[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]
16088
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: “climate crisis” to be the new phrase to terrorize everyone with a
URL: LINK LINK
|
Leftist lunatics dropping the phrase “climate change”… “climate crisis” to be the new phrase to terrorize everyone with a shameless, contrived HOAX Before there was “global warming,” there was “global cooling.” A renowned Time magazine article from the mid-1970s claimed that the earth was rapidly cooling and for the same reasons — human-caused technology and activity. What’s more, the next “Ice Age” was just around the corner, and a large portion of the world’s population would starve to death because of dramatically shortened growing seasons. (See a portion of the article at the Free Republic and the actual link to a snippet of the original article on Time’s website here). Well, that turned out to be false. So the climate hucksters had to come up with something else to scare the bejesus out of all of us so we’d just turn over all authority — and all our money — to the ‘powers that be.’ The world isn’t cooling, the change went, it is warming, and so much so that we’ve only got a few years to live. Or something like that. But after years of trying and failing to sell the “global warming” hoax, the Left-wing science propagandists came up with a new phrase — “climate change” — because, after all, who could argue the fact that, throughout history, the earth’s climate has…changed? Now that phrase has also failed to sufficiently convince the bulk of the world’s people to surrender their liberty and their property and their money to the globalists. So it’s time to change it again — to “climate crisis.” Or “environmental collapse.” (Related: NASA declares carbon dioxide is GREENING the Earth… reveals how Green New Deal is a DEATH cult that would collapse global ecology.) Oh, nooooo! We’re doomed! As Breitbart News reports: Since the expressions “global warming” and “climate change” do not frighten people enough, activists are proposing a shift in language to “climate crisis” or “environmental collapse,” with the help of advertising consultants. Neuroscience research suggests that “global warming” and “climate change” do not produce a powerful enough reaction in people, whereas “climate crisis” got “a 60 percent greater emotional response from listeners” according to a recent study. The climate alarmists will never quit until they have all the power and all your money According to recent stats, intense lobbying (as well as polluting the nation’s public education system with nonsensical climate hysteria) has yielded a 15- point increase in the percentage of Americans who now believe that cattle farts, SUVs, and all modern technology is destroying our planet. But that’s not good enough; for there to be mass surrendering of liberty and money, a more significant portion of the population must be duped, er…. convinced. And this is where SPARK Neuro comes into play; so desperate for complete control over lives are the global warming hoaxers that they’ve turned to an actual advertising agency for assistance. The company specializes in physiological data like measuring brain activity and sweaty palms in order to develop new and inventive ways to propagandize the masses. Spencer Gerrol, the company CEO, gave two possible reasons why previous iterations of doom — global warming and climate change — did not convince enough people to agree to begin living in the 18th century again is that both are neutral phrases; there isn’t anything “inherently negative or positive” about the words. And, of course, people have gotten used to the phrases as well, so they tune them out (because none of the previous ‘sky is falling’ predictions have materialized). So, the objective, Gerrol says, is to find phrases that will spur people to action without pushing them over the edge, psychologically. “A successful candidate’s aim is to broaden the conversation around an issue with words that spark interest on both ends of the political spectrum… while avoiding overstating the problem,” a SPARK Neuro study found. Someone should tell Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (and her sycophantic supporters) about the proper global warming/climate change/climate crisis/environmental collapse wording strategy and how not to scare people half to death: She became the latest alarmist to claim that we only have 12 years left to live. |
Responses:
[16099] [16101] [16106] [16104] [16090] [16092] [16094] [16095] [16096] [16097] [16111] [16112] [16093] [16089]
16099
From: georg, [DNS_Address]
Subject: global warming an equal opportunity destroyer has no party affiliation(NT)
| (NT) |
16101
From: Stardreamer So/Cal, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: global warming an equal opportunity destroyer has no party...
|
If they The Parties keep going at one another...no need to address anything else important. And we the people let this non-cents continue ...there not working for the American people as they should be..or sharing info.? |
16106
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: global warming an equal opportunity destroyer has no party...
|
slaves to the system |
Responses:
None
16104
From: georg, [DNS_Address]
Subject: everything going on in the "DC Swamp" is distraction (NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
16090
From: Awen, [DNS_Address]
Subject: One times article makes a theory?
