Pirate's Cove

The New Republic is pretty much a far left outlet, so, it’s rather interesting that they and screedist Liza Featherstone use the word propaganda, know the negative connotations

We Need Better Climate Propaganda
Warnings about the catastrophes ahead need to name the enemy and give people something to do.

For those of us anxious about climate change, last week felt like a lot. In addition to witnessing the ongoing present-day fallout of climate change worldwide through floods and fires, we got some scary news about the future. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with yet another report on the consequences humans will likely face if we fail to take sufficient action to curb emissions and protect the planet.

The report plainly stated that although all is not lost, extreme weather is now inevitable no matter where you live. The dire warnings circulated widely: “How Climate Change Kills the Future,” read an Axios headline. The Washington Post was equally blunt: “The Climate News Is About to Get a Lot Worse.” The 314 Action Fund, a climate action group, besieged me with email all week, admonishing, “We lost a decade in the fight to get a handle on the climate crisis.” An email from MoveOn told me that the report was a “code red for humanity”—a phrase from the report that appeared in many headlines—and urged me to get a sticker reading “The Earth Can’t Wait.”

Then there was this baffling tweet from one of the most powerful individuals in the world. “We can’t wait to tackle the climate crisis,” President Biden wrote. “The signs are unmistakable. The science is undeniable. And the cost of inaction keeps mounting.”

What do you mean by “we”? Isn’t the president of the United States in a better position than most of us to “tackle the climate crisis”?

Huh. Is Liza saying that climate cultists, who have Serious Concerns about doom from ‘climate change’, aren’t will to Do Something in their own lives unless forced by authoritarian government? Is Liza suggesting that government become dictatorial?

Widespread public worry represents huge progress: It’s better than denying or ignoring the climate crisis, as many of our leaders and media outlets have done in the past. Yet the chatter around the IPCC report and the report itself still managed to be unhelpful, scaring us to death while missing an opportunity to galvanize us into action. It’s a common dilemma in climate activism—one activists, scientists, and politicians are going to have to get a lot smarter about if we’re to avert catastrophe.

Liza? This is all your cult has. Doomsaying. This is where they’ve been going for 30+ years. And all their policy offering revolve around taxes and limiting freedom and choice. While the disciples do virtually nothing in their own lives.

The report failed as propaganda—and as basic information—in one glaring way: failing to name the enemy. As the writer Emily Atkin noted, the IPCC report and its summary for policymakers discussed “human” activity at length while saying very little about the fossil fuel industry. The report failed to unify potential readers against the relevant foe. Much of the media coverage replicated this problem.

It’s a 4,000+ page document, one which almost no one read, and just repeats the same old same old in stronger, scarier terms. Why is it that I never see Warmists complaining about the fossil fuels industry admitting they gave their own use of fossil fuels?

It would be bad enough if the report and its chroniclers merely punted on identifying the bad guy in the climate change drama. But the psychological consequences are worse than that: By naming the enemy as ourselves—all humans—the report maximized the potential for self-reproach with no clear path forward. A Guardian headline, for instance, referred to the “IPCC report’s verdict on climate crimes of humanity: guilty as hell.” This framing makes us feel guilty just for existing, when it’s our existence that is at stake, and worth fighting for.

Well, duh. That’s what Warmists have been saying for decades. Blaming mankind. What did you think would happen? Skipping to the end through more whining

In fairness, some environmental groups sent emails and tweets urging action on specific environmental policies, including pressure on Biden’s EPA. On the Tuesday after the report came out, I got a text from the office of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, referencing the report and the “dire consequences” of climate change we’re facing. “We’re knocking on doors to talk about taking environmental action with our neighbors,” the text continued, inviting me to come to the Bronx and canvass for the Green New Deal and against the new power plant in Astoria. It was a deceptively simple but effective message: Things are bad, but you can help make them better.

Oh, sending emails and tweets and knocking on doors, that should totally fix this! In fairness, AOC did purchase a Tesla. Of course, she still flies to and from NYC to DC in a fossil fueled airplane, rather than driving the Tesla the 4 hours to DC or taking the train or bus. And what she is trying to push while having others knock on doors is her Green New Deal, chock full of taxes, fees, a higher cost of living, and governmental control of our lives and economy.

Read: The UN IPCC Needs Better Climate Crisis (scam) Propaganda Or Something »

If only you would purchase an electric vehicle so you can go get a nice plant based burger, we could solve this

This is the do-or-die decade for climate change, world scientists warn

Time’s up, according to the world’s scientists who have just issued their starkest warning yet with the release of a climate science report for the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report released Monday is the first instalment of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), which will be finished in 2022. This installment, from Working Group 1, tackles the physical science basis of climate change. The report describes how little time is left to hit the brakes on warming and put the world on track to keep from breaching the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold above pre-industrial temperature that scientists calculate can still keep the climate relatively safe. At a minimum, it is essential that we slow warming fast enough to keep the 1.5-degree target within sight, even with limited overshoot.

Tipping points are notoriously hard to quantify, and hence frequently excluded from climate models. But the probability — the fat-tail risk — is increasing every day that we’ll pass critical tipping points in a matter of years to decades.

Tipping points are hard to quantify, but, they are easy to prognosticate

In this do-or-die moment, the biggest immediate opportunity is to cut methane emissions, which also happens to be the fastest and probably cheapest way to slow warming. The landmark Global Methane Assessment by the United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition calculates that reducing methane emissions by 45 percent by 2030 will avoid almost 0.3 degrees Celsius of warming globally and 0.5 degrees of warming in the vulnerable Arctic by the 2040s — while simultaneously preventing 255,000 premature human deaths every year, along with 775,000 asthma-related hospital visits, 73 billion hours of lost labour from extreme heat, and 26 million tonnes of crop losses globally.

They finally got around to methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Shorter atmospheric span than CO2, but, up to 25 times more of a greenhouse gas, but, it is not known for a doubling effect. Of course, two of the biggest creators are agriculture and landfills. Cities, states, and nations have worked hard to deal landfills, as well they should. I’ve noted methane as a driver of warming for a long time now, which is one reason I’ve always stated that Mankind does bear some responsibility for warming. Same with agriculture. What will Warmists do, kill all the meat animals? The Cult of Climastrology has mostly stayed away from it because people will laugh about cow farts.

This is the decade of action to bend not just the emissions curve, but more crucially the warming curve. Heat is the enemy we need to beat. World leaders are increasingly recognizing that this decade must achieve both immediate and drastic cuts to methane and other super climate pollutants, along with accelerated efforts to transition to clean energy and decarbonize our economies no later than 2050.

This happens every year, being told that we have 10 years to Save The Planet from a tiny increase in global temperatures. It’s inevitable to get these doomy proclamations. I’m just wondering, if we only have 10 years left, why do so few Warmists practice what they preach?

Read: This Is A Do Or Die Decade For Climate Crisis (scam) Or Something »