. I'll see if I can find the link and with JR's permission, post it here.

"c) Change the name (always an option with a failing brand) to “climate change”"

Help me to understand why you think that climate change is a new term. For example, what do you think the letters CC in IPCC (formed in 1988) stand for?

For extra points, who wrote this in 2003:

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism,” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

1. “Climate change’’ is less frightening than “global warming ” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

So the plastic bags need to go for reasons of protecting the countryside that has suffered from global warming & my grandparents generation got the shopping home without them so why not swallow our pride & learn from previous generations who had more sense than the throwaway society that the 1960's produced ! Recycling is good as if we want higher consumption rates than we need to re-use as much as possible as landfill space is limited in a country that can be fitted into Texas three times over while fly-tipping ruins our rural areas & the seas and animals suffer . My ideas are evidence based and mean no potty New Labour style nonsense but instead produce less poverty, lower taxes & smaller government and less litter !

The climate change CO2 theory is attractive to the third world and India and China, as it allows them to blame the West for their adverse climate, even some form of reparations has been suggested. If there was a real crisis demanding immediate drastic cuts in CO2 emissions, then haggling over who makes the biggest cuts would be futile.

The West should have none of this and insist that all countries come to the table with a clean slate. I predict that this would lead to no agreement. This shows that the world's leaders are not serious about the impending disaster. It is simply another political bargaining chip.

If the climate fails to show the predicted warming, the theory will fade away.

Stuart
c) Change the name (always an option with a failing brand) to "climate change"and hope the public have as short term a memory as the media, who after all have a similar disincentive to admit to being wrong.

The inertia of human societies to keep driving in the wrong direction, indeed to accelerate & abuse any heretic who disagrees is one of the big problems with human society & is caused by this inability to admit error.

Medieval witchburnings, market peaks & crashes, ( a couple of items left out – ed) certainly the global warming scare story can all be put down to this phenomenon. Mankind evolved as a herd animal, we follow the herd leader & he has to make sure he is going in the direction we are.