Climate change PR mistakes

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Robert Urbanek, Aug 20, 2019.

  1. Robert Urbanek

    Robert Urbanek Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    From the very beginning of global warming/climate change awareness, scientists and activists have made several public relations mistakes, all related to language.

    Scientists are inclined to choose terms that are understated and as emotionally neutral as possible, a bad decision when confronted with a serious problem. The choice of the words “global warming” was a mistake from the start. The word “warming” has positive connotations, such as a “warm person” or a person sipping a warm latte while cuddled with someone in front of a fireplace.

    The proper choice should have been “global heating.”

    But scientists went from bad to worse in largely substituting “climate change” for global warming, introducing a term with even less emotional heft. It’s like describing the attack on Pearl Harbor as “naval change.” Why not “climate crisis” or “climate chaos”?

    I would also ask the scientists and activists, “Whose minds are you trying to change?” If you are trying to convince a large population of poorly educated American voters, why do you persist in using the metric system when your target audience is more familiar with inches and feet? Describing a sea rise in inches or feet will mean more to them than millimeters or meters.

    Finally, stop saying “the new normal.” No, the extreme weather changes are NOT normal and that language only feeds into a mindset of complacency.
     
  2. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    78,349
    Likes Received:
    52,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not really science, and the things they believe should make us laugh.

    Spiders are getting ANGRIER because of evolutionary trick to survive ‘climate chaos’.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  3. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    37,039
    Likes Received:
    8,976
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fundamental mistake is not studying the cost benefit tradeoff. Global warming is net beneficial.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  4. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    78,349
    Likes Received:
    52,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is that's politics masquerading as science. Starting with a pile of lies is no way to build a foundation. Michael Mann's shameful performance in court was just terrible.

    I LIKE THE CUT OF HIS JIB: Trump Skips G-7 Climate Meeting, Says Won’t Risk US Wealth On “Dreams.”
     
    Josephwalker and AFM like this.
  5. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the media is doing fine using chosen words to create hysteria so relax. Be happy.:)

    Planet Earth is Sizzling Hot

    https://epiac1216.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/planet-earth-is-sizzling-hot/
     
  6. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,545
    Likes Received:
    4,855
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct. They have never defined the terminology beyond a circular definition. That is utterly meaningless.

    So you're disappointed that they aren't conning the world's populace well enough?

    Okay then. Define "global heating". Remember, circular definitions are do not work; they are meaningless.

    Yup, you're disappointed that they aren't conning the world's populace well enough.

    It is not possible to measure global sea levels. There is no valid reference point to make use of. Land moves.

    Weather is a random event. Weather changes all the time. There is no such thing as a "normal" with regard to a random event.
     
    AFM likes this.
  7. Robert Urbanek

    Robert Urbanek Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    The fact that scientists lacked marketing sophistication in their choice of words is evidence that they were NOT trying to manipulate public opinion. Only professional liars, like those who argued that tobacco didn’t cause cancer and climate change deniers, have shown a special talent for manipulating language.
     

Share This Page