"Atmospheric Radicalization": The Latest Climate Catchphrase

Original Image: Cloudy Sky
Original Image: Cloudy Sky. By FotoSleuth (Cloudy Sky) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Big oil consultant and hardline green Dana Nuccittelli has revealed the latest climate catchphrase which will make us all care: “Atmospheric Radicalization”

‘The atmosphere is being radicalized’ by climate change

To paraphrase Donald Trump, this is radical atmospheric change and Republicans won’t even mention the words.

Climate change’s impacts on extreme weather and society are becoming increasingly clear and undeniable. While we are making progress in solving the problem, we’re still moving too slowly, and one of the two political parties governing the world’s strongest superpower continues to deny the science. This led astrophysicist Katie Mack to make the following suggestion, related to a common refrain from Donald Trump and Republican Party leaders:

… [snip: boring list of rehashed climate claims] …

Denying science won’t stop climate change damages

These are but a few recent examples of climate extremes amplified by human-caused global warming. These extreme events will only come with greater frequency and intensity as the planet continues to heat up.

The only way to curb these impacts is to cut the carbon pollution that’s intensifying them. As any member of Alcoholics Anonymous knows, denying a problem doesn’t make it go away. Only by admitting we have a problem and taking steps to address it can we avoid a catastrophic outcome.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/oct/24/the-atmosphere-is-being-radicalized-by-climate-change

Given a recent surveys which show people are far more worried about corruption and clowns than climate change, maybe the greens are missing a bet. Perhaps “climate clowning” or “environmental government corruption” would grab people’s attention.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
86 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MarkW
October 27, 2016 11:21 am

Atmospheric radicalization?
Does that mean it’s going to start voting for communists?

firetoice2014
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2016 11:39 am

She’d like it to.

Neo
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2016 3:09 pm

If it is caused by Republicans, it would be Extreme Atmospheric Radicalization

Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2016 3:20 pm

Atmospheric radicalization? Does that mean it’s going to start voting for communists?

No, the atmosphere is going to start shooting up Christmas parties, gay nightclubs, military recruiting offices, military bases, etc. And setting off bombs in public places. But all that is distinctly and irrevocably different from “The Atmosphere of Peace.” And it’s all our fault, of course.

RAH
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
October 27, 2016 3:36 pm

No, those are only minor infractions. After all we are being repeatedly told that Christians are a bigger threat than Islamic terrorists.
What more proof does one need that this is all driven by a political agenda than the sustained bombardment of one new “catch phrase” after another?

Greg
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
October 28, 2016 1:39 am

Next time you see a tornado coming wearing a burka LOOK OUT, you’ll know it’s not just an ordinary life threatening weather event but a RADICALISED bit of global warming.
Climate clowning is what Nuttercelli and the rest of his climate circus have been doing for the last 30 years.

Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
October 28, 2016 1:47 pm

RAH: “What more proof does one need that this is all driven by a political agenda than the sustained bombardment of one new “catch phrase” after another?”
Well said. Radicalization cannot actually apply to a physical phenomena, but that never stopped politicians before. It used to stop scientists….

Logos_wrench
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2016 3:57 pm

Wouldn’t that be cumulusts? Lol.

Reply to  Logos_wrench
October 27, 2016 4:09 pm

+11

BFL
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2016 6:44 pm

When (if the Dems have a long run) the US becomes European-like with “those” immigrants, then all worry about “Atmospheric radicalization” will be mute. Of course the rest will be obliged to pay homage to a new radicalized justice system called Sharia and the country will be easy targets for Russia/China and/or have severe internal conflicts (except for SJW’s/Snowflakes who will simply roll over).
“Children in the fourth-year class are said to have been “forced” by teachers to recite the Muslim prayer aloud, alternating line by line between German and Arabic.”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/26/children-forced-recite-allahu-akhbar/

RockyRoad
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2016 6:58 pm

Maybe Nutty is claiming the atmosphere follows Alinsky’s rules… Considering who’s pitching this garbage, it’s all a big lie.

Reply to  MarkW
October 30, 2016 5:57 pm

These far-left zealots have a serious mental problem. To think a crazy phrase like Atmospheric Radicalization is sort of magic potion that will (appeal?) to people, is remarkable. Actual science is the way to convince people, not political science.

MarkW
October 27, 2016 11:22 am

“Climate change’s impacts on extreme weather and society are becoming increasingly clear and undeniable.”
So clear and undeniable that even the IPCC says that it won’t be discernible for decades, at least.

