| brandchannel.com

Should Global Warming be Renamed?

How about "Global Warning". Let's face it most people know the term "Global Warming" Changing it to much will require a new awareness effort. "Global Warning" is what is actually happening. Nature is warning us that if we don't change our environment willâ€¦and not to our liking.

lauren g - February 24, 2010

There already is another name. It's Climate Change. It explains why the east coast has record high levels of snow and Vancouver has very little. But neither name sounds like a bad thing. Maybe something else like the Human Extinction Threat with color coded warning levels would get more attention.

Ashley R - February 24, 2010

Most definately.. i shudder everyone someone on a cold day announces.. "we could do with some global warming, its freezing"..

ks - February 26, 2010

Global warming should be renamed global scamming because that is a far mor accurate description of what it is. It is an unproven theory, 32,000 scientists have signed a petition debunking it. 30,000 scientists are sue ing Al Gore for fraud. The IPCC have been caught fudging the figures and making false statements about melting Himilian glaciers, African crops yields and the Dutch land mass below sea level. They have been completely discredited and the part time head of that organisation sits on the boards on companies who stand to gain from carbon trading.. Its all about money and control. If increasing the level of atmospheric Co2 causes temperature to rise on this planet why has the temperature been dropping for the last 13 years ? why is it that for only 50 of the last 650 million years has atmospheric Co2 been lower than todays value and still the earth did not burn up. on the contrary Co2 levels have been 20 times todays value in the past and we had ice ages ??

michael daniels, owner, md distribution - February 27, 2010

I think a theoretical rebrand would only add fuel to the fire - the conspiracy-theorist greedy sceptics would love it. "What happened to global 'warming'?!?!"And doesn't global warming refer to the average global increase in temperature? Perhaps rather than a rebrand, more awareness and understanding of this fact needs to happen. Yes, in some parts it's unusually cold, but overall, the earth is warming and the sea level will rise.

Mark - February 27, 2010

YES! I am so tired of everyone denouncing global warming when it is cold outside. The term "climate change" is better, but not forceful or scary.

Perryn Olson, Sr. Graphic Designer, Design the Planet - February 27, 2010

Mark, conspiracy-theorist greedy sceptics ??
are you serious ? The greedy ones are the people who will benefit most from the carbon tax scam that is global warming. There are many recorded examples of scientists who were fired from their jobs when they came out against the mainstream. There are now thousands of scientists worldwide who receive enormous funding. It is very much in their intesests to keep this gravy train rolling. It takes great courage for a climate scientist to come out against this unproven theory. He or she is not only upsetting the apple cart for his or her colleagues but is also in danger of losing a job. It is now well known that sceptical papers were kept out of the climate journals by IPCC scientists so the whole peer review process of climate science is no longer valid. It
is not the "greedy Skeptics" who want to keep the third world in poverty by preventing them from burning their coal to produce cheap electricity like we in the west did and still do

michael daniels - February 27, 2010

Agree that neither "Warming" (no problem) nor "Change" (It's always been changing) communicate the crisis we are facing. Water is also at the heart of this with some countries drying up and others drowning. We need an "Idiots (or Dummies) Guide" to help people understand. For example, as the oceans warm, there is more moisture in the air, which means more precipitation. For example, as ice melts, forget your oceanfront property. A new name is part of this.

AOK - February 28, 2010

Let's keep moving this along. Top of mind awareness is good. Deeds are even more important than words. Every day let's drive the debate one step further toward collective action for a more sustainable world.

robin, branding guy - February 28, 2010

Global warming is indeed an irritating and misleading term to describe how earth's life supporting systems are in decline. The unintended consequences of growth result show a different face in different parts of the planet. With growing intensity we face extreme changes of climate and the term global warming does not express the character of these threats. It may even sound too friendly and nice to many.Thus "climate change", as Ahley rightly pointed out, delivers a much better description of what is going on with our planet.

Rudy Vetter, Principal, ecovation-consult - February 28, 2010

I agree with Friedman. However, because "Global Weirding" may sound histrionic to some, I suggest "climate change" or when warranted. "drastic climate change," or even "catastrophic climate change." We are talking about the severity of climate change, not a sunny day at the beach.

Burton Blume, Executive Strategy Director, AP, Interbrand - February 28, 2010

This debate speaks to the importance of naming in framing the debate. If we could turn the clock back, I'd vote for "Climate Collapse". Conveys more of a sense of urgency than "Global Warming".

Jo-Ann McArthur, Connection Architect, fisheye - March 1, 2010

Rename it "Global Swindle" or "Global Ego". The mere idea that, on the evolutionary time line of millions of years, man believes he can predict a changing climate from a relatively few data points collected over the last 100 years suggests egos out of control. As a previous poster (Mr. Daniels) suggested, many scientists have debunked it after learning more from Nature. Paleontologists often do the same after learning the bones studied came from a "bird" not a mammal. Its ok to be wrong, those driven by their egos on this one just won't admit it - too much to lose - credibility and ultimately their money.

D. Maiorana, Consultant, RunTheNumbers - March 1, 2010

Global Weirding is more accurate

- March 1, 2010

Bravo Michael.

Jimmy Capsasion, Creative Director, OneWorld - March 2, 2010

www.watchesxm.comCheap watcheswww.uggsoutletstores.comuggs outlet storeswww.cheap-uggs-online.netuggs onlinewww.shoesucn.com nike shoes

ugg boots, http://www.uggbootsforsale.net, df - March 6, 2010

Let's face it; we've been duped. The science was flawed, they assumed we'd follow our liberal leaders like sheep. We did, but now we won't. They're no better than the nutty far right.

The upside is that businesses understand that sustainability is a responsibility. Remarkably, they're taking the proper path and will lead us out of it.

Re/ the brand "Global Warming," it ought to just go away - its a black spot on the "liberal or nothing" agenda.

The Doctor - March 6, 2010

Thomas L. Friedman is not merely a "NY Times columnist". He is better known for his seminal book on globalization "The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century" (2006).

Alfred Quintano, Lecturer, University of Malta (Europe) - March 6, 2010

Climate chaos seems to sum it up quite well.

- March 6, 2010

Social media as a viable communication tool is here and it's being widely used for purposeful marketing in addition to it's social aspect. It is the job of every company to first and foremost
build their reputation by providing the very best products and customer service possible. That being accomplished, the good news about you should be the only news and a few sour comments will be recognized as just that and damage control shouldn't be necessary.

Jan Schippits, Marketing Manager / National Promotions, Bernina of America - March 18, 2010

Stop polluting our air land and water,You are killing us!My grandson calls it extreme weatherPaul the Smith

Paul Michael Roger Smith, Social Entrepeneur - March 23, 2010

Anyone ever ask the question, who's making money out of all this hype?I think this is what it's all about.

Anthony - March 29, 2010

back to debate

RSS

| Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | FAQ