|
? My impression from your posting habits overall is that you're at least in my parents' generation if not older, my guess would be that you're somewhere between age 55 and 80. The global warming theory has been taught at least since my parents were in school in the 1950s. One outlier article in the Times doesn't alter the overall trend in belief, whether correct or incorrect. Do you let these articles convince you that your memories of your own upbringing were false? Take a big step back. Just because your favorite source says your memories are false doesn't mean they are. Have a bit more faith in yourself. Yeesh, this is weird and out of touch even by Logan standards. Whether you believe in global warming or not, this article proposes a notion that isn't even in the same historical reality. |
Responses:
[16092] [16094] [16095] [16096] [16097] [16111] [16112] [16093]
16092
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: One times article makes a theory?
|
Hi Awen, > The global warming theory has been taught at > least since my parents were in school in the 1950s. Actually that isn't true. The theory of the greenhouse effect was known although no specific prediction had been made for Earth climate. Atmospheric CO2 was only measured continuously by Keeling in the late 1950s, publishing his results in 1960. But global warming theory wasn't taught in schools in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. If you will observe the temperature graph above from the mid 1940s until 1980 there wasn't a positive temperature trend. And while Logan's Natural News article isn't very good there were a number of papers published in the 1970s predicting global cooling, typically based on the idea that air pollution (aerosols) would create a cooling effect that would dominate over greenhouse warming. For example: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138 https://books.google.com/books? hl=en&lr=&id=RqFuCQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA139&dq=Climati c+Effects+of+Atmospheric+Pollution&ots=KI4yoYctk7&si g=scnOHcHDzehE1v38V77ep240Ls0#v=onepage&q=Climatic%2 0Effects%20of%20Atmospheric%20Pollution&f=false https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/00 38092X71900156?via%3Dihub There is also a 1975 National Academy of Science, NRC report titled "Understanding Climate Change". https://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/un derstandingcli00unit_djvu.txt which includes: "Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know". And there was also a 1975 Newsweek article titled "The cooling world". http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Now there was no consensus that Earth was headed for global cooling or an ice age but numerous scientists did suggest that it was possible in the 1970s. Hard to blame them with a 30 plus year trend without any measured warming. So this subject is a bit more complicated that you suggest. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[16094] [16095] [16096] [16097] [16111] [16112] [16093]
16094
From: Awen, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: One times article makes a theory?
|
You might check out the graph in this article. The article does indicate there was a media scare at the time regarding global cooling, but the chart goes back to the 1960s and shows that the trend in peer reviewed articles was in support of global warming. Outside the fear purveyors on both sides, the official stance was that we don't have enough knowledge to make a good guess. But I definitely recall the public school system falling on the side of global warming in my childhood. I remember being frustrated even then because even though (insofar as any child can make a reasonable assessment of science) I thought the science was right, the emphasis was wrong. We were terrorized by apocalyptic future visions of a dying desert earth, but in the meantime, all the legitimate issues with plastic pollution chocking the waterways and agrichemical poisons killing everything at the time (which we are suffering the effects of now, in spades) were....not exactly swept under the rug, but they weren't addressed as firmly as they should have been. I'm in the global warming camp, but I do think that the solutions should be aimed at reducing the physical mass of pollution. I do think global warming is a huge problem...but solutions to the more pressing pollution problems would go a long way toward addressing the global warming issues. People are so distracted by the global warming controversy that they're not paying enough attention to the more immediate problems. Basically, it's the use of a legitimate problem to distract people from a more immediate set of problems (which, if those more immediate problems were addressed, would likely cut into profit margins). Add a few vocal naysayers and we're all so distracted nattering about warming that we don't pay attention to the fact that we're already dying from related problems. Good propaganda strategy for those who benefit, but long term....we're all fools. |
16095
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: One times article makes a theory?
