Image 01 Image 03

Green justice advocates may soon rebrand “Climate Change”

Green justice advocates may soon rebrand “Climate Change”

A new study says “Global Warming” is old and cold. New and hot: “Climate Crisis” & “Environmental Destruction”

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 It seems “climate change” and “global warming” are outdated and overused.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.


In order to make even a shadow of sense, “warming” has to be in there somewhere, so they can pretend that it’s urgent for government to control anything involving carbon. If we’re heading for a new Ice Age it’s hard to get anyone excited about greenhouse gases, real or imaginary.

Yeah but, did they run this by AlGore first?

If you use the words African-American to describe a race then you have already surrendered to the lefts control over language. Any racial designator that fits both Elon Musk and Oprah Winfrey is a political tool.

This is comical, but it’s simply a result of progressive’s infatuation with “framing” recently. The idea is, you may have a terrible idea that everyone hates (like infanticide, open borders, and higher taxes) but if you just FRAME it the right way everyone will love it!!!

It’s a “Mad Men / Don Draper” approach to politics, just come up with the right slogan and sell that baby!!! But it doesn’t work if the voters are on to what you’re up to.

It’s not obvious that they’re measuring anything useful here.

. . . studied how participants responded to six terms — “climate crisis,” “environmental destruction,” “environmental collapse,” “weather destabilization,” “global warming” and “climate change” . . .

… the study . . . measured the “emotional intensity” of responses to audio recordings of various controversial phrases

I’d probably have a measurably intense response to any of these phrases . . . but the response wouldn’t be “Holy shit, somebody better do something about this! Where do I vote?” It would be more like “Jeezuz, I hate this place! I’m surrounded by idiots! Where’s the damn exit?”

As a former member of a specialty neurological research group, can I weigh in here? 😉

This guy is such a desperate, malignant clown.

Speaking of malignant clowns, until Christopher Wray is thrown out of the FBI, it remains corrupted:

Comey crony Christopher Wray acts as security guard for Clinton coup clan.

I like “climate breakdown” from the Guardian’s new style guide. If we don’t raise taxes now, in 12 years there won’t be any climate left!

Btw, another rino rat to keep an eye (mostly cross-hairs) on:

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., broke with his Republican colleagues on Saturday when he claimed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian election meddling showed President Trump engaging in “impeachable conduct.”

Gooollllly Andy, so far not even one of our dire climate destruction predictions has come true since we fabricated this huge lie so long ago.
Let’s change the words again and maybe enough idiots will follow along this time, especially since NOW we have the right people in charge.

They should just be honest, and call it what they’re really afraid of: a Global Warming Research Funding Climate Change.

In other words…their funding is at risk of drying up.

    Terence G. Gain in reply to rinardman. | May 19, 2019 at 10:58 am

    Climate scientists should just be honest for a change and acknowledge that climate is as difficult to understand and predict as female sexuality.

Terence G. Gain | May 19, 2019 at 10:50 am

Rather than declare war on plant food and destroy the economy, there are two things we should do which would be beneficial and inexpensive. Plant more trees and ask Muslims to curb their enthusiasm for overpopulation.