What is The Carbon Footprint of Rain?

Check out this paper from metadesigners that addresses the idea of repackaging, or 'relanguaging' climate change using design methodology.
Raphael Lemkin demonstrated this principle in 1947, after years of failed attempts to draw the world’s attention to a certain category of military aggression. Only after he invented the word ‘genocide’ did he manage to convince the United Nations to institute appropriate legislation. Hypothetically we could use this approach to design ‘miracles’, assuming that we are talking about rare, or unprecedented events(26), rather than supernatural interventions. Provocative questions may be a start. By asking, “what is the carbon footprint of rain?” we might realize that, when it rains, many people drive their car to the local shops instead of walking. 
Yes, it's old but I missed it was was sent the link over twitter only recently. It's well known that the climate change debate falls down to a paradox of experts. Often the evidence isn't question on the basis of its own merit but on the merit of those who present it. Could a total repackaging of the terms in which climate change is discussed result in more constructive discussion?

Here the argument is made that institutions are accepting or willfully ignorant of the risk of climate change and what the authors seem to argue is a nearly inevitable future of disaster. The expert paradox again plays in here as the more serious and terrifying any warnings over climate change become, the easier it is for an opposition to suggest 'scare-mongering' and fantasy. 

Climate scientists find themselves very carefully stepping around the terms that they use in order that they can conserve the validity of the narrative of climate change. Many people are desperate to see it fail as the easier option to accepting the inevitability of disaster and perhaps more importantly the blame for upsetting the noosphere.