Green justice advocates and the political minions that cater to them may soon rebrand the phrase, “Climate Change.”

A new study, conducted by a specialty neurological research group, indicates the current term does not adequately gin-up angst in listeners.

New York City-based SPARK Neuro, a neuroanalytics company that measures emotion and attention, studied how participants responded to six terms — “climate crisis,” “environmental destruction,” “environmental collapse,” “weather destabilization,” “global warming” and “climate change.”

A total of 120 people — 40 Republicans, 40 Democrats and 40 independents — participated in the study, which measured the “emotional intensity” of responses to audio recordings of various controversial phrases, with each term inserted, like this example below:

“Sea levels will rise dramatically, to the point that many coastal cities will be submerged, as a result of [INSERT TERM].”

The electrical activity of the participants’ brains and skin was rated on a scale of zero to five — five being the strongest. Those results were then compared to a traditional survey for reference.

Two terms stood out from the pack: climate crisis and environmental destruction.

Spencer Gerrol, CEO of SPARK Neuro, indicated that generating strong emotion inspires people to act. It seems “climate change” and “global warming” are outdated and overused.

Gerrol came up with the idea to run a messaging experiment about how to frame the subject while talking to a colleague about the importance of language and how the right phrase can change policy. He pointed to the “estate tax,” which normal people didn’t care much about until Republicans started rebranding it as the “death tax” in the 1990s. Frank Luntz, a well-known messaging consultant for Republicans, further popularized the phrase in the early 2000s.

“As soon as they started calling it the death tax, people started caring,” Gerrol said. “Regardless of how you feel about the estate tax, that language changed people’s emotional perceptions, and ultimately that changed behavior and policy.” Since 2001, Congress has weakened the federal estate tax, temporarily repealing it in 2010. It returned in a weakened state in 2011 and took another blow under the 2017 tax bill.

Gerrol suspects that there are two reasons “global warming” and “climate change” performed so poorly. For one, they’re both neutral phrases. “There’s nothing inherently negative or positive” about the words themselves, Gerrol points out…..

Then there’s the problem of overexposure. Both global warming and climate change are “incredibly worn out,” he said. There’s a reason why advertising companies aren’t using their ad campaigns from the 1980s — sometimes you need to shake things up to get people to pay attention. If a term doesn’t evoke a strong emotional response in the first place, it’s even more likely to wear out quickly, Gerrol said

However, the “death tax” repeal is based on economic realities. “Climate crisis” advocates will have to explain a few facts that do not support the narrative. A few examples of data discrepancies include:

I could go on, but I think my point is clear.

You can put as much lipstick as you want on a green justice insanity pig, and it is still . . . a green justice insanity pig.  With lipstick.

When the 20+ Democrat presidential candidates proclaim “environmental destruction” and “climate crisis,” I hope the only response it inspires is mockery and derision.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.