YUP!  They have decided you are not scared enough about CO2 and other So-Called Earth Killing Gases HUMANS are using.
They are going to Really Stress The Doom & Gloom of Climate Change.Global Warming, but under a different name.
 Tell me, who is the Uneducated One,,,,,

Quote:Climate change alarmists are pushing for a change in vocabulary to scare people into taking global warming more seriously, starting with terms like “global meltdown” and “climate collapse.”

Writing for AdAge this week, Aaron Hall argues that in order to get people to “take action” against climate change, “rebranding” is crucial, since people have gotten too used to the idea that climate is changing and need to be shocked into the notion that the world as we know it is ending.
“Is there a better way to convey the urgency of the situation, while also encouraging folks to take action? Could the tools of branding and brand naming create a more resonant, powerful name?” Mr. Hall asks.
What he and his marketing team came up with was a series of much more frightening labels to stick on climate change in the hope of jolting people into meaningful engagement.

The terms “Global Meltdown” or “Global Melting,”for instance, deliver a more negative image than mere “Global Warming,” he contends. “The names signal that ice caps are melting, but also create a more visceral image in the mind — that real feeling of ‘melting’ when it’s too hot outside.

A meltdown is a disastrous event that draws from the ultimate terror of a nuclear meltdown, an apt metaphor for global destruction.”
“Climate Collapse” and “Climate Chaos,” on the other hand, “instill a clear message or even a direct call to action,” Hall notes, adding that “there’s nothing neutral about collapse or chaos.”

To up the rhetoric even more, Hall proposes the weaponized term “Scorched Earth.”
Source

 and if that doesn't change your mind then,,,,,,,

They go after the young ones because us older people have lived through this crap before and we are wise to their lies.

Pfft! 


NEXT!!!!!!

I don't know about y'all, but I've come to expect way too much over-dramatization of, well, just about anything from folks of the same mindset as the "green" crew.

BTW, "green" is a misnomer if they're trying to re-start the Ice Age rather than allowing it to end as nature intends. If they want ice and snowpack all the way to the equator, maybe "white" would be a more apt image. Perhaps "brown and gray" if all they want is to lock up all the currently free water into polar ice caps, since the world would be a great deal more desertified (brown and gray), and a lot less plantified, i.e."green".

Matter of fact, "green" only works if they let nature take it's course and continue the warming trend that marks our imminent emergence, finally, from the most recent ice age. Anything else kills off plants, making the planet decidedly LESS green, and incidentally far less able to feed the burgeoning human population, since those same plants are the ultimate source of ALL  human food.

In other words, if the global warming crowd has their way, we're going to have to kill off a significant portion of humanity because the planet will no longer have the resources to feed all of us - those resources will be locked up in ice caps. Maybe humanity can turn to cannibalism en masse, and kill two birds with one stone - decrease population while concurrently feeding the survivors. Soylent GREEN for all!

As an aside, the young lady in the photo has "the planet's blood is on your hands" written on her cheek. Someone should tell her that for some of us, that is no kind of deterrent at all - we've had blood on our hands before, and probably will have again, so just who the hell does she think she's scaring with THAT kind of nonsense?

Seriously - just what color does a PLANET bleed?

.

(12-02-2019, 05:07 AM)Ninurta Wrote: ... Soylent GREEN for all!

Damn it, that was my posting, but you beat me to it!

Its no longer called "soylent green", its called "raciest white man climate change denier"

(12-02-2019, 11:04 AM)Wallfire Wrote: Its no longer called "soylent green", its called "raciest white man climate change denier"

Ah yes, but only by those who don't fall under that heading or have been indoctrinated into believing
that the evil white devil is the one who's deliberately created all of this for foul ends!

F*ck the promotion of civilisation and f*ck the comfort it's created to bitch about their climate-change
beliefs, they're now in the mode of blaming and for them, that's enough.
Here's an example of their doctrine.

Quote:Climate change: COP25 talks open as 'point of no return' in sight.


Strong, powerful women.

'Political leaders and climate diplomats are meeting in Madrid for two weeks of talks amid a growing sense
of crisis. According to UN Secretary General António Guterres, "the point of no return is no longer over the
horizon".

