Hump day hilarity – the progression of climate narrative names

I had a predictable and laughable Twitter dialog today with the editor of the bought and paid for climate activist site known as “The Carbon Brief”. He was bent out of shape because I pointed out that while he thought the reason for the stepping down of Lord Lawson at The Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK was due to the lack of traffic and interest in the organization, it [the lowered traffic] really is because of two reasons:

  1. The public is getting bored with it, possibly due to all the fear-mongering promoted by irresponsible journalists.
  2. There’s been a shift from the use of the term “global warming” to other terms, perhaps in a desperate bid to “keep it fresh”.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2009-10-01%202019-01-16&q=%22global%20warming%20policy%20foundation%22

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2009-10-01%202019-01-16&q=global%20warming

Note that “climate change” is outperforming “global warming”:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2009-10-01%202019-01-16&q=climate%20change

Perhaps the lesson to come out of this is simple; just like climate alarmists change the narrative to “stay fresh” The Global Warming Policy Foundation might change it’s name to “The Climate Change Policy Foundation” to take advantage of more search traffic.

In the “physician, heal thyself” mode of self reflection, maybe “Watts Up With Climate Change” would be a better choice too.

Interestingly, “climate crisis” has made a resurgence in 2018:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2009-10-01%202019-01-16&q=climate%20crisis

I blame journos.

Advertisements

73 thoughts on “Hump day hilarity – the progression of climate narrative names

    • How many of us has a lot of time to worry about something that seems to always be coming on strong in the near future but for some reason never gets here? Besides, Fargo, Ga is much more livable in January and February than Fargo, ND. But then there is a reversal in July and August.

    • Exactly. “Crisis” is a sound to trigger an emotion. These Leftists keep reaching for the nuclear button, with “Existential Crisis” soon to follow with “Extinction Event” already being tested in focus groups.

      What concerns me is what happens when they run out of superlatives. I guess we will know because they will be dropping F bombs to describe their “Super F’ing Literal Existential Crisis Extinction Event” caused by Trump.

      Then the Burning Times as hysterical rhetoric turns to physical violence.

    • My favorite, and it’s at the top of my own personal collection, is “climate”. The most bedwetting and theft per electron from my extensive list:

      Climate
      Climate accord
      Climate accountability
      Climate Accountability Manager
      Climate action
      Climate action plan
      Climate advocate
      Climate agenda
      Climate agreement
      Climate ambassador
      Climate ambition
      Climate anxiety
      Climate anxiety counseling
      Climate believer
      Climate blueprint
      Climate budget
      Climate campaign
      Climate campaigners
      Climate cash
      Climate catastrophe
      Climate challenge
      Climate change action plan
      Climate change helplessness
      Climate change law
      Climate change message
      Climate change training
      Climate chaos
      Climate collective
      Climate collectivists
      Climate conference
      Climate consciousness
      Climate consensus
      Climate coyness
      Climate credits
      Climate crisis
      Climate danger
      Climate delegate
      Climate d*nier
      Climate deprivation
      Climate developments
      Climate diplomacy
      Climate disaster
      Climate disasters
      Climate disinformers
      Climate disruption
      Climate-driven migration
      Climate doubter
      Climate election
      Climate emergency
      Climate emotion
      Climate engineering
      Climate enthusiast
      Climate envoy
      Climate explainer
      Climate failure
      Climate fatigue
      Climate fight
      Climate finance
      Climate Foundation
      Climate future
      Climate gains
      Climate games
      Climate genocide
      Climate hawk
      Climate health
      Climate honesty
      Climate hypocrisy
      Climate indifference
      Climate interference
      Climate intervention
      Climate justice
      Climate leadership
      Climate literacy
      Climate loss
      Climate marches
      Climate marchers
      Climate messaging
      Climate mitigation
      Climate mitigation services
      Climate movement
      Climate necessity
      Climate opposition
      Climate pact
      Climate panic
      Climate party line
      Climate persuasion
      Climate plan
      Climate pledge
      Climate policy
      Climate preparedness
      Climate problems
      Climate proponents
      Climate protagonists
      Climate protest
      Climate protesters
      Climate punishment
      Climate questions
      Climate rally
      Climate reduction
      Climate refugees
      Climate-related legal commitments
      Climate resilience
      Climate resistance
      Climate risk
      Climate scenarios
      Climate services
      Climate spending
      Climate statement
      Climate stress
      Climate summit
      Climate talks
      Climate tax
      Climate thwarting
      Climate timeline
      Climate wars
      Climate weirding

  1. Anthony,

    My take is that Lawson stepped down largely because he is getting on in years. And because as his brainchild, the foundation is an established and respected entity and a reference for a broad swath of influential people around the globe – mission accomplished.

