"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.

86 thoughts on “"Atmospheric Radicalization": The Latest Climate Catchphrase

    • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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….

    • 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.”

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

    • 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.

  1. “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.

  2. 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”…

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

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

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

  7. 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.

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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. “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?

  12. 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.

  13. ( Mirriam-Webster) Full Definition of radical
    : 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
    : of or relating to the origin : fundamental
    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
    slang : excellent, cool

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

  14. “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?

    • 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….”

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

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

  17. 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.

  18. 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’.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

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

  22. 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 🙁

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

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

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

  26. 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.

  27. “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?

Comments are closed.