As if we didn’t have enough problems with the atmosphere, now along come economists to rip off the rhetoric of climatology. Or so I argue in an op-ed in the Ventura County Star. Here’s the “nut graph,” as they say in journalism:
The more we discuss the economic crisis in terms
of the physical world, the less we discuss the climate crisis itself,
even though restoring balance in the atmosphere will be far more
difficult than reviving the faltering economy. It’s an alarming irony.
As we worry about our melting savings and our vanishing jobs, we forget
about melting icecaps and vanishing species.
If you like to double-check sources, check out a linked version of the op-ed.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Gourmet’s conscience, Gopnik on cookbooks, and other tasty morsels
Comments
View as Flat
Ted Clayton Posted 8:53 am
05 Mar 2009
I am reading your op-ed, linked in this post.
These metaphors, which you object to see used for purposes outside the climate-movement, have been used for a long time, in many contexts, often well-proceeding any adaptation to climate-discussions.
You cite "sustainable rates" as a phrase others (economists) are swiping from climate activism. But the truth is, sustain and sustainability and rate are concepts & terminology that has been in use separately and in combination for thousands of years. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic scriptures, for example, use these words extensively, in fully & overtly metaphoric senses. They are all signature-terminology, through several centuries of modern-science.
You then cite "adverse feedback loops", as though this terminology somehow became the property of climate-activists. In fact, feedback, feedback loops, and negative & positive feedback all became standard terminology in modern science & techology, centuries before contemporary climate-activism arose. There is absolutely nothing 'climate-proprietary' (or in any way unique) about 'feedback'.
"[B]roke the world" is an affront to climate-rhetoric? Oh no, not even close. 'Broke' [cited in the economic sense] is used from the top to the bottom of society to dramatize money-problems and other adversities - and has been since back in the mists of time!.
Likewise, metaphorical & allegorical allusions to 'the world' have been in vogue since way, long before Christopher Colombus' sailors worried about falling off the edge of it. Rhetorical & metaphorical references to 'the world' are universal in all human cultures, and have been since before they knew what the world is! Literally!
You say, "Last month, James Hansen ... coined a new term -- "The Venus Syndrome" ". Actually, 'venus syndrome' has been in use for a variety of meanings, for some time. Do a little Internet-checking, and you will see that a more accurate description would be that Dr. Hansen has tried to 'co-opt' or 're-brand' a phrase others have been using for their purposes, before he came along and found it handy for his own.
You object that people in other fields also use the word 'climate', without meaning the very same thing you would use it for. Well, Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for 'climate' ... because actually, 'climate' means several different things.
Anyone concerned or interested in the meaning & use of the word, go to The Free Dictionary entry for 'climate', and give it a quick read. Be sure to scan down through the Thesaurus section.
Kit, neither you nor the movement you embrace have control over the words of the language. Most of them have been & continue to be used in wide range of differing (not infrequently, "conflicting") ways.
To see it suggested in your articles that the climate-movement should try to defend nomenclature & usage in this way and under these assumptions, is really quite a novelty.
Kit, you don't even own or control the word that is your own name.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:58 am
05 Mar 2009
I'm waiting for USA Today to print a "Loon-O-Bar" in its weather map, indicating the current rate of Global Warming Alarmism (GWA) infecting the country.
Permalink