Abstract
Innovative communication theories propose that we understand messages not by decoding their meaning but by inferring what speakers intend to express. However scientifically accurate the messages climate scientists have put forward, the appropriate inferences may not have been drawn by most of their audiences. One of the main reasons may be that scientific metaphors allow for multiple interpretations, yet, because of their expressive power, they impact discourses disproportionately. Climate communication took a path of euphemistic scientific expressions partially due to the noble scientific norms of self-restraint and modesty, but the hidden implications of climate jargon distort the way non-experts think about the heating climate. Consequently, the current climate jargon hinders informed decisions about Earth’s life support systems. Changing the softened expressions of climate language, from the cool of basic research to the heat and compassion of medical contexts, may allow for more productive public and political debates – which may lead to more powerful policy solutions. Speaking and thinking in medical terms could turn the perception of worst case scenarios from hypotheticals or doomism to life-saving interventions. We typically start reducing fever before it gets out of control, let alone crosses a threshold of potential death. Instead of putting on a positivist mascara, a calm and serious discussion of safety measures in medical terms, for example, talking about climatic tipping cascades as metastases, could foster a more honest evaluation of the required legal and regulatory steps to keep our home planet habitable.