Caligula Jones
October 27, 2016 11:25 am

Well, from people who want to re-define what a major hurricane is, this isn’t surprising.
Which means it must be time for me to re-read “1984”…

Bryan A
Reply to  Caligula Jones
October 27, 2016 12:09 pm

Don’t forget to re-read “Atlas Shrugged” as well

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Bryan A
October 27, 2016 12:50 pm

And “State of Fear”

Kamikazedave
Reply to  Bryan A
October 27, 2016 12:59 pm

I don’t think Nuccittelli and the rest of the clowns who spout this CAGW nonsense have gotten beyond “Bartholomew and the 500 Hats”

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
October 27, 2016 6:16 pm

I was thinking more like See Spot Run

NW sage
Reply to  Bryan A
October 29, 2016 5:23 pm

Bryan A – what’s wrong with See Spot Run? I enjoyed it — 74 yrs ago! [tongue-in cheek for those of you who are sensitive to such things]

October 27, 2016 11:35 am

To the radical greens, the only problem with their faith is a failure to sell it properly. As it is undeniable TRUTH, and the only true science, any doubting of the content is pure heresy.

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 28, 2016 1:49 pm

They do try to sell it that way, thus the vilifying of any who dare disagree with even the most minor point. Maybe an apocalypse is not a great way to sell something.

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 30, 2016 5:59 pm

The way to “sell” it is with real science.

Resourceguy
October 27, 2016 11:39 am

Dana is not very good with marketing either. Changing the terms often plants the idea among the target audience that there is no depth or consistency behind the pitchman. And of course the regular observers already know that.

rw
Reply to  Resourceguy
October 29, 2016 11:29 am

Yes. this certainly seems like a poor stab at positioning the product.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 27, 2016 11:51 am

Possibly Dana Nuccittelli and Katie Mack should form Scientists Anonymous?

AndyG55
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 27, 2016 12:36 pm

I was wondering where the burkha could be used. That would keep them anonymous

Ted Getzel
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 27, 2016 1:17 pm

That should be Scientism Anonymous.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 28, 2016 2:38 am

Oh come on people, we have to trust someone who wears a cape, undies outside his trousers, waders and rides a motor scooter.

Tate
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 31, 2016 5:59 am

That’s ‘PSEUDO-science anonymous, RetiredEngineerJim

Jeff Norman
October 27, 2016 11:51 am

The weather HAS to be radicalized in order to justify the War On Climate®.

ren
October 27, 2016 11:55 am

Radiation levels in the cabin of the Boeing 767 (Condor flight 2091) tripled within ten minutes after takeoff, and were nearly 40 times ground level by the time the plane reached cruising altitude at 33,000 feet. There was no solar storm in progress. The extra radiation was just a regular drizzle of cosmic rays reaching down to aviation altitudes. This radiation is ever-present and comes from supernovas, black holes, and other sources across the galaxy.
http://spaceweather.com/images2016/25oct16/radsonaplane2.png?PHPSESSID=1aaotlj96flstlf3jf6dcgkfo3
http://spaceweather.com/

Gerry, England
October 27, 2016 11:56 am

Environmental government corruption. Isn’t that a bit close to the truth to be used?

michael hart
Reply to  Gerry, England
October 28, 2016 4:26 am

Corrupt climate clowns. That’s three for the price of one. A ‘threefa’.

Bruce Cobb
October 27, 2016 11:56 am

Dana “notsobright” Nuttysilly doesn’t seem to grasp the difference between the atmosphere and terrorism.

AndyG55
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 27, 2016 12:37 pm

I’m not sure there is that much difference between terrorism and “climate change™”

Bryan A
October 27, 2016 12:06 pm

Interesting new Climate Catastrophrase

Dennis Gaskill
October 27, 2016 12:13 pm

How about……….. Atmospheric Anti Capitalistic Communistic Leftist Radicalisation !!!!!!!!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Dennis Gaskill
October 27, 2016 2:17 pm

Or Atmospheric Anthropomorphic Rabidization?
Or Atmospheric Politicization?
Or Just Plain Old Hot Air?

TonyL
October 27, 2016 12:17 pm

To a chemist, the phrase “Atmospheric Radicalization” can mean only one thing.
The concentration of gas phase free radicals is increasing. (a free radical is a chemical species which has one or more unpaired electrons. They are highly reactive and unstable.)
It would be most interesting for them to make this claim. It would be even more interesting to see how they came to such a conclusion.
Otherwise it just means the atmosphere has decided to vote Marxist/Leninist. Another interesting claim.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  TonyL
October 27, 2016 12:52 pm

Radicals are never free. They toil in suppression and deception.