  2. I am waiting for it to morph into “Energy Cost Crisis”. When the proverbials will hit the wind turbines.
    Hopefully history will recognise the remarkable contribution Lord Lawnson made to keeping sanity alive in the meantime.

  3. AGW is something happening everywhere you dont live.

    This why the public rate it a last priority in things they consider as ”local” problems.

    Its the same in every country, it isn’t happening here, but everywhere else.
    So the media can mythologise as much as they wish, but if it isnt materialising and ”clearly” observable we take it for the BS it is.

    • Our local meteorologists for a news stations said “we don’t need any more rain this month”. Was it because of ground saturation, flooding fears or some other hazard? No, the weather putz continued, “we already have an inch more than our usual January amount”. IOW, the average amount of rain for this region is 2½” and having any more is somehow a violation. I did not know that our rainfall is rationed.

      • Here in Oklahoma we like getting above average rainfall. We’ll take all we can get because we know that in a year or two it will get dry again so the more moistue the better.

        Btw, this last series of thunderstorms has eliminated the slight drought we had in this area.

  4. Lawson is old.
    I’m no fan of his but won’t kick a man of his years for needing to focus on important things.
    Like family and rest.

  5. I blame politicos as the origin that leads to 1) the corporate lip service and money bags, 2) the publishers and editors, and 3) the science and professional org manipulators. These are not in order but they are all top down operations.

  6. So is the snow in winter normal, that’s what AGW said, or is the normal snow in winter caused by global warming. What if it didn’t snow? Would that be the result of cooling?

    • (previous year had little snow)
      Don’t you know snow will be a thing of the past, children won’t know what snow is due to global warming/climate change/whatever they’re calling it this week.
      (wait, what’s that? you are getting a lot of snow this year)
      ahem
      Don’t you know, global warming/climate change/whatever they’re calling it this week means you get more and more snow.

      What if it didn’t snow?

      Doesn’t matter. global warming/climate change/whatever they’re calling it this week means just what alarmists choose it to mean—neither more nor less. Even if it requires you to believe 7 impossible things before breakfast.

  7. On a related note, I’ve recently noticed a lot of politicians and climate ‘scientists’ saying we have to “tackle” climate change.

  8. You forgot to start with “Global Cooling” and “New Ice Age” in the 70s. I remember those scares well. They pushed them really hard in the schools.

    • I remember that too, based on the data. 10 more years of data and the conclusion is now flipped 180 to warming. That is what makes me a ‘denier ‘.

      • Either you weren’t paying attention or your particular school didn’t jump on the bandwagon. (the US is a big place, and each state does things differently). We were shown a few documentaries, went to class trips to Planetariums which included in it presentations, etc. And outside of school we’d get it on TV (“In Search of… The coming Ice Age” with Leonard Nimoy being the most memorable of those) and in the newspapers (back when people still read newspapers). It was a big topic back then.

        • Nimoy I remember, but much of the “In Search Of” stuff was fringe garbage, like faith healers and such. I went to school in rural Northern Virginia. We went to planetariums occasionally, and the Smithsonian. I’m just saying it wasn’t prominent where I was, as you guys experienced.

    • I went to high school in the 70’s. I remember the talk of global cooling and a new ice age coming. It was proven science.

      • I was in grad school then and we all snickered at the very idea of a “new” ice age at that time. But I was also studying paleoclimates…. When I was in elementary school, we were treated to a wonderful show at the Fels Planetarium on The Coming Ice Age. This was in the late 50s and to this day I remember the narrator, supposedly on a small craft off the Florida coast, being wiped out by a humongous ice berg. That was pretty terrifying.

    • I remember it very well. The Climatistas are desperate to persuade us the Global Cooling scare never existed.

  9. While we have politicians being desperate for every possible vote, and somehow not realising that in the real world it is not possible to please everyone. That for example every Green vote they may gain by uttering Green words, they will also lose those who have become sceptical about all of these dire warnings that never happen.

