This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
German translation: (Politisch) konservative Klimaskeptiker
21:02 Aug 25, 2014
English to German translations [PRO] Science - Journalism
English term or phrase:global warming-denying conservatives
Are anti-GMO activists just like ***global warming-denying conservatives***?
It's unjustifiable for defenders of science to lump together ***global warming-denying conservatives*** and anti-GMO activists as disturbingly anti-science, writes biologist Kamil Ahsan in an interesting article (http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15579).
Wie würdet ihr das formulieren? Zumindest für die Überschrift suche ich nach einem möglichst kurzen und prägnanten Begriff.
Danke euch allen! Ich hab mich letztlich für Irenes Lösung entschieden:
Gehören Gentech-Gegner und Klimaskeptiker in eine Schublade?
In einem interessanten Artikel schreibt der Biologe Kamil Ahsan, es sei unverantwortlich, wenn angebliche Verfechter der Wissenschaft konservative Klimaskeptiker (die den Einfluss des Menschen auf die Erderwärmung ableugnen) und Gentech-Gegner in einen Topf werfen und gleichermaßen als „unwissenschaftlich“ abtun. 4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
And: "Einer der Klimahardliner, der republikanische Senator James Inhofe aus Oklahoma sagte: 'Versuchte man eine menschgemachte globale Erwärmung zu beweisen, indem man die wohlbekannte Tatsache, dass es heute wärmer ist als zum Ende der kleinen Eiszeit, ist das genau so, als würde man Sommer mit Winter vergleichen um einen katastrophalen Temperaturtrend zu belegen.'"
That is exactly what I had the discussion about with Irene: As soon as you omit the "anthropogen" in "anthropogener Treibhauseffekt", you're playing right into their (the conservatives') hands. They don't deny that the climate is changing (!), they simply deny that man can influence it.
Even though "Globalerwärmung" may be in use, all three words combined are not (at least no more than a handful of references worldwide and most of them not according to grammar rules).
Your Klimadissident (no hypen necessary here, IMO) is actually the other way around. It's someone who is not denying climate change in contrast to the rest of his colleagues (as far as I've read the Spiegel article, the guy was supportive of the scientists' findings) - it's the same word as in English. The term you were looking for in the Spiegel article was "Klimahardliner" - that was the one for the die-hard deniers of global warming.
What I thought was very interesting was another part in the article you posted: "'[in den USA] haben Skeptiker des Klimawandels direkten Kontakt zu einflussreichen Mitgliedern des Senats und des Repräsentantenhauses.' Auch die mediale Darstellung sei anders als in Europa. 'Da wird gerne der Eindruck erweckt, als gäbe es in der Klimaforschung zwei gleich starke Seiten - und die werden dann auch beide ausgewogen angehört.'"
One more point why you should not equate American conservatives with German ones.
Now, in your example, it's first about the "globale Erwärmung". Because we're not talking about an entire phrase (as in "das In-den-Tag-hinein-Leben"), it marks a normal compound (noun), which should read Globalerwärmung. Not "globale" because it's the first part of the compound, so it should be a non-inflected adjective ("global").
You wrote: "In der Überschrift könnte man das "konservative" eventuell weglassen, weil es ja im Fließtext darunter nochmal vorkommt."
That was one of the two points I was trying to make with my own answer that mainly focused on the headline: "konservativ" not necessary because repeated soon afterward and will only make headline longer.
Otherwise, I didn't see any reason not to agree with Irene on what she suggested, except for the last part. I still think the German "Konservative" is too broad because of the different party systems, but that's, of course, entirely up to you.
Considering your three options:
I'd go for the last one. "das Gleiche [I believe G should be capitalized] in Grün" makes me think of two other things first: vegetarians and the (old) police uniforms. Since conservatives denying global warming have little to do with any "green" (eco-friendly attitude) I actually think that may not work at all.
"in einen Topf" could be a witty statement for some cooking-related theme.
"Schublade" = Schubladendenken would probably best match the text from the link you provided (comparing three different groups by accusing them of the same anti-science attitude).
Ich hab mich für Irenes Lösung entschieden ("konservative Klimaskeptiker"). Allerdings bin ich noch am Überlegen, wie ich die Überschrift löse. Wie findet ihr:
a) Anti-Gentech-Aktivisten und ((konservative)) Klimaskeptiker: das gleiche in Grün? b) Gehören Gentech-Gegner und ((konservative)) Klimaskeptiker in einen Topf? c) Gehören Gentech-Gegner und ((konservative)) Klimaskeptiker in eine Schublade?
(In der Überschrift könnte man das "konservative" eventuell weglassen, weil es ja im Fließtext darunter nochmal vorkommt.
Let me first say that my comment to you included: "Still: You're the only one using 'konservativ' correctly (if needed)." So, it's far from an entirely negative statement.
Condescending it is not: I am perplexed. You're telling me you're not much worried about journalists (and I assume that includes what they're writing) but you post an answer to a question about how to phrase a headline in a news piece? That is rather interesting because I simply don't get it.
