Would it help the Union of Concerned Scientists to change the name 'Global Warming'

[Bobbieo]

to 'Climate Change'? Some areas of the earth are comnsistently getting warmer while others seem to be undergoing summers of extreme heat followed by winters of extreme cold.

[onehandle]

1. Yes, but it needs to have more urgency like 'Climate Deterioration.'

Marketing counts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. The problem with that is, the regional climate changes are all a result

of global warming.

sorry, but facts is facts.

[beardown]

5. No

It doesn't matter what you call it, excepting perhaps to do a full repub type naming bait and switch and call it something like 'Free Gasoline'.

It's not the name. It's not the science. It's the idea that people need to rein in their consumption habits and sacrifice (taxes or life style) to lessen the effects of the 90 percent chance of global climate disruption that the research predicts. Conservation, community, and moderation are not part of the right wing psyche.

Besides, on going attempts to do start calling it climate change, etc. have been declared by the deniers to be signs that global warming has been debunked and now the green, socialist, fascist, cabal is trying to remarket it under a different name.

[Bobbieo]

6. I understand that - "facts is facts" BUT to the uneducated

global warming to them is a lie and propaganda material for Limbaugh and Beck!

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Then the answer is to educate them.

If they say "But look at all this snow!" ask them if they know how snow is made. Greater masses of warm, moist air from the south meet the cold arctic air, and you get MORE snow. When the global temps were lower, there was less warm air meeting the arctic air, and so there was less snow. We have more snow in winter BECAUSE of global warming.

At that point, predict that the winter will be shorter, and next summer will be longer and hotter. Tell them to remember you said it.

[NoNothing]

3. "Climate change" is stupid

For one, it is less accurate. The climate is getting *warmer*. *Warmer* because of CO2. The problem is *warming*. Related to that, it doesn't really describe a problem. "Change." Change can be good, can't it? Didn't Obama promise "change?" And, isn't the climate always changing? How do you solve the problem of "change?" Keep everything exactly as it is? So, keep doing what we're already doing?

How about going back to an older term, "Greenhouse effect?" People know what a greenhouse is. They know a greenhouse can get too hot. It conveys the fundamental problem and implies the solution - reduce "greenhouse gasses." It ties cause to effect, it ties problem to solution.

[Bobbieo]

7. It is not the educated we have to reach, it is the 'uneducated' that

are falling for the BS that Limbaugh and Beck are passing out. Keep the terminology as simple as possible for the simple to comprehend.

[NoNothing]

8. Even to the uneducated

It has to make sense on a superficial level. How can you claim that "climate change" is a suddenly a man-made crisis *now* when the climate has "changed" continuously since the Earth was formed? It doesn't make any sense on the *most superficial level.* That's the level you have to aim at.

[phantom power]

4. I don't think it would make a lot of difference.

For one thing, the global mean temperature is rising. Global warming is what is happening. Although "climate change" captures the various effects that may occur regionally, I don't think it will help. Climate change deniers don't believe any of it is happening. Or they don't believe we're responsible. New vocabulary isn't going to change that.

[global1]

10. I'm In Agreement With You & Suggested This Last Week - Check Out The Responses I Got......

at this link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7690228

[eppur_se_muova]

11. No. "Climate Change" is deniers' framing.

Global Warming is exactly what it says it is.

[FBaggins]

12. Where did you get that impression?

"Climate Change" is the response to the deniers' misuse of weather for climate.

[eppur_se_muova]

13. Mostly, from reading DU. "Climate Change" is the expression ...

that FAUX news and others have been slipping into the conversation for years. It was a real shock to see that *recently* DUers (and/or trolls) have been proposing CC as a "better" alternative, apparently thinking it was their own idea -- it is not. CC has always been the preferred phrasing of the deniers, because it conflates and confuses the concepts of man-made global warming and naturally-occurring climate change, which no one has ever denied existed. Global Warming has always referred to the consequences of an increased greenhouse effect due to industrial-era pollution. There's no uncertainty or ambiguity in the name. That's why the right wing has been so determined to kill it, by trotting out "more reasonable" terminology such as "Climate Change", which muddles the concepts and raises uncertainty and doubt in the minds of voters.

ETA: Perhaps a better answer is that GW is the more fundamental phenomenon -- there will be changes in climate, including some *local* cooling, but the driving factor behind those changes is overall global warming.

ETAA: Also "The Republican War on Science" by Mooney has a very good discussion on the tactical use of language and phrasing by the right wing to sow doubt and discord on issues that really should be decided by facts.

[Viking12]

14. From this Republican strategy document...

Luntz advises that, “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge” (p. 142).

http://www.ewg.org/node/8684

[eppur_se_muova]

16. Thank you! I didn't have my copy of "The Republican War on Science" handy ...

but I remembered Luntz and one other culprit (one of "the usual suspects", can't recall the name) being almost single-handedly responsible for that framing.

ETA: That's Steven Milloy, of junkscience.com: http://junkscience.com/Junkman.html

[FBaggins]

17. Thanks to both of you!

I wasn't aware of that (and don't see how the label helps them).

I would say, however, that the current usage by our side isn't a case of accepting their framing. They want to use "global warming" right now because the globe isn't currently warming... and many scientists think that it may actually cool slightly over the next 10-20 years. All as part of a longer-term upward trend.

The fear is that the "global warming" label makes it too easy to sell the opposing view.

I personally think it's too late to change labels for political expediency. Too many years of associating every hot summer day, every drought, and every snow-less winter as proof of something that couldn't be proven with such a short-term focus. Many make fun (reasonably) of those who see a bunch of snow and think it debunks AGW... but we're stuck with a couple decades of such foolishness on our side. Too late to hide that with a simple name change. Best to "dance with the one we brung."

[Viking12]

18. "the globe isn't currently warming"??? Pass that joint over here...

[FBaggins]

19. You know what I meant. Cyclical cooling within secular warming.

Temperatures have cooled over the last several years. This doesn't mean that global warming isn't occurring, it just means that it isn't a straight line... just like a bear market in stocks doesn't mean that the market never goes up several days/weeks in a row.

There have been a number of legitimate climate scientists who accept AGW as reality but anticipate another decade or two of cyclical cooling as a minor pause in an otherwise upward track.

[Nihil]

21. "Holy Warming Batman!"

:hide:

[The2ndWheel]

15. Global Climate Control

[tinrobot]

20. Climate Destabilization.