Paul of Alexand
Reply to  TonyL
October 27, 2016 3:49 pm

Free the bound radicals!

urederra
Reply to  TonyL
October 28, 2016 9:09 am

Oxygen is a diradical, anyway. So the atmosphere is full of diradicals. It exists in two states, singlet oxygen and triplet oxygen, the latter is the most common and has two degenerate MOs (molecular orbitals) So not only it is a diradical, but also a degenerated.
Nitrogen is the only atmospheric gas that hasn´t been demonized yet. 100 green points to the one who demonizes it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triplet_oxygen

tabnumlock
October 27, 2016 12:21 pm

I’m waiting for the end game, “Climate Stagnation”. The weather is stuck! We must spend $trillions to dislodge it!

Bruce Cobb
October 27, 2016 12:23 pm

Now that the atmosphere has been “radicalized”, will it be following Alinsky’s rules?

pkatt
October 27, 2016 12:24 pm

The ultimate goal is the carbon tax. Once in place it will be used to regulate and our lives will be based on our carbon footprint, including population control in the end. If a corp is considered a person rules passed for them extend to us too right? Too Dark? How else do you describe people who deny evolution to the point of denying the Earth’s long history of climate change. Their perfect snapshot will continue to change because no matter what they do they have no control whatsoever of the climate, and never will. Worse a large portion of the population does not believe and that is killing them.

David A Smith
October 27, 2016 12:33 pm

If they want to scare people they should skip to “Climate Clowning”

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  David A Smith
October 27, 2016 1:15 pm

David A Smith — Oooo, that smarts i bet. — Climate Clowns? — Eugene WR Gallun

n.n
October 27, 2016 12:33 pm

Oxygen is a potent free radical that should be sequestered.

commieBob
October 27, 2016 12:45 pm

Denying science won’t stop climate change damages

Skeptics are much less likely to deny science than the alarmists. In fact, the alarmists won’t even discuss the science. “The science is settled” is just an excuse to ignore the actual science.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  commieBob
October 27, 2016 1:16 pm

The science is settle, only the data is uncertain. — Eugene WR Gallun

Rhoda R
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
October 27, 2016 2:09 pm

And apparently infinitely malleable.

October 27, 2016 12:50 pm

“Denying science won’t stop climate change damages”
Denying science won’t make CO2 drive the climate
Denying science won’t make feedback produce 4 times the power said to cause it
Denying science won’t make the conflict of interest at the IPCC go away
Denying science won’t make the pollution of science by agenda acceptable
So, why do they keep denying science?

October 27, 2016 1:00 pm

I don’t understand why they keep stalling and peddling this mediocre drivel. Let’s just now admit to worldwide climate black magic and get back to burning witches.

Gunga Din
October 27, 2016 1:59 pm

( Mirriam-Webster) Full Definition of radical
1
: of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as
a (1) : of or growing from the root of a plant (2) : growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground
b : of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root
c : of or relating to a mathematical root
d : designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue
2
: of or relating to the origin : fundamental
3
a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
4
slang : excellent, cool

I’m sure he’s going for 3a and 3b but I think 3c and 3d are closer to the truth.

John Fleming
October 27, 2016 2:27 pm

These words should be posted in every school in the country:
http://www.truthinsideofyou.org/bertrand-russel-explained-a-simple-way-to-live-a-happy-life-video/
John from Tasmania

Reply to  John Fleming
October 28, 2016 4:37 am

Thanks — indeed, this short video is worth watching.

BallBounces
October 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Man-made climate change results in a weaponized climate™.

Gunga Din
Reply to  BallBounces
October 27, 2016 3:25 pm

Needs a bit more alliteration.
“Weaponized Weather”? 😎

MarkW
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 28, 2016 8:53 am

Wascally wabbit.

October 27, 2016 3:38 pm

Next : Climate Jihad!

Logos_wrench
October 27, 2016 3:56 pm

“Climate Clowning” is sheer genius. Fantastic!
Talk about a double meaning. Perfect.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Logos_wrench
October 27, 2016 4:09 pm

I missed that earlier. Yes, “Perfect”.

Paul Penrose
October 27, 2016 4:30 pm

Feels like I’m stepp’in into the Twilight Zone…

Reply to  Paul Penrose
October 30, 2016 10:31 pm

I’ve been there awhile now.

Editor
October 27, 2016 5:57 pm

“The Glib-Lib Rename Name”
* Global Warming
* Climate Change
* Climate Weirding
* Climate Radicalization
From the same mentality that brought you…
* Reverse Discrimination (against white males)
* Race Quotas
* Employment Equity
* Target Numbers
I’m old enough to remember when various terms were legitimate…
* Colored People (Hint… NAACP == National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) http://www.naacp.org/
* Negroes (Hint… United Negro College Fund) https://www.uncf.org/
* Black People
* Afro-Americans
And there are multiple other examples. What is it with constant re-naming?

