In the latest issue of the journal Public Understanding of Science, Lorraine Whitmarsh from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK, publishes a study that finds that the terms "climate change" versus "global warming" matter to public perceptions. In a mail survey of a representative sample of 590 residents from the Portsmouth, UK region, Whitmarsh gave half the participants a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the risks and impacts of "climate change" and the other half of the sample a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the risks and impacts of "global warming."
From the article, here's a summary of the findings:
The term "global warming" is more often associated with:
â heat-related impacts--in particular, temperature increase and melting icebergs and glaciers;
â human causes--including pollution, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, CFCs, fossil
fuel consumption, cars/traffic fumes, and overuse or misuse of earth's resources;
â ozone depletion and increased ultraviolet (UV) light penetration of the atmosphere;
â trapping of heat or gases within the atmosphere and the "greenhouse effect."The term "climate change" is more readily associated with:
â a range of impacts on climate and the weather, including hotter summers, wetter winters,
increased rainfall and drought, and impacts on agriculture/food supply;
â impacts that have already been observed;
â natural causes.
Later in their conclusion, they provide this additional summary of their findings:
"Global warming" is more often believed to have human causes and tends to be associated with ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and heat-related impacts, such as temperature increase and melting icebergs and glaciers. The term "climate change" is more readily associated with natural causes and a range of impacts. Furthermore, the term "global warming" evokes significantly more concern, and is rated as "very important" by more respondents, than the term "climate change." Finally, more people consider individual or public action to be an effective means of tackling "global warming than do so for "climate change"; while a higher proportion believe planting trees could mitigate "climate change" than it could mitigate "global warming."
The study provides evidence for what many people have surmised: That labels do matter to the climate change debate. The local population of Portsmouth sampled in this study is obviously not representative of the national audiences in the UK and the US, but my strong hypothesis would be that a similarly designed study in the US is likely to turn up similar key perceptual differences. Indeed, as part of his audience research earlier this decade, conservative strategist Frank Luntz recommended that switching terms from "global warming" to "climate change" would be an effective way for climate skeptics to downplay the urgency of the issue.
The thorny question is what to do about this perceptual reality? For one, the more scientifically accurate term is climate change, so from an ethical standpoint, it would be wise for science institutions and scientists to stick with this label, despite the less impactful nature of the phrase. On the other hand, if you are a political strategist working to mobilize concern on climate change, switching to the phrase "global warming" might be to your advantage.
Still, we are likely to be stuck with each of these interchangeable and imperfect labels moving forward. Coming up with a third phrase such as the "climate crisis" or " dangerous climate disruption" is unlikely to earn widespread adoption and may strike key audiences as an attempt at political marketing, undercutting credibility and public trust. Moreover, we have little to no data on the effectiveness of these alternative terms. Indeed, a term such as the "climate crisis," or even the emphasis on "dangerous disruption" might spark immediate resistance among some key swing audience segments, who may dismiss the terms as alarmist.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
One thing I've noticed in particular when talking to people is that a lot of people who would otherwise run the "...but it's cold outside today, so much for 'global warming,' haw haw!" number on you will actually stop and think about what you're saying if you use the term "climate change." Like, "Gee, we didn't used to have [massively spreading deserts/melting glaciers/drowning polar bears/warm winters in cold climates/"hundred year storms" annually] when I was a kid..."
While "global warming" is an accurate description of the cause of the phenomenon, that's not what most people see and relate to, and "climate change" is a much more accurate description of the effects of global warming, which people see around themselves every day, once you remind them to look, at any rate. For that reason alone, I think "climate change" is a much more effective framing, since lay people on average tend to confuse or conflate the term "global warming" with some kind of runaway heating effect, which is not necessarily the case. (Here in the Southwestern Ontario microclimate, we're seeing hotter summers and colder winters, with spring and fall disappearing to about a week on each end of summer/winter, which is not at all what most lay people think of as "global warming.")
It's an interesting conundrum - I tend to use the two terms interchangeably and deliberately switch between the two during a single conversation to emphasize that they're really the same thing. I agree that climate change is a better technical term, but I usually don't feel an obligation to stick with a technical term in a non-technical conversation.
Interrobang,
It's important to distinguish what can be attributed to the warming trend, what can't, and what we don't know to be in either camp. The colder winters recently don't seem to have anything to do with the long term trend - there's simply been some relatively cold years recently. This is good old fashioned drunk-walking in the context of an upward trend as far as I can tell. Trying to read every little variation in weather as some side effect of the warming trend sets you up to look foolish, since the amount of variation in weather guarantees that sooner or later you'll get some short term or local variation that goes against the broader trends.
That's why I perfer to use global warming - it refers to a specific long term trend in global temperatures that can be explained in terms of known mechanisms and will likely be a major problem if left unabated. The trend won't necessarily be clear when looking at microclimate and short term changes but is obvious when you look at the average global temperature over the long term.
Perhaps she should have checked the Tyndall records and she would have found the answers without going to the trouble of publishing this paper
Working Paper 58 - The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change Dennis Bray and Simon Shackley, September 2004. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Some pertinent extracts:
This paperâ¦.. presents a quantitative dynamic simulation model of the social construction of a quasi-reality. By quasi-reality we mean a reality that thus far is defined by expert knowledge and is surrounded by uncertainty.
