Friday Funny: Climate emotion – for your smartphone

Josh tips me to this new trend.

We’ve always known that the global climate issue and emotion seem to go together. After all, who can forget “weepy” Bill McKibben’s crying over some drought parched corn, or Ben Santer’s temptation to “beat the crap out of pat Michaels”.

For just such occasions where millennials need to evoke, a website has been created called “Climoji” to help for those times when climate warriors are triggered, and need to express how they feel about climate change. The website says:

Emoji are used to annotate feelings and to short-hand communication. Climoji serve as signifiers to amplify climate change and as a new signs with which to express despair, hope, and solidarity.

Some examples:

 

Josh didn’t think that was a full emotive set, and adds his own:

 

Advertisements

77 thoughts on “Friday Funny: Climate emotion – for your smartphone

    • Ivan, has it occurred to you that you are exhaling CO2 with every breath you take? Pray tell, how do you FEEL about your contribution to planet- murder?

      • Simultaneous inhalation/exhalation is a rare technique developed by a few exponents of reed instruments in the jazz idiom so probably not applicable to Climastrologists.

      • Interesting link Ivan
        Let’s look at these “Problems” (emboldened emphasis/strike alterations mine) and make the needed corrections to tell the Whole Truth and not just the Horror Half of it
        Increased Global Warming since the end of the last Ice Age has affected many terrestrial eco-regions, and the increased temperature has driven many species to move out of their habitats increased habitat range for many species, alongside mildly rising sea levels of around 4-6” per century, weather changes fortunately weather isn’t stagnant and always changes, and lessened snow cover during La Nina Years. The rising temperature has even affected the environment as glaciers are shrinking and growing, plants and animals’ ranges have shifted and ice on rivers and lakes is also breaking and refreezing. The animal and plant species have shown a change in behavior as they started moving towards the higher altitudes, and it is seen that the birds, butterflies, and plants are moving towards the poles by 6.1 kilometers per decade. Climate change The Changing Climate> has become is being touted as the biggest threat as it impacts the biodiversity.
        Tropical Rainforests
        They cover 30 million square kilometers of the Earth’s surface and contribute only 6% of its space, while it supplies 40% of the Earth’s oxygen nonetheless. The unique features of the Tropical Rainforests are high temperatures, lack of seasonal variation, and a high amount of rainfall, which allow its ecosystems to be so diverse. The climate change Deforestation to grow biofuel crops affects the rate of change of the this environment and the pace of evolution as the species faces the necessity to adapt higher temperatures to less forested space. Species that are living in the rainforests now fits into the changing aspect of the environment. A greater temperature swing is also caused in their environment as deforestation forces these creatures move away from the equator.
        Temperate Forests
        To understand the change in the temperate forests, one needs to understand the species which relate to each other in the environment, and how they relate individually to the environment. The Global Warming or the ever changing climatic shifts can cause the disturbances, which will make the forests not worth living for plants and animals. With higher temperatures, either the species have to migrate, adapt to the environment or they die in the region. The presence of carbon dioxide in the environment may also affect the forest population and cause death rate rapid and increased plant growth and better usage of atmospheric water supplies, wildfires can occur always have, always will, pine beetle spread through lack of proper forest management can also infect the entire forest region and much more.
        Taiga
        The forest wildfires affect the Taiga region with the change in climate, and even human developmental activities have affected it a great deal. The Taiga region responds differently to the climatic conditions because of hydrology and soil development. The Taiga region also faces threat due to the lightning strikes and natural regeneration processes. Conifer trees are also found in the area but their growth is limited but likely could be enhanced by increased CO2 fertilization, and their seeds which fall on the ground are also dispersed by the wind.
        Tundra
        The tundra covers a tenth of the Earth’s land, and therein one can find frozen bogs which have a minimal level of vegetation diversity. As these are among the sensitive habitats of the world so it is also affected by the Global Warming. The climatic change is a threat to Tundra vegetation as the soil of the land is carbon-bound and when the frozen soil thaws the organic contents present over there begins to decay, and it releases carbon dioxide. The major threats which are faced by the region are that the permafrost will radically change the landscape (not certain just how “Permafrost can radically change the landscape”) of the area and the lives of the species living there. The ozone depletion at North and South poles will harm the Tundra region; Air Pollution will cause smog clouds, which will contaminate lichen, and is a food source for many animals and much more.
        Mangroves
        The climate change has drastic effects on the Mangroves too as the sea level may rise and the sediment surface may not keep pace with this. Other factors which may affect the Mangroves are high-water events, precipitation, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, health of the functionally linked ecosystem which is nearby, and changes in temperature. If there will be a damage to the Mangroves then it may seriously affect the coastal communities and the fisheries directly. A serious threat will also be seen in this manner that if the Mangroves are finished then during coastal storms, the human lives cannot be saved as the forest dampens the wave heights and the speed of the wind. Other threats can be the risk of floods, saline intrusion, erosion of coastal lines and storm surges will be increased.
        Savannas and Grasslands
        The Savannas have been affected by the release of carbon DIOXIDE in the air as the vegetation has been removed from some areas. (So NOT CO2 induced changes but land use changes) . The climate change has social, economic and ecological impact as in the Savannas, the coral reefs are at risk, and the rising sea level is also one of the issues. Another threat is the feral animals, floods, cyclone, and fire in the region and increase in the mosquitoes. The grasslands are mainly found in U.S. region, and climate change has affected it considerably as the species which are living in these grasslands have to shift to other areas to compensate for the climate change changing Climate.
        Shrublands
        The shrublands, mainly in the areas of U.S. which have been researched extensively for the impact of climate changes, have shown that the shrub species have developed the tolerance to largely counter changes in the soil and water. Even it was found that these shrublands if (weasel word warning) faces reduction in the carbon sequestration with the climate change then the loss of wildlife habitat can be faced and soil erosion and wildfire are stated to be other causes.

