Comments on: Climate change or global warming? And who cares the most?

By: cmichelena

cmichelena — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:42:55 +0000

I like the risk assessment approach to climate change,that tells us to be proactive and protect the planet if there is any chance we are promoting the so called global warming.
However, I like even better the idea of minimum impact approach. Why pollute? Why harm the globe? Why consume finite resources? That should be on the agenda.
The terminology can only divert the argument, doesn’t it? Global warming, climate change are always happening. The discussion should than be over Human impact over climate.
Everything else is natural and we will have to deal with anyway!
I have post the question about it at http://cmichelenapro.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/are-you-skeptical-about-climate-change-global-warming/.

By: nyangkruk

nyangkruk — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 04:07:50 +0000

nice comparation with google

By: Jim Fowler

Jim Fowler — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:48:53 +0000

By: Klockarman

Klockarman — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:08:08 +0000

What about “climate crisis”? That’s the term that Gore is now using for about the last six months or so. He’s trying to up the ante since he figured out “global warming” and “climate change” weren’t alarming enough – and when that doesn’t accomplish his goals, he’ll trot out some new phrase yet again.

By: Tim Watts

Tim Watts — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:18:49 +0000

You’re more right than you think Brett. Luntz has since changed his mind on the science of Climate Change and he now cites the word as an example of the limits of language when it runs up against reality:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1912828.htm

You’ve got to remember that that memo was drafted pre Katrina etc when people didn’t realise that the effects of climate change COULD extend beyond temperature. I’m sure Luntz didn’t realise what he was getting himself into with the phrase….

By: Brett Robertson

Brett Robertson — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:29:48 +0000

Tim,

I stand corrected.

Although I can’t help thinking that the strategy may have backfired. It’s all about association. “Global warming” does not necessarily imply anything bad. Who cares if the temperature goes up by a few degrees? We’ll just turn up the air conditioner. When scientists talk about global average temperatures rising by 2-3 degrees, the average person probably isn’t too concerned.

“Climate change” might initially seem less catastrophic, but because it is less specific, it can pick up all those other associations and become something insidious and unknown…

Just a thought, and I haven’t really researched it properly.

By: Tim Watts

Tim Watts — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:25:34 +0000

Hey mate,

Actually, the ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’ change in terminology WAS a conspiracy and there’s even documentary proof of it:

http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

“’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ … While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge” (p. 142).

Frank Luntz it THE political language guru – the above doc was distributed to all republicans in early 2003 – exactly the time when you see the language change internationally.

The guy is quite divisive – but he’s bloody good at what he does (he also coined ‘exporing for energy’ instead of ‘drilling for oil’, ‘death tax’ instead of ‘estate tax’ and ‘gaming’ instead of ‘gambling’ http://tokblog.org/?p=125.

It’s hard to know whether to be impressed or scared….

Cheers,
Tim

By: Burn Up review - simplistic, apocalyptic, trashy, but I like it « Everything is changing

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:53:12 +0000

[...] shift in themes in the second part of Burn Up. While the first part was all about global warming (or should I say “climate change”?) and tipping points, the second part left the science alone and moved on to the international [...]