Meanwhile, Save the Children says that climate shocks have left millions in Africa facing hunger.
The charity says 33 million people are at emergency levels of food insecurity due to cyclones and droughts.
This conference of the parties, or COP25, was due to be held in Chile but was cancelled by the government
due to weeks of civil disturbances...'

Civil disturbances... you mean the supposed green-loving Chileans were bitching about subway-fare increases.
Hardly a climate-loving form of transport! But I suppose we should look at the bigger picture.

Quote:'...Spain then stepped in to host the event, which will see 29,000 attendees over the two weeks of talks.
Speaking ahead of the meeting the UN secretary general said the climate crisis was imminent and political leaders
had to respond.

"In the crucial 12 months ahead, it is essential that we secure more ambitious national commitments - particularly from 
he main emitters - to immediately start reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a pace consistent to reaching carbon
neutrality by 2050.

"We simply have to stop digging and drilling and take advantage of the vast possibilities offered by renewable energy
and nature-based solutions," Mr Guterres said. Almost every country in the world has now signed and ratified the Paris
climate agreement and under the terms of the pact they will all have to put new climate pledges on the table before the
end of 2020...'

This about the Obama-driven act of opening up new oil supplies in the US and the United States now being an oil-exporting
country for the first time. It's about money and the repercussions of America not funding the proposals of the UN Climate
Change Conference.
Trump said go f*ck yer'self!

Quote:Countdown to Glasgow
This meeting in Madrid signals the start of a frantic 12 months of negotiations that will culminate in Glasgow with COP26 in
November next year. Some 50 world leaders are expected to attend the meeting in the Spanish capital - but US President
Donald Trump will not be among them.

However Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi will attend the conference with a congressional delegation...'

Oh yeah, Pelosi likes to travel. The notion of pollution is a problem when you're talking about the world -in Pelosi's eyes, but
as long as you don't talk a certain part of that polluted world. Namely the State she represents.

Quote:'...While her presence has been welcomed, US environmentalists want to see concrete steps on climate.
"While it's great Speaker Pelosi is coming to Madrid in place of Trump, symbolic gestures are no substitute for bold action,"
said Jean Su, from the US Center for Biological Diversity...'

She'll blame Trump and suggest the UN should impeach him! It's all she knows.

Quote:"America remains the number one historic contributor to the climate emergency, and even Democratic politicians have never
committed to taking responsibility for our fair share." Underlining the real world impacts of climate change, a report from the
charity Save the Children, says that what it calls "climate shocks" are threatening tens of millions of people in East and Southern
Africa...'

BBC:

Yep, America pays and here we are in the same position after Trump stops the amount of funding. A self-perpetuating money
machine that needs more and more from those who it's been decided has the most of it.
..................................................

But let's reinforce that mind-set, let's show the 'good-guys' and the evil ones.
First up, the chaps who're tightening their pollution belts and working towards a better world.

Quote:Climate Emergency CoP 25: India is the only major economy to be ‘2 degree compatible’



The US, China and the EU are ‘highly insufficient’ in their efforts to reduce GHG emissions.



'China, India, the EU and the US accounted for almost 60 per cent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion
in 2017. The world will be on track to meet its targets under the Paris Agreement only if these countries / group of countries meet
their respective targets. 

But it is not the case as the lack of progress on overall mitigation is matched by lack of progress in delivering on equity.
Per capita emissions continue to be allocated highly unequally — in 2017, per capita emissions in the US were nearly nine times
as high as India's. Let’s look at how each of these countries is performing on their respective targets as per their Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs)...'

Aaah, so it IS the US that's the baddie and quickly forgetting the first paragraph, they seem to be the main polluter of the world.
I see now. Wait though, it seems the yellow-man may be just as guilty as the white one and in India's particular case, it just wishes to 
discuss what they're on track of supposedly doing, not what they've done.
I get it now and by the way, I didn't miss that 'Inequity graph' and what it implied!

Quote:'...China’s actions have been deemed ‘Highly Insufficient’ by the Climate Action Tracker, an initiative by two German non-profits,
to assess climate mitigation commitments. A ‘Highly Insufficient’ rating implies that if all countries took mitigation actions like China's,
global mean temperatures would rise by 3-4°C by the end of the century.