    • planet is greener now than before the industrial revolution, Ivan. Does greening upset you?

    • Hey, ivanskins, do you eat insects? Just wondering if you have opinion on that when you missed Eric’s post yesterday.

    • The correct response to trivial issues is to trivialise them.
      We do not hold state funerals for dead hamsters.
      So is Manmade Global Warming trivial?
      Yes.
      • Sea level rise is not noticeably accelerating. And is certainly trivial compared with land-use change at the shore.
      • The number of species going extinct each decade is certainly trivial compared with the effects of conservation workers in zoos (and evolution demands some).
      • Life expectancy is increasing, infant mortality decreasing and we are producing more food than ever before. The effects of manmade weather disasters are certainly trivial compared with the effects of cheap energy.

      The greatest threat to this benign state is poverty. Poverty will come from wasting resources on boondoggles instead of investment.
      Modern green policies are based on waste on trivial issues.
      They do more harm than good.

      • Sceptics love to talk about wasting resources on climate change iniatives – as though every cent spent is money down the drain. But nothing about the wasted money on the negative impact of C02 pollution on human and planetary health. Why not I wonder? Doesn’t fit in with your credo?

      • What negative impact of CO2 on health? It’s a trace chemical becoming less trace, and we can take multiple times the current concentration without any noticeable effects.

      • “Sceptics love to talk about wasting resources on climate change iniatives – as though every cent spent is money down the drain.”
        Correct – because it is.

      • Since nobody can find these alleged negative impacts of climate change, why should we waste any resources on them?

      • CO2 is not pollution. It has no negative effects on health.
        indeed, if you have less CO2 in your mouth when exhaling rather than inhaling then you do have a very severe health problem . You are already dead.
        So there is no need to worry about the negative impact of CO2 on health. It doesn’t exist.
        As for the negative impact of CO2 on the planet – my first comment addressed that. They are negligible, if they even exist. It’s not ignored for any credo. It is addressed and dismissed.
        Try reading what you are replying to.

      • ivankinsman
        March 30, 2018 at 3:36 am

        Sceptics love to talk about wasting resources on climate change iniatives (sic) – as though every cent spent is money down the drain. But nothing about the wasted money on the negative impact of C02 pollution on human and planetary health. Why not I wonder? Doesn’t fit in with your credo?

        A) CO2 isn’t a pollutant, if it were your exhalation at 45,000ppm would make you a gross polluter by California emission standards.
        B) CO2 has a net positive impact on Plant growth and evapotranspiration within the ecosystem so no net “Negative Impact” on health

      • 1) Considering that most of the negative environmental problems listed above are due to human actions like clear cutting forested areas, development (often excessive), etc., things that DIRECTLY and IMMEDIATELY impact the environment, it is asinine to try to connect it to the CO2 boogeyman.
        2) If we were not wasting money on people flying around to attend conventions in exotic destinations where they stay in very nice hotels and eat very fancy meals and pat themselves on the back for being “enlightened”, we could spend that money on reforestation programs, establishing wildlife preserves, setting up programs that enable people to have a decent quality of life while conserving and coexisting with the local flora and fauna, clean up sites that have suffered REAL pollution, and educate people so that they do not think that coral reefs are part of savannah and grassland ecosystems.

      • Yes, well said M Courtney, but don’t equate boondoggles with calculated kleptocracy

    • Ivan,
      Certainly you are trying to demonstrate the desperate need for climate apocalypse fanatics to regain their critical thinking skills?

      • Never had any problem with that.
        Sceptic: factories, cars, power plants pumping out CO2 = no pollution and a greening planet = moron
        Everyone else: increasing amounts of human-priduced CO2 = no beneficial effects for the planet = do something about it = proactive and logical person

      • No ivan, it’s:
        Climate Believer = Increasing CO2 = “carbon pollution” = “climate destruction” = “destroying the planet” = illogical, humanity-hating person = moron.
        Skeptic/Climate Realist = Increased CO2 = a greening planet = possibly some beneficial warming (but none that can be shown) = all beneficial = no “need” to “fix” a non-problem = logical, humanity-loving person.

      • I notice that the only way ivanski has to promote his nonsense is to declare that anyone who believe in reality is a moron.

