It seems like a good modification to the framing to me. It's a bit of a shame, the original 'global warming' seems like it's perfectly accurate, even if it does fall pray to the sophescistic 'then...
It seems like a good modification to the framing to me. It's a bit of a shame, the original 'global warming' seems like it's perfectly accurate, even if it does fall pray to the sophescistic 'then why is it still cold where I am' retort.
I don't think messing will have a dramatic impact, but it can certainly help.
I've always liked "global climate destabilisation" as it's more accurate, but it is a mouthful. I feel like "climate crisis" is succinct and accurate at this point.
I've always liked "global climate destabilisation" as it's more accurate, but it is a mouthful. I feel like "climate crisis" is succinct and accurate at this point.
I absolutely agree that we are in the midst of a climate crisis, but the one thing that worries me with this change in verbiage is that it'll be another thing for climate science deniers to go...
I absolutely agree that we are in the midst of a climate crisis, but the one thing that worries me with this change in verbiage is that it'll be another thing for climate science deniers to go after instead of addressing the real issues.
I already spend ~1/4 of the time I spend discussing the climate with skeptics convincing them that there is a problem to begin with, and most of them like to bring up the "this is all pointless alarmism for x reason" thing. The use of the word "crisis" seems like it'll immediately catch such people's attention as a segue to the often used "scientists have been calling this a 5-10 year problem for 40 years" dismissal.
Admittedly, I can't think of a better way to capture the reality of our situation without drawing the fire of climate science deniers, so this is all somewhat pointless worrying.
TBF, they already rejected the science. They rejected the facts. That's the best we have. If they choose to reject science and facts, then marketing is all we have left. They won't get on board,...
but the one thing that worries me with this change in verbiage is that it'll be another thing for climate science deniers to go after instead of addressing the real issues.
TBF, they already rejected the science. They rejected the facts. That's the best we have. If they choose to reject science and facts, then marketing is all we have left. They won't get on board, so it's time to stop targeting those who will never be convinced and go full media blitz on those who are merely lukewarm or ill informed.
I think "crisis" is an accurate word at this point, but changing the verbiage won't meaningfully improve anything. If anything, it'll just make me ignore it all that much more. People have been...
I think "crisis" is an accurate word at this point, but changing the verbiage won't meaningfully improve anything. If anything, it'll just make me ignore it all that much more.
People have been harping on about global warming, climate change, and the hole in the ozone for so long that I've just gotten burned out on it all. I just don't care any more. I've run out of fucks to give.
TBF if we discovered a relatively cheap and easily manufactured room temperature superconductor tomorrow, a lot of our issues around transmission of energy would be solved nearly overnight,...
Doesn't the word "crisis" indicate that it's just a problem looking for a solution?
TBF if we discovered a relatively cheap and easily manufactured room temperature superconductor tomorrow, a lot of our issues around transmission of energy would be solved nearly overnight, meaning that we could more easily rely on centralized forms of generating renewable energy, rather than the disparate methods we have now.
Also, there is continuing work on creating an artificial, green carbon sequestration process. This could yield results in the near term, as scientists have already discovered certain aspects of this process can be mass produced.
But, to your point, yes, we are still looking at a shitty next 200 years. But we cannot allow ourselves to sink into the narrative that there is no hope.
It seems like a good modification to the framing to me. It's a bit of a shame, the original 'global warming' seems like it's perfectly accurate, even if it does fall pray to the sophescistic 'then why is it still cold where I am' retort.
I don't think messing will have a dramatic impact, but it can certainly help.
I've always liked "global climate destabilisation" as it's more accurate, but it is a mouthful. I feel like "climate crisis" is succinct and accurate at this point.
I absolutely agree that we are in the midst of a climate crisis, but the one thing that worries me with this change in verbiage is that it'll be another thing for climate science deniers to go after instead of addressing the real issues.
I already spend ~1/4 of the time I spend discussing the climate with skeptics convincing them that there is a problem to begin with, and most of them like to bring up the "this is all pointless alarmism for x reason" thing. The use of the word "crisis" seems like it'll immediately catch such people's attention as a segue to the often used "scientists have been calling this a 5-10 year problem for 40 years" dismissal.
Admittedly, I can't think of a better way to capture the reality of our situation without drawing the fire of climate science deniers, so this is all somewhat pointless worrying.
TBF, they already rejected the science. They rejected the facts. That's the best we have. If they choose to reject science and facts, then marketing is all we have left. They won't get on board, so it's time to stop targeting those who will never be convinced and go full media blitz on those who are merely lukewarm or ill informed.
I think "crisis" is an accurate word at this point, but changing the verbiage won't meaningfully improve anything. If anything, it'll just make me ignore it all that much more.
People have been harping on about global warming, climate change, and the hole in the ozone for so long that I've just gotten burned out on it all. I just don't care any more. I've run out of fucks to give.
TBF if we discovered a relatively cheap and easily manufactured room temperature superconductor tomorrow, a lot of our issues around transmission of energy would be solved nearly overnight, meaning that we could more easily rely on centralized forms of generating renewable energy, rather than the disparate methods we have now.
Also, there is continuing work on creating an artificial, green carbon sequestration process. This could yield results in the near term, as scientists have already discovered certain aspects of this process can be mass produced.
But, to your point, yes, we are still looking at a shitty next 200 years. But we cannot allow ourselves to sink into the narrative that there is no hope.