Browsed by
Category: Climate Communications

Climate: Messaging fail

Climate: Messaging fail

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

Media: Fiction news site realizes its approach is not working

Media: Fiction news site realizes its approach is not working

The Guardian goes off the deep end. Again. It begins with the idea that maybe instead of focusing on fear, doom and gloom hysteria for marketing “ClimateCrisis”, perhaps focusing on solutions would be a better approach (actual research supports that). But that idea is lost by the next paragraph and their columnist launches into a word salad of nonsense. Sorry, I didn’t think The Guardian propaganda rag could stoop lower but they just did.

Media: Where did “Bomb Cyclone” come from?

Media: Where did “Bomb Cyclone” come from?

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.

Propaganda comes to restaurant menus

Propaganda comes to restaurant menus

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…

Read More Read More

Media: UPI does it again, dumb error

Media: UPI does it again, dumb error

UPI puts out a typical fear inducing propaganda piece of climate change – and its wrong before they even get to the first paragraph. Their photo illustration of Antarctica is, in their own database, an ice field on Svalbard, located near the North Pole – in the Arctic. But who needs accuracy when talking about climate change right? Just making stuff up encourages people to trust you, right?

Are real life people losing interest in propaganda?

Are real life people losing interest in propaganda?

With the oddities underway at Twitter now comes the release of a new film about the climate apocalypse, with 25% of the star power being Rep. AOC. It has not done well at the box office – in fact, this doesn’t even pay for distribution-less than $2,000/day at 120 theaters. Or $130 per day per theater. Ouch Source: To the End – Box Office Mojo

How not to conduct a propaganda campaign

How not to conduct a propaganda campaign

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.

Propaganda: Focusing on unlikely worst case scenarios does not produce optimal public outcomes

Propaganda: Focusing on unlikely worst case scenarios does not produce optimal public outcomes

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.