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.
Abandoning “Global Warming” rhetoric in favor of the conservative framing of “Climate Change” was a huge tactical error.
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.
Luckily we don’t need to guess or invent a history of the terms based on anecdotal experience, we have a real one.
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.
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.