|
Hi Awen, Yes, I'm familiar with the ironically named skeptical science and I do not trust their tactics. It is basically an advocacy website where they try to talk LOUDER than anyone who may be skeptical in any way. I've shown you some of the science papers on global cooling as well as the articles in Time and Newsweek that discussed global cooling. Even the US National Academy of Science did a report in 1975 that didn't promote the idea of global warming. And again the temperature of planet Earth wasn't increasing from the 1940s to 1980 so there wasn't a lot of focus on global warming since it wasn't happening. Perhaps you could look for some evidence of what you think was taught in schools about global warming and show us? I graduated from high school in 1980 and college in 1984 and the science I took did discuss the greenhouse effect but not global warming since our planet wasn't warming. Take a look at the Newsweek article in the link above and the temperature graph on the bottom right of the article. That temperature graph is from NOAA and shows why global warming wasn't really a thing in the 1970s. The 1975 article showed that planet Earth had been cooling since 1940. I have to run, but probably the biggest change in thinking on global warming happened when James Hansen of NASA testified before Congress in 1988 warning of global warming. After this point in time global warming was most definitely a thing... but before then the scientists themselves weren't sure what might change in Earth's climate and schools didn't teach about global warming. Cheers Jim |
16096
From: Awen, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: One times article makes a theory?
|
Eh, if you don't think I took a look, you didn't read my posts, since I acknowledged graphs and articles, and commented on what you posted at length. Greenhouse effect IS part and parcel with global warming. They weren't taught separately (at least not by the time I was in school), the terms were used interchangeably. And you know as well as I do that looking for anything proving what was taught in the classrooms in the 1970s and 1980s is going to be difficult to find, at best. Those sorts of things are seldom documented anywhere but physical textbooks. I might be able to dig something up on the sites I can access thru uni, but that wouldn't work here as those sites are behind an access/pay wall. I acknowledge I don't have proof, but frankly I'll be trusting the collective memory of all the people I know rather than someone I've never met on the internet. About the best I can do is chalk it up to regional variation, maybe your schools leaned toward the minority theory. But in everywhere I've lived and my relatives have lived in Illinois and Indiana, it's been taught. That said, since it's clear you didn't read my previous posts, while by contrast I DID look at your sources and commented on them, I really don't see the point in continuing the discussion. We're both interested in proving our points. The difference is, you didn't bother reading. And neither of us is going to succeed in posting evidence that contradicts the other person's actual memories and entire upbringing, so no real point in continuing, eh? |
16097
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: One times article makes a theory?
|
Awen, Sorry if I rushed and missed something you said. I am at the hospital with my mother and obviously a bit distracted. That said it seems odd you would have been taught about global warming in the 1970s since the world wasn’t warming at that time. Logan’s Natural News article may be crap but the idea of global cooling was out in science papers and mainstream media articles that quoted the scientists during the 1970s. Published temperature data showed the world cooling from the 1940s thru the 1970s. With that background it seems odd that global warming would have made it into textbooks or school curriculum. Cheers Jim |
16111
From: Awen, [DNS_Address]
Subject: I hope things are better for you and your mother
|
A little late replying. My temper's been acting up and I've been trying to get a little better about backing out before I escalate. Fault is purely at my end. At any rate, I hope things are better now or will be swiftly for you and your mother. Be well. |
Responses:
[16112]
16112
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Thank you (NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
16093
From: Awen, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: One times article makes a theory?
|
In the 1970s and 1980s we had to do reports on global warming in school and it was standard textbook fare. It was much to my parents dismay that they were still filling our heads with the "same wrongheaded propagandistic claptrap"that they had to slog through when they were in school (in the 1950s and 1960s). It might not have been part of every curriculum, but it was definitely taught in many schools. By the 1980s, we had public presenters in the auditorium, promoting it to an even greater extreme than it is now, and I went to a Bible Belt small town school. People say they're fear-mongering now....as far as I can see the global warming folks have actually toned the fear aspect WAY down since the 1980s. And yeah, I exaggerated when I said one article does not a theory make. I know that Global cooling was one of the hypotheses trending simultaneously to global warming, but it was NOT a common one and it was discounted by mainstream convention as bad science at best. It was definitely poohpoohed by the textbooks at the time. You don't need the actual graph and numbers to predict a trend (whether the prediction ends up being correct or not is another story), they predicted warming as far back as when my parents were in school, taught that it was the most likely outcome to human impact, and as time progressed then used the numbers to support it. Unless there's more to the Mandela effect than meets the eye, historically, yeah, global warming as a theory was absolutely taught in many schools, including the fanatical Bible Belt ones of my childhood and my parents' childhood. |
Responses:
None
16089
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: “climate crisis” to be the new phrase to terrorize everyone with a
|
NaturalNews / Breitbart News *cough* Better placed on WoWs board |
Responses:
None
[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]