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.
@ur momisugly Steeptown.
That’s one heck of a comparison; Both faeces and Climate ..whatever stink.
Moderator: For information only, may I draw attention to Ben Miller narrating BBC’s ‘Horizon’ broadcast Monday 10th January on BBC2. Ben Miller of Armstrong and Miller whose sketch was shown on WUWT a few weeks ago, and there was a debate about whether he was a warmist or not. He is a warmist.
For a “settled science” I’ve never seen a name change so often.
Physics would never claim itself to be settled and yet I honestly don’t know the last time it changed names.
The Global Warming renamed to Climate Change is mostly a blog meme, IPCC was was after all never called IPGW. The most recent CAGW word games are however funny and desperate.
Over at Bishop Hill, all were agreed that Irritable Climate Syndrome was probably the best of the bunch :p.
Climate challenges? Far to little drama. It doesn’t trigger fears. It will not force immediate action.
It has only been reported in Australian so it does not really count.
All we need is a CUT (Climate Unification Theory).
Climate challenges for the climatically challenged…..
yeah that’ll work ;^)
next,
Quantum Climate
and finally,
String Theory in quantum climate……the uncertainty principle in eleven dimensions
(very likely) *(very likely)*(very likely) *(very likely)*(very likely) *(very likely)*(very likely) *(very likely)*(very likely) *(very likely)*(very likely)
Micro changes in climate challenges
the grand theory of unification
Unfortunately, whatever label is used, it is clearly a euphemism for “human civilization”. Until the well-being of man and compatible species is given priority, “stop [euphemism]” will be met with resistance.
@mariwarcwm
Yes, Ben Miller demonstrated how we are able to measure the temperature of a bucket of ice with great precision….. and swiftly skipped ahead to saying this meant we could accurately know the temperature of the globe for climate change. It was a real head-scratcher.
All I can imagine is that there is still a lot of money at the BBC for funding anything that mentions climate change, and Miller only had to add one statement at the end of the program for it to be funded. The rest of the program had nothing to do with climate change — it was just physics geeks playing with apparatus, which was quite fun to watch.
I don’t imagine terms like “prolonged drought” or “risk management” will be very popular in Queensland at the moment. Back to the drawing board if they want to convince the Aussies, me thinks.
They want the tax money, no matter how often they have to rename the scam.
‘Prolonged drought’ oh dear.
Toowoomba hit by an inland tsunami and Brisbane waiting in trepidation.
There must be a case for litigation against BOM (A) and gov. for failing to build dams which was recommended after serious floods in 1974. The fixation with AGW and all things environmental must have played a part in the decision making, ignoring the cyclical nature of Australian weather (climate).
Check out Andrew Bolt’s blog link for graphic images.
Climalingus.
It requires a lot of lip service and manipulation to get a positive outcome.
‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
William Shakespeare
Romeo and Juliet.
So this makes the supporters of IPCC Climate Challenges, the “Climate Challenged” or “Climate Challengers”? Either way, it makes them look really foolish.
Do they know anything about Positioning and communications and could they possibly be more foolish? Changing the name 3 times in the past 2 years speaks volumes.
Why not just call it “Climate Drivel” and be done with it.
Actually Roy, Mythbusters recently showed that you can…
Roy UK says:
January 11, 2011 at 9:39 am
You can’t polish a turd…
But even polished it is still …
Wonder if they’ll ever get around to what I call it? Volcanic perturbation of climate. In fact Pinatubo and Cerro Hudson started it and we continue to see more of the same.
Heck, why just call it climate “challenges”…let’s get the full spin on this and call it climate “opportunities”. Those diplaced by the climate disruption will have the “opportunity” to find new places to live.
Ever changing, ever spinning like the windmills of your mind.
Why don’t they just go back to the phrase our forefathers used: The Weather.
You could call it “Pink Fluffy Cloud Preservation” and all would be well. As soon as it becomes the “Pink Fluffy Cloud Preservation TAX”, people will have strong negative reactions towards it. As long as there is a tax involved it’s a loser whatever the name.