LogFAQs > #882280438

Blighboy posted...

Except we already did that when we changed from Global Warming to Climate Change because people didn't understand what a global average temperature was, and it didn't help.

They changed from "global warming" to "climate change" because there was a very real need to distinguish the fact that a major climate shift didn't necessarily mean an increase in temperature (especially when there is evidence to suggest melting ice-caps and a subsequently deeper ocean may actually turn overall temperatures colder), and that there are climate factors other than temperature that need to be considered (like desertification of areas, or even more complex factors like conflicting day/night temperature cycles).

But now there's absolutely a need to change from "climate change" (which is currently used to mean two distinctly different concepts) to something less ambiguous, because the issue as a whole is too damned politicized, and people on both sides of the argument have deliberately distorted data by misinterpreting which meaning of the term applies in a given case, and waffling back and forth on which interpretation they're using based on which one supports their argument more (regardless of whether or not it actually reflects the truth).

If people actually want to SOLVE the argument rather than keeping it the rhetorical dick-waving contest it currently is, it desperately NEEDS better (and unambiguous) operational definitions that clearly convey meaning even to laypeople. Because otherwise, the entire issue is basically going to remain a metaphorical roomful of idiots screaming at each other in different languages, with no one listening to or understanding anyone else.

And yes, I know people (especially on the Internet) love just pointing at anyone who doesn't agree with them and assuming they're an idiot and dismissing them out of hand, but if no one even makes the attempt to understand the position of the opposition and rationally discuss things rather than turn everything into a rhetoric contest, then that kind of makes YOU the asshole.

It doesn't even have to be that major of a change. Just breaking the term down into something like "natural climate shift" and "human-driven climate change" would draw a line between the two and make it harder to ignore or deliberately misinterpret data. Especially if climatologists are careful to avoid drawing conclusions on the one hand if the data actually seems to support the other.

It would also make things a bit clearer statistically, because it would allow for a better distinction between just how MUCH climate change seems to be a natural phenomenon and the degree to which human intervention has contributed. Which in turn would better help less qualified people (ie, the average stupid politician) to actually pass meaningful legislation.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family