Rather than stick with facts, logic and reasoned arguments, the media has gone full yellow journalism, using exaggeration and hyperbole to sell eyeballs to advertisers. They’ve dived so far into nonsense territory as to render their climate reporting pointless, resulting in their message being tuned out.
Attribution studies attempt to connect individual weather events to climate change. But the ability to do that is so limited that the results are not meaningful. Repeated exaggeration and misreporting leads to skepticism – and serves no useful purpose.
The Guardian invents a new term for climate topics: climate-wrecking emissions. They’ve invented many new terms that were never used by scientists or policy makers. Rather than report the news and let the facts speak for themselves, and let you think for yourself, The Guardian views its role and telling you what to think. See inside for a link to more examples of media invented terminology.
If forests are not renewable, then nothing is renewable. This makes no sense. Source: Greta Thunberg on Twitter: “Climate strike week 233. #FridaysForFuture #ClimateStrike #ForestsAreNotRenewable https://t.co/IZN857fdjy” / Twitter
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.