Indeed. Whilst many people (such as AlsaValderaan, based on their comment) understand this, there are also people who don’t seem to understand that unpredictability and more extreme weather is evidence of climate change, not against it.
As you say, “global warming” hasn’t been used by scholars in and adjacent to the field in many years, but the term and it’s connotations seem to have stuck in people’s heads. As a scientist, I have an instinct to say “this is a messaging problem, and if scientists better understood how to use rhetoric, perhaps people would have a better understanding of climate change”. However, I think that’s an incorrect instinct that only exists as a form of “cope”.
I do think that scientists, on average, need to get better at communicating their research to laypeople and policy makers. However, it low-key feels like victim blaming to lay responsibility for muddy public understanding of climate change, given that the primary cause of this is moneyed interests who stand to profit from the ongoing rape of the planet’s ecosystems.
My expertise isn’t in a climate related field, but I have friends who do work in that sphere, and it feels like there’s a sort of collective trauma amongst researchers (I mean above and beyond the despair that many of us feel at political negligence exacerbating the climate crisis). I can’t imagine how it must feel to go to a conference and present some research that says “this extremely specific thing that I am a hyper specialised expert on is at risk of permanent loss, here is what needs to happen”, and find that despite unanimous agreement, and everyone else there is shit scared because they have their own hyper specific objects of expertise that are at risk for the exact same reasons; nothing will change because you’re preaching to the choir.
There are scientists who are good at shouting at public policy makers, but they’re outnumbered and outspended by the people and corporations that want more profit. Sometimes people fight for years to implement a particular scheme, but it gets corrupted along the way — usually not from a malicious sabotage of climate action kind of way, but through the kind of bureaucratic incompetence that arises when the people steering the ship fundamentally don’t care about the aims of a project. Policies get progressively watered down, or completely distorted from their original aims. It’s depressing as hell.
Honestly, the only reason I’m still alive is spite. I don’t think climate change will eradicate humanity, but it will put countless lives and ecosystems in jeopardy. For all my privilege, I know that to the ones in power, I am just as much an acceptable sacrifice on the altar to profit as a Bangladeshi textile worker, or a Congolese cobalt miner. The assholes with money are probably going to win this war against most of the planet, but ironically, they’re some of the least well equipped for climate resilience — money only gets you so far at the end of the world, after all.
Indeed. Whilst many people (such as AlsaValderaan, based on their comment) understand this, there are also people who don’t seem to understand that unpredictability and more extreme weather is evidence of climate change, not against it.
As you say, “global warming” hasn’t been used by scholars in and adjacent to the field in many years, but the term and it’s connotations seem to have stuck in people’s heads. As a scientist, I have an instinct to say “this is a messaging problem, and if scientists better understood how to use rhetoric, perhaps people would have a better understanding of climate change”. However, I think that’s an incorrect instinct that only exists as a form of “cope”.
I do think that scientists, on average, need to get better at communicating their research to laypeople and policy makers. However, it low-key feels like victim blaming to lay responsibility for muddy public understanding of climate change, given that the primary cause of this is moneyed interests who stand to profit from the ongoing rape of the planet’s ecosystems.
My expertise isn’t in a climate related field, but I have friends who do work in that sphere, and it feels like there’s a sort of collective trauma amongst researchers (I mean above and beyond the despair that many of us feel at political negligence exacerbating the climate crisis). I can’t imagine how it must feel to go to a conference and present some research that says “this extremely specific thing that I am a hyper specialised expert on is at risk of permanent loss, here is what needs to happen”, and find that despite unanimous agreement, and everyone else there is shit scared because they have their own hyper specific objects of expertise that are at risk for the exact same reasons; nothing will change because you’re preaching to the choir.
There are scientists who are good at shouting at public policy makers, but they’re outnumbered and outspended by the people and corporations that want more profit. Sometimes people fight for years to implement a particular scheme, but it gets corrupted along the way — usually not from a malicious sabotage of climate action kind of way, but through the kind of bureaucratic incompetence that arises when the people steering the ship fundamentally don’t care about the aims of a project. Policies get progressively watered down, or completely distorted from their original aims. It’s depressing as hell.
Honestly, the only reason I’m still alive is spite. I don’t think climate change will eradicate humanity, but it will put countless lives and ecosystems in jeopardy. For all my privilege, I know that to the ones in power, I am just as much an acceptable sacrifice on the altar to profit as a Bangladeshi textile worker, or a Congolese cobalt miner. The assholes with money are probably going to win this war against most of the planet, but ironically, they’re some of the least well equipped for climate resilience — money only gets you so far at the end of the world, after all.