First, it was “global warming” and/or “global cooling.” Then when they figured out that they couldn’t accurately predict which way it was going to go, they settled on “climate change.” Apparently, that phrase just doesn’t have the oomph it once did, and the church of climate change wants to rebrand their apocalypse to make people far more scared and subsequently, obedient.
An article by Aaron Hall in AdAge asked the question of whether or not people will be more apt to fall in line with the climate alarmists if they take out the neutral-sounding “climate change” and replace it with something you might hear Chicken Little screaming:
Scientific terms often fail to resonate in meaningful ways. In the early 1900s, for example, no one had heard of the “hypothesis of the primeval atom.” That changed in the 1940s when the term “Big Bang” was coined, which was a simpler, more relatable concept for the masses. This complex scientific concept is extremely well-known today because a better, more tangible term was applied to it. Can we use lessons from the naming of the Big Bang to rebrand “climate change?”
Interestingly, Hall notes that politicians liked “global warming” because it sounded dynamic and scary, but since it was “too easy to poke holes in” they decided to move on to climate change. People began joking about wanting global warming whenever it got too cold outside and the politicians, much like the devil himself, can’t stand it when people laugh at them.
Hall, being a “professional namer,” wondered allowed about whether or not people would take the church of climate change more seriously if he renamed it to sound scarier. He said that the new name needs to appeal to people who are unscientific to help them understand the severity of the problem and “inspire them to make more eco-friendly life choices and pro-climate choices at the ballot box.”
In other words, it needs to scare people into voting Democrat.
What did his team of global namers come up with? A bunch of names that sound like bad B-Movie titles.
Global Meltdown, Global Melting
These options are subtle brand shifts from “global warming,” yet they deliver a more negative image. The names signal that ice caps are melting, but also create a more visceral image in the mind — that real feeling of “melting” when it’s too hot outside. A meltdown is a disastrous event that draws from the ultimate terror of a nuclear meltdown, an apt metaphor for global destruction. In naming, we call metaphorical names “suggestive names,” and they are one of the most popular types of names.
Climate Collapse, Climate Chaos
Good brand names instill a clear message or even a direct call to action. Perhaps that’s why climate change isn’t powerful enough: “Change” sounds so neutral. However, there’s nothing neutral about collapse or chaos. Both are states of events that you absolutely want to avoid. They ask each of us to do what it takes to avoid collapsing or descending into chaos. They both also use alliteration — using the same letter or sound at the beginning of connected words — a naming trick proven to enhance memorability.
Boiling Point, Melting Point
Arresting brand names often capitalize on vivid visual associations. They refer to a tipping point that we’re catapulting toward and must find a way to avert. Because a boiling point is the point at which liquid vaporizes, it brings forth imagery of rivers, lakes and oceans boiling and disappearing. “Melting Point” paints a clear picture of solid matter melting. As glaciers melt and disappear, so does our way of life.
It’s time to take the gloves off and stop pretending. Sometimes a brand name needs to be hyperbolic to truly capture hearts and minds. If we don’t take massive action now, Earth will be uninhabitable — an irreversible barren wasteland. Plants and animals will die. Humans won’t be able to survive extreme weather like floods, droughts and fires. If we don’t change, we won’t even be able to spend time outside. “Scorched Earth” paints the direst picture of what’s to come and what we must avoid and is likely the edgiest brand name from our exploration.
Those were just the winners. Hall gives an honorable mention to these as well:
Emission Critical: Focuses on the action we need to take: reducing emissions.
Planet Critical: Draws on a familiar concept of a critical condition.
Pre-Extinction: Powerful and suggests another mass extinction is imminent if we do not change our ways today.
The Great Collapse: The collapse of ecosystems, economies and our way of life.
Earthshattering: Creatively arresting — the complete destruction of the Earth as we know it.
What’s the takeaway from all this?
Not that climate change is going to end the world. It’s not. No real scientific data points to that fact.
The takeaway here is that there are actually people out there trying to worry you into obedience and support for a leftist agenda, and in order to do that they’re willing to play with your brain by changing up the words they use. As you see above, Hall even admits that they’re willing to get hyperbolic in order to make you scared.