India
India’s headline pledge under its NDC is to reduce the emission intensity of its GDP (greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions per unit
GDP) by 33-35 per cent over 2005 levels by 2030, and the 2019 Emissions Gap Report notes that the country is on track to exceed
it by 15 per cent.

In addition, India has committed to generate 40 per cent of its installed power capacity from non-fossil sources by 2030, with an interim
target of 175 GW of non-hydro renewables by 2022. While India is on track to meet the 2030 target, it may fall short of the interim target
by as much as 42 per cent, warns a 2019 report by CRISIL, a Mumbai-based global analytics firm...'

See...? They're trying to show you that India is committed to being one of the good guys, you just don't understand how difficult it is.

Quote:'...Going beyond the emphasis on targets, Sujatha Byravan, a Chennai-based scientist, argues that instead of deepening democracy
through community-level generation, renewable projects are being awarded to big players, and an opportunity to transform the power
sector was being lost...'

Who's to blame there? Old whitey, I guess.

Quote:'...India has also pledged an additional carbon sink equivalent to 2.5-3 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2030 through forest and tree cover.
But the Union government’s Green India Mission, which seeks to achieve the same, has been regularly missing its annual targets,
and rendering the fulfilment of the pledge unlikely.

Overall, the Climate Action Tracker has rated the country’s efforts as ‘2 degree compatible’, which means that if all countries made
efforts like India’s, the average global temperature rise could be limited to 2°C by 2100. India is the world's only major economy
to be rated so...'

DownToEarth. Org:

Well, you're given a pass and maybe that $1.8 billion India spends on its space program could help?
.........................................

Maybe we should look to somewhere else for neutral news on what lil' Greta Thunberg keeps getting upset about?
Gulf News.

Quote:Who are the world's biggest polluters?
According to data from the Global Carbon Project.

1: China is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, according to the most recent data
from the Global Carbon Project. China emits about 10,357 million metric tons per year.

2: The United States is second, with about 5,414 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year.

3: India emits about 2,274 million metric tons per year.

4:The Russian Federation emits about 1,617 million metric tons per year.
.
5: Japan emits about 1,237 million metric tons per year.

6: Germany emits about 798 million metric tons per year.

7: Iran emits about 648 million metric tons per year.

8: Saudi Arabia emits about 601 million metric tons per year.

9: South Korea emits about 592 million metric tons per year.

10: Canada emits about 557 million metric tons per year.

(Image below is 1-10 = left-to-right)

You take the skin-colour-guilt out of the equation and you see that countries never mentioned by the MSM are part of the problem too.
Climate change in a first-world paradigm is about social control through their uses of race and wealth guilt. The Earth isn't their concern,
the need to control is.

(12-02-2019, 11:04 AM)Wallfire Wrote: Its no longer called "soylent green", its called "raciest white man climate change denier"

I'm going to have a tee shirt made for myself that has that exact motto emblazoned across the chest!

.

A few points:

_ I'm ok with the US ceasing to export it's oil. China, for example, doesn't need it... they are very capable of carbon-loading the planet without it, as they demonstrate daily. If we kept it at home, we might be able to reduce gas prices right here....

- Pelosi CAN NOT "stand in" for President Trump at ANY State functions. She is neither President nor Vice-President, and the Speaker of the House is not authorized to represent the US President, no matter how much power she covets. Didn't we exit that silly-assed treaty, anyhow? If we did, and I believe it's so, the US does not NEED any "representation" at it's meetings!

- If Pelosi does not opt fly to this conference on her broom, and elects to fly in a plane instead, she's only increasing her carbon footprint in order to bitch about OTHER FOLKS' carbon footprints. There is a word for that in the English language...

- I'm also ok with the end of mining coal. Coal mining was the driving force in the local economy here, and since it's collapse, our local economy has collapsed as well, measured against the rest of the world. However, that artificial economy was only a blip on the radar here. We got along just fine without it for over a hundred years before the carpetbaggers came in to scalp our resources out from under us for their own enrichment, and we can get along without exporting it for their enrichment for hundreds of years more. What we need is for boatloads of the weak-minded folk who depended on that economy without contributing to it to move the hell away from here, pursue their dreams elsewhere, and leave us to the business of living. We have thousands of years worth of coal left here, and I for one could heat my house to the end of my days with it with no problem. They're talking about attempting to import "green" industries to support our local economy and replace the coal economy when they ought to be talking about EXPORTING useless eaters to lessen the strain on what we have.

