Monday
Jan102011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Keep on spinning
Jan 10, 2011 Climate: other Greens You are not going to believe this, no sooner have our green friends rebranded the crisis formerly known as global warming from `climate change' to `climate disruption' than they change their minds again. The Australian has the story:
THE term "climate change" could be replaced by "climate challenges" if a federal commissioned marketing study is taken onboard.
The study of attitudes to climate change among farmers, commissioned by the Agriculture Department, found only 27 per cent of those surveyed believed human activity was causing climate change, compared with 58 per cent of urban dwellers.
Reader Comments (81)
The phrase climate challenges is less outrageous than 'federal commissioned marketing study'.
When Chernobyl exploded, on Spitting Image, the puppet of Margaret Thatcher was asked did she have any advice for the Russians?
"Rename it Sellafield", the puppet said.
The more times that the headline name is changed then the less credible the theory becomes to the general public.
During discussions on the topic I will still say global warming or whatever it is called this week which immediately dispells the myth of settled science.
Forgive another O/T... but... another study from Nature reported in the Guardian...
Glacier shrinkage will hit European Alps hardest, study claims
Computer models on computer models on computer models ad infinitum...
Another phrase to remember if you call the breakdown services when you run out of power for your electric car:
After looking at the map, he pronounces that the journey as far as Tyneside is perfectly achievable.
But between Northumberland and Edinburgh it will be a significant challenge.
"The gap is 87 miles," he says, "which is more than the range of your car.
"Ideally you need another charging post halfway between the two. Otherwise you are going to suffer range anxiety."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12138420
Mini adventure: how far can an electric car go?
Bishop
"You are not going to believe this". Well, I for one am not surprised. It came from a marketing consultancy after all. I expect the next version will be "climate issues".
Ahaha. Brilliant! I used a thesaurus to try to find alternatives to "Change" and "Disruption" a few weeks ago, in the hope of placing a bet as to what it would morph into. I'm obviously not as clever as these marketing droids, although a fat fee tends to concentrate the mind somewhat.
With billions on the table - and just in the US Federal Budget - it's become how to sell all those air conditioners, um, wind mills to the Eskimos. Just a marketing, not science, issue really.
I like the name offered by Stan in a comment on smalldeadanimals.com last year:
"Irritable Climate Syndrome.
It's like irritable bowel syndrome, but larger."
Every attempt to rebrand 'Global Warming' has resulted in failure.
1. Climate-change no longer cuts the mustard.
2. Climate-disruption is sinking fast.
3. Climate-challenges will never stick.
It is back to the drawing board for the alarmists.
Actually Mac, the only one that really convinces me is Climate Bollocks. But then that's why I don't work in Marketing.
Yep. The marketing men have taken over. Branding and celebrity endorsement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/10/climate-change-celebrity-power-survey
It's like the mediaeval church having a problem convincing people in eternal damnation. Blast, they must have thought, the peasants just won't believe in Hell. Maybe we should rebrand it?
I wonder how much longer they'll keep the word 'climate'? 'Seasonal challenges' next or maybe 'infrastructure disruption'?
I suppose the next thing will be climate satisfaction surveys of climate stakeholders.
Mac, although I agree with the sentiment it's worth meditating on the fact that in 1988 The IPCC was set up by UNEP and WMO as the Intergovernmental Panel on ... well, I'm sure you get the point.
So CC preceded GW in the marketing. Why would that be? Surely because in 1988 the thirty-year warming trend was much less clear than it was in 2001, the time of the Third Assessment Report - and of course the Hockey Stick, which our eminent host has done so much to keep in the public mind!
So they were hedging their bets with CC in 88, by 01 they were confident enough to bang on about GW and then later, as the upward trend in temperature became very vague, they reverted to CC. What's really amusing are the manifold attempts to put new lipstick on the pig since Climategate and its sequel, the collapse of Copenhagen.
The last paragraph assumes a propagandistic heart to the enterprise from the very beginning. Sorry about that.
@Dreadnought
Thanks for that. I pick on one as an example...
20. Gary Neville - Environmentally inclined but not an activist
"Environmentally inclined"...
What passes people by, including Leo, is that they believe there is only one definition of Environmentalism. One of course one they fit. If person makes a few platitudes, drives a Prius, refuses the free carrier bags, then "Hey presto" they are an Environmentalist. Where is the real cost in that to themselves?
I am an environmentalist. With some deeply held convictions. Yet this does not fit into the "Environmentalist" tag.
Perhaps Leo should be clear about what exactly is an environmentalist or an Environmentalist. Or difference between the two? Perhaps that difference being a dislike or shallowness, hypocrisy and bullsh*t? I will let the reader guess which one has which?
I have met people who could quote from the bible, and were some of the nastiest back-stabbing bast... sorry people I have ever met. Yet I have met humble Christians who would give a stranger their last penny.
The starting point for what Leo surveys is the wrong one.
RD I was under the impression that the modern context of the phrase Global Warming came into scientific and public usage in the 1950s, and as such, predates the usage of the phrase climate change.
Robinson: "Climate crap" has a nice ring to it, IMHO.
It would appear there was another phrase in use post Global Warming (1950s) and Pre Climate Change (1970s) - it was 'Inadvertent Climate Modification'.
Catchy isn't it?
'I saw 'climate weirding' and 'global weirding' somewhere, but it was thought a bit to 'Harry Potter'
found one, the New York Time no less.
Global Weirding Is Here - op ed - NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html?_r=1
Richard Drake says:
Shocking insinuation. The IPCC biased...