      • Ivan…
        Lets fix this for you so that it IS logical and not nonsensical

        ivankinsman
        March 30, 2018 at 7:41 am
        Never had any problem with that.
        Sceptic: factories, cars, power plants pumping out CO2 = no pollution and a greening planet = moron
        Everyone else: increasing amounts of human-priduced CO2 = no beneficial effects for the planet = do something about it = proactive and logical person

        ivankinsman
        March 30, 2018 at 7:41 am
        Always had problems with that.
        Sceptic: factories, cars, power plants pumping out CO2 = no pollution and a greening planet = Truth
        Leftists: increasing amounts of human-priduced (sic) CO2 = no beneficial effects for the planet Other than …
        –extended greening,
        –extended growing seasons,
        –increased crop yields,
        –increased availability of atmospheric water vapor
        = do something to stop those benefits = sophmoronic and illogical person

      • Bryan A, I wish you wouldn’t conflate climate change scaredy-cat with “leftist”.
        I am politically left-wing.
        That doesn’t mean I believe the manmade component of climate change is newsworthy.

      • M Courtney in my opinion, being politically left means you vote with your heart whenever possible while being leftist means you vote with your party regardless of its direction. You, like my wife and daughter are politically left but definitely not Leftist

      • M Courtney in my opinion, being politically left means you vote with your heart whenever possible while being leftist means you vote with your party regardless of its direction. You, like my wife and daughter are politically left but definitely not Leftist if I could alter what I wrote, I would change Leftist to Alarmist and extend apologies to you. Since I can’t modify my post, I will simply apologize to you for using a somewhat offensive verbiage

    • The only impact so far is a slightly longer growing season and plants that are more efficient at using water.
      Both good things.

      • If you think it’s just that then you’ll be be believing in fairies next … ice caps and glaciers melting, tundra releasing methane, ocean acidification, increased desertification, exacerbated strengthening of hurricanes and tropical storms, increased coastal flooding, biodiversity loss, prolonged drought periods resulting in increased incidences of wild fires … want me to carry on?

      • IVK: The Antarctic ice cap isn’t melting. Other concerns of yours have been rebbutted, in whole or part, by threads here. They can be found by clicking on the Categories drop-down list (unhelpfully located 8 page-downs from the top) or by use of the search box.

      • If I put a single drop of water into a gallon jug of bleach, that jug of bleach is acidified. Still not actually acidic.
        Some ice caps and glaciers are melting because we are fortunate enough to have warmed up a bit since the Little Ice Age, regardless, we still are well within natural temperature variation. There are natural methane seeps worldwide, show me a direct way that this has harmed the planet. Desertification is currently largely caused by poor land management (overgrazing is a major culprit). Show me a study that actually shows that hurricanes and tropical storms are getting stronger. Flooding increases, where they actually occur, are almost always because of human alterations to the landscape, and are noticed more often because of increased development on coastal areas. Biodiversity loss is generally due to irresponsible development and the resultant loss of habitat, poaching, and other direct actions by humans. Increased wildfires is generally due to fire management policies that we now know were unsound, and since people freak if you talk about “thinning” the forest, it is going to take a few more decades of wildfires to return to a healthier forest.
        There are tangible negative environmental impacts directly caused by specific human actions. These actions can be observed. Claiming that a tiny increase in plant food gas is the culprit is dishonest and distracts people from doing things that would actually solve these problems.

  1. I really don’t grt the bats eating a turkey leg. Are they saying that global warming will cause bats to attack Renaissance Festivals?
    And the one in the upper right can be sued to call ‘BS’ on “ivankinsman”. No, we don’t talk about CO2 pollution here, because it is NOT pollution.

      • In other words, EPIC FAIL! You’d think people used to reducing their political philosophy to fit on bumper stickers could at least get an emoji right. Still look like bats to me. 🙂

      • Mumbles:
        Remember the counterculture bumper sticker that read, “Kill a gay whale for Christ”? I assume the target was the self-righteously violent members of Greenpeace.

    • Pretty sure the flying things are vultures. And flies are on it. The message being that if you throw your turkey legs about willy nilly, they will eventually attract flies, and even vultures. Because global warming.
      Or something.

  2. I guess the hand reaching out of the blue circle indicates “further research required, hand me more money” 😉

  3. How about an emoji showing climate profiteers, a parody face combining Gore with the Monoploy money guy…
    Or how about a board game….”The Climate Hustle”…..

  4. I think we’re going to need a broken California icon…..
    California Judge Rules Coffee Must Carry Cancer Warning
    Under state’s Proposition 65, cancer warnings appear on wide range of places and products

  5. To trivialize this even more, when did “shorthand” become a verb, as in “to shorthand”? And where did “trivialize” come from?

  6. Ivan is a 56 year old liberal that lives in an apartment in Tribeca. That speaks volumes of his reality.

  7. All the people in their ‘Climojis’ are white. How racist.
    And of the 3 where you can tell, they appear to be young and female. So sexist and ageist too.
    They better fix this ASAP or the PC crowd will start having fits.

    • Well, the cow poop in the upper right emoji is brown. Also the dead crying penguin is black. So they’re covered. And the frog is green. Wait a minute, why is a frog a climemoji anyways????

      • Well, France has (or had) lots of nuclear power plants. The frog is dead. So … the greens hate the French?

Comments are closed.