Global Boiling: The Problem with Climate Terminology

As the climate crisis deepens, the issue turns into a climate hysteria, especially among some parties to the solution. The exaggerated and incomprehensible jargon (like global boiling) makes the issue difficult to understand. This causes it to become invisible to the masses.  

Scientists have been revealing the issue and its seriousness with an increasing data support for decades. But this is not enough to mobilize people and bring about the necessary transformation. The reason is the way the subject is expressed, the way it is told and of course its complexity…  

Naturally, no one can take a clear stand on these issues that they do not understand clearly. In fact, he distances himself further from the subject and rejects it with all possible defense mechanisms. The hypocrisy of states and institutions also fuels this situation. The dilemmas of those who do not match their words and actions create deep disappointments. More importantly, they cause a sense of ‘giving up.’ This feeling arises in those who think, speak, and act on these issues with good intentions.  

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres made a new statement. He said, “The era of global warming is over; the age of global boiling has arrived.” said. Where did boiling come from when we couldn’t even explain warming?  

The mind works in language.  

The mind works in language and its associations. When we say boiling, we think of a bubbling boil, right, just like pasta water. So, by ‘global boiling’ here, does he mean oceans and lakes boiling? Is the blue planet bubbling, which is 70 percent covered with water? Is there an observable example of this? Is the aim to frighten people even more with hysterical concepts? Does it push them into even more inaction? I wonder if the whole UN could create a concept that acts so counterproductively. They might not even understand the basics of communication discipline and persuasion processes!

Lets continue. What comes to mind when you think of the climate crisis? Does this concept stimulate a society that is used to crises? Can it affect a place that does not experience a crisis-free day? I don’t think so. What about climate justice? Is this an issue that will be on the agenda before the legal mechanism, that is, in the courthouses? When we say justice, don’t judges and lawyers come to mind first? Isn’t this concept too loose for societies where justice is not taken as a basis?  

That is, new and more effective definitions are needed for these issues. On the other hand, disaster scenarios such as ‘boiling’ written on it make the subject even more invisible. They do not make an impact on people.  

It is also necessary to realize there is no benefit in insulting the intelligence of ordinary people. Blaming them with accusations of selfishness and ignorance is not helpful. This is one of the biggest dangers in this regard. Because the subject is so big and important that it cannot be just the appetizer of the elite. Its sphere of influence is all humanity…        

Communications on duty…  

Let me repeat what I’ve always said. I think the solution is in organized communication. To reduce the problem, the communication discipline needs to work in partnership with other social disciplines. This collaboration will construct clear formulas that bring profitability to the masses.  

Every subject remains shallow enough that it won’t even wet the trousers. It focuses on ‘a tree’, ‘a forest’, ‘a wild fire’, and ‘okay, the weather has warmed up’.