Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Oxford Dictionaries Declares 'Climate Emergency' the Word of 2019 (theguardian.com) 118

Posted by msmash from the for-the-record dept.
Oxford Dictionaries has declared "climate emergency" the word of the year for 2019, following a hundred-fold increase in usage that it says demonstrated a "greater immediacy" in the way we talk about the climate. From a report: Defined as "a situation in which urgent action is required to reduce or halt climate change and avoid potentially irreversible environmental damage resulting from it," Oxford said the words soared from "relative obscurity" to "one of the most prominent -- and prominently debated -- terms of 2019." According to the dictionary's data, usage of "climate emergency" soared 10,796%. Oxford said the choice was reflective, not just of the rise in climate awareness, but the focus specifically on the language we use to discuss it. The rise of "climate emergency" reflected a conscious push towards language of immediacy and urgency, the dictionary said. In 2019, "climate" became the most common word associated with "emergency," three times more than "health emergency" in second.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oxford Dictionaries Declares 'Climate Emergency' the Word of 2019 More

Oxford Dictionaries Declares 'Climate Emergency' the Word of 2019

Comments Filter:

  • Who's going to break it to them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, 2019 @09:03AM (#59442544)
    That's two words
    • I was thinking the exact same thing. And to think, a dictionary are the ones that said that.

      And people wonder why society is dumming down.

    • That's two words

      If what I learned in English Grammar is still correct, it is in fact what is called "a phrase".

    • And for those protesting that âoeclimate emergencyâ is two words, as the Australian Broadcasting Corporationâ(TM)s resident linguist explained in 2017, single words can consist of two parts. Such multipart constructions, like âoeheart attackâ, âoeman-of-warâ or the 2017 American Dialect Society word of the year âoefake newsâ, are commonly accepted by linguists as words.

      Not that this clears things up about the use of word for words at least it was addressed in

      • Re:Who's going to break it to them (Score:4, Informative)

        by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Friday November 22, 2019 @09:43AM (#59442744)

        "heart attack" and "fake news" are both two words as well. If the American Dialect Society also cannot count, that is their problem. "Man-of-war" is one word, because it is hyphenated.

        • Hyphens are not letters in the same way that spaces are not letters. Ignoring that quibble, all this is related to the concept of open compound words in English.

          There are lots of compound words, both open and closed. Where the combined words take on a different or more specific meaning than individual component words. Any example would be "post office". You'll find that one in the dictionary as well. It is of course related to the words "post" and "office", but a "post office" is also distinct from either o

          • Some examples include; all right, Boy Scouts, disc jockey, heart attack, high school, high school, hot dog, ice cream, land mine, light bulb, living room, living room, never mind, no one, peanut butter, post office, real estate, rib cage, ring finger, school bus, square root, sweet tooth, tennis court, vacuum cleaner, voice box, and waiting room.

            And those are all terms that are composed of words.

    • Cut Msmash some slack; this "editing" business wasn't supposed to require math
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Maths education emergency
    • It shouldn't need to be said, should it?

  • Must Everything Be About Political Extremism? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Really? Seriously?

    And everyone wonders why people are tuning out the noise left and right.

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 )
      First, please note that the dictionary is descriptive, not proscriptive about whether a word is a good thing or not. Second, since when is this political extremism? That we have a serious climate problem is a consensus scientific viewpoint. That's only political in so far as some people who are against the prevailing scientific consensus have politicized it. You can argue that what to do about climate change is a political issue, but that's not embedded in the phrase in question.

      • Second, since when is this political extremism?

        Changing the rules to allow two words seems to be a pretty extreme way to sneak in some politics.

        • Noun phrases are a standard thing in English dictionaries.

        • Since 2004, there have been 5 times that the Oxford "word of the year" has been two words. This is not a momentous change. There have also been 2 years where the word was hyphenated, and one year where the word was an emoji.

          • Since 2004, there have been 5 times that the Oxford "word of the year" has been two words. This is not a momentous change. There have also been 2 years where the word was hyphenated, and one year where the word was an emoji.

            And who could forget that one year when the "word of the year" of a differential equation.

        • Changing the rules to allow two words seems to be a pretty extreme way to sneak in some politics.

          voice box [dictionary.com], theme park [dictionary.com], physical education [dictionary.com].

          How long has it been since you last opened a dictionary?

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by SirAstral ( 1349985 )

        " prevailing scientific consensus"

        I all everyone needs to know that it's not about the science.

