For decades, scientists have been warning the public about the risks of climate change, yet a breakthrough is still awaited. Although there have been many advances in regulation, politicians respond slowly and too mildly. It seems that a communication gap has developed between climate scientists, the public, and policymakers - Bálint Forgács, an associate professor at the PPK, proposes solutions to bridge this gap in his study published in the Frontiers in Climate journal.

Researchers often use metaphorical expressions when communicating their scientific results to make their discoveries more understandable to both their colleagues and laypeople. However, according to the researcher

metaphors are not always effective in science communication:

they can cause misunderstandings and, in some cases – for example, in climate discourse – can be particularly harmful.

One of the key problems with soft language is that many of the most common climate-related words have positive emotional connotations ("warm", "green", "eco-friendly"), and thus do not effectively prompt changes to our current life-threatening modalities and established political-economic processes. Instead of the positively connoted "warming", Bálint Forgács suggests the words "global burning" or "overheating".

Expressions that downplay the scale of the threat, such as "climate neutrality" or "net zero emissions", also do not help in finding solutions. These softening expressions are often used by companies that are responsible for a significant portion of harmful emissions.

The words "catastrophe", "crisis", "collapse" all have a passive tone: they suggest helplessness against the forces of nature. In contrast, active-toned expressions could not only convey responsibility but also the possibility of action: transitioning to terms like "climate suicide" or "climate destruction" would be worthwhile because we have control over our own behavior, the researcher concludes.

One of the central metaphors of the climate discourse is the "greenhouse": a fragile, elegant structure designed to retain heat. It protects plants, provides food in cold climates – if applied to life-threatening climate change, it understandably causes some confusion. This metaphor – falsely – might also suggest that reversing overheating is as simple as opening a greenhouse window. According to the article, a term like "furnace effect" would be more challenging to neutralize – even deliberately, driven by business interests.

Thanks to inappropriate, distant scientific, cold and objective framing, combined with the increasing frequency of climate anxiety, the discussion of the worst-case scenarios of climate change is often dismissed as alarmism or fear-mongering. To counter this, Bálint Forgács suggests the application of medical language: in such a framework, mentioning emergencies would be considered a life-saving intervention, not scaremongering. In the event of a fever attack, doctors strive first to lower the patient's body temperature, not to speculate on various scenarios of impending death – the same should be done regarding the Earth's rising temperature. From the perspective of humanity and technological civilization, climate change is just as existential an issue as our bodily health.

The goal, therefore, is not to abandon the use of metaphors that encapsulate scientific results, but to ensure that our expressions reflect the weight of the existential threat. Indeed,

the way we talk about climate change affects how we think about it.

Therefore, scientists and journalists should use new, powerful, clear, negative-emotion-laden, and actively toned expressions instead of euphemistic ones. Such a transformation in public discourse could not only result in an honest societal debate but also lead to life-saving political decisions and awaited legal regulations.

Cover image: istock