UK Guardian Wants To Change Language On ‘Climate Change’

It would probably be more helpful to prove using the Scientific Method, using actual evidence and facts and such, but, hey, this isn’t about science

‘It’s a crisis, not a change’: the six Guardian language changes on climate matters

A short glossary of the changes we’ve made to the Guardian’s style guide, for use by our journalists and editors when writing about the environment

1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”

Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”.

If it’s such a crisis, why is the Guardian still using fossil fuels to gather news? Why are they not telling us that their operations, including their Internet server, are powered solely by renewables?

2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”

The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.

I’m still waiting for that overwhelming scientific evidence. The trope of “CO2 has gone up while warming has occurred” is not proof.

3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.

Yes, they do, but, how much of the warming has been caused by those released by Mankind? That is one of the arguments. Since a goodly chunk of that release from Mankind comes from agriculture, what would the Crisismongers have us do? Starve?

In order to keep below 1.5C of warming, the aspiration of the world’s nations, we need to halve emissions by 2030 and reach zero by mid century. It is also likely we will need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, perhaps by the large-scale restoration of nature. It is a huge task, but we hope that tracking the daily rise of CO2 will help to maintain focus on it.

Well, good luck with that.

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

17 Responses to “UK Guardian Wants To Change Language On ‘Climate Change’”

  1. Jess says:

    I’m thinking “crises” sounds better than “deluges of pure excrement”, but it’s still the same thing.

  2. Jl says:

    Yes, let’s change the language. Because we haven’t been Drama Queenish enough…

  3. david7134 says:

    There is no such thing as “climate science” so I guess all are deniers.

  4. Kye says:

    The more dramatic, hyperbolic and hysterical the language can get the better it sounds to the communists. They need the psychological hysteria to justify the tyranny they want to impart on the people. It’s like everything else the Fake News Media does even on things like Planned Parenthood the Washington press corps is full of hysterical females, convinced Trump will stuff their uterus with Bibles and sew their legs shut. The more grotesque and barbaric the hysteria the better the meme.

    • dachs_dude says:

      “It’s like everything else the Fake News Media does even on things like Planned Parenthood the Washington press corps is full of hysterical females”

      Nope, but the Fake News Media, as well as Network TV knows that their primary consumer is “hysterical females”, mostly of the suburban soccer mom or urban elite.

      What else would explain this rise of the “dopey male in commercials” trope or the TV show: “Why Women Kill?” or most soccer mom, “they’re coming for my babies” TV crime show fem-porn?

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    TEACH typed: “I’m still waiting for that overwhelming scientific evidence. The trope of “CO2 has gone up while warming has occurred” is not proof.”

    And we’re still waiting for a science denier to describe that evidence that would “prove” CO2-induced global warming. Or at least offer a plausible counter argument..

    But that’s right, the far-right isn’t interested in evidence, they believe global warming is a communist plot to rule the world – a plot that includes scientists, corporations, science and medical organizations, governments, major religions and 70% of all humans.

    • Nighthawk says:

      Again, if CO2 levels, man made or otherwise, was the main/sole driver of climate change then why are all the models that assume this fail to accurately model past, present and/or future climate.

      Of course, this has been brought up to you many times but you ignore it. The fact is, if the “science is settled”, if these “scientists” and others understand so well how our climate works then these models would be accurate. As it stands, they aren’t accurate and proves that these “experts” really have no clue.

    • dachs_dude says:

      Consensus does not equal science.

    • formwiz says:

      And we’re still waiting for a science denier to describe that evidence that would “prove” CO2-induced global warming. Or at least offer a plausible counter argument..

      You silly goose, or whatever cartoon character you prefer (I think bull fit you better than anything else), you want proof?

      There’s this or this or this or this.

      Feel free to scream for mercy anytime.

      But that’s right, the far-right isn’t interested in evidence, they believe global warming is a communist plot to rule the world – a plot that includes scientists, corporations, science and medical organizations, governments, major religions and 70% of all humans.

      70%? Love to see the evidence on that one.

      And we present plenty of evidence on how the books were cooked. You’re the one who isn’t interested in evidence. And a plot that includes scientists, corporations, science and medical organizations, governments, and major religions was Communism until the Soviet Union collapsed.

      This is Plot 2.0.

  6. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Commenter: “… the models that assume this fail to accurately model past, present and/or future climate.”

    That is untrue. Please provide evidence.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

    • Nighthawk says:

      You article admits that model warming predictions are about 38% higher than observed. And an article from an obviously biased publication and citing Mann and Hawkins is hardly proof that the models are accurate.

      The IPCC admits that the models aren’t accurate and have never been validated against past observations.

      And here’s an actual study done about the same time as your article that shows that models are significantly warmer than observations:
      https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        You article admits that model warming predictions are about 38% higher than observed.

        Bwaha! Lolgf little sissybitch! https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Kye says:

      We have, for years and what difference has it made to you? None. We’ve been lied to since the first Earth Day when they told us we’d be in an ice age by 1980. Your team keeps lying, you keep believing them and we refuse to listen to liars. You have made science political so now it’s as trustworthy as a politician. You have poisoned the water and then demand we drink it. Sorry. From what we see that you are blinded to (or part of) is a bunch of liars using “climate change” to roll out an oppressive totalitarian form of government on free men. Not fix climate.

      Fredo, you can’t be so dumb that you can see what all these following experts were so wrong about so much but you still believe their pablum. Or maybe you can.

      Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

      “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against climate problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald

      “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

      “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial

      “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich 12/72

      “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich

      “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

      “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa.

      By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….

      By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

      “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine

      “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

      “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich

      “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

      “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine

      “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Gomer Pyle,

        We’ve seen that same list of quotes time and again, yet the facts remain: The Earth is warming from CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere, and there’s no reason to suspect it will stop anytime soon.

        “Gaw-ley, Sgt, Carter, It sure is hot here!”

        Anyway, little will be done so you won’t have to worry.

        • formwiz says:

          Mortimer Snerd, the facts remain: The Earth is not warming from CO2 or anything else we’ve added to the atmosphere, and there’s no reason to suspect it will become true anytime soon.

          FIFY.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            J. Fred Muggs,

            You have the reasoning ability of a chimp: The facts remain: The Earth is warming from CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere, and there’s no reason to suspect it will stop anytime soon.

    • formwiz says:

      No, it’s not and a quote from a Commie rag like the Guardian is hardly proof.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7294 access attempts in the last 7 days.