The professor acknowledges, without realizing what he is writing, that too much communications is untrue when he makes untrue assertions about Brazil:

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.

The Amazon fires in Brazil, specifically, are not, according to numerous reputable sources, fueled by climate change. See links in our prior posts on climate communications and especially see this, this and this where published papers find that the trend in wildfires, over time, has been downward.

Source: “Our house is on fire!” Why Greta Thunberg infuriates conservatives | Salon.com

As published here previously,

Untrue propaganda statements like the above are a turn off to many.  The Nature Conservancy should focus on facts of atmospheric CO2 levels rising, land and sea surface temperature anomalies, ice pack changes, ocean Ph and sea level change (IPCC Synthesis Report, Figure SPM.1) – as reported by reputable scientific bodies, but they did not. Instead they went straight for hyperbole and making untrue claims to promote fear and hysteria. Classic propaganda techniques.

and

Some say the problem is “We are not asking the “Do you believe in climate change” survey questions properly” without looking at the root cause problem. The root problem is the excessive use of failed propaganda methodologies rather than facts and logic.

Or,

… improved communication comes from honest and accurate presentation of facts and logical arguments. Unfortunately, the climate communications community has, rather consistently, engaged in increasingly shrill propaganda messaging that eventually results in the “The boy who cried wolf” phenomena where no one believes anything anymore.

The facts are sufficient. The impacts of untrue propaganda hysteria, on the other hand, are to turn off the target completely. We have learned nothing from the parable of the boy who repeatedly cried Wolf!

Professor Simon Dalby appears not to understand that this approach is backfiring and may be the primary reason that many choose to ignore climate studies. First, he insults the target audience by implying they are too dumb to understand science words. He then advocates for simplified slogans from children (even when such slogans may not be true) as a solution. His approach of insulting the target and dumbing down the discussion and use of exaggerated claims is not helpful to climate communications.