- I give less than half a shit about starving folks in east and south Africa. That's their lookout, not mine, Maybe they should consider spending more of their time working to eat, and less of it breeding more mouths they can't feed. What happened to the Worker's Paradise with plenty for all that their communist overlords promised when said overlords needed fighters to support their agenda? Let their goddamned communist overlords feed 'em - it ain't MY problem - I'm not the one who promised them Utopia!

- I have an issue with some of the images above - some of those "smoke stacks" are very clearly emitting steam, not smoke. Are we having an issue with humidifying the world now? Won't more steam and humidity help mitigate the "droughts" that are being blamed for starving African kids?

.

The re-branding of weather-scaring continues and here's the work that goes on in the background.
Thank you James Corbett for the heads-up.

Read this shite... it's genuine and all about kidding the socks off you. They're taking the piss and looking
for the correct phraseology to convince you.

Quote:RENAMING CLIMATE CHANGE: CAN A NEW NAME FINALLY MAKE US TAKE ACTION?

'As a professional namer, I create names for companies, products and services.
After the global climate strike this past September, I found myself thinking about the terms “climate change” and
“global warming.” Are these scientific terms too neutral? Do they do enough to grab attention and inspire people
to take action?

Scientific terms often fail to resonate in meaningful ways. In the early 1900s, for example, no one had heard of the
"hypothesis of the primeval atom." That changed in the 1940s when the term “Big Bang” was coined, which was a
simpler, more relatable concept for the masses.

This complex scientific concept is extremely well-known today because a better, more tangible term was applied to it.
Can we use lessons from the naming of the Big Bang to rebrand “climate change?”

A short history lesson: Scientists once used the term “inadvertent climate modification” to refer to subtle changes in
global climate patterns caused by humans. During the 1970s, the scientific community created two new terms: global
warming (the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature) and climate change (a long-term change in the Earth’s
climate).

Originally, politicians latched onto global warming because it sounded more worrisome (the Earth is heating too fast).
But it was too easy to poke holes in because the Earth was also getting colder. During polar vortex storms, skeptics
often tweet that it "sure would be nice for some of that 'global warming' right about now." Politicians then pivoted to
“climate change.”
This concept was less easy to deny, but also less compelling and less actionable.

This leads me to wonder: Is there a better way to convey the urgency of the situation, while also encouraging folks to
take action? Could the tools of branding and brand naming create a more resonant, powerful name? Our naming team
decided to give it whirl, but first, we set some parameters and guideposts, as we would with any new brand name project:

Reach:
The new name needs to speak to a global threat affecting 7.5 billion humans.
As such, our global team of namers from London, New York, San Francisco and Shanghai developed these new names.

Audience:
The brand needs to reach an audience that isn’t trained in scientific terms. We need these folks to understand the severity
of what’s happening to their planet and inspire them to make more eco-friendly life choices and pro-climate choices at the
ballot box.

Message:
There are many possible themes, tones and styles of names to explore. The name could signal hope, fear or change.
It could be a call to action, be more descriptive or use familiar metaphors that emotionally connect us to the issue.

With all of this in mind, our team of wordsmiths developed the following new names for climate change: 

Global Meltdown, Global Melting
These options are subtle brand shifts from "global warming," yet they deliver a more negative image.
The names signal that ice caps are melting, but also create a more visceral image in the mind -- that real feeling of
“melting” when it’s too hot outside.

A meltdown is a disastrous event that draws from the ultimate terror of a nuclear meltdown, an apt metaphor for global
destruction. In naming, we call metaphorical names "suggestive names," and they are one of the most popular types
of names.

Climate Collapse, Climate Chaos
Good brand names instill a clear message or even a direct call to action. Perhaps that's why climate change isn’t
powerful enough: “Change” sounds so neutral. However, there’s nothing neutral about collapse or chaos.

Both are states of events that you absolutely want to avoid. They ask each of us to do what it takes to avoid collapsing
or descending into chaos. They both also use alliteration -- using the same letter or sound at the beginning of connected
words -a naming trick proven to enhance memorability.

