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