        Consensus is not science it religious!
        Science is about what you can prove!
        The politicization is specifically about folks in the scientific community trying to move the goal post so they can press a political agenda.
        When you can prove what the cause is, then you are also going to be able to make accurate predictions which has not even happened once.

        So there are at least 5 different camps but folks like you only all

        • First, no science isn't about proof. Proof is for math and alcohol. Everything else deals with degrees of evidence. Second, yes, consensus is important and that's true not just in science but in any area where expertise matters and one isn't a subject matter expert. If one isn't an expert on Shakespeare, and one wants to understand if it is likely whether his plays were written by someone else, then the expert consensus that he wrote them is relevant. If one isn't an expert on quantum mechanics, then the ex
        • Consensus in science is important, as it is consensus that model A is better than model B or that concept C is sufficiently proven to be used as a basis for further research, and so on. Without it, we'd all be independent polymaths and collaborative research would be difficult.

          • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

            by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 )

            Climate change may have a concensus, but "emergency" it is not -- that's in service to political goals. This angers you, and you reach for the downmod button.

            Slovenly adaptation that leaves the economy intact and powerful and continuing to invent at a prodigious rate is what's best for the future. This angers you, and you reach for the downmod button.

            When physical scientists try to extend their area of expertise to economic impacts, their prerictive success is abysmal [juliansimon.com]. This angers you, and you reach for

            • Re:Must Everything Be About Political Extremism? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Gilgaron ( 575091 ) on Friday November 22, 2019 @12:28PM (#59443450)
              The ozone hole didn't get repaired without government intervention; there are economic incentives to move off of fossil fuels but it is hardly a known that it'll be fast enough without shifting existing subsidies away from fossil and towards neutral ones.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DogDude ( 805747 )
              People will compensate for problems faster than they become serious, which only has meaning as an economic impact...as long as they remain free to do so, i.e. without government massive command and control.

              That's completely false.

              Government has, and continues to fix many societal problems. That's why we have governments.

              People repeatedly do things that are counter to their best economic interests every day.

              • >Government has, and continues to fix many societal problems. That's why we have governments.

                No. Many of those societal problems were initially created by government because the people in government had prejudices that were directed by force of law. Society at large and the people solve societal problems. You cannot force everyone to be nice. You cannot force everyone to not be racist. You cannot force people to care about the environment. You cannot force people to care about mass extinction. Over time

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by DogDude ( 805747 )
                  Government exists to protect rights of the people and individual. All else is in service to that end.

                  Not really. Government exists to do things that need to be done on a scale that individuals can't do, or for-profit organizations won't do. Things like provide for health care, build infrastructure, fight wars, etc.

                  Dealing with this very large problem has nothing to do with your feelings about the issue. Whether you or anybody else cares about it is largely irrelevant. Those of us who are informed

                  • > can be forced to either participate or be punished or be removed from society altogether.

                    Why am I not surprised that this is the response in a thread about climate and the proper role of government? You are the type of person I was talking about that forced their prejudices by law. You will create more problems than you solve. You can't win the argument so use force. Great idea.

                    > Government exists to do things that need to be done on a scale that individuals can't do

                    This is a recipe for bad governm

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by DogDude ( 805747 )
                      You are the type of person I was talking about that forced their prejudices by law.

                      Prejudice has nothing to do with it. Good laws should be based on science and reason. Laws preventing people from polluting willy-nilly are based on science and reason. People who ignore either or both should also be ignored.

                      This is a recipe for bad government as there is no distinction between evil and good governments.

                      That makes no sense. Governments can do good and not good. Good and not good are not the same

                    • > Laws preventing people from polluting willy-nilly

                      Congrats. We have that. Mission accomplished. Why the hysteria being pushed?

                      >That makes no sense.

                      Recognizing a proper role and function of government helps enables proper governance but it's not a guarantee. If there is no proper restraint then what is the limit for government (((to do what is necessary))). Mass hysteria is not an acceptable reason to push a political solution. Science is incapable of deciding political solutions.

                      > Your rights to

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by DogDude ( 805747 )
                      We have to make large, systematic changes to the way we live in order to prevent increasingly dramatic climate change. Right now, we, as a species, are doing nothing that is needed to be done to prevent these increasingly drastic changes. And those changes are currently impacting humanity in large ways, and will accelerate so long as we continue to do nothing. Governments need to orchestrate this change quickly and decidedly to prevent more loss of life and economy.

