/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14763130
That's unironically what they are doing. The memo for George W. Bush reads
>"Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming." [..] climate change sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale." While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

And what do conservatives do today?
>>14762894
>they figured out "climate change" can be used to blame any weather on their consistently failed apocalypse predictions.

First they downplay the dangers of global warming by changing the terminology to something more soothing and then say that the evil scientists did it to scare people even more.

>>14762894
>When "global warming" also turned out to be unfounded bullshit, they figured out "climate change" can be used to blame any weather on their consistently failed apocalypse predictions.
The opposite is true. It a was the deniers and downplayers who pushed for the change in phrasing. George W. Bush pushed the term climate change because it is "less frightening" (page 12 of docrel, although the entire thing is worth reading. This is first-hand evidence on how conservatives work on their anti-science strategy).


https://theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

>>14698936
>The Guardian is literally no more or less credible than /pol/,
Here, without Guardian or anything.

>>14682779
Good little drone
>The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science
>“Climate change’’ is less frightening than “global waming” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.