tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38838475.post8542419759257275511..comments2023-10-24T10:36:47.065-05:00Comments on climatespin: Words Matter: call it "climate disruption" says John P. HoldrenRobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375007307125560799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38838475.post-5135282295280311692008-09-18T21:59:00.000-05:002008-09-18T21:59:00.000-05:00Hi Steve,Thanks for pointing out that bit of histo...Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for pointing out that bit of history from Woods Hole. Its dated 1997 but they must not have bushed the phrasing very hard.<BR/><BR/>"Climate disruption" is better then adding "global" I think since the disruptions will be different for different regions.<BR/><BR/>RobRobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10375007307125560799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38838475.post-82191449399906683502008-09-17T20:35:00.000-05:002008-09-17T20:35:00.000-05:00A question: "Global climate disruption" or just p...A question: "Global climate disruption" or just plain "climate disruption"?<BR/><BR/>Also, I notice that in JH's slide presentations he uses "climate change" in a number of places where "climate disruption" could have been used. He also uses "*climatic* disruption" in a few places. Consistency will be a struggle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38838475.post-84492561969261556392008-09-17T19:51:00.000-05:002008-09-17T19:51:00.000-05:00I came up with "climate disruption" independently ...I came up with "climate disruption" independently in the comments to <A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=92" REL="nofollow">this</A> RealClimate guest post that mt put up a few years ago. I don't want to take too much credit since it's after all just the bleedin' obvious, but now that JH has been actively kicking the phrase around for a couple of years it is perhaps time to wonder why it hasn't gotten a speck of traction. The time would seem to be even more ripe given various recent results, in particular those of Hansen and co-authors.<BR/><BR/>I've been looking for a small organizing project to work on, and this may be it.<BR/><BR/>A few preliminary thoughts:<BR/><BR/>Maybe start with getting the new meme adopted by several of the major scientific organizations (AAAS, AGU, AMS, NAS if possible, just talking about the U.S. for now) followed by high-readership low-hanging fruit like the environmental press (total readership probably in the tens of millions), the science blogosphere and perhaps also the liberal blogosphere (DailyKos e.g.). <BR/><BR/>So what's needed? Two things that I can see: A manifesto with a bunch of big-name scientist signers and some market research showing that the change would actually accomplish something. One could start without the latter, but I think it's obvious that it would help grease things considerably. Perhaps there are some social scientists out there whose existing work bears on this to a degree. <BR/><BR/>The ScienceDebate2008 experience may provide a useful guide to organizing this, and of course some of them may be interested in this.<BR/><BR/>Here's an interesting <A HREF="http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/climate.htm" REL="nofollow">bit</A> of history; proof that grammar is the enemy of communication, to the extent we needed any. Even so, if JH still has the full list of signers it would come in very handy. <BR/><BR/>More later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38838475.post-75768821357408416872008-08-14T13:33:00.000-05:002008-08-14T13:33:00.000-05:00Hi Things,Thanks for catching that. I've update t...Hi Things,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for catching that. I've update the paragraph about Luntz. And thanks for the encouragement.<BR/><BR/>RobRobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10375007307125560799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38838475.post-66721347997269440102008-08-14T08:07:00.000-05:002008-08-14T08:07:00.000-05:00Minor criticism- "climate change" was not invented...Minor criticism- "climate change" was not invented by Luntz, although he did advocate its use instead of global warming, because he thought it <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange" REL="nofollow">sounded less dire than global warming</A> and so recommended that the Bush administration use it instead so as not to worry the silly voters. You can read the memo in question <A HREF="http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf" REL="nofollow">here (PDF)</A>.<BR/><BR/>Climate change goes back at least to the Charney report, and I believe there is a Carl Sagan authored paper in Science or Nature using the phrase that goes back even earlier (maybe '73?).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, glad to see you posting more!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com