                    • > We have to make large, systematic changes

                      We are. It sounds like you are not happy with the speed at which we make additional changes. Stalin was able to quickly industrialize the country at a rate that European powers were surprised. Would you justify Stalin-esque policy to accelerate your vision of climate action? If not, why should I consider the hysteria serious? If so, then I think you have lost perspective on what matters in life.

                      >, we, as a species, are doing nothing that is needed to

        • That's not what 'consensus' means in a scientific context. It's not a cabal of scientists getting together and saying, "yes, we all agree."

          Consensus is something that emerges from a large body of work over time. Scientists do their experiments and write papers, and over time, it's possible to see what the general agreement is on the science they've been doing. The work on climate reached a consensus years ago because hundreds of independent papers all started reaching similar conclusions based on the data.

          T

          • Just wrong. For thousands of years it was "scientific consensus" that Men were sperm donors and women took that sperm and made babies. (Simplified, but correct). In just the last few years "scientific consensus" is now that "men can menstruate and even make babies with women sperm donors". Where's the "large body of evidence"? No, "scientific consensus" has very little to due with large bodies of work, and much more to do with politics.
            • You are confusing is scientific consensus always correct with whether scientific consensus matters. Those aren't the same thing.

            • You're talking about gender as a societal construct, which is a useful framework for understanding how people work, but it hasn't actually changed how sperm interact with eggs and how babies are made. See, the problem is that you're inserting your political opinions into topics that aren't related so that you can feel like you've made a point, but you haven't.

              The science on that part of reproduction hasn't changed. The science on how people identify themselves and move through life as a particular gender ha

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DogDude ( 805747 )
          Science is about what you can prove!

          Man made climate change has been proved many, many times over, already.

          it's very difficult to trust the science on either side because being a scientist does not stop you from being the same dirty agenda driven human we all are!

          I'm sorry that you don't understand science or what scientists do. That's why you are saying these ridiculous things. Either that, or you have an agenda. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to ignorance.

    • Re:Must Everything Be About Political Extremism? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday November 22, 2019 @09:47AM (#59442764)

      Really? Seriously?

      And everyone wonders why people are tuning out the noise left and right.

      Hey, Greta Thunberg traveled through time to warn us about it so we better take it seriously!

    • Since when is science political? Oh, that's right, there is now scientific fact and "alternative facts" that coincide with whatever allows you to justify your politics.
  • 'Climate Emergency' is two words.
  • when they added "bae" into it. If anyone hasn't seen 'The Professor and the Madman' yet, I highly recommended it.
  • In 1995 the words Pokemon and Pikachu were introduced into the English language and saw a *massive* surge in use. But no reference or honorarium. Wonder why?
    • They are specific trademarks and brand names. For legal and philosophical reasons, it takes a lot of work to put brand names into a major dictionary.
  • And I thought the "word" was "Henny Penny Syndrome".

  • I am sure that is merely a fable. Algore can't possibly be a hypocrite, with his giant energy consuming mansion...

  • There is not a climate emergency... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer@noSPAm.earthlink.net> on Friday November 22, 2019 @09:39AM (#59442732)

    If there were a climate emergency then the government would be issuing permits for onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear fission power plants. These would be chosen as they have the lowest CO2 emissions, highest energy return on investment, lowest land and raw material use, and therefore lowest cost, quickest time to build, and highest safety.

    If there were a threat of rising sea levels then we'd be building seawalls, levees, and dykes, as well as installing pumps. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years so the threat of major cities disappearing under seawater is bullshit. There's lots of land that is below sea level now but is not under water, because we figured out how to hold back the sea.

    To keep transportation as low carbon as possible we'd have nuclear powered cargo ships, electric railroads, and for everything else we'd use synthesized hydrocarbon fuels. These synthetic hydrocarbon fuels can be kept carbon neutral with carbon from the air, hydrogen from the water, and the synthesis process powered by heat and electricity from nuclear fission.

    The "climate emergency" is a solved problem. Should it actually become an emergency then we'd act like it. Is global warming from CO2 emissions a problem? Sure, but it's a problem that we have at least a century to solve. If we do nothing but replace old coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants with new nuclear power plants it's quite possible that alone would solve the problem. We'd have the electricity production as carbon neutral in 30 or 50 years that way.

    It's unlikely we can do better than solving this in less than 50 years but if we can take a 2% bite every year then we're on the path to solving the problem. If we can take a 5% bite out of our CO2 emissions every year then we can be well ahead of any "climate emergency".

