I’m not really trying to argue the technical correctness of these terms, rather their effectiveness as rhetoric.

That was always a dumb argument that no one genuinely found confusing. It was always a red herring.

The Bush administration pushed the “climate change, not global warming” narrative (I’m not saying they invented it, only that they spearheaded the rhetorical framing and made it popular)

It’s undeniable that the end result of changing this framing is that fewer people believe now that changes should be made to mitigate long term effects of carbon emissions than 25 years ago.

Yeah, people are broadly dumb, that’s exactly why it’s important rhetorically to make the tone of your message match the severity.

President musk has explicitly stated that they are intentionally making things worse for the average person.

Reporting this active effort to manufacture a recession as “Trump may put US into a recession” is journalistic malpractice.

It’s not more descriptive though, at least not to the layperson, it leaves room for people to believe that a change in climate is benign or tolerable. Everyone can understand that consistent, long-term warming is dangerous.

Abandoning “Global Warming” rhetoric in favor of the conservative framing of “Climate Change” was a huge tactical error.

There’s no loophole like the poophole

This is a function definition, not where it’s called; any number of things can happen between these statements running. Second, multiple return statements is not unusual when there is control logic, i.e. if statements.