>>>>>>BTW, you are forgetting that in Newspeak it is not "global warming" anymore - it is "climate change"
>>>>>
>>>>>If global warming is the reason for climate change then I don't see the distinction......
>>>>
>>>>From an activist's view the change of the label from "global warming" to "climate change" was quite brilliant.
>>>>
>>>>"Global Warming" is vulnerable to scientific studies and anecdotes that certain regions in certain seasons have experienced colder or less active weather than expected in recent years. Polar vortices, less hurricane activity than predicted etc.
>>>>
>>>>OTOH "Climate Change" is a mathematical certainty. There is mathematically zero chance that the climate at any point on the globe will be exactly the same from one year to the next. Were you shivering in your boots last winter? Please donate to {ImAgainstClimateChange.org} to fight climate change. In that circumstance being asked to donate to {ImAgainstGlobalWarming.org} isn't so appealing.
>>>>
>>>>Another clever facet is that what scientists are trying to study is actually "anthropogenic climate change" i.e. climate change caused by human activity. Activists never use this full term. If asked they would say it's because it's unwieldy. In fact, by omitting the qualifier, activists can respond to any report of changed climate - regardless of actual cause - with blame & shame and use the usurped "moral authority" as they see fit.
>>>>
>>>>If you have an important issue with strong arguments for all sides then they all tend to use engineered monikers. One excellent example is the debate around abortion. The two main sides call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice", immediately smearing those who don't agree with them.
>>>>
>>>>These sorts of monikers were historically slow to develop. These days they arise in minutes on forums such as Twitter and get Darwinially selected on the basis of followers and retweets.
>>>>
>>>>Since these terms aren't imposed by government fiat I disagree that they're "newspeak" in the Orwellian sense, but they have some similarities.
>>>
>>>True. Good definitions. But what's your definition of an 'activist' :-}
>>
>>Here's the online manifestation: https://xkcd.com/386/
>
>lol. Thanks for reminding me of xkcd!
>So are proponents of either side of the argument activists ?

Sure, if they "actively" campaign to convince others of their POV.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/activist