Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment | Hacker News Reader

Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment

theguardian.com

53 pointsokket11 comments

Here is another one we should use: Recycling -> Downcycling (in most of the cases where it is used) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling

Glad that they've put their policies in writing. If only this could be done for other types of man-made events that are sanitized by diplomat-speak:

* Military invasion w/ 250k troops: "regime change"

* Widespread bombing campaign: "shock and awe"

* Drone attacks that kill civilians: "precision strikes"

* Societal breakdown and re-emergence of internecine conflict: "birth pangs of a new Middle East"

> “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue. [...] The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.”

The a term that precisely describes what is happening, does not rile up enough people, so inorder to improve "accuracy" they want to use buzz words.

it seems like they are more interested in improving "clicks" than "accuracy".

No, "climate change" is neither precise nor very accurate. It is not precise because it does not tell us anything about how the climate changing. "Climate emergency" is more precise because it tells us that climate is changing in a problematic manner that requires immediate action. "Global warming" is more precise because it tells us that the climate changes in that temperatures increase. And "global heating" is even more precise because it tells us that the earth warms too much.

"Climate change" and "global warming" are accurate on a semantic level but not on the level of pragmatics. In particular, people generally understand "warm" as "warm, but not hot".

Is it your view that the anthropogenic climate warming idea is a hoax?

For Americans, here's a petition aimed at US networks urging them to use more urgent language to describe the ongoing climate disaster: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/call-it-a-climate-crisis

Good. this is much more precise language.

Nothing they write is actionable, so I'm not sure how changing the language would affect anything. Imho it amounts to little else besides fear mongering, if there isn't actionable advice.

Of course it amounts to fearmongering. People are insufficiently afraid of global heating, fearmongering is appropriate.

If the media can fear monger about rare events it should definitely be fear mongering about guaranteed events.

What we need isn't fear, we need actionable advice to prevent it from happening. Fear solves nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com