Canadian Politics Today

Like the writer in the article, I feel like I have to push my bona fides as a Climate Science proponent, a long time believer in anthropogenic climate change, and a debunker of denier conspiracies.

Unfortunately, for people who don't see this as fact-based they may see me as some kind of traitor for having nuanced views on the problem.

Be careful suggesting such over at "hillbillyville", scribbles, taxme etal will be all over you.

I really don't care what they think.  And anyway, I doubt they would ever care what I think either.  They have no understanding of good things, generally.

Questioning the science is acceptable IMO, completely ignoring or even mocking it is not. I suggest we make shore front properties available at good prices to them. Then we can recover the lost real estate income by selling them boat houses.

Is the picture scare mongering?

I think pictures are open to interpretation of significance.  Words and facts should be more straightforward.

And the thing is, we DO need to call people to action.

But there's still such a thing as scaremongering.

I'm thinking that pointing that out will help the cause, as it will point people to good science.

Lots of other media outlets do the same kind of scare-mongering with articles reporting on general warnings about temperature rises and then slaps a burning inferno of some kind right beneath the headline.  It's a scare tactic done purposely by the authors to scare people into action on AGW.  Sites like The Gaurdian and CBC does this stuff all the time:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/climate-crisis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/18/guardian-climate-pledge-2019-images-pictures-guidelines

You can explain the seriousness of climate change issues (which are very serious) without trying to frighten people with pictures of the world set on fire, or frighten them with emotional language.  AGW may increase dryness in some forest regions and cause more forest fires, but the world isn't going to burn in ball of fire.  These dire warning from science organizations should be enough to scare the crap out of us and inspire us to action, we don't need to be emotionally manipulated by media.

Then of course there's the media's explicit emotional spin of language to scare people to action:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/16/guardian-language-changes-climate-environment

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.5341093/no-more-benign-images-of-climate-crisis-says-photography-head-for-the-guardian-1.5339961

So what part of this:  “untold suffering due to the climate crisis”   Is an issue?

It's not over the top. And the people resisting action, aren't going to suddenly get involved if the language is softened. How can you fall for this nonsense?

People should be convinced to take action based on facts, science, evidence, reason, logic.  Not by emotional sensationalism and fear-mongering and whatever other propaganda.  The point of the news is to report facts about what's going on in the world, emotional activism should be relegated to the opinion sections.

There's plenty of scientific evidence to convince any reasonable person that climate change is a major concern we need to deal with.  Y2K, ebola, West Nile Virus, acid rain, holes in the ozone, African killer bees, avian bird blu, H1N1, thermo nuclear apocalyse...these were/are all things to be concerned about to various degrees, but the sensationalism fear-mongering in the media is driven to scare us to sell TV ratings and newspapers and page views.

I'm plenty concerned about climate change, and moreso than the other things i've mentioned, but the scare-tactics BS needs to bugger off.  You only agree with it because it serves your political agenda.  Science > emotion.

People should be convinced to take action based on facts, science, evidence, reason, logic.  Not by emotional sensationalism and fear-mongering and whatever other propaganda.  The point of the news is to report facts about what's going on in the world, emotional activism should be relegated to the opinion sections.

There's plenty of scientific evidence to convince any reasonable person that climate change is a major concern we need to deal with.  Y2K, ebola, West Nile Virus, acid rain, holes in the ozone, African killer bees, avian bird blu, H1N1, thermo nuclear apocalyse...these were/are all things to be concerned about to various degrees, but the sensationalism fear-mongering in the media is driven to scare us to sell TV ratings and newspapers and page views.

I'm plenty concerned about climate change, and moreso than the other things i've mentioned, but the scare-tactics BS needs to bugger off.  You only agree with it because it serves your political agenda.  Science > emotion.

Sounds like typical denier strategy to claim actual science they don't like to hear must be "scare tactic BS". Most of the things you attempt to mock, "Y2K, killer bees, ebola etc" actually did happen. Perhaps not to the degree you seem to require to recognize them, but hopefully you won't need water seeping onto your lawn before you take GW seriously.

You didn't actually read what i said.  I'm not a denier, that's pretty clear from my post.  You only read what you wanted to hear and ignored everything else.  Your reply is ridiculous and nonsensical.  You're not interesting in having a discussion, just punching at strawmen.

Yeah I did read, which is how I was able to quote.