I saw a commercial on the tv this weekend....they were claiming that emerging science has indicated...some benefit for the product in question. I thought it may be more helpful for the debate to call climate science an emerging science. The mind changing/description change noted above would indicate as much.
"In other news, according to emerging climate science..."
Here is a timeline for scientific and public usages of phrases (please feel free to correct as necessary).
1. Global Warming - 1957
2. Inadvertent Climate Modification - 1970
3. Climate Change - 1975
4. Global Change - 1988
5. Climate Disruption - 2007
6. Climate Challenges - 2011
What about Inadvertent Global Climate Change Disruption & Challenges (IGCCDC for short)?
That should cover all bases.
Climate Challenges sounds good to me. It's redolent of the PC terms for people who are dim/short/fat/etc but for whom the real words are too difficult. It should help with the general perception that it is ridiculous.
Irritable Climate is hard to beat with the afflicted having the Syndrome. Do you suppose jingles and dancing girls will appear in the marketing pieces; maybe lines of self-flagellating monks seen in Seventh Seal?
@Jiminy.
Don't be too hard on Gary. This could be the year he invents artifical gravity!
I'm actually warming towards Irritable Climate Syndrome and away from Climate Bollocks as my favourite so far.
"climatically challenged"
Yeah, that could work ;¬)
"The study of attitudes to climate change among farmers, commissioned by the Agriculture Department, found only 27 per cent of those surveyed believed human activity was causing climate change, compared with 58 per cent of urban dwellers."
The real salient point of this is that far fewer of the people that actually live and work with the weather "believed human activity was causing climate change"
'Only 27% (of farmers) thought that human activity was causing climate change, compared with 58% of urban dwellers...'
Damn farmers - what the hell do they know about weather and climate..??
Hey - what happened to 'biodiversity'..?
I can't keep up...
This was a fun read. Thanks to all. I like "Irritable Climate Syndrome" -- that is something we can all relate to as we shovel the #*@&#$ snow.
Get rid of the trends!
What the terms 'climate disruption' and 'climate challenges' allow you to do is ignore trends.
Thus, if the temperature stops rising, or if the Antarctic doesn't follow the Arctic in a shrinking trend, it doesn't matter. You can just blame all extreme temperatures (high or low) and events (drought, flood, blizzard's, etc) on 'man-made CO2 emissions.
Barry Woods -
Yes, I remember hearing "climate weirding" as well, originally in conversation but later I located the source. I took it as a claim that any variation from normal was down to anthropogenic effects. Whether the variation was warmer or colder, wetter or drier, there was always some path arguable to trace it back to CO2. As if weather had never varied from the average in the past.
I've seen "climate crisis" used elsewhere, and expect it to be the next catch-phrase, implying a sense of urgency greater than "climate disruption" -- whose connotations are more urgent than mere "climate change." As the Australian article makes clear, it's all about the marketing.
Speaking of which, there's not much time left to apply to be the IPCC's media relations director.
"Only 27% (of farmers) thought that human activity was causing climate change"
Possibly because they know about the carbon cycle first hand.
Perhaps it should just be whittled down to Climatism.
This would focus on the supposed cause rather than the effect.
We could then introduce the crime of Climate Discrimination - whereby a person (or persons) can be penalised for acting with disregard to their local weather (as determined by the Met Office). For example, watering your hydrangeas during a 'barbecue summer' would be determined as an unspeakably vile climatist act - being one which wilfully endangers the delicate climatic harmony achieved in the region by the tireless work of government bodies, NGOs and various local busybodies.
Whatever happened to "Climate Chaos" ?
While the models and consensus keep predicting temperature increases, I'm going to keep calling it Global Warming. Marketeers don't like it when people don't use their brand names correctly. As for dropping 'Climate', one substitution could be 'Lifestyle' so we'd have
Lifestyle Change
Lifestyle Challenges
Lifestyle Disruption
which is what it's really all about after all. It's not science, or geo-engineering but political and social engineering.
"Climatism" > "Climatists" being those convinced that there is a threat due to the A in AGW. The conviction would be insufficient to earning the appellation - overt action would be required - waving a sign, owning a Prius, something.
Climate Conspiracy has a certain appeal.
Climate Widgery.
I think Alex has something:-
......................
'I like the name offered by Stan in a comment on smalldeadanimals.com last year:
"Irritable Climate Syndrome.
It's like irritable bowel syndrome, but larger."
Jan 10, 2011 at 12:12 PM | Alex Cull
.......................................
because what is produced from both is so so so similar.
How about 'Climate Adoption'?
Many have jumped on to the bandwagon of alarm over climate in order to pursue their personal advantage (financial, professional, political, emotional) by furthering their pre-existing ambitions. The success of this strategy can be seen in the biographies of all the key plotters and promoters, and even of some of the patsies such as some journalists in the BBC and elsewhere.
Climatitis and climaphobia have a certain ring too.
Climate Dianetics?
Hang on, I might be getting confused...
Atomic Hairdyer
While the models and consensus keep predicting temperature increases, I'm going to keep calling it Global Warming. Marketeers don't like it when people don't use their brand names correctly.
Having misplaced my new glasses yet again, I was using my backup pair when I read the above. Except I saw Global Warning and thought it was a brilliant insight! My! At last a phrase all can embrace! Yes, Let us have Global Warning!
Then I squinted harder and realized my mistake. However, I do believe the idea -- though mistaken -- does have some merit. It certainly can be use for any alarmist cause. And it will not change with the vagaries of weather -- err, climate -- err, whatever.
Climidia anyone ? As in "The earth has climidyia".
I'll get me coat.
How about "Science Challenged Apocalyptica"?