• Rufio@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Politicians and publications that acknowledge the climate crisis should probably start using that term instead of climate change then.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder if that is used intentionally? Like they would have a reason to make a narrative of denial?

      • Rufio@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s because the “fact” the the fossil fuel industry coined the term climate change is false.

        This is the preferred term by scientists, and it has been since before “global warming” became a term.

        • Kaijobu@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Calling it climate change implies it is of natural change. It belittles the criticality of the human induced influence. The fossil fuel industry knows exactly why they are calling it climate change and not climate crisis. Global warming is also, as much as climate change, scientifically correct, but let’s be honest. Since when does the industry care about scientifical facts? They use that in ill faith.

          • Techmaster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s called climate change because it’s more than global warming. A lot of things are changing, and they’re all bad. To just say global warming would be ignoring all of the other problems.

            • Kaijobu@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I agree. Global warming is one aspect of many of our current climate crisis. And it will become worse when politics won’t restrict the reign of fossil fuel industries.

          • billytheid@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We used to call it The Greenhouse Effect but that was way too scary so BP gave us this bs instead

          • Rufio@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fossil fuel industry denied climate change was happening at all for a long time after the term was being used by scientists.

          • Eheran@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it does not imply Natural causes. There is zero (implied or explicit) information as to why the change is happening. It is merely stating a fact.

            • Kaijobu@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I seem to have issues trying to convey my intention when I am highlighting why these industries use the term climate change now. I try it once more.

              ‘Climate is changing. It is something that has always happened. It’s natural. Climate change is completely normal.’ That is the implied meaning, especially by fossil fuel industries, which more than often try to shift the blame away from them by either making it a personal issue (carbon footprint) or describing it as a natural occurance. Intentionally ignoring their influence by burning resources and releasing damaging gases, raising temperatures, melting ice, damaging the saline conveyor belt.