As you all know, a new style guide was recently introduced by the Guardian to ensure that in future only scientifically accurate terms were to be used when referring to climate change and related phenomena. Whilst Cliscep believes that the style guide already encourages a level of panic undemanded by the circumstances, a leaked email suggests that the editors at the Guardian feel the guide does not go far enough, since there are still a number of relatively benign weather phenomena that would benefit from further hyperbole. The following highly trustworthy reproduction of the email makes the situation clear:

—————————–

From: Climate Change Reporting Centre of Excellence

To: All Staff

Re: Style guide important update

The introduction of our new style guide has proven highly effective, as evidenced by the fact that hardly anyone in the world refers to ‘global warming’ anymore. However, such is the crisis that confronts us all, it is felt necessary to introduce a number of additional rules for journalists to follow when writing on the subject of global heating and climate breakdown. Consequently, and with immediate effect, the following new terminology is mandated, although the replaced terminology will still be allowed:

a) In climate breakdown, the sun’s rays bring death and destruction and are therefore to be referred to as ‘solar holocaust’. The sunset shall be referred to as ‘holocaust denial’.

b) In climate breakdown, it is no longer the case that rain falls in certain parts of the country; the correct phrase is ‘rain has hit’. Consequently, rainfall is to be referred to as ‘rainhit’. Puddles shall be referred to as floods, and all flooding shall be referred to as a I in 1,000 year event.

c) In climate breakdown, dry conditions are always life threatening. Consequently, in periods of drought, the land shall no longer be referred to as bone hard but ‘Die Hard’. In extreme drought it shall be shall be known as ‘Die Harder’ and in any period of unprecedented drought the soil conditions shall be referred to as ‘Die Hard with A Vengeance’.

d) In climate breakdown, wind is a known killer and so a breeze is to be referred to as a fatal blow.

e) In climate breakdown, the potential for loved ones to become lost in mist, never to be seen again, shall be acknowledged by referring to foggy conditions as ‘sorely mist’.

f) In climate breakdown, the continued ability for cold days to kill the elderly shall be acknowledged by referring to them as ‘denier reaping days’.

g) In climate breakdown, a rate of 3.7mm per year is to be referred to as ‘galloping death’.

h) In climate breakdown, a warm day shall be known as a heatwave, and three consecutive heatwaves shall be referred to as a ‘heat tsunami’.

i) In climate breakdown, the tide shall be referred to as ‘periodic coastal inundation’. High tide shall be referred to as the ‘Major Erosive Tide’, and low tide shall be referred to as the ‘Minor Erosive Tide’.

j) In climate breakdown, glacial retreat may still be referred to as ‘glacial’, but ‘glacial’ now means ‘too fast for the eye to see’.

Any questions are to be referred to the Climate Change Reporting Centre of Excellence – or, as it is soon to be known, the Climate Change Reporting Centre of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.

Message ends.

21 Comments

  1. You have omitted the most important component of the new style guide. Weather is to be abolished, everything is henceforth to be identified as climate

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I like “rainhit.” I presume that when it rains, rainhit destroys dry ground (i.e. it makes it wet). The destruction is of course reversible (medium confidence).

    For heatwave I suggest a “heat single finger salute” as a wave is too benign.

    You know, the lack of typos makes me wonder if this leak didn’t come from The Guardian at all, but was cooked up on a denier’s stove.

    Like

  4. Jit,

    Surely you are not suggesting that this is fake news. If I had faked it would I have come up with something this stupid?

    Don’t answer that.

    Like

  5. John, thanks for the laugh. The worrying thing is that it’s probably only a matter of time before Guardian (and BBC) journalists unthinkingly adopt one or more of those phrases.

    Like

  9. question to the Climate Change Reporting Centre of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda team.

    can we get this group/song banned/the song by male group “Mungo Jerry – In the Summertime” was funded by big oil (vinyl record) in an effort to get the world used to ever increasing hot summers & be happy when this happens.
    plus the lyrics are misogynist.
    thanks for any feedback.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. ps – to Climate Change Reporting Centre of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda team.

    sorry if this opens a can of worms, but i’ve got loads more like that in the wings 🙂

    Like

  11. Well isn’t it time that ALL songs about sunshine are banned? There’s The Beetles,
    ‘Here Comes the Sun’, The Animals, ‘ House of the Rising Sun,’ Hair Musical.
    ‘Let the Sunshine In’ and all those others.

    Like

  12. Sun gods are now considered evil incarnate and should never be worshiped.
    People with “sunny dispositions” should be shunned.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. John, are you certain that the Graun’s ‘new’ style guide is the latest version?

    I ask, because:

    1. There’s no mention of traditional units measuring changes to warmth heat/temperature (e.g. ℃, ºF, K, exajoules etc) being supplanted by ‘Hiroshima-bombs-per-second’ (HBPS)

    2. Nor is there mention that reported changes must always be given a pessimistic slant even if in reality they should (to those having a half-decent memory) give rise to optimism.

    Compare the info & interpretation in the above image with that of the image below:

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Bill,

    I’m sorry to hear about your kitchen. I hope not too much damage was caused. It’s a timely reminder that even when one is taking a rise out of the ridiculous hype in the papers, there are still people who will be suffering from the weather.

    Like

  17. Stew,

    There has definitely been a change of narrative coming from the activists and those in the media who support them. It used to be all about how deniers were stupid and malicious in challenging the scientific concensus. Now it’s all about how they are stupid and malicious in opposing the proposed solutions. And there is a new air of desperation in the new narrative, almost as if they suspect this opposition has merit and that others will recognize it. The least that can be done is to make us unemployable.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Despite the obvious absurdity of the propaganda, there is no doubt that it is highly effective. Just about all legislators appear to believe it. The legislation continues to spread throughout the world economy. Just about all journalists and media commentators buy into it. Companies are forced by legislation and the threat of media-shaming to comply. Some corporate leaders even seem to take it seriously. As an example, here is an extract from an article on the website of an investment portal about Jet2, the airline:

    “A pandemic was not listed as a principal risk in Jet2’s annual reports before 2020 and neither was another risk that seems obvious and is included now: climate change.

    The two are linked. A changing climate will not only result in airlines shouldering the cost of reducing or offsetting the damage their industry does. It also submerges the beaches they fly to, dries up the water supplies of resorts, and encourages new pathogens that may result in new pandemics.”

    It made me laugh out loud when I read that claptrap but actually the laugh is on me. How can we extricate ourselves from this confused nonsense? Who will do it? Why is nobody, apart from the evil sceptics, trumpeting the fact that high gas prices are a direct consequence of worldwide government policies? This is what the politicians and the “consensus” wanted. So why are they bleating about a fuel crisis rather than explaining that this was what they have set out to achieve?

    Liked by 1 person

  19. MIAB,

    Dunno.

    I tried to make my spoof as ridiculous as possible but probably just ended up making it too daft to laugh at. The real stuff is funnier.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.