I kind of agree with the larger point about story telling vs evidence, but this cuts both ways. Your specific example about global warming vs climate change has a history in the US, but in the other direction (excerpt from internal Republican strategy memo):
> “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change sounds like “you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it [1]
> The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced. [2]
Reading the memo, he also goes on to suggest that the scientific consensus is closing against them, but the public is still uncertain, so there’s a window of opportunity for the party to spread doubt about this, and finding and promoting counter-experts works best.
I think, at the time, all these strategies were effective.
To be fair to (the strategist) Frank Luntz, he later had a change of heart, and now does the same stuff for policies on the other side of the issue.
[1] https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/45/LuntzResearch.Memo.p...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.c...
Actually my example was to show that"both directions" are equally dumb and manipulative in terms of how they're politicizing the issue. Taxing us normal citizens for carbon emissions just as a feel good mechanism (concentrically just like those idiotic lockdowns) while creating exemptions for the themselves and their fellow sleazeballs who go to climate change summits on private jets.
In my view, most people probably wouldn't have an opinion on climate science absent external influence, since they don't encounter it in their day-to-day life. So, various groups vie for influence (academia, businesses, political parties, media outlets, etc) and that determines public opinion. But just because both sides try to influence the public, I wouldn't say they are the same - which side is closer to the facts seems like a separate issue than how public opinion works.
From your other comments:
> One very telling thing I always find extremely jarring and annoying is the term "climate change denier"
> which is to say that the "science is settled", againt acting as if it's an undeniable fact that their interpretation of the data and evidence is not questionable
> It's beyond idiotic imo to think that bending facts or coercing an agenda will get us any good
It sounds like you might be skeptical (although I'm not sure). I can only share some facts I have found convincing:
- 97-100% of climate scientists think global warming is real [1]
- The greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known for 100 years [2]
- Burning fossil fuels emits CO2, and we use a lot of fossil fuels
- We can measure historical CO2 by looking at air bubbles trapped in the ice in Antartica. It also correlates with estimated temperatures (by using isotopes like Deuterium). [3] [4]
- We already have ~25% higher CO2 concentrations than the entire ice core record going back 800,000 years. This increase happened in the last ~60 years. [5]
Didn't down vote you BTW.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat...
[2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-talking...
[3] http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-co...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...
"Storytelling" is a bad way to argue any point.
Depends on your definition of storytelling, but generally this is just false.
Most people simply don’t have enough relevant education to even know what to make of the raw data.
One very telling thing I always find extremely jarring and annoying is the term "climate change denier" as if it's some sort of a fucking belief system, a church, or a religion.
So no, I don’t think just laying out raw facts with no context and explanation and simply hoping everyone educates themselves is good enough.
Ideally, the storytelling around the data is the educational part. It should explain what this data means and why people should care by releasing it to things they do understand.
Again, it's not a matter of belief. When you call them "unbeliever" you're inviting doubt into it. This also goes to another vexing thing on the issue of how the general uneducated public deals with "climate change", the likes of online warriors and talking-point media personality and politicians, which is to say that the "science is settled", againt acting as if it's an undeniable fact that their interpretation of the data and evidence is not questionable. This too will not help prevent further damage to the environment, no the opposite imo, it's one of the main reasons people continue to talk and talk and talk, and no actual preventative measures are being taken that actually can make a difference. All of this is because the issue was politicized by almost all sides from the beginning.
This is exactly the kind of mentality that's giving fire power to the corporations and the people behind them that give two shits about the environment, the future of the planet, or life quality of next generations, to come up with counter propaganda that sways people the other way. So far it's working. It's beyond idiotic imo to think that bending facts or coercing an agenda will get us any good.