Salon: Don’t Use Science Words To Lecture About Dangers Of Climate Change

Salon: Don’t Use Science Words To Lecture About Dangers Of Climate Change

Salon: Don’t Use Science Words To Lecture About Dangers Of Climate Change

A climate scientist writing at Salon laments that conservatives don’t understand why our planet is in danger. Why? Because climate scientists use difficult to understand science words instead of simple phrases like Greta does.

You see, using well-established science words to discuss big bad climate change somehow isn’t transforming into action very well. It seems that a lot of the language used doesn’t do a very good job of helping link the research into action that gets results. Unless you are Greta Thunberg that is. 

“As a professor and researcher working on climate change, the security threats it presents and how people both understand the dangers and pose political responses, it has become clear to me that the language being used about climate action is often seriously misleading.

Thunberg’s success is due in part to the fact that she’s had a substantial impact over how people relate to climate issues. By her actions, as well as her simple and very direct speeches, she’s called out numerous politicians whose failure to act endangers her future. She neatly inverts the usual cultural assumption that the adults should educate children.”

Simon Dalby tells us that the NEW narrative must use the word “FIRE!” because Greta says so.

“Choosing the right figure of speech is important in any communication, and Thunberg’s focus on the simple point about our house being on fire is key. Forest fires are getting attention around the world, including recent blazes in Indonesia and Brazil. The damage being done by climate change-fuelled fires fits simply into her narrative.

Unlike warfare and images of climate struggles that are only sometimes effective in getting attention, Thunberg focuses on something that much more obviously relates to everyday life and the dangers to it: Not only is our house on fire, but the fire department has vanished.”

The apocalyptic language regarding climate change isn’t new. I vividly remember being told that the earth was going to suffer once the hole in the ozone layer actually showed up. I also remember dire warnings of acid rain that would destroy our crops thus ensuring everyone on the planet would starve to death. That was forty years ago. Yet somehow we are still here and the planet is still intact.

But now we have AOC’s Green New Deal resolution telling us that we have only eighteen years or less to live.

Yes, it turns out that the person in the video was a loon from the kooky Lyndon LaRouche tinfoil hat crowd. The problem is, THERE ARE PEOPLE out there who actually proposed that as an idea! The problem is, AOC didn’t actually disavow, then or later, what the prankster actually said! The problem is, there are people out there who are dealing with full blown depression and anxiety because we have politicians like AOC, so-called scientists like Simon Dalby, and teen scold Greta Thunberg telling us we will die from climate change.

Then again, climate alarmists screaming at the sky have a history of running with information (real or not) that will help their doomsday narrative. Via Maggie’s Farm I found this report from 2004. “Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us.” The article is an entertaining read involving much clutching of pearls. Except that the report was a table-top exercise planning for the very worst pie-in-the-sky scenarios. Result? We’ll be invaded by Martians first before our planet dies from climate whatever. 

Never mind. It’s far better to use doom and gloom words to generate fear and action. Supposedly conservatives, like myself, who sneer at all this climate change/global warming/earth is going to die crap, are just angry at Greta for showing us that strikes can make a difference.

Oh really? You mean strikes like this one using non-environmentally friendly red die and a diesel truck?

Which was then set to music.

The climate change activist gurus want to convince us that planetary death is imminent. They do so while advocating for socialistic policies that would actually destroy the world economy. They do so while propping up a sixteen year old as their climate change savior.

Incredibly gross.

Climate activist scolds aren’t supposed to use difficult sciency words to describe the climate danger we are supposedly in. Fine with me given that the ‘science’ used contains a boatload rubbish.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Feature Photo Credit: Pixabay, cropped and modified

Written by

  • George V says:

    Well, here’s some sciency words:
    – Every computer model of temperature is wrong. While the temp has risen, it’s not nearly as bad as any model.
    – Every calculated projection of sea level rise is wrong. While it has risen, it’s nowhere near what was forecast
    – Every statement that fires, hurricanes, floods, droughts and other so called climate disasters are increasing are wrong. There have been more and worse at various times in the past. Weather records show it.

    From an engineering perspective, the GND and such goals as “100% renewable by 2050” ain’t possible. You simply cannot mine, process, and form that much raw material (concrete, steel, neodynium, lithium, etc.) in that amount of time.

    In a recent post on the writer calculated (using, like, Math!!!) that to reach a global 100% renewable energy goal it would require bringing a new nuclear power plant online every day until 2050. ( Alternatively, the article says 1500 wind turbines per day, each requiring 300 sq miles, would do it also. No mention of the transmission lines needed to get this power to where it’s needed.

    I also read another article at some point (not sure where) that a wind turbine cannot make enough energy to replace itself. Unlike nasty coal plants, turbines need to be replaced about every 20 years. This article stated that the turbine doesn’t make enough energy to mine, process, form, transport, and erect it’s own replacement.

