During the 1970s, the scientific community created two new terms: global warming (the increase in the Earth's average surface temperature) and climate change (a long-term change in the Earth's climate). * Politicians used the term "global warming" to describe the issue in their communications.

I believe the motivation of the politicians was to describe the problem as a measurable asset. To persuade the public, scientists would use the results of their calculations regarding global warming as physical proof. However, this method was unsuccessful. People are more likely to believe personal experiences than scientific truths. If it rains in the summer or there are more chilly days in the winter, people ask, "It is freezing here. Where is global warming?" They count the three coldest days instead of the twenty-seven hottest days in a month.

I believe the concept of global warming has another flaw. If the issue is widespread, "what can I personally do?" In this discussion, "what role does my country play? Isn't it above nations?" People will think a global solution is required if the problem is presented worldwide.

"Climate change" presents a different narrative. This definition places a greater emphasis on the personal effect of results than on purely technical justifications.

We all feel comfortable in the status quo. Change is something we dislike and perceive as a threat. Redesigning our strategy for dealing with this issue requires redefining "global warming" as "climate change." In my opinion, telling the tale that "Fossil fuels generate carbon emissions, which cause greenhouse effects, which cause global warming, which will cause climate change" is an indirect storytelling technique. It drains people's motivation to act to stop global warming.

This post is for subscribers only

Sign up now to read the post and get access to the full library of posts for subscribers only.

Sign up now Already have an account? Sign in