After back to back years of climate disasters, fewer Canadians understand climate change is real than before
After back to back years of climate disasters, fewer Canadians understand climate change is real than before
Canadians have witnessed catastrophic climate change-induced disasters over and over in recent years, but polling suggests it’s having little effect on the public’s understanding of the climate crisis.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/40004729
Against that backdrop, only 63 per cent of Canadians understand that climate change is real and caused by humans — a drop from 71 per cent in 2021, according to a poll published by the Angus Reid Institute Friday.
You're viewing a single thread.
Abandoning "Global Warming" rhetoric in favor of the conservative framing of "Climate Change" was a huge tactical error.
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.
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.
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.