Here we go again: people understand the bullshit behind the curtain, so, hey, let’s rename it and fool ’em! The old “triangulation” gambit. “People don’t like our message, so, we just need to recouch it.” Heh heh
John P. Holdren, the head of Harvard’s center on science and technology policy, is sick and tired of “global warming†— not just the problem, but the phrase. As the respondent to a panel on climate and the press at this year’s annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston (I was on the panel), he urged the media, and scientists who talk to the press, to substitute “global climate disruption†for that all-too-comfortable pair of words.
What are your suggestions for more effective ways to describe human-caused global warming?
How about “climate change?” No, wait, that one sorta bombed, as the people who pushed it were saying climate change, ie, global warming, meant hot, cold, wet dry. In other words, it was something that was being discussed in order to create an issue where one did not occur.
How about “climahysteria” or “climahypocrisy?”
Commenter Kim (#9)
Your last sentence is damning. ‘What framing or phrasing do you see capturing peoples’ attention in a way that might stick?’. I suggest honesty about the state of knowledge of the climate.
Never going to happen. Democrats know they cannot own national security issues, so, they have to create their own dire issue, ie, saying Man is the cause of global warming. Funny how few of them match their actions to their rhetoric.
Trackposted to DragonLady’s World, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, A Newt One, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
