5 ms·

I think part of the problem is that we started talking about global warming (“nice! More sunshine!!”) to climate change (“cool! We get too much snow here anyway

I think part of the problem is that we started talking about global warming (“nice! More sunshine!!”) to climate change (“cool! We get too much snow here anyway!!”). Maybe instead of talking about climate change, which is a symptom and not the problem, we should talk about “destabilising the atmosphere”. I feel like people will find it harder to use nonsense arguments if they’re confronted with the problem rather than the explanation.

koheripbal 5y ago
Semantics aren't going to change anything. You have to provide very specific and likely negative outcomes to specific regions.
- lhorie 5y ago
  At this point, people are literally dying in heatwaves and houses are burning in forest fires. People are also dying in floods/landslides. But then deniers casually dismiss these as things that have happened in the past. Sometimes I feel like nothing short of a collapse of the agricultural system and a subsequent famine-triggered civil war killing people's immediate family members is going to wake them up. I hear key aquifers like the Colorado river are drying up, so it's probably even a fairly likely scenario within the next decade too...
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  It's all right here: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/billions-could-face-temperatures-inhospitable-life-next-50-years-study-n1201471 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/billions-could-face-tempe... Nobody wants to do anything about something that's only going to affect people decades in the future.
Pet_Ant 5y ago
> “destabilising the atmosphere”. Sorry, but that is even more opaque. "It looks fine to me!" Try to explain what happens with an unstable atmosphere and why we need it... and you are better off going with global warning. The problem is that we don't know what is going to happen. We aren't great at figuring the weather in two weeks. Then look an credit cards where we know and understand the consequences and penalties... and people STILL act irresponsibly.
- city41 5y ago
  I think "climate change" is the best general term of the bunch. "Global warming" makes people think it's all bunk whenever it gets cold. Hell, a US Senator once brought a snowball onto the senate floor to "prove" it's all fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8
dleslie 5y ago
Worth noting that it's always been called climate change, and global warming was a term preferred by deniers to sew confusion and deniability. > Yet the most interesting findings come from looking at data from the Heartland Institute. In fact, the thinktank used the two terms with roughly the same frequency until 2013, when we finally see a decoupling as the use of global warming dropped while the use of climate change remained constant. > This shows that “global warming” was widely used by climate change deniers over this 30-year period. Perhaps this is because the phrase is relatively specific, which allowed them to contrast it with simple arguments like saying that the planet cannot be warming as it’s cold outside. https://theconversation.com/there-is-no-evidence-that-global-warming-was-rebranded-as-climate-change-133213 https://theconversation.com/there-is-no-evidence-that-global...
- eli 5y ago
  I much prefer "climate crisis." It's just more accurate for where we are.
  - Terretta 5y ago
    nobody understands slow motion crises, doesn't compute
    - eli 5y ago
      The good/bad news is it's starting to not feel so slow.
    - polotics 5y ago
      Climate drift is what's happening.
BelenusMordred 5y ago
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988. It was always called climate change.
titzer 5y ago
> we should talk about “destabilising the atmosphere”. Or, more bluntly, "planetary fuckups." Habitat loss, chemical pollution, overfishing, and microplastics are others, all leading to very bad things on their own. Climate change is the big one though.

koheripbal 5y ago

Semantics aren't going to change anything. You have to provide very specific and likely negative outcomes to specific regions.

lhorie 5y ago
At this point, people are literally dying in heatwaves and houses are burning in forest fires. People are also dying in floods/landslides. But then deniers casually dismiss these as things that have happened in the past. Sometimes I feel like nothing short of a collapse of the agricultural system and a subsequent famine-triggered civil war killing people's immediate family members is going to wake them up. I hear key aquifers like the Colorado river are drying up, so it's probably even a fairly likely scenario within the next decade too...
actually_a_dog 5y ago
It's all right here: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/billions-could-face-temperatures-inhospitable-life-next-50-years-study-n1201471 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/billions-could-face-tempe... Nobody wants to do anything about something that's only going to affect people decades in the future.

Pet_Ant 5y ago

> “destabilising the atmosphere”. Sorry, but that is even more opaque. "It looks fine to me!" Try to explain what happens with an unstable atmosphere and why we need it... and you are better off going with global warning. The problem is that we don't know what is going to happen. We aren't great at figuring the weather in two weeks. Then look an credit cards where we know and understand the consequences and penalties... and people STILL act irresponsibly.

city41 5y ago
I think "climate change" is the best general term of the bunch. "Global warming" makes people think it's all bunk whenever it gets cold. Hell, a US Senator once brought a snowball onto the senate floor to "prove" it's all fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8

dleslie 5y ago

Worth noting that it's always been called climate change, and global warming was a term preferred by deniers to sew confusion and deniability. > Yet the most interesting findings come from looking at data from the Heartland Institute. In fact, the thinktank used the two terms with roughly the same frequency until 2013, when we finally see a decoupling as the use of global warming dropped while the use of climate change remained constant. > This shows that “global warming” was widely used by climate change deniers over this 30-year period. Perhaps this is because the phrase is relatively specific, which allowed them to contrast it with simple arguments like saying that the planet cannot be warming as it’s cold outside. https://theconversation.com/there-is-no-evidence-that-global-warming-was-rebranded-as-climate-change-133213 https://theconversation.com/there-is-no-evidence-that-global...

eli 5y ago
I much prefer "climate crisis." It's just more accurate for where we are.
- Terretta 5y ago
  nobody understands slow motion crises, doesn't compute
  - eli 5y ago
    The good/bad news is it's starting to not feel so slow.
  - polotics 5y ago
    Climate drift is what's happening.

BelenusMordred 5y ago

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988. It was always called climate change.

titzer 5y ago

> we should talk about “destabilising the atmosphere”. Or, more bluntly, "planetary fuckups." Habitat loss, chemical pollution, overfishing, and microplastics are others, all leading to very bad things on their own. Climate change is the big one though.