123
After back to back years of climate disasters, fewer Canadians understand climate change is real than before
(www.nationalobserver.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
123 points (100.0% liked)
News
28053 readers
3250 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Abandoning "Global Warming" rhetoric in favor of the conservative framing of "Climate Change" was a huge tactical error.
How is being more descriptive and leaving less room for misinterpretation a tactical error?
Many feel the reverse, that global warming is accurate and unequivocal, while "change" is merely a weasel word that allows demagogues to obscure causes and minimize effects.
Yes regional changes may differ. The planet getting hotter is what kills us all, though.
Climate Collapse would have probably been more accurate.
Yea, all these labels are true. I think the point many are missing about naming is that these terms can ideally be used rhetorically, i.e. to help people pay attention to a risk, by tailoring the terms to the context.
Risk Communication is an interesting field, and we'll all be needing to understand it better shortly.
Luckily we don't need to guess or invent a history of the terms based on anecdotal experience, we have a real one.
Yeah, thanks! In terms of usage I always advocate that we are contextual and varied depending on both accuracy and audience, including terms like crisis, catastrophe, etc.
From the linked history article:
"When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change.""
It's not more descriptive though, at least not to the layperson, it leaves room for people to believe that a change in climate is benign or tolerable. Everyone can understand that consistent, long-term warming is dangerous.
Obviously people believe what they want to be true more often than not. That doesn't make the phrasing unclear. It makes people stupid.
Yeah, people are broadly dumb, that's exactly why it's important rhetorically to make the tone of your message match the severity.
While both terms are correct, it’s harder to argue with the term Climate Change and less likely to confuse people. It’s climate change caused by global warming.
Also I wasn’t aware it was a conservative framing to change the name. I thought it was to avoid the “but it was cold today” argument/confusion with it
That was always a dumb argument that no one genuinely found confusing. It was always a red herring.
The Bush administration pushed the "climate change, not global warming" narrative (I'm not saying they invented it, only that they spearheaded the rhetorical framing and made it popular)
It's undeniable that the end result of changing this framing is that fewer people believe now that changes should be made to mitigate long term effects of carbon emissions than 25 years ago.
Those things are different. They're not the same thing, although they're related.
Global warming means that overall the Earth is warming up. This is true. It's talking about the planet as a whole.
Global warming causes climate to change in specific areas of the globe. Some places will be hotter, colder, drier, etc. It's talking about regions of the planet.
I'm not really trying to argue the technical correctness of these terms, rather their effectiveness as rhetoric.