Unusually, for explaining what something is, we start off by explaining what Climate Change is not.
Climate Change, contrary to the view held by most laypersons is not the same as changing climate.
This may seem a trivial point, after all 'what's in a name?'
But a majority of people in the UK think (in early 2026) the 'Green' party is still all about looking after the environment
For instance we might observe that earlier spring in England is an example of changing climate. That indicates we have noticed that there is a long-term trend (usually established over a few decades) of spring arriving earlier.
Calling it 'changing climate' is a factual statement of percieved change. It does not imply anything particular is causing it.
In former times (post the enlightenment and pre-1976) we would have accepted this as natural climate variability with only a few resorting to ancient beliefs that it's due 'to the Gods'.
However, nowadays we say earlier spring in England is, as a Google search will reveal, "due to Climate Change - long-term shifts in global temperatures and weather patterns, primarily driven by human activities like burning fossil fuels since the 1800s. These activities release heat-trapping greenhouse gases, causing the planet to warm rapidly. Effects include rising sea levels, shrinking sea ice, and extreme weather."
This is what 'Climate Change' means to most people.
Often researchers will use the term 'climate change' when they mean 'changing climate' - but this is not always clear.
For example Tim Smyth, a respected oceanographer, said recently (about changes in the open ocean) :
"They may be linked to shifts in phytoplankton blooms driven by climate change. Globally, we are seeing rising ocean temperatures, more frequent marine heatwaves and changes in salinity in some regions. Together, these changes influence large‑scale ocean circulation patterns"
While he may have meant "driven by changing climate" and not "driven by Climate Change" most readers will understand the linking to be due to Anthropogenic Climate Change - i.e. burning fossil fuels.
In reality, that may be what Tim believes but his ambiguous use of the term 'Climate Change' is consistent with the Anointed's groupthink's desire for obfuscation. Any skepticism displayed about 'the dogma' is career-ending. So whatever Tim actually believes, he is forced to say 'Climate Change'.
I've hopefully explained that use of the term 'Climate Change' implies nothing about natural climate variability but everything to do with stopping burning fossil fuels.
To emphasise this, I cannot put the obfuscating distortion better than in the words of Edenhofer:
Ottmar Edenhofer is a professor of the Climate Economics and Public Policy at the Technische Universität in Berlin, as well as Director and Chief Economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
From 2008 to 2015, he served as Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC and was lead author of the technical summary and of the summary for policy makers for both the WG III contribution to the IPCC AR5 and the IPCC’s Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.
In 2020, Ottmar Edenhofer was ranked among the 1% of the most cited scientists worldwide in the category "interdisciplinary science" according to the Web of Science citation index.
Ottmar Edenhofer advises and collaborates in many boards and committees nationally as well as on European and international level. He is, among others, member of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, the National Academy of Science and Engineering acatec, the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (BBAW), an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) as well as a CESifo Research Network Fellow. He was prominent in the drafting of the 2015 Papal Encyclical Laudato Si.
His whole reputation, wealth and funding for his institutions is built on him promulgating an eco-socialist inspired 'obfuscation' where humans, and our predilection for burning fossil fuels, are guilty of 'breaking the climate'.
Having established that it's got very little to do with the environment, what exactly is it?
These so-called scientific calculations start by incorprating this assertion axiomatically. This means they cannot do anything but validate the assertion. It's an inevitability of their groupthink circular logic.
This not proper science.
Compliant media indulge in ‘Climate alarmism’ to boost ‘Climate anxiety’ and ‘Climate fear’ where 'Climate Change' is used as shorthand for 'we must curtail the burning of fossil fuels'.
After all, a good disaster story sells papers. Nothing is more disastrous than the prospect of human society being exterminated.
Houghton, the co-chair of the IPCC’s first scientific assessment working group which shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with Al Gore said, in the early days of the IPCC:
In January 2026, the New Scientist said of the concept "Pinning extreme weather on Climate Change" is one of the best ideas of the century. Madeleine Cuff's report then went on to laud Myles Allen and Peter Stott on developing models to prove extreme weather events are caused by human-caused warming.
As their models were constructed on the assertion human-caused warming cause 'Climate Change', is anyone surprised that the models did just that?
This is the standard of completely biased 'analysis' we have now come to expect from the the scientific press whose reporters (and editors) have drunk the Climate Change Kool Aid.
Before reviewing the sub-pages of this 'What is Climate Change?' section - a word about 'The Climate Change Anointed'.
'Anointed' is a term used by Thomas Sowell in his book ‘The Vision of the Anointed’ (Published in 1995 “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”.
The book is a powerful critique of the mindset of what he calls the "anointed"—a group of intellectual and political elites who believe in their moral and intellectual superiority over the general population.
The book argues that many policies championed by these elites have failed because they are based on a flawed, utopian vision rather than empirical evidence and practical consequences.
Nowhere is this characteristic of the Anointed more evident than in their complete faith in the truth of the assertion "Anthropogenic emissions are the cause of Climate Change and if not curtailed will lead to Climate Armageddon".
Empirical evidence of 'the science' and practical consequences of policies such as Net Zero have no place in the considerations of the 'Anointed'.
An Anthropocentric Belief System reviews just how enthropocentric is Climate Change. Like Geocentrism 400 years ago, those who dispute the dogma are branded 'heretics' - or in modern parlance 'Deniers' and 'Skeptics'. A refusal to accept natural climate variability - a process going on for at least 500 million years - in favour of 'humans are to blame and guilty ones should be punished' is positively medieval.
The Science of Climate Change briefly reviews the different sorts of 'science' bolstering different views about climate. A more detailed review is the main theme of the majority of this website's content.
Personal Experence explains how I arrived at my views going through the stages frrom egocentrically anectodotal belief that another ice age is coming to a fulll-blown'Denier'. Passing through credulous innocence to 'Agnostic' and onto 'Believer' where I worked for many deluded years until entering a 'Skeptic' phase before graduating to 'Denier'.
The rise of Climate Change Dogma is a long and (to me) important section charting the rise to domination of Climate Change dogma.
Scientists, Politicians, AI and the Media briefly reviews current thought trends.