Boiling Point, Melting Point
Arresting brand names often capitalize on vivid visual associations.
They refer to a tipping point that we’re catapulting toward and must find a way to avert. Because a boiling point is the point
at which liquid vaporizes, it brings forth imagery of rivers, lakes and oceans boiling and disappearing. "Melting Point"
paints a clear picture of solid matter melting. As glaciers melt and disappear, so does our way of life. 

Scorched Earth
It's time to take the gloves off and stop pretending.
Sometimes a brand name needs to be hyperbolic to truly capture hearts and minds. If we don’t take massive action now,
Earth will be uninhabitable -an irreversible barren wasteland.

Plants and animals will die. Humans won’t be able to survive extreme weather like floods, droughts and fires.
If we don’t change, we won’t even be able to spend time outside. "Scorched Earth" paints the direst picture of what’s to come
and what we must avoid and is likely the edgiest brand name from our exploration.

The following honorable mentions represent creative outliers that lean on metaphor and wordplay to capture attention,
a naming style that is sure to make a brand stand out:

Emission Critical: Focuses on the action we need to take: reducing emissions.
Planet Critical: Draws on a familiar concept of a critical condition.
Pre-Extinction: Powerful and suggests another mass extinction is imminent if we do not change our ways today.
The Great Collapse: The collapse of ecosystems, economies and our way of life.
Earthshattering: Creatively arresting -the complete destruction of the Earth as we know it.

Whatever we call it, impending climate doom is upon us if we don’t act quickly. Global leaders have been sluggish, and by
and large, individuals have failed to see the need for immediate action.
But maybe branding can help. Perhaps a new name will shift the needle, even if just a little...'

Ad Age:

(02-05-2020, 03:03 PM)BIAD Wrote: The re-branding of weather-scaring continues and here's the work that goes on in the background.
Thank you James Corbett for the heads-up.

Read this shite... it's genuine and all about kidding the socks off you. They're taking the piss and looking
for the correct phraseology to convince you.

Quote:RENAMING CLIMATE CHANGE: CAN A NEW NAME FINALLY MAKE US TAKE ACTION?

'As a professional namer, I create names for companies, products and services.
After the global climate strike this past September, I found myself thinking about the terms “climate change” and
“global warming.” Are these scientific terms too neutral? Do they do enough to grab attention and inspire people
to take action?


Global Meltdown, Global Melting
These options are subtle brand shifts from "global warming," yet they deliver a more negative image.
The names signal that ice caps are melting, but also create a more visceral image in the mind -- that real feeling of
“melting” when it’s too hot outside.

A meltdown is a disastrous event that draws from the ultimate terror of a nuclear meltdown, an apt metaphor for global
destruction. In naming, we call metaphorical names "suggestive names," and they are one of the most popular types
of names.

Climate Collapse, Climate Chaos
Good brand names instill a clear message or even a direct call to action. Perhaps that's why climate change isn’t
powerful enough: “Change” sounds so neutral. However, there’s nothing neutral about collapse or chaos.

Both are states of events that you absolutely want to avoid. They ask each of us to do what it takes to avoid collapsing
or descending into chaos. They both also use alliteration -- using the same letter or sound at the beginning of connected
words -a naming trick proven to enhance memorability.

Boiling Point, Melting Point
Arresting brand names often capitalize on vivid visual associations.
They refer to a tipping point that we’re catapulting toward and must find a way to avert. Because a boiling point is the point
at which liquid vaporizes, it brings forth imagery of rivers, lakes and oceans boiling and disappearing. "Melting Point"
paints a clear picture of solid matter melting. As glaciers melt and disappear, so does our way of life. 

Scorched Earth
It's time to take the gloves off and stop pretending.
Sometimes a brand name needs to be hyperbolic to truly capture hearts and minds. If we don’t take massive action now,
Earth will be uninhabitable -an irreversible barren wasteland.

Plants and animals will die. Humans won’t be able to survive extreme weather like floods, droughts and fires.
If we don’t change, we won’t even be able to spend time outside. "Scorched Earth" paints the direst picture of what’s to come
and what we must avoid and is likely the edgiest brand name from our exploration.

