Who cares about being accurate. The point of being a journalist is to tell people what to do. But after twenty years of propaganda the punters are still not getting the message, so Faye Flam (her real name) thinks it’s time to stop using “climate change” and switch back to “global warming”. Apparently a five year old Yale Study suggests that it’s more scary, and Flam has discovered it just in time to wring a bit more propaganda value out of the Australian fires. “Lucky”. eh?
She seems to think that a George W Bush adviser tricked the world into using “Climate Change” because it was less scary.
Let’s Go Back to Calling It Global Warming
by Faye Flam, Bloomberg Opinion
Seems “Climate change” is vague and doesn’t convey enough urgency.
As scientific terms go, “climate change” is lame. It sounds like something created by committee. And it’s hard to understand as a crisis when we also hear scientists talking about ice ages and other natural changes to the climate happening throughout earth’s history. “Global warming” is something people have worried about for years, though. It’s essentially another term for the same thing, but conveys a planet-wide danger.
She was inspired by Australian Bushfires, because “Warming” means “Hot” and “Hot” means “Fires”.
There’s good evidence that global warming is exacerbating the wildfires raging in southern Australia, but when we call it “climate change,” non-scientists may well wonder what the connection is and how it could have been averted. Call it “global warming,” though, and it’s intuitively easy to understand that if the world is getting warmer on average, then of course some hot places will get even hotter, and eventually some really hot places, such as southern Australia, will go up in flames.
Apparently Southern Australia has just spontaneously combusted. Either that, or science has.
The caption of the photo of kangaroos jumping in the orange haze says: “When the earth gets hotter, some places catch fire.” Which explains why the Sahara Desert is nine million square kilometers of blazing sand.
It’s always an evil right wing conspiracy, even when left wing journalists run the media:
How, then, did the term “climate change” come to dominate its more descriptive predecessor? Some news organizations have pointed to memo, intended to be secret, from George W. Bush adviser Frank Luntz. In it, Luntz proposed avoiding the term “global warming” because it might scare people.
Ask yourself: were left wing journalists really such obedient patsies for a sole Republican memo or is this theory just so much junk?
Then figure out how a term too vague to be used in the media is “useful” for scientists:
But the term “climate change” also caught on among scientists, who have argued that it’s more encompassing, including all the side effects of the carbon dioxide buildup — not only warming, but also changes in rainfall patterns, sea level rise, more dangerous storms, floods and droughts. Seen that way, “climate change” should be the scarier term, but ironically, the Yale/George Mason survey found non-scientists had the opposite reaction — global warming carried a much stronger suggestion of potential catastrophe.
“Climate change” is far too useful for the scaremongers to give up, and next week when the blizzards strike, or the floods come, Global Warming will be quietly packed away again.
Go on — wear the T-Shirt — Global Warming causes Cold Snaps. See what I mean?