5 ms·

Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment

53 points by okket 7y ago

frittig 7y ago
> “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue. [...] The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.” The a term that precisely describes what is happening, does not rile up enough people, so inorder to improve "accuracy" they want to use buzz words. it seems like they are more interested in improving "clicks" than "accuracy".
- anoncake 7y ago
  No, "climate change" is neither precise nor very accurate. It is not precise because it does not tell us anything about how the climate changing. "Climate emergency" is more precise because it tells us that climate is changing in a problematic manner that requires immediate action. "Global warming" is more precise because it tells us that the climate changes in that temperatures increase. And "global heating" is even more precise because it tells us that the earth warms too much. "Climate change" and "global warming" are accurate on a semantic level but not on the level of pragmatics. In particular, people generally understand "warm" as "warm, but not hot".
- woodandsteel 7y ago
  Is it your view that the anthropogenic climate warming idea is a hoax?
ForHackernews 7y ago
For Americans, here's a petition aimed at US networks urging them to use more urgent language to describe the ongoing climate disaster: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/call-it-a-climate-crisis https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/call-it-a-climate-crisis
Kaiyou 7y ago
Nothing they write is actionable, so I'm not sure how changing the language would affect anything. Imho it amounts to little else besides fear mongering, if there isn't actionable advice.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Of course it amounts to fearmongering. People are insufficiently afraid of global heating, fearmongering is appropriate.
  - devoply 7y ago
    If the media can fear monger about rare events it should definitely be fear mongering about guaranteed events.
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    What we need isn't fear, we need actionable advice to prevent it from happening. Fear solves nothing.
vbuwivbiu 7y ago
Good. this is much more precise language.
herogreen 7y ago
Here is another one we should use: Recycling -> Downcycling (in most of the cases where it is used) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling
rchaud 7y ago
Glad that they've put their policies in writing. If only this could be done for other types of man-made events that are sanitized by diplomat-speak: * Military invasion w/ 250k troops: "regime change" * Widespread bombing campaign: "shock and awe" * Drone attacks that kill civilians: "precision strikes" * Societal breakdown and re-emergence of internecine conflict: "birth pangs of a new Middle East"

53 points by okket 7y ago

> “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue. [...] The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.” The a term that precisely describes what is happening, does not rile up enough people, so inorder to improve "accuracy" they want to use buzz words. it seems like they are more interested in improving "clicks" than "accuracy".

anoncake 7y ago
No, "climate change" is neither precise nor very accurate. It is not precise because it does not tell us anything about how the climate changing. "Climate emergency" is more precise because it tells us that climate is changing in a problematic manner that requires immediate action. "Global warming" is more precise because it tells us that the climate changes in that temperatures increase. And "global heating" is even more precise because it tells us that the earth warms too much. "Climate change" and "global warming" are accurate on a semantic level but not on the level of pragmatics. In particular, people generally understand "warm" as "warm, but not hot".
woodandsteel 7y ago
Is it your view that the anthropogenic climate warming idea is a hoax?

ForHackernews 7y ago

For Americans, here's a petition aimed at US networks urging them to use more urgent language to describe the ongoing climate disaster: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/call-it-a-climate-crisis https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/call-it-a-climate-crisis

Kaiyou 7y ago

Nothing they write is actionable, so I'm not sure how changing the language would affect anything. Imho it amounts to little else besides fear mongering, if there isn't actionable advice.

anoncake 7y ago
Of course it amounts to fearmongering. People are insufficiently afraid of global heating, fearmongering is appropriate.
- devoply 7y ago
  If the media can fear monger about rare events it should definitely be fear mongering about guaranteed events.
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  What we need isn't fear, we need actionable advice to prevent it from happening. Fear solves nothing.

vbuwivbiu 7y ago

Good. this is much more precise language.

herogreen 7y ago

Here is another one we should use: Recycling -> Downcycling (in most of the cases where it is used) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling

rchaud 7y ago

Glad that they've put their policies in writing. If only this could be done for other types of man-made events that are sanitized by diplomat-speak: * Military invasion w/ 250k troops: "regime change" * Widespread bombing campaign: "shock and awe" * Drone attacks that kill civilians: "precision strikes" * Societal breakdown and re-emergence of internecine conflict: "birth pangs of a new Middle East"