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.
I second the Church of Climatology.. A good reminder that it’s not science they’re selling.
One of the underlying errors in the AGW conjecture is that humans are powerful and have dominion over nature (where did I read that? – never mind).
The AGW gang believe that humans are altering the climate.
Now we must be careful not to fall into the same trap.
Yes dams and general flood mitigation are quite useful in controlling normal floods.
But when the big ones come, they are REALLY powerful.
I happen to know Toowoomba.
It is located high on an extinct volcano.
There are no large rivers that could cause a flood in normal times.
Just a few, insignificant creeks which barely flow in a dribble in normal times.
Last Monday afternoon at about 1 pm, a small storm broke and it rained.
(The storm was so insignificant that it did not register on the BOM’s radar).
The rain was quite heavy.
Within several minutes those creeks became a raging flood.
Cars, people and parts of buildings were swept away down the main street of town.
Within half an hour it was over.
At least two dead and a number of people still missing.
You would need to build a massive dam to hold back such a torrent which would take up much of the town and stand empty for probably one hundred years or more.
Waiting for the nest “minor” storm”.
Most of the whole state of Queensland is now covered in flood water, an area far larger than France and Germany combined.
Building dams to protect against this, to my mind would be dreaming.
It’s the old glib-lib-rename-game. When people hate what you’re doing and want you to change what you’re doing, change the name instead…
1) racial discrimination against white people
2) reverse discrimination
3) affirmative action
What is it called today, anyways?
Climate Disruption had the required touch of accusation in it; Climate Challenge does not. How about coming straight out with “Climate Damage”? Or even “Climate Destruction”? Though that’s probably a bit over the top even for CAGWers.
Another fact: 97% of those farmers know more about both weather and the climate than ivory tower scientists.
Well the Australian floods are being spun to death. The spin is incredible. For a start “reporters” asking 10 year olds if they’d seen anything like this before? Well, they should be asking people who are at least 40 who remember the 1974 floods.
The other issue being reported is the climate event called El Nino, is the strongest since weather records began in Australia. Interesting timelines there. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t La Nina/El Nino events not discovered until 1995?
Regarding “Environmental Justice,” this just popped up….worth reading & following the link to EPA’s website!
http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2011/01/11/activists-work-to-inject-environmental-justice-concept-into-all-epa-actions/
Why 2014? Because that’s the 20th anniversary of President Clinton’s Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The Plan EJ2014 document describes various activities EPA will pursue including “identify[ing] opportunities to utilize EPA’s statutory authorities to advance environmental justice.”
Actually, I think they should rename it once again, but this time for the final time. They should call it “BS”, and for once it’d be truthful, too.
Patrick Davis says:
January 11, 2011 at 9:52 pm (Edit)
….
Well the Australian floods are being spun to death. The spin is incredible. For a start “reporters” asking 10 year olds if they’d seen anything like this before? Well, they should be asking people who are at least 40 who remember the 1974 floods.
The other issue being reported is the climate event called El Nino, is the strongest since weather records began in Australia. Interesting timelines there. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t La Nina/El Nino events not discovered until 1995?
Better yet, those 1893 floods in the same area.
El Nino events have been named from the old observations of the coastal fishermen whose lives depended on predicting the temperatures and currents off of the Peruvian coasts. From the Spanish for “The Boy” (linking them to the baby boy (Jesus)) because these changes usually came near Christmas. So the events have been seen for many, many years.
But have been ignored by “serious” climatologists for just about equally as long.
“racookpe1978 says:
January 11, 2011 at 10:49 pm”
Yes, after my post and after Googling, I found that out. I guess I shoud have done the reverse and then asked why La Nina/El Nino events seem to be worked into extreme weather events AND proof oceans are warming as a direct result of C02 emissions. It’s is clear, the alarmists will be milking the Russian bushfires, the US/EU snows and the floods and bushfires in Australia all the way to the carbon bank.
.
.
Has “climaticus interruptus” been withdrawn?
.
.
Global Warming Panic explained
A liberal tries to explain why she thinks the world will end, and what should be done about it.
When “challenges” is out-dated, it’ll be labeled “Climate Excitments” …for higher taxes.
Darren Parker says:
January 11, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Has Terry Pratchett done a satire on AGW yet? He could call the book Discal Wyrding. The plot could be that the government wants to ban magic so blames The Eight Colour (the colour of magic) making all wizards pay a tax on magic emmissions until the scam is uncovered by the librarian
It should involve the Auditors of Reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditors_of_Reality
Hey, folks – we haven’t got to ‘climate opportunities’ yet..!
To paraphrase a famous Doonesbury cartoon: “We still can’t explain what the hell’s going on, but we sure are picking up a damn fine vocabulary!”
I suspect we are working towards the social concept of being “Environmentally Correct” (EC). At that point every thing can be labeled as being ‘EC’ or not. Cold is EC, warm is not apparently. (attempting humor with what I fear is inexorable truth)
How about:
ICE: Inconvenient Climatic Events
or maybe they should go in the direction of a more descriptive, “more is better” approach:
RAICDACDEBOIWAN: Reversible Acclerating Inconvenient Climatic Distractions from Anthropomorphic Carbon Dioxide Emissions But Only if We Act Now.
I personally still like ICS: Irritable Climate Syndrome
timc says:
January 11, 2011 at 9:43 am
From Coca Cola…………..AGW ZERO!
—-
good one!
I see the handy brisbane 5 or 7 netre flood sim..how handy, like it was pre made to be used to scare people with for the AGW cause maybe?
no way they whizzed it up so fast..pre made agit prop?
The NYT’s climate bedwetter Thom Friedman likes Global Weirding as the phrase to describe what’s happening climate-wise. The phrase is not new, and apparently the first known use was in 2002 by Katy Moss Warner who said ‘‘It could be colder, it could be drier, it could be wetter, it could be warmer. If you can’t exactly point to the climate changes as evidence of global warming, perhaps you can call it global weirding.” Hunter Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute liked the phrase, and is sometimes credited with coining it.
Joe Romm disagrees with the use of the phrase, though, saying that it implies
something “supernatural or bizarrely unexpected”.
Exactly so. That describes the belief in manmade climate change very well.
“Climate Weirding” it is, and its’ proponents could be called “climate weirdos”.
.
.
I think I’d rather have suffered from Irritable Climate Syndrome than adulterated Climitis.
The only cure for Toxic Mega-Con-nin’ is to cut it out.
.
.
Make up a name, make up a remedy, levy a fee on us for the remedy. Hmmmm sounds like the pharmaceutical industry. One things for sure, the AGW lovers are definitely on drugs.
I guess you carry out New Post Modern History here?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
And how does a marketing study undermine the science exactly?