What do you think of this graph from Google Ngram?

"could anyone ever again have the nerve to claim that use of the phrase "global warming" was recently changed to "climate change" as part of a vast conspiracy?"

Your question is totally unreasonable.

As answers here show, some people repeat utter lies.

The people some people here get their information from know very well

that Wikileaks says nothing about climate science,

that numerous repetitions by dozens of groups confirm the main features of the hockey stick,

that every major scientific organisation in the world regards AGW as real and serious,

that "climate change" is built into the name of IPCC, not some recent innovation;

so why should you imagine that mere facts about frequency of word use will change what they say?

I wondered why Portland chose to stop his chart of "global cooling" vs "global warming" at 1965.

It's because if you go to 2008, a far more clear picture is presented:

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=global+... ....clearly a kick in the pants for those who compare the current global warming concern on equal terms with the "global cooling concern" of the 70's. The fraction of books mentioning global warming today is 6250 times greater than the fraction that were mentioning global cooling in the 1970's.

The "they changed it to climate change" argument is ridiculous. Not only do these simple idiots not understand that the two terms mean different things (and not what they think), they actually think this "name change" was done in the last few years, i.e. almost two decades after the "IPCC" was formed.

Why are so many denier arguments so easy to debunk?

It was republican spin doctor Frank Luntz who actually in the year 2000 advised to drop the term "Global Warming" because of its negative impact and use "Climate Change" instead. Not surprisingly, the graph linked above shows a sharp increase at that time.

there replaced right into a particular 1974 Time magazine article with hypothesis approximately cooling, besides the fact that if it, like maximum of different issues, have been given blown out of share by utilising the wingnuts. they're the comparable people who nevertheless insist that Malthus, The club of Rome and Paul Ehrlich have been thoroughly incorrect with regard to the coolest judgment of overpopulation in basic terms because of the fact the golf green revolution (denser crop a lot) quickly fed extra human beings. the fact is that inhabitants strengthen is pushing land-based vegetation to the shrink and pulling extra fish out of the sea than could be replenished. it is likewise putting a large variety of animal and plant species in possibility, alongside with our own. yet wingnuts have a habit of latching onto previous information and in no way letting go. supply a suitable-wing canine a delectable adequate wing bone and it will overlook approximately a thigh bone falling on its head. The Time article is proper under for everybody who needs finished context. bear in strategies that aerosol pollutants (earlier the "eco-freaks" and "tree-huggers" demanded tighter pollutants controls) is now theory to be in charge for temporary cooling outcomes. if actuality be told, warming could be plenty worse now if air high quality have been uniformly extra advantageous. See "international dimming."

It all has to do with marketing of the climate cause industry.

Global Cooling was the brand name prior to the 80's. Of course the Earth entered a warming cycle... again.... and then the brand name became 'global warming'. About a decade ago, the Earth began to stop warming and so the brand name became 'climate change'. Once the global warming activists realized that the term 'global warming' was not scary enough, then the brand name.... "Global Climate Disruption" tested the waters for acceptance among the masses.

So far, the marketing scheme has failed but governments stubbornly cling to the "man-did-it" cause because of the promise of Trillions of dollars in tax revenues to be used in furtherance of socialist agendas.

A relatively small number obscure scientists began to be treated by government and business leaders as if they were 'REALLY important'..... naive characters like Hansen, Jones, Mann.... etc..... who fell into line with what crooked politicians and business leaders expected of them, in their quest to be seen as something other than lab-coated nerds.

Unfortunately for these few so-called "scientists", the fraudulent science practiced by them has been exposed as such. Remember that the general public may not understand the "science" but they do understand what constitutes a Cheat.

A PHD in Physics is not necessary to understand the fraud that has been perpetrated by a handful of crooked scientists.

I find in interesting that if you change the search paramaters just a little you get a totally different result, which does show a drop off in the use of "global warming"

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=global+...

Never trust a warmer and there graphs.

It's Global Climate Disruption now and I can guarantee a lot more thuoght went into these names than you spent on this question.

It's very simple, it's not a conspiracy if it's done openly. "The White House wants the public to start using the term "global climate disruption" in place of "global warming" -- fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is."

Thanks for the links. News speak is always alive and well in many topics. Your method is good for debunking it and also, for tracking concerns. Consider:

"global cooling" vs "global warming" up to 1965: http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=global+...

"nuclear War" vs "global warming" http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=nuclear...

Perceptions do change.

Edit @Daw:

As your own link illustrated, the mass marketing of the global warming issue after 1979 provided the global warming so much following that it dwarfed even the previous concern over nuclear war. Showing that on the graph would not allow enough information from the previous cooling era demonstrating that those who followed it considered global cooling a greater concern for awhile.

If I wanted to hide that information, I doubt that I would have compared the issue to nuclear war in my second link for the period up to 2008.

Meaningless.

Just like the BS hockey stick graph (which is also garbage and you can put where the sun don't shine), this graph is also a sick joke. Man-made global warming is a lying joke, being used as a global re-distribution of wealth. Even the Wiki-Leaks cables now bolster those facts. The East Anglica University emails proved this last year. Now respected scientists are saying we are back in a global cooling mode! None of it man made- nothing we can do about it- so shaddup!