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
I should like to introduce North Americans to the term: ” Reverse Ferret!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_ferret
‘Bryan concludes with the suggestion that environmentalists should consider their use of language when attempting to motivate their audience.’
I conclude with the suggestion that environmentalists should tell the truth, even if it is as boring as hell.
They are either scientists or paid experts and, if they consider themselves a ‘pressure group’, then their ministrations should be taken with all the caution normally afforded to financial product salesfolk, estate agents and politicians.
All kidding aside, has anyone else gotten the impression that there has been a recent deluge of global warming scare stories? I’m accustomed to seeing the daily boogey man article on Yahoo! every day. But now there a couple of article wedged in between all the CAGW scare stories. They’re really ramping up. Any idea why?
Maybe Americans simply stopped paying attention after they replaced global-warming with climate-change. It became just one more neon sign on the main drag. And it was also being brought to them by the same people.
I can think of a catchier title, but it might not get past moderation.
As other commenters have already stated, this is in anticipation of the expected El Nino warming..
What we need to do now is to alert mainstream media as to what the cause of the warming is, how it works, how it can be predicted, how long it will last and what sort of temperatures we can expect and if there is a large El Nino event, it also has the significance that natural warming is greater than anthropogenic.
You can bet your backside the AGW proponents will be putting this down to AGW so we have a chance to do something in advance.
Yes, please bring back “Global Warming”, it’s easier to adapt to and easier to measure. It is also easier to prove wrong or right (depending on when).
Best of all, it is easier to survive than global cooling or climate extremes.
Bryan concludes with the suggestion that environmentalists should consider their use of language when attempting to motivate their audience.
Why not go ‘real old school’ and use REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR. That phrase motivated millions and got everyone working on a common goal and big government really grew.
I vote for Human-Induced Global Climate Apocalypse.
“the Greatest Generation ”
LOL is that P.C. term for old gits now ? Cool , I’m not getting old, I’m getting “great”. sounds much better.
@Greg
Actually that has been the name of the people who lived through the great depression and survived WW II since the term “Baby Boomer” was coined. You may be getting old, but that is all you are doing.
Obama is rolling out major environmental initiatives, implemented through the EPA. I think there’s going to be a major announcement next week. That’s almost certainly why Kerry keeps spouting off.
Whether environmental groups are in on the orchestration is a question I’ll leave to those more paranoid than I.
Does this mean The End of Climate Change?
Re: “REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR”
THAT rallying cry, UNLIKE “save the planet” and “global warming,” ….
was based on FACTS.
All those sailors and marines killed were real.
In the interests of truth, to prevent historical revisionism,
here’s a little data for ya:
“A day that will live in INFAMY… “
Anti-Climate Stagnation.
“They’re really ramping up. Any idea why?” (Tom B, 12:23pm)
Yep.
Windmill futures are in BIG trouble.
“…little attention is being paid to the {lapsing} Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy …
… The tax extender package passed out of committee … “If the bill becomes law,” reports the Energy Collective, “it will allow wind energy developers to qualify for tax credits if they begin construction by the end of 2015.” The American Wind Energy Association’s (AWEA) website calls on Congress to: “act quickly to retroactively extend the PTC.” The PTC is often the deciding factor in determining whether or not to build a wind farm.
According to Bloomberg, wind power advocates fear: “Without the restoration of the subsidies, worth $23 per megawatt hour to turbine owners, the industry might not recover, … .”
(emphasis mine)
Source: http://www.cfact.org/2014/04/21/the-2014-state-of-wind-energy/#sthash.zkngQnFv.dpuf
And the story is similar or even better (yea!) around the world.
Oooooh,
“A greater sense of personal threat, especially among women…”
Gee might this not be construed by some to be politically incorrect? Coming from Ivy Leaguers, who invented PC, I guess it’s been through the office of the Gender etc. Diversity Police on campus, so it’s probably okay.
Are you sure the study wasn’t paid for by a tax-payer funded grant?
Definitely time to end taxpayer subsidies for environmentally ruinous, as well as uneconomic, so-called “renewable” energy. Wind turbines, methinks, are worth more as scrap metal or recyclable plastic than as power generators. Tear them down.
Also time to cut off the flow of money for propaganda masquerading as research – note that the House cut out Obama’s climate change budget for the military – can we hope it will cut off other wastes of funds on this exercise in recklessness and stupidity?
Just think of how many people in poor countries could be provided with electricity and clean water with the monies being wasted on chasing the CO2 bogeyman.
Kate Forney says: call it Kim Kardashian.
Excellent then catastrophic anthropogenic KK can be CAKK.
As in the very expressive Afrikaans phrase “Gaan kak in die mielies” “Go s**t in the corn field”
or in the other phrase Cakk handed as in left handed
They can bring back what ever phrase they want, but it will be hard to sell it once there is a mile high glacier approaching NYC…
Also I should add, I have just rechecked the IPCC models and its worse than we thought, aliens with acid for blood are landing next week, but we can stop it if we all believe in Al Gore and send him money….
Great comments and wonderful alternatives. “Irritable Climate Syndrome” is my favorite.
In the interest of being “fair” and “supportive” why doesn’t WUWT start a contest?
Select the best 10-15 entrees (Watts Editors make the first cut) … and let’s vote on them. Our “polling” will be as statistically sound as Yale’s and we can provide the list of the top three to Time, Yale, the environmentalists, and the public.
Yes, someone early on in the process forgot the Marketing Plan for CAGW.
Too late now, just cut to the chase and use good old-fashioned “Armageddon”?
That should sell a few newspapers.
At this stage it worth remember why the global warming label was dropped in the first place , and it nothing to do with science. As the years rolled by without ‘global warming ‘ the smart alarmists started to work out that using this label was not doing ‘the cause ‘ any favours given there was no warming , although they never admit that in public . So switched to all purpose ‘climate change’ which had the added benefit that any extreme but not usual weather event could be jumped on as ‘proof’ for the cause , the days of saying weather is not climate have now long gone.
The trouble is people are smarter than the alarmist give them credit for , its actual one of their weakness that they cannot see how holding ‘joe public’ in contempt hurts their cause , so they really did not buy into the ‘anything and everything ‘ approach to proof no more then they bought into the idea that all AGW sceptics where climate change deniers has they knew that in fact these people fully acknowledge that climates changes .
And so their hunting around for a new label , they tired a few such has global weirding , but they not really worked . Frankly I think we should encourage them to make more extreme and madder statements, for these can only have one affect with the same ‘joe public ‘ and it is not the one the alarmists want at all.
VAGW = Virtual Anthropogenic Global Warming
It is the man-generated global warming (CO2), that exist, almost entirely, within computer model’s/game’s virtual reality. By cooling the past and bumping the present… it does seem to affect reality. Much like neutrino(s)… I guess. GK
Perhaps the term for the current state of climate should be Climointeruptus?
Is this a study to prove that dems / libs are more gullible than average?