Maybe I just don't understand what you were really trying to say.
In addition, one of your last discussion entries included "Also, I start to feel that this discussion may not serve the primary purpose of helping Olaf." To me, that sounded like a rather sharp cut-off. I merely explained why I think you should add something to the Treibhauseffekt and you replied to that with a different opinion and that's fine (in fact, it's the reason for having a discussion board).
I'll get out the last comment statement, so as to not confuse anyone.
PS: It may be an assumption (Germans not knowing) but it's based on experience. The other way around is also a big assumption. Depends.
Your last comment to my suggestion was among others „Not much worried about journalists but sentence is used in a news story? Interesting.“. Am I mistaken or are you being rather condescending? Also, you say that „Germans are generally not that aware of US politics [ff.]“ - now that's quite an assumption, too, which does not seem to marry too well with your preoccupation of journalistic accuracy. Why - if you know better - don't you simply post an answer that covers any issues previously brought up for discussion? I for my part fail to see any benefit in the continuation of this rather one-sided 'interchange'.
I simply responded to your comment: "Treibhauseffekt“ [...] is primarily associated with the man-made effects of the shrinking of the ozone layer".
Of course, methane can both deplete the ozon layer and contribute to global warming. That does not mean that global warming is now mainly associated with ozone depletion. These are two different, though possibly related, phenomena.
On a side note: As soon as you start to no longer delimit the term (divding it into anthropogen and natürlich), you will simply have supported the argument that people sceptical of climate change make here: The planet is changing anyway, so why should we care?
Methane is one of the gases directly related to both the ozone layer thickness and the greenhouse effect. The release of huge subterranean quantities of fossile methane (as has happened in Siberia, creating a hole of 80 m in diameter) would have negative effects on both. Now the realease of subterranean methane may indeed be a natural process - but not within such a short period of time as was detected. My point: In my point of view the discussion about what is natural and what is not is rather useless as the boundaries tend to blend. Also, I start to feel that this discussion may not serve the primary purpose of helping Olaf.
I'd really like to know from you whether the word "conservative" could be omitted without any problems here.
The author is apparently drawing a comparison by using the special group of US conservatives which tries to take advantage of every shred of paper that could possibly denounce global-warming theories - or they will simply ignore them.
Our so-called konservatives Lager is not as clear-cut - some may only refer to the CDU (and now to the AfD) here, others may include the FDP. And whether they believe in it or not is another matter.
Because Germans are generally not that aware of US politics, I don't know whether any German equivalent may not just confuse more than it does clarify things.
Otherwise, "Klimaleugner/-skeptiker in der Politik" may actually work here.
This issue is no longer as important as it used to be. Even Greenpeace isn't warning of any ozone-related risks anymore (I should know as I attended the relevant seminar back in university).
The correct term is "anthropogener Treibhauseffekt" (see also WWF page above) in contrast to "natürlicher Treibhauseffekt". Leaving out a word would be inaccurate and is generally not recommended.
You can't just make an adjective out of a noun here! What is the opposite then? "liberale Klimaleugner/skeptiker"?
The correct German terminology is "aus dem konservativen Lager/unter den Konservativen". Only Irene seemed to have thought along the same lines.
You can say konservatives Blatt, konservativer Nachrichtensender - but not konservative Leugner.
I don't even know whether I would get in the "konservativ". Being a Republican or Liberal in the US is distinctly different from what we have here. The deniers of global warming can be almost exclusively found on the right side of the political spectrum in the US, although it will be hard to equate them with "rechts" - the party structure in the US is simply different, with basically only two parties. And: not all conservatives are "deniers".
The whole sentence would be something like:
Anti-GVO genauso verfehlt wie Anti-Klimawandel?
By the way @Irene: Having covered the renewable business for years and having watched enough American TV, I should note that "Skeptiker" is too weak of a word for me. They are more like the creationist movement in the US: all staunch and die-hard defenders of their theories.
oder Klimawandelskeptiker/Treihauseffektskeptiker (dann vielleicht mit Bindestrich)...
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
5 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +9
(Politisch) konservative Klimaskeptiker
Explanation: Ich würde es umdrehen. Vielleicht auch: Klimaskeptiker aus dem Lager der Konservativen
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 6 Min. (2014-08-25 21:09:01 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Im Fließtext: : Skeptiker. die den Treibhauseffekt an-/bezweifeln ...
Irene Schlotter, Dipl.-Übers. Spain Local time: 05:08 Specializes in field Native speaker of: German PRO pts in category: 8
Grading comment
Danke euch allen! Ich hab mich letztlich für Irenes Lösung entschieden:
Gehören Gentech-Gegner und Klimaskeptiker in eine Schublade?
In einem interessanten Artikel schreibt der Biologe Kamil Ahsan, es sei unverantwortlich, wenn angebliche Verfechter der Wissenschaft konservative Klimaskeptiker (die den Einfluss des Menschen auf die Erderwärmung ableugnen) und Gentech-Gegner in einen Topf werfen und gleichermaßen als „unwissenschaftlich“ abtun.