Thanks for taking the time to read this, and for your very thoughtful comment.
I hear you about these points not being new. I didn't mean to write it as though no one had ever said these things. I just knew that the way Sinek framed and delivered his opinion in a concise way would be new and helpful for many people who are not well-versed in climate coverage. And, so far, this does seem to have been the case for many people.
But I see your concern and I will take another look at the article to see if I can update the language in order to make it more clear that Sinek is not the first person that have offered these ideas.
Although, I'm not sure if anything Sinek has written is 100% original. It's usually more how he frames and applies the ideas--not completely dissimilar to what he did here.
And yes, I'm totally in agreement with you about how global warming has been eclipsed--at least in serious coverage--by climate change. However, I imagine that Sinek is using it as an example of how badly, at times, we've gotten the marketing wrong. And unfortunately, I still see lots of people--especially in the US--using 'global warming'.
I appreciate your careful thinking here, Wouter. And I'm going to give your reply here more thought and consider how I can improve the article and improve my writing going forward.
I know that we're both in agreement that we can keep improving the marketing/messaging and I look forward to more ideas about how to develop empathetic messaging that helps people see the need for change.
All the best,