    So again I say, we will have to wait until the lights start to go out, and industry move to countries who do not believe in Green fairy tales.

    MJE

  10. To use a colloquial expression, interest in Carbon Brief ‘is no oil painting’.
    https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2010-01-01 2019-01-17&geo=US&q=Carbon Brief,Global Warming Policy Foundation,WUWT,Watts Up With That
    Although WUWT has visitors worldwide it is a US site, I suspect interest has dropped because it is no longer a CC™-crazed federal administration.

  11. you are not going back far enough the NWO already had the Ice age scare in the 70s.

    same Propaganda by the CIA and all the rest of the clowns that do any kind of history channel event…oooh in the future everything will be covered in ICE!

    now it’s everything will Melt! Global Warming bla bla bla bla bla bla…

    Look let’s name storms….because were the Rothschilds and we well control the weather after all. here Comes Hades the Giant Ice Storm!

  12. When the tag no longer fits the reality; go for something really confusing….like “climate inversion”. That should confound the “unthinklings”.

  13. Some famous guy wrote:
    What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
    By any other word would smell as sweet

    And that which we call a climate change
    By any other term would still smell like …

  14. It is a constant feature when marketing anything that a change is made every six months or so, as the general public get bored with it otherwise.
    You just have to look at the fashion industry.

  15. “The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change”

    Dennis Bray and Simon Shackley, September 2004. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

    “To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.

    Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.

    Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.

    We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.”

    It seems the message took hold…

    Climate Change was spoken of in 1979, in the Charney Report, according to James Gustave Speth
    when he was Dean of Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, speaking at the 5th National Conference on Science, Policy and the Environment – Forecasting Environmental Changes, National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, D.C. February 3, 2005

    “Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist Jule Charney led the NAS review, and the “Charney Report” was published in late 1979. Its findings supported those in the report I had received at CEQ. The chair of the NAS’s Climate Research Board summarized them: “The conclusions of this brief but intense investigation may be disturbing to policymakers. If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible
    A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.”

    Forty years on they are still saying the same failed things. Hansen and Wirth spruiked it into Global Warming in 1988 and the rest, as they say, is history.

    There was also Global Weirding along the way, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/global_weirding

    There is even a web site: http://www.globalweirding.is/here#explainerSection

    Now that’s weird…

    • Stilgar: Get back! She has the weirding way.
      [to Lady Jessica]
      Stilgar: Great gods, if you could do this to the strongest of us, you’re worth ten times your weight of water.

  16. The next logical step in this progression will be to remove the word, “climate”, altogether, instead using the phrase, the greatest existential threat of our time …, which will be shortened to the acronym, GETT

    This way, any criticism can more easily be deflected, by merely shifting to another aspect of a now completely obscure, general threat.

    GETT will take down humanity. GETT will be the end game.

  17. Climate worshipers are just going in circles and hoping no one will notice. Not long ago, climate change was supposed to produce warmer winters, raise average minimum temperatures, and reduce snow fall. Now it is supposed to make winters colder in Europe and increase snowfall. So much for “settled science.” You have to wet your finger and determine what direction the wind is blowing and how cold it is before you can know what climate term to use that day. If we have a heat wave this summer, they will go back to using the term “global warming.” But when winter hits and it gets cold again, they will revert to using the term “climate change.” And if we have extreme weather anywhere in the world, it will be a “climate crisis” again.

    They have the next generation convinced that extreme weather never occurred before they were born because CO2 levels were “normal” back then. So any extreme weather event today has to be the result of climate change.

  18. The average voter has the attention span of a goldfish – keep changing the name and they’ll think it’s something new.

  19. YAWN! It seems global temperatures are inversely proportional to IQ amongst the comentators here.

    Some have issues with science… hmmmm… no s#it Sherlock? Could it be because they have the IQ of a boiled potato? Or is because they can’t read more than 6 lines of text without feeling their brain is exploding, and need everything in cartoon format?

    Or is it because they have been spoon-fed conspiracy theories that are designed to validate their ignorance over the scientific concensus of the world’s climatologists, geologists, ecologists, oceanologists, hydrologists and many more bedisdes? But, of course… scientists, what do THEY know, huh?

    MWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! The deniers would be so adorable, if they weren’t DANGEROUS!

    Weather-Climate conflation…. please go and cook dinner, washe the car.. anything that does not require a brain!

    [Left as-written. As an example. .mod]

Comments are closed.