    With the US Congress more concerned about reversing the last election for POTUS over all else makes me think that they are not serious about anything right now.

    • Allow me the question, how old are you?

      • Ironically, old enough to have seen hysterical bleats for massive governmental control in the past.

        • and old enough to have heard that phrase all the way back in the 1970s. Can't count how many times I've heard "The END is near!!1!" over climate change" since then.

        • Ironically, old enough to have seen hysterical bleats for massive governmental control in the past.

          Yep.

      • Allow me the question, how old are you?

        Old enough to have earned two BS degrees in engineering. Old enough that my education included physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, electric power distribution, among other subjects required of any engineering student. Old enough to have toured multiple power plants and to have worked on team to build a solar car for competition while attending university. Old enough to know that solar power is too diffuse, unreliable, and expensive to produce any meaningful amounts of energy for anything but the most rem

        • 45. So I have a good reason to not give a fuck about climate change, by the time it hits I'm already fertilizer.

          What's yours?

    • Sure would be nice to know why this was moderated down.

      If there were a climate emergency then the government would be issuing permits for onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear fission power plants. These would be chosen as they have the lowest CO2 emissions, highest energy return on investment, lowest land and raw material use, and therefore lowest cost, quickest time to build, and highest safety.

      If there were a threat of rising sea levels then we'd be building seawalls, levees, and dykes, as well as installing pumps. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years so the threat of major cities disappearing under seawater is bullshit. There's lots of land that is below sea level now but is not under water, because we figured out how to hold back the sea.

      To keep transportation as low carbon as possible we'd have nuclear powered cargo ships, electric railroads, and for everything else we'd use synthesized hydrocarbon fuels. These synthetic hydrocarbon fuels can be kept carbon neutral with carbon from the air, hydrogen from the water, and the synthesis process powered by heat and electricity from nuclear fission.

      The "climate emergency" is a solved problem. Should it actually become an emergency then we'd act like it. Is global warming from CO2 emissions a problem? Sure, but it's a problem that we have at least a century to solve. If we do nothing but replace old coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants with new nuclear power plants it's quite possible that alone would solve the problem. We'd have the electricity production as carbon neutral in 30 or 50 years that way.

      It's unlikely we can do better than solving this in less than 50 years but if we can take a 2% bite every year then we're on the path to solving the problem. If we can take a 5% bite out of our CO2 emissions every year then we can be well ahead of any "climate emergency".

      With the US Congress more concerned about reversing the last election for POTUS over all else makes me think that they are not serious about anything right now.

      • Still looking for a reason why this was moderated down. Is optimism for the future of the climate somehow trolling? Is explaining how to solve the problem of a "climate emergency" trolling? Was there some kind of inaccuracy in my solution? If so then please explain how I was incorrect. There is no climate crisis because we know what the solutions are but have done little to implement those solutions.

        If there were a climate emergency then the government would be issuing permits for onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear fission power plants. These would be chosen as they have the lowest CO2 emissions, highest energy return on investment, lowest land and raw material use, and therefore lowest cost, quickest time to build, and highest safety.

        If there were a threat of rising sea levels then we'd be building seawalls, levees, and dykes, as well as installing pumps. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years so the threat of major cities disappearing under seawater is bullshit. There's lots of land that is below sea level now but is not under water, because we figured out how to hold back the sea.

        To keep transportation as low carbon as possible we'd have nuclear powered cargo ships, electric railroads, and for everything else we'd use synthesized hydrocarbon fuels. These synthetic hydrocarbon fuels can be kept carbon neutral with carbon from the air, hydrogen from the water, and the synthesis process powered by heat and electricity from nuclear fission.

        The "climate emergency" is a solved problem. Should it actually become an emergency then we'd act like it. Is global warming from CO2 emissions a problem? Sure, but it's a problem that we have at least a century to solve. If we do nothing but replace old coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants with new nuclear power plants it's quite possible that alone would solve the problem. We'd have the electricity production as carbon neutral in 30 or 50 years that way.

        It's unlikely we can do better than solving this in less than 50 years but if we can take a 2% bite every year then we're on the path to solving the problem. If we can take a 5% bite out of our CO2 emissions every year then we can be well ahead of any "climate emergency".

        With the US Congress more concerned about reversing the last election for POTUS over all else makes me think that they are not serious about anything right now.

  • very interesting

  • Next years word: Climate fatigue
    Year after: Idgaf
    Year after: Climate what now
    Year after: Cyber Horse Hockey

    Personally I look forward to the stunning world of Cyber Horse Hockey.

