Climate change vs global warming - people know what it means either way. People aren't that dumb.
Yes! The words that control issue framing are a much bigger problem than the labeling. Stay tuned. We are going to see a lot of propaganda in a future post. Oh boy... oh boy... this was just an easy warm up!
When we look at propaganda more closely it will be very important to remember that propaganda moves don't always work (and can even backfire). The problem here is that our language has been contaminated with the stuff. They've been working at it for 100 years.
A clarification based on a comment from a subscriber elsewhere (so you can all see the reply!):
Comment: Isn't sea level happening right now, rather than over centuries?
Answer: Yes! The science isn't the point here, the symbolism is.
Our focus here is how sea level (and polar bears etc) have become symbolic of climate change, in a way that overrides their actual importance (regardless of the precise rate of sea level). In a particular location sea level (or drought/polar bears/etc) may be important, or they might not. It depends. You have to pay attention to that location - the actual concrete reality.
However, when it comes to climate communication, people will automatically focus on sea level rise (or polar bears) simply because this is a symbol of climate change. We get lost in symbols and lose sight of the reality. Thus people tend to fixate on floods/fires/polar bears/etc, while overlooking a vast range of other possible stories. Our thinking gets narrowed before we even begin.
Another clarification:
Climate change vs global warming - people know what it means either way. People aren't that dumb.
Yes! The words that control issue framing are a much bigger problem than the labeling. Stay tuned. We are going to see a lot of propaganda in a future post. Oh boy... oh boy... this was just an easy warm up!
When we look at propaganda more closely it will be very important to remember that propaganda moves don't always work (and can even backfire). The problem here is that our language has been contaminated with the stuff. They've been working at it for 100 years.
A clarification based on a comment from a subscriber elsewhere (so you can all see the reply!):
Comment: Isn't sea level happening right now, rather than over centuries?
Answer: Yes! The science isn't the point here, the symbolism is.
Our focus here is how sea level (and polar bears etc) have become symbolic of climate change, in a way that overrides their actual importance (regardless of the precise rate of sea level). In a particular location sea level (or drought/polar bears/etc) may be important, or they might not. It depends. You have to pay attention to that location - the actual concrete reality.
However, when it comes to climate communication, people will automatically focus on sea level rise (or polar bears) simply because this is a symbol of climate change. We get lost in symbols and lose sight of the reality. Thus people tend to fixate on floods/fires/polar bears/etc, while overlooking a vast range of other possible stories. Our thinking gets narrowed before we even begin.