“Experts” first warned us of imminent—and deadly—global cooling in the 1970s. A couple of decades later they started warning us about the possibly even more deadly global warming that was robbing us of a future. More recently, with warming taking a pause, much like cooling did in the 1980s, “experts” and our elite masters decided that “climate change” would be a better moniker for the nevertheless impending disaster. And now, purveyors of planetary panic have decided that the term is not terrifying enough to cause people to make drastic changes in their lives. A recent article by Aaron Hall in AdAge essentially posed the following question: would people be more alarmed if “climate change” was supplanted by starker, more aggressive terms such as “global meltdown” or “climate collapse?” Hall is a “professional namer,” who says the new name needs to resonate with unscientific rubes in flyover country to help them understand the scope of the problem. (Translation: vote for leftists).
Much as Democrats threw out “quid pro quo” in favor of “bribery” after surveys showed the former term didn’t register with eligible voters following earlier impeachment hearings, and the latter one did, they brainstormed what terms might light a fire—so to speak—under deplorables. Other terms considered included “global melting,” “boiling point,” “scorched Earth,” and “climate chaos.”
Hall also mulled over many other terms, granting honorable mention status to “Emission critical,” “planet critical,” pre-extinction,” “earthshattering,” and, my personal favorite, “The Great Collapse.”
I am by no means certain Hall went far enough in his rebranding scheme to scare people into obedience. A term like “climate derangement” could be used to scare us into thinking that not only is the climate heating up, but that it may well take a machete to us when we’re in the shower. Words like “baking,” “toasting,“ “roasting,” “scalding” and “broiling” could be employed. “Incinerate” would surely incite. How about “climate holocaust?” “Climate catastrophe?” “Planetary apocalypse?” Perhaps that would make more folks commit themselves to the bonds of slavery.
In a sense, “Climate change” is an inanity. It is akin to saying, “solar heat.” The second word of each term is superfluous. On a macro scale, if there wasn’t climate change, there would be nothing, the null set. An endless void. We wouldn’t be here.
But that doesn’t matter to the elites. To progressives, crisis equals opportunity. This is why they never truly try to solve one. The more imminent and devastating they can portray the “crisis” to be, the greater their opportunity for power and control.
Post a Comment