Some aren't so sure the Rosenfeld addresses the deeper issue in climate science and policy: making it easier to understand.
Would a Rosenfeld by any other name be more effective?
Anthony Leiserowitz, who directs Yale University's Project on Climate Change, doubted the Rosenfeld would clarify climate for most people, because it doesn't contain an intuitive understanding of the issue.
"There's nothing in the name 'Rosenfeld' that tells you anything about coal-fired power plants or how energy's produced. It's just somebody's name," he said.
Leiserowitz said 350.org, a group that wants to limit greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, has the same issue: "The problem is, there's nothing inherently in the number that helps you understand it."
Leiserowitz researches public opinion on climate change, and he frequently finds misunderstandings -- such as thinking it's a problem with the ozone layer. He said that since people don't think much about the upper atmosphere, they can come to rational, albeit scientifically incorrect, conclusions.
He saw a more successful label in the "ozone hole."
"Think about it metaphorically here ... if you have a hole in your roof, what are you going to do? You're going to go patch it," he said. "The term itself carries with it the requisite solution."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500