Climate Change or Climate Crisis?
On science communication, framing messages and use of terminology
The Guardian has changed some terminologies for articles about the climate crisis. Why did they do that and is a step in the right direction?
Let’s start by taking a short look at language as a communication tool.
“The urgency of climate crisis needed robust new language to describe it” — Paul Chadwick
Framing the message
Facts and data in itself do usually not make an interesting story without context or an angle: this is the framing. Even presenting data in a graph or a chart requires some knowledge for visual representation, and choice of dimensions or categories shown, for it to be more understandable.
On one hand, scientists would like to “stick to the data” and let the readers find their own context for the data and reflect upon it. On the other hand, it might be that the meaning of the data will get lost, since it requires skills and time for reflection, to put it into a context. Therefore, it is usually not only helpful but also necessary to frame scientific information.
Terminology
Another thing to consider is the terminology of the language. The only language that is truly objective is math, which on the other hand is not easily understood by a layman.
Our natural languages are not neutral and objective. Words are filled with values and can be understood differently, not only depending on their context in the information but also the reader's context such as his background, values, and beliefs. This can not only differ from person to person, group to group but also change for individuals during their life and through new experiences.
The choices we make for the terminology that we use in our communication can deeply affect the reaction we get from the reader.
From “Climate change” to “Climate crisis”
This is exactly why the Guardian has changed their use of terminology in their articles about climate change.
