You’d think with something so devastating, so frightening, so certain, they would not need to keep changing the name to make it more marketable. Maybe they can take a cue from Coca-Cola and call it: “New post normal science AGW” and “Classic AGW”. Yeah, that’ll work. – Anthony
From the Australian:
THE term “climate change” could be replaced by “climate challenges” if a federal commissioned marketing study is taken onboard.
The study of attitudes to climate change among farmers, commissioned by the Agriculture Department, found only 27 per cent of those surveyed believed human activity was causing climate change, compared with 58 per cent of urban dwellers.
As well, primary producers are “very resistant to carbon trading”. “It fills them with dread, and there were strong negative reactions towards it,” the report says.
Handed to the department late last year, the report warns that terminology that fails to take into account the attitude of primary producers towards human-induced climate change risks failure. The term “climate change” sets up negative reactions among primary producers for a number of reasons, from scepticism through to perceptions that they are being held solely responsible for causing climate change, it says.
“Preferred terms such as ‘climate challenges’, ‘prolonged drought’ and ‘risk management’ are accepted, better understood and more likely to motivate change.”
Read the entire article here
h/t to David Archibald
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No matter how many times they change the name, the message is still the same. They aren’t going to fool anyone.
You can rename faeces as poo, but it’s still shit.
Marketing Study? Really??? It’s not science. It’s not even a religion. It’s marketing. Gimme a break.
Old wine, new bottles (labels), Well, it fools some of the people some of the time.
“Preferred terms such as ‘climate challenges’, ‘prolonged drought’ and ‘risk management’ are accepted, better understood and more likely to motivate change.”
You know what? I think it’s high time to motivate change in our political leadership that continues to insult us plebeians with this kind of stuff.
They should just call it “Climate” and give up. I wonder if this will end up as “Global Cooling”? What they really mean is “The End Of Climate As We Know It”, or TEOCAWKI for short. How about “Climate Fear”?
It’s funny that the people who believe in it the least are the ones, who due to there life style have a dependency on it, understand weather and climate the best. While the peoples who’s lives don’t depend on the climate and weather are the ones who believe in it the most.
The ‘hot spot’ at altitude in the atmosphere is missing .
Statistically discernible global warming at the surface over the last 15 years is missing.
Accumulated heat in the oceans is missing.
But they have found a new name for what is not there? Amazing!
Richard
Prolonged drought? Did I see ‘prolonged drought’ as one of the candidates for this Brave New AGW Marketing World? In Australia? Prolonged drought, while huge areas of Queensland are suffering catastrophic flooding?
You couldn’t make this up! They must be so desperate.
I never would have guessed that primary producers aren’t fans of carbon trading. That’s a very perceptive observation.
I thought ‘Global Wierding’ was a good one, if a bit ‘Harry Potter’
that was from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html?_r=1
You can’t polish a turd…
Idiocracy.
You left out the other phrase: “Climate Justice.”
That’s what they’re really using now, since they don’t have to actually prove anything is happening at all, yet it’s still a great justification for taking money from some people and funneling it through large bureaucracies to others.
“global warming” or “climate change” didn’t come with a negative connotation…
…they made it that way
Changing the name again will not change anything, they will just make the new name another negative connotation.
Says all you need to know when they have to keep changing their marketing strategy.
It’s not in the science, it’s all in the name.
From Coca Cola…………..AGW ZERO!
I think “climategate” about covers it. That or climate delusions. Or climate collusions. Heck, they have a lot more names to use I guess.
In the climate of globalized warmings
Everything is described as more harmings
Giving rise to the fact
That they can’t get their act
Synchronized when they shout out their warnings.
I think I’d far prefer “Risk Management” – maybe it’ll force people into actually quantifying the risk.
“The term ‘climate change’ sets up negative reactions among primary producers […] that they are being held solely responsible for causing climate change, it says.”
I wonder who gave them that idea? Death trains anyone?
So when a poorly thought out science and a poorly thought out morality gets rejected by the public, it is somehow the public’s fault for not understanding?
Like how it is nature’s fault for not agreeing with climate models?
I propose they just fast forward to “Climate Change Con Job”
They’ll end up there sooner than later.
“The study of attitudes to climate change among farmers, commissioned by the Agriculture Department, found only 27 per cent of those surveyed believed human activity was causing climate change, compared with 58 per cent of urban dwellers. ”
In other words, people who rely on the climate for their living know that CAGW is nonsense. Whereas those who sit in air conditioned rooms playing with their Wiis in the city are easily lead to believe that AGW is a problem.
This isn’t a marketing problem. It’s a “people who work indoors can be told pretty much anything about the climate” problem.
You know that AGW is a scam when they changed the correct definition GLOBAL WARMING to all sorts of silly news names. I mean man’s extra co2 is predicted to cause runaway warming of the planet so why not stick to global warming or anthropogenic global warming???
‘prolonged drought’
Now that will bring the Australian farmers on side alright. They have just suffered from Biblical floods and now Gore blames the floods on global warming having earlier blamed the drought on global warming. What a snake oil salesman.
Gore blames drought on global warming [2007]
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1878517.htm
Gore blames Australian floods on global warming [2011]
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/al-gore-chaos-awaits-if-nothing-happens/416000
They need to get with the times. It’s “climate whatever.” Or perhaps “weather . . . whatever.”
Keeping to the Coke motif, maybe the pre-1950 climate can be called ‘climate classic.’
Given the ever moving trend of climate labels, it seems to me that some entrepreneur with foresight ought to produce all possible variations of alarming climate labels, and then copyright them. There’d be big bucks to make in license fees, as green NGOs and Holdrenesque science advisors continue scrambling around for the next PR climate label to flog alarm into public consciousness.
Climate? Challenge Accepted!
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/challenge-accepted