Global warming (or climate change) is, without elaboration, a much debated and contested issue. Not only is it contested among scientists, but also among all those with vested interests.
We suggest that, in the realm of the public, forces act to maintain or denounce a perceived reality which has already been constructed. That is, an issue introduced by science (or media for that matter) needs continual expression of confirmation if it is to be maintained as an issue.
Science, of course, has framed the issue of climate change/global warming.
In this paper, we explore under what conditions belief in global warming or climate change, as identified and defined by experience, science and the media, can be maintained in the publicâs perception.
Science in the last few decades has popularized the issue of climate change and/or global warming. The issue itself has the potential of significant ramification not only in the expression of weather events but also in changes in socio-economic policy concerning either or both of adaptation and mitigation strategies.
As the science itself is contested, needless to say, so are the potential policy changes. So how then do people make sense or construct a reality of something that they can never experience in its totality (climate) and a reality that has not yet manifest (i.e. climate change)?
To endorse policy change people must âbelieveâ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.
Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.
Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.
We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.
http://www.junkscience.com/feb06/Spinning_temperature_out_of_control.pdf
I suggest that the term Global Warming only has more impact because it has been in use longer and has more horror story scenarios linked to it in people's minds. Given time I am sure the term Climate Change will have the same associations, especially when / if we start to see significant impacts on our daily lives as a result of it.
If the time period under discussion is the past century, 'warming' is more accurate because the climate is warming, and warming is more specific a description than 'change'.
If the region under discussion is the whole of the Earth, than 'global' is more accurate because it specifies the region, and does so correctly. 'climate change' could apply to any region - the Atlantic, the Pacific, New York, Bangladesh - etc.
As a rule of thumb - 'climate change' is not more accurate, unless the topic is specific to a region not the globe, or not specific to the last century or so.
No the more scientifically accurate term is global warming, because the theory specifically deals with the globe warming in response to C02 increase.
And before you rewrite history, it was the proponents who rebranded to climate change and abortively to climate crises.
Global warming. Climate change. These are incomplete expressions.
I propose CACA (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alteration). This covers everything.
Some proper uses of the acronym:
- "Some are into antiques. Some are into sports. Albert
Gore is into CACA."
- "NASA's James Hansen is a CACA expert."
- Exchange between 2 climatologists:
"How's that CACA study going?"
"Please wait until I get out of the latrine."
Climate change is a serious problem. All governments need to address it.
In the Bronze Age Joseph (with the Technicolour Dreamcoat) told Pharaoh that climate has always changed everywhere: it always will. He told Pharaoh to prepare for bad times when in good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy throughout the millennia since.
Itâs a sensible policy because people merely complain at taxes in good times. They revolt if short of food in bad times. But several governments have abandoned it and, instead, are trying to stabilise the climate of the entire Earth by controlling it.
This attempt at global climate control arises from the hypothesis of anthropogenic (that is, man-made) global warming (AGW).
AGW does not pose a global crisis but the policy does, because it threatens constraint of fossil fuels and that constraint would kill millions â probably billions â of people.
Thereâs no evidence for man-made global warming; none, not any of any kind.
The existence of global warming is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming because warming of the Earth doesnât prove humanâs warmed it. At issue is whether humans are or are not affecting changes to the Earthâs temperature that have always happened naturally.
Anybody who looks at the records of global temperature can see a series of cycles that are overlaid on each other. For example:
1. There seems to be an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP).
And
2. There seems to be an apparent ~60 year oscillation that caused cooling to ~1910, then warming to ~1940, then cooling to ~1970, then warming to ~2000, then cooling since.
So, has the warming from the LIA stopped or not? That cannot be known because the pattern of past global temperature fluctuations suggest that the existing cooling phase of the ~60 year cycle is opposing any such warming. And that cooling phase can be anticipated to end around 2030 when it can be anticipated that then either
(a) warming from the LIA will continue until we reach temperatures similar to those of the MWP
or
(b) cooling will set in until we reach temperatures similar to those of the LIA.
Richard
It is always disheartening to see so much analysis based on false assumptions as we do in relation to global warming. The "theory" of man-made global warming was never actually a scientific theory at all. It was a hypothesis that did not stand up to real-world data. The "science" behind it was / is incredibly bad - as is typically the case with scientific study driven by political interests. A desire to bring the fundamentals of global economics more directly under the control of political insiders (in effect, a political class controlling the means of production) lead to creation of a virtual science of global warming in a virtual world (computer models). Political interests quickly hyped their fictional scare scenarios as proven science. There is no cause for alarm or expensive political action - yet investments are made in more effectively convincing the public that there is. Organized crime has become very sophisticated indeed.
Human being is destroying himself by his own hands: http://inspirationwriting.blogspot.com/2009/07/scientific-studies-showe…
I find it very amusing that you blame a conservative for the change from "global warming" to "climate change."
Of course, it's the advocates of the threat of anthropogenic global warming via CO2 who favor the term climate change and now insist on using it themselves. "Climate change" allows them to claim every heat wave, flood, cyclone as "part of the problem." Late snow in Swedish ski resorts? Climate change! Floods in north Africa? Climate change! Drought in north Africa? Climate change!
And you have the nerve to blame conservatives for changing the term? It's remarkable you can do it with a straight face.
It's not a matter of which one is the "more accurate term". The two terms actually mean two different things and the problem is that people are using them interchangeably.
See http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html.