Results of the study show that the term “Climate Change” is too bland to excite people
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
Bryan Walsh, writing for Time Magazine, has published a claim by the Yale Project on Climate Communication, that the term “global warming” is more effective at engaging people’s attention than “climate change”. People apparently associate “Global Warming” with terrifying climate catastrophes, such as melting ice and coastal flooding. See the story here:
http://time.com/119517/global-warming-climate-change/
“Climate Change”, on the other hand, tends to be associated with unusual, but not necessarily terrifying weather events.
Bryan concludes with the suggestion that environmentalists should consider their use of language when attempting to motivate their audience.
Who knows – perhaps this study heralds the exciting return of the term Climate Change – at least until the next El Niño fizzles.
For example, according to the Yale study, the term “global warming” is associated with:
- Greater certainty that the phenomenon is happening, especially among men, Generation X (31-48), and liberals;
- Greater understanding that human activities are the primary cause among Independents;
- Greater understanding that there is a scientific consensus about the reality of the phenomenon among Independents and liberals;
- More intense worry about the issue, especially among men, Generation Y (18-30), Generation X, Democrats, liberals and moderates;
- A greater sense of personal threat, especially among women, the Greatest Generation (68+), African-Americans, Hispanics, Democrats, Independents, Republicans, liberals and moderates;
- Higher issue priority ratings for action by the president and Congress, especially among women, Democrats, liberals and moderates;
- Greater willingness to join a campaign to convince elected officials to take action, especially among men, Generation X, liberals and moderates.
– See more at: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/global-warming-vs-climate-change/#sthash.qv2Aqdrq.dpuf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I love how the rational for choosing “Global Warming” for the tag line has nothing to do with the world being measurably warmer. It’s all decided based on perception and consensus. I guess it would simpler if they could just say that they use “Warming” because it’s actually getting warmer.
Of course, one of the reasons for going to “climate change” was because there was, you know, no warming, and they wanted to push extreme weather as something to fear.
Agree fully w/ what Andy wrote. Truth doesn’t matter.
They really should go back to the old Favorite, “The Wrath of God!!!”
that’s the time-tested choice of doom-sayers over the millenia.
Jo Nova has a good post on this:
Yale says “Global Warming” is a better misused-phrase for propaganda — dump “climate change”
What’s the point of language — especially in science? If you are naive, you might think it’s to communicate a fixed concept so everyone understands and can voice an opinion on the same thing. You would be wrong. The real purpose of scientific terms is to motivate the punters to behave differently (especially if that means “give us more money”).
All change, back to goreball warming.
They do have a problem. It’s hard to argue that the climate is not changing or that a changing climate may have bad effects somewhere.
Given that it isn’t actually warming right now it is easy to argue against Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).
If they say something (climate change) that isn’t falsifiable the people won’t be scared.
If they say something that will scare the people (global warming) it’s too easy to falsify.
Nasty dilemma. LOL
Extreme weather is real. It’s something we should fear, and plan/prepare for.
But made by man and CO2 it is not!
I don’t know why they don’t just call it “Kim Kardashian”.
Well, we are all gonna melt in a burning, smoldering pile of stinking, rotten flesh right? What a bunch of nutters.
Of Course! Think about the timing. They changed it to Climate Change when the climate would not cooperate (the hiatus). At the same time. the prognostications of impending doom failed to materialize (virtually all indices of catastrophic events have declined during that period as well).
So they hear the constant drum beat of “Climate Change” and associate it with wimpy weather! People (as a whole) are not too much smarter than Pavlov’s dogs.
Is this the end of The Pause, after 17 years?
Global Warming is coming back !!!
Wouldn’t Global Searing be more helpful?
Polling to test effectiveness of message sound bites and labels is political science, not climate science. Yale blew that cover here. And, further showed that not only is the science not settled, it’s mislabeling isn’t settled either. What is a dedicated warmunist to do?
From a public realtions viewpoint, climate activists have made a couple of mistakes…
1. Changing the name from global warming to climate change to climate disruption, which hardly gives the perception that “the science is settled.”
2. Not contesting the obviously wild claims made by some, perhaps in a belief that “lying for a good cause” is okay. This destroyed the credibility of climatologists among many who were following the controversy.
3. Using the word “denier”, an insult to those who take the Holocaust seriously. The word is even used against those who accept most of the precepts of global warming, but challenge it on points such as climate sensitivity or the validity of computer models. This needlessly polarized the debate, creating enemies where there should have only been disagreement.
4. Attempts or suggestions to silence (or even jail) those who disagreed with them, and to curtail free enterprize, suggesting to many that climate activists were intolerant, illiberal, and only in it to further their political agendas.
Global warming would last until the next cold winter.
Agree with previous statements.
Possibly, people are connecting global warming to more than a decade ago, when there was actually global warming and the science appeared authentic, with plenty of evidence, including milder Winters in their backyards.
When the term got changed to climate change, after the global warming of the 80’s/90’s was over,the evidence(really lack of it) is what made man made climate change a bogus expression.
A “Super Storm’ in one place in one year(not nearly as bad as the ones in 11954 for that region), then a drought in the Cornbelt(after 24 years without widespread drought), tornado outbreaks in 2011, followed by a tornado drought, 1 huge typhoon but not a pattern of huge typhoons. Increasing snow and extreme cold, which is the opposite of what we were told a decade ago.
And, most importantly, something that didn’t exist over a decade ago like it does not.
Numerous skeptic sites, this one at the top of the list, that show authentic data and principles that contradict CAGW from scientists that did not have a voice to be heard in the 1990’s.
So, I think even if global warming had been used all along, that term would have lost credibility.
It’s just that discrediting CAGW, with the most damage incurred, happened to coincide with the term climate change(which was a marketing term to offset lack of warming and count everything).
Using the term “global warming” this last frigid and snowy Winter in the Midwest and Eastern US, could not have possibly been better than climate change.
This is why I think Dr. Holdren, using the expression global warming (from greenhouse gas warming) to predict more extreme cold like we were having at the time, was a catastrophic blunder.
I’m always thrilled at opportunities to provide the link again:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/john-holdren-video-polar-vortex
People don’t understand the science between increasing CO2 and climate change. This provides the opportunity to bamboozle them with manipulated data and theories.
They do understand the link between increasing CO2 and global warming from greenhouse gases………….enough so that if you tell them it’s causing increasing snow and extreme cold and they get the highest heating bills in their life, as they freeze their butts off, it enters a realm outside the brainwash that causes them to question WTF the source is talking about.
I would bet this is in anticipation of the Super EL Nino. It would be kinda hard to pull off the global warming part at the moment due to the last 17 years of no such thing.
This will be spun in the mainstream like it is a new item.
Reminds me of a song from the Spinners, “Games People Play” ! Music video redacted ……..
Climate Change, Global warming, Boll***s; It all means the same thing doesn’t it?
Glowbull Warning.
Definitely something with bull in it.
We have a strong El Nino developing in the eastern pacific. Since that can be epected to be replay of ‘ the one we experienced in 97, we can also expect global temps to climb up to a peak as a result. No dought the lemmings in the warmist camp are gonna have a heyday when it does.
Upon further review, the video is unredacted! 🙂
It just seems to fit too well for they absolutley will be “Spinning” this hard knowing the games people play from the study ………..
Let’s force them to use the full term, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
We can do this by constantly saying that a little bit of Global Warming isn’t bad.
“Scotch Mist”
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/scotch+mist.html
there is article on this matter that attributed the change in terminology from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” to the Bush administration. As CC was less alarming/frightening than GW, the AGW lost public attention. I suppose the initial GW is enough to alarm most left wingers.