This article links to a podcast and to a website that advertizes buttons with the slogan: "It's not global warming. It's global dying."
The funny thing is, this website is pro-global warming activism. And it objects to the hysteria.
From the article:
The primary problem with the language used by many global warming campaigners is that it’s not relevant to people: It frames the climate and environment as separate from us. We see clumsy language like “healthy climate,” “safe climate,” and “impact on the climate” too often. Hopefully “global dying” will be just a fleeting addition to that list.The desperate need to play with words, create new euphemisms (remember hearing "collateral damage" for "we accidentally killed a lot of innocent civilians," anyone?), and generally "reframe" the argument are the tactics of the losing side.
The pro-abortion movement have used multiple euphemisms (NARAL Pro-Choice has changed its name 3 or 4 times in its history). "Pro-life" has not. Which side is "winning?"
The article above has a link to an article advocating this kind of reframing.
Advocates need to build a narrative based on relevant, simple, and uncontroversial language. Something not just to fight against, but to fight for: clean air and water, better food, new jobs, and less life-threatening weather events."Pollution" mostly refers to carbon dioxide emissions, the product of respiration which virtually every organism uses.
“Pollution”, “health”, “creating jobs”, and “extreme weather” are words that have been tested by Drew Westen and in various research projects I’ve been involved in with Alex Frankel & Associates. They beat global warming and climate change every time.
"Health" refers to scaring people who are elderly, or have asthma or other lung conditions, or have children (diseases and disasters are unspecified).
“Impact on the climate” we really mean impact on people. And instead of talking about rising temperatures and sea levels, we should be talking about more floods, wildfires, and hurricanes. [In other words, scare people.]If your models have failed, if the facts do not support you, if people are tired of 20 years of screeching; change the subject.
Anthropogenic global warming. AGW. "Anthropogenic" means human-generated. This is too "science-y," too specific, and too clumsy. It is usually shortened to merely global warming, with the "human-caused" part assumed. The nice thing about the shortening is that if not all of global warming is human caused, then it is still "global warming" and "something must be done!"
Climate change. Again, for the activist, it is assumed that this means "human-generated climate change due to global warming." The problem is that earth is always undergoing climate change. It is always posting new temperature highs and lows. It is always experiencing floods, droughts, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events. Extreme weather is normal.
Global weirding. Immediate predecessor to global dying. Another attempt to capture the normal dynamics of weather and convert them into climate change so that activists have something to shout about (see Al Gore's hysterical take on Hurricane Katrina, as an example).
Hat tip article: Global Warming Gets New Catch-Phrase And Logo: “It’s Not Warming, It’s Dying”…
Ultimate hat tip to Vic at AoSHQ: AGW: The stupid it burns. These idiots will not give up.