  • Global warming, then it was climate change, now it is climate emergency. I am no denier, yes it is getting warmer, but everything has a place and this is out of place. More than anything it tarnishes the Oxford Dictionary name, they are no longer unbiased. Hi Webster's!
    • It shouldn't be polarizing and partisan anymore than vaccine efficacy, and yet even the latter is starting to get politicized along partisan lines out on the west coast. You're accusing a dictionary of bias because they support mainstream science, yet /they're/ the ones being political?

      • "Climate Emergency" has zero science involved in it, and is a propaganda term. Science is a method to test a hypothesis, the results of which can be repeated. "Climate Emergency," if it were "science," would suggest that computer models and untested theories are cause for everyone to panic, and -- for some reason -- to cede control to a socialist world government.
        Is there cause for panic? I think, if one assumes that *nothing* is being done in the real world to find clean/renewable energy sources, and human

        • You don't need to cede control or wear foil hats. We already subsidize energy, we can move those subsidies around pretty easily without really changing anything about the political or regulatory structure. Make it cheaper and people will shift on their own.

          • You don't need to cede control or wear foil hats. We already subsidize energy, we can move those subsidies around pretty easily without really changing anything about the political or regulatory structure. Make it cheaper and people will shift on their own.

            Subsidies do not make anything cheaper.

            All a subsidy does is hide the real cost behind a bunch of bookkeeping. Solar PV panels and offshore windmills will still be a drag on the economy until the real and actual costs are lower than what we see now from conventional energy.

            There's a reason why we separate "alternative energy" from other energy sources. I'll make this distinction with an analogy to "alternative medicine". Do you know what physicians call "alternative medicine" that works? They call it "m

            • We spend a lot subsidizing our food production, too. Socializing societal expenses is the whole point of having a civilization. We've even socialized the military and spend a lot doing so versus having soldiers arm themselves old school. It isn't a valid complaint for energy production, either.

              • We spend a lot subsidizing our food production, too.

                That's also a bad idea. Two wrongs don't make this right, all that does is make a lot of people wrong.

                • Compared to famines and the dust bowl before regulation it seems to have worked out alright.

                  • Compared to famines and the dust bowl before regulation it seems to have worked out alright.

                    Regulations are not subsidies. If regulations were subsidies then nuclear power would be the most subsidized energy source out there, which should be obvious it is not. Disaster relief is not a subsidy, and not unique to farmers and ranchers. Crop insurance is just another form of insurance, and not a subsidy.

                    Paying farmers not to grow crops is a subsidy, and also a bad idea. Because we subsidized food, which is again a bad idea, does not make the subsidies of other industries any more of a good idea.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DogDude ( 805747 )
          The scientists have laid out what they expect will happen to the planet. They've been remarkably accurate so far.

          "Climate emergency" is a way of describing the seriousness of these impacts on human society and health.

          Nothing is "cherry picked". The IPCC has compiled tens of thousands of studies involving hundreds of thousands of scientists. The science is very solid on all of this. Scientists now are not even studying "is this real" any more. They haven't for decades. We're studying what the impa

    • Global warming, then it was climate change, now it is climate emergency. I am no denier, yes it is getting warmer, but everything has a place and this is out of place. More than anything it tarnishes the Oxford Dictionary name, they are no longer unbiased. Hi Webster's!

      A dictionary doesn't (or at least shouldn't) set the meanings of words, it reports the meanings that people give it.

      I do believe that there is truth in that phrase "climate emergency" got a lot of use since Greta Thurnberg went on her global "Shame on YOU!" tour. I also believe that this phrase will, or already has, run its course since the Democrat debates for POTUS nomination brought people like Steyer and Yang some notice. These two seem to consider "climate emergency" a real thing, and also made the p

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      this is out of place.

      Oxford dictionary gave some very solid reasons why it's an appropriate choice. It's all in the article summary. Do you have any reasons for saying it's "out of place", or is is just because you're a triggered snowflake?

  • Or rather locution?
    Such a mistake from Oxford dictionary is a miserable pity!

  • It really should have been "Climate Panic"

  • Campaign by polluting industries has been insanely successful in creating a movement behind denialism. It's all funded by politicians and pundits stuffing donation money in their pockets from energy companies and the autmotive/aviation industry.

    No one should be listening to politicians about the climate, they should be listening to climatologists, ecologists, marine biologists, environmental pathologists, and basically every other form of science that is recording the quantifiable changes in our environ

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close