    I think the scientific minds telling us we don’t understand science don’t understand engineering. We know they don’t know shinola about economics.

    • Nina Bookout says:

      Shhhhh!! Climate alarmist science types don’t like those words!

      As for the wind turbines? They last 20 years …AT MOST. A landfill in SD has said no more to the defunct turbines because space and not having the right equipment to break them apart. Oh, and biodegradable they are not. Don’t get me started on the parts and the massive chunks of concrete that remain.

      • Scott says:

        You mean the pads consisting of almost 400 cubic yards of concrete, and over 63,000 lbs of steel rebar? Sure that’s all green… or recyclable… or SHUT UP!!

        • GWB says:

          What? All that rebar is recyclable! Tear it out and bring it to me, I’ll find a use for it!
          (Note where the expense of digging it out rests. 😉 )

  • Skillyboo says:

    Why is it that all the ‘scientists’ that are on the climate change bandwagon never take into account our sun? Of all the things that affect climate they all ignore that elephant in the room. Add that to all the predictions these Al Gore loving scientists have made for the last 6 plus decades that have never had the outcome they said would happen and is it any wonder why we are so skeptical. So to overcome this they now trot out a 16 year old slightly autistic girl who believes everything she’s force fed. FYI, I have a 17 year old grandson who is also mildly autistic and gullible. And, as is their M. O., we skeptics are so ignorant for not believing this young lady. So much so that we must be portrayed as knuckle dragging goons too illiterate to know any better.

    • Nina Bookout says:

      Excellent point Skilly! Oh … and do they even think about the Moon and tides? Nahhh…doesn’t fit their narrative.

  • Anna A says:

    I would be more concerned if the climate activists were doing what they preach. Like video conferences instead of flying to exotic places, sometimes in private jets; planting more trees and fast growing plants; and especially if a computer model actually predicted last years weather without fudging.

    But I am a simple formulator of coatings who is constantly humbled by the fact that even what I work with isn’t as predictable as I would like. (and thrilled when it does.)

  • Charles N. Steele says:

    That little Swedish girl looks remarkably like Hitler on the GQ cover. That she rants angrily and seems to have a similarly unthinking following makes this particularly disturbing.

  • John C. says:

    Always wrong. Never uncertain.

    • GWB says:

      Hence my constant reference to them as a cult.
      Because that kind of thinking is NOT scientific and very definitely IS cult-like.

  • GWB says:

    it has become clear to me that the language being used about climate action is often seriously misleading
    Because it’s called “lying”. At least by us ‘normals’.

    whose failure to act endangers her future
    Like that.

    the simple point about our house being on fire
    And that.

    climate change-fuelled fires
    And that.

    planetary death is imminent
    And that.

    Child idol worship is gross
    You know, letting a child ‘lead’ a cult has never ended in badness before. Not ever. I’m sure of it.

  • Ben says:

    The ozone layer didn’t become a serious problem because we took action and mostly stopped using the chemicals that caused the depletion in the first place. I think you know this, but maybe not? Similarly, Y2K didn’t become a big problem because told of programmers put in a lot of effort to fix things ahead of time so it wouldn’t be a problem.

    • GWB says:

      They were also both overblown problems. They were treated as The End Of The World Cometh! when they weren’t. (Yes, Y2K was not a problem at all because a bunch of people worked hard to fix it before it manifested. But it was still overblown. No planes were going to fall out of the sky because computers rolled the year over poorly.)

      And the ozone thing….
      What chemicals “caused” the ozone hole? Chloroflourocarbons? That is, a/c coolant and the stuff in hairspray. So, where do you think those ‘contaminants’ are most prevalent? In cities, right?
      So, given that the primary component of smog is ozone, why did big cities have problems with smog while, at the same time, supposedly pumping out lots of these ozone-destroying chemicals?

      Sorry, but just one more environmental scare that wasn’t nearly what the alarmists claimed it was.

  • Bandit says:

    Scoldilocks screamimg at me about her childhood being robbed isn’t too persuasive. She should get outside – it’s beautiful out

  • I R A Darth Aggie says:

    Ok, they want to use small words. Got it. Smart. Talk to your audience in the language they understand. But I have questions for the warmers.

    Are you going to give up your iPhone? your computer? tablet? stop using the internet and google? do you know how many terrawatts Google’s server farms suck down?

    You won’t do that? then it’s not an existential threat and you’re lying to me. Just stop.

    Also, I saw that Greta went to the University of Iowa. How’d she get there? she couldn’t do a video conference?

  • SabrinaD says:

    “Don’t Use Science Words To Lecture About Dangers Of Climate Change”

    … because, after all, it isn’t science. It’s a radical leftist political agenda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
Instagram has returned invalid data.