Totally New Idea: Sell ‘Climate Change’ To Skeptics By Changing The Wording

By new idea, they mean trying the same old same old. This is Salon being Salon, and uber-nutty Amanda Marcotte being uber-nutty

Conservatives are willing to combat climate change — when it’s not called “climate change”
Conservatives have a kneejerk reactions to the phrase, so environmentalists are finding ways to reframe the issue

The grim fact of the matter is that we cannot count on the federal government to step up efforts to deal with climate change, for the next four years at least. So some scientists are turning hopefully towards leaders in local governments, hoping they can use what power they have to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate the damage already being created by global warming.

The problem is that many communities have conservative populations that, for ideological reasons, refuse to accept that climate change is real, and as such will resist local leaders who attempt interventions that appear to be rooted in an acceptance of the scientific facts. But there may be a way to get conservative constituents to agree to actions to address climate change: Package the policies using other terms.

As Rebecca J. Romsdahl, an environmental science and policy professor at the University of North Dakota, and her team of researchers have discovered, that’s what a number of local leaders are already doing. In 2013 and 2014, Romsdahl and her colleagues published findings from a survey of local leaders in the Great Plains states in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences and Review of Policy Research that found that many local leaders are framing their climate change policies under banners like “sustainability” or “energy savings,” instead of invoking a concept that rings too many alarm bells.

Personally, I have no problem with energy savings and sustainability, as long as they are not forced on me by government decree. As long as they are not artificially increasing my cost of living. As long as they are not creating problems, like, say, catching my yard on fire

Energy-efficient windows blamed for starting fires

Investigators told Nancy Monda that the first fire at her Davie County home appeared to be arson.

Monda’s security cameras filmed the yard smoking at first, then the flames appeared. The fire raced across her yard and surrounded a propane tank.

Two days later, another fire started in the same spot.

Investigators came back and poked around the property. This time, though, one of them felt a clue: sunlight reflecting off a neighbor’s brand new, energy-efficient window.

The firefighter’s report describes the reflection as so intense that a person couldn’t hold his hand in the light for more than 30 seconds before it felt like it was burning.

This happened four times in a week. The same thing has happened in many other places. The windows, called Low E windows, were required by law in North Carolina, until the NC Building Code Council approved a temporary ruling to no longer require their usage until the fire issue could be resolved. So far, no solution has been found, other than not using these types of windows, which are mandate in many, many cities and states across the nation. Which can cause fires, melt siding and plastic parts on cars. Government requirements at their best.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Totally New Idea: Sell ‘Climate Change’ To Skeptics By Changing The Wording”

  1. Hank_M says:

    They’re right about the term “climate change”.
    Let’s try “global warming” instead.

    More seriously, how about being truthful and calling it the great scam.

  2. Miss Fortune says:

    The window thing is so typical of nanny govt. interference. It’s also hilarious. Stupid busybodies.

  3. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    I’ve been using my own term: voodoo science. I think it catches the essence of the scam.

  4. Teapartyguardian says:

    Meddlers or intentional saboteurs? They destroy all that is good in America!

  5. Friday morning links

    McDonald’s vows to win back patrons with better burgers Milo and the ages of consent  Instructor files ‘hostile work environment’ grievance because university let Milo on campus You’re just going to love Rachel Dolezal’s new name Virginia’s V

  6. Ken in NH says:

    Climate change is real. It has been real since the Earth first formed an atmosphere. I am not convinced that the current change in climate is primarily human caused or even that we contribute in any measurable amount. There are far too many variables and way too much noise in the data to establish a link with any confidence. That being said, I can agree that reducing emissions of every kind is a laudable goal for individual people and companies. I am staunchly against their solution of putting the government in charge and removing our free agency, which is their solution to every crisis real or imagined.