The following honorable mentions represent creative outliers that lean on metaphor and wordplay to capture attention,
a naming style that is sure to make a brand stand out:

Emission Critical: Focuses on the action we need to take: reducing emissions.
Planet Critical: Draws on a familiar concept of a critical condition.
Pre-Extinction: Powerful and suggests another mass extinction is imminent if we do not change our ways today.
The Great Collapse: The collapse of ecosystems, economies and our way of life.
Earthshattering: Creatively arresting -the complete destruction of the Earth as we know it.

Whatever we call it, impending climate doom is upon us if we don’t act quickly. Global leaders have been sluggish, and by
and large, individuals have failed to see the need for immediate action.
But maybe branding can help. Perhaps a new name will shift the needle, even if just a little...'

Ad Age:

Whatever name they call it, the real truth is that our sun is changing; nothing can stop that.
It's not the human's carbon footprint, or cow farts, or anything that would affect a major change by us putting huge sums of $$ into the pockets of the puppet masters.

Scare tactics; that's all it is.  

Remember the Claim from the so-called climate change/global warming (make believe) scientist that by now (2020) you would have to explain to your children what Snow looked and Felt like, what a Snowman/woman was. 

Now they have a NEW Doom Days Prediction that when you REALLY Think about it, It Is Total Bull-Shit!

Quote:Half of world’s beaches will disappear by 2100 because of climate change, experts say

What Experts? Who are these Imbeciles?

Quote:Almost half of the world's sandy beaches could be gone by 2100 if climate change continues as is, according to a new study published on Monday.

The research, published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change, forecasts that coastlines, which are densely populated, could see further erosion. The scientists used satellite imagery to track how beaches have changed over the past 30 years.

 The past 30 years!!!! What I Ask has NOT Changed in the Past 30 Years???  :smallimpatient:

Quote:Speaking with The Associated Press, the study's lead author, Michalis Vousdoukas, said that half of these beaches "will experience erosion that is more than 100 meters. It's likely that they will be lost.”
Source

Just accept the fact all this is caused by the Sun and Our Earth Rotation and Wobble in Orbit.

(03-02-2020, 09:21 PM)guohua Wrote: Now they have a NEW Doom Days Prediction that when you REALLY Think about it, It Is Total Bull-Shit!

Quote:Half of world’s beaches will disappear by 2100 because of climate change, experts say

What Experts? Who are these Imbeciles?

Dumbest thing I ever heard. The beaches cannot "disappear" unless either the ocean or the land masses also disappears, because the ocean/land interface is what creates beaches. They may migrate landward, as they have done several times throughout history, but no way in hell are they going to disappear.

If the oceans were to disappear, we'd have a lot more problems than trying to find a beach on the weekends.

.

This is Totally Ridiculous, Maybe they need to be in Counseling For Being Just Plan Stupid!

Quote:ECO-ANXIETY: CHILDREN ARE LOSING SLEEP AND HAVING BAD DREAMS OVER CLIMATE CHANGE, STUDY FINDS

  
DAMN, ignorant young people, they have all this technology at their fingertips but they can not do their own investigating, they do not Think For Themselves.

Quote:The poll showed that young people are feeling frustrated and anxious about the state of the planet with 80 per cent saying the problem of climate change was important to them, and more than a third saying it was very important.


Nearly three quarters (73 per cent) added that they were worried about the state of the planet right now, including 22 per cent who say they were “very worried”. 

 Source

No Credible Thinkers in this Bunch of Offspring that has been Conceived and are our Future   How sad is that?

(03-03-2020, 05:29 PM)guohua Wrote: This is Totally Ridiculous, Maybe they need to be in Counseling For Being Just Plan Stupid!

Quote:ECO-ANXIETY: CHILDREN ARE LOSING SLEEP AND HAVING BAD DREAMS OVER CLIMATE CHANGE, STUDY FINDS

  
DAMN, ignorant young people, they have all this technology at their fingertips but they can not do their own investigating, they do not Think For Themselves.
No Credible Thinkers in this Bunch of Offspring that has been Conceived and are our Future   How sad is that?

Look on the bright side. Most of them are getting all those vaccines, which make them sterile.  We won't have to worry about their offspring being in charge in the future (because there won't be one for their kind).