Bryan A
Reply to  Walter Dnes
October 27, 2016 6:20 pm

Every genera wants their own catch phrases

Gunga Din
Reply to  Walter Dnes
October 28, 2016 3:10 pm

I’m getting a bit long in the tooth myself.
One of my younger co-workers (who was taking a course on “Black History”) was explaining to me why “blacks” prefer to be called “african-americans”.
She said it it was because a white journalist came up with the term to replace “negroe”.
I’m old enough to remember the original Black Panthers and I’m sure they didn’t choose that name because some white told them too!
PS As I understand it, “pansgender” is slowly replacing “bisexual” in some circles.
“A rose by any other name is still….”

LamontT
October 27, 2016 6:22 pm

Someone is standing on top of a very tall tower shouting religious texts or radical political theory at the air?

October 27, 2016 6:24 pm

The “Atmosphere Radicalized?”
Old “Climate Change” is now despised.
With this Washington speak
their hot air starts to reek
of Ozone. “Free radicals pride!” https://lenbilen.com/2016/10/27/climate-change-is-now-atmospheric-radicalization-a-limerick/

Eugene WR Gallun
October 27, 2016 6:38 pm

Atmospheric Radicalization — Too may syllables. Too had to say. Not catchy at all. They need something simple. How about “Bad Air”?
Eugene WR Gallun

Gunga Din
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
October 28, 2016 3:12 pm

The atmosphere has “The Vapors”?

Bill Illis
October 27, 2016 7:16 pm

It is about time we just kept repeating back to them, “Nothing has changed in the weather” because nothing really has changed. The weather is just all within the natural range of weather that has been experienced since weather recording started.
2 record high temps across the world today, and 4 close to the record cold today. That is actually much lower for both of these numbers than one would expect just based on the statistical probabilities.
http://coolwx.com/record/

Manfred
October 27, 2016 7:42 pm

Another meaningless phrase in the long list vomited by Cultural Marxists. If it gains traction, the UN will define it for the useful idiots, as they have ‘climate change’ and ‘civil society’.

Neil Jordan
October 27, 2016 8:23 pm

Closing comment about people not being worried about climate issues was prescient. I opened up this article on my cell phone and the ad that popped up was for leasing a flagrantly large and un-green 2016 SUV.

Louis
October 28, 2016 12:15 am

Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton have occasionally blamed the internet for the radicalization of Muslims. Perhaps the internet is also to blame for the radicalization of the atmosphere. I have the feeling, though, that Nuccittelli would blame climate change for the radicalization of both. After all, to him there is nothing under our yellow sun that super CO2 is incapable of doing, unless it is exposed to the kryptonite of green energy.

Admad
October 28, 2016 2:26 am

Banana Nuttycelli has totally lost the plot

richard verney
October 28, 2016 3:01 am

So much for settled science.
They cannot even decide upon the name to call their hypothesis/conjecture.

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 28, 2016 11:54 am

Next we will hear that the climate shouts at us: allahu akbar.

October 28, 2016 12:13 pm

The sad part is that as these idiots beak off, the governments of the world listen. The sad truth is that without CO2 life on earth would cease to exist. Yet our governments want to tax it and eradicate it. I truly feel that our human society is doomed 🙁

hunter
October 28, 2016 3:03 pm

If he wasn’t so dangerous, Dana would be an object of pity, a pathetic pathological liar suffering from delusions.

Russell Johnson
October 28, 2016 7:46 pm

I’m very unimpressed with any theory/scam/lie that must change it’s name every few years in an attempt to maintain visibility.

Frank Van Nostrand
October 28, 2016 9:37 pm

You mean to tell me all this time I have been looking at radicalized stratocumulus clouds?

October 29, 2016 9:50 pm

It’s all in how well it’s packaged, represented and defined, as is any manufactured product designed to be sold to the public. You must first establish a need, then foster a desire and motivation to buy.
With a little more time and effort, and possibly some top notch marketing help, there’s little doubt they can get the job done.

eyesonu
October 30, 2016 4:56 am

“Atmospheric radicalization lies matter” ….. It’s a new social movement!

November 6, 2016 12:51 am

“As any member of Alcoholics Anonymous knows, denying a problem doesn’t make it go away”
Well, I believe we’ve been brought to a brand new low; skeptics of the AGW hypothesis are now likened to the chemically dependent. It was scary enough when we were simply “the other camp”. Now we’re clinical, in medical terms.
Is there an equivalent to Goodwin’s Law we can invoke here?

%d bloggers like this: