The media loves the term “bomb cyclone”, a technical term from meteorology that sounds super scary. Most of the public has no idea what it means, and even with the official definition, it still is mostly meaningless to the public. But it sounds scary. And that’s the main point.
A little more information on restaurant menus could encourage people to choose meals with a lower climate footprint, according to a new study, which found that adding climate impact labels to foods was an effective strategy to reduce red meat consumption. Source: Beef burger or fish sandwich? Climate labels on menus can encourage people to eat less red meat, study shows | CNN To be fair, all restaurant menus are designed to encourage your purchase of higher profit items. They use…
Climate hypocrites – they travel about the world with wild abandon while telling us we should not travel. This is how not to run a propaganda campaign and their hypocratic behavior, and not believing in what they are preaching, falls flat on the rest of us.
New paper notes climate models, and for that matter media attention is focused on the least likely scenarios – which are the worst case. But some say these worst-case scenarios are not physically possible, let alone likely. A direct consequence of much attention given to likely impossible scenarios is that 40% of young adults suffer from serious anxiety, scared of outcomes that are highly unlikely to develop.
Climate activists are working to reframe “climate change” to “climate pollution”.
This Axios news report makes the classic reporter error – providing percentage increases without every providing a starting value. Does a scary +100% mean something increased from 1 to 2? We have no way of knowing.
The media has run with this fake label “Doomsday Glacier” because it sounds scary, and the primary purpose of the media is to scare you to death which helps them get clicks and sell eyeballs to advertisers. The scientists do not like this label either.
Nature published over 40 papers that were nonsense gibberish and has now retracted them.
Link to an essay on the role that “technical authority”, media propaganda, and how “consensus of experts” are used to influence the public and to exert control over us. This essay is an eye opener.
Another example of fiddling with language to make a weak conclusion with low certainty sound more impressive than it really is.