Ad "Expert" Wants to Rebrand "Climate Change" to be Scarier


Originally published at: Ad “Expert” Wants to Rebrand “Climate Change” to be Scarier |

The climate doomsday hoax cultists have abandoned using any sort of logic and/or reason decades ago. Now, an ad “expert” wants to rebrand the term “climate change” to scare people into accepting that this whole weather hoax must be real. And because of how real it allegedly is, we need to stop using electricity, start eating bugs and pay carbon taxes to fund global government.


Climate change alarmists are pushing for a change in vocabulary to scare people into taking global warming more seriously, starting with terms like “global meltdown” and “climate collapse.”

Writing for AdAge this week, Aaron Hall argues that in order to get people to “take action” against climate change, “rebranding” is crucial, since people have gotten too used to the idea that climate is changing and need to be shocked into the notion that the world as we know it is ending.

“Is there a better way to convey the urgency of the situation, while also encouraging folks to take action? Could the tools of branding and brand naming create a more resonant, powerful name?” Mr. Hall asks.

What he and his marketing team came up with was a series of much more frightening labels to stick on climate change in the hope of jolting people into meaningful engagement.

The terms “Global Meltdown” or “Global Melting,” for instance, deliver a more negative image than mere “Global Warming,” he contends. “The names signal that ice caps are melting, but also create a more visceral image in the mind — that real feeling of ‘melting’ when it’s too hot outside. A meltdown is a disastrous event that draws from the ultimate terror of a nuclear meltdown, an apt metaphor for global destruction.”

“Climate Collapse” and “Climate Chaos,” on the other hand, “instill a clear message or even a direct call to action,” Hall notes, adding that “there’s nothing neutral about collapse or chaos.”

To up the rhetoric even more, Hall proposes the weaponized term “Scorched Earth.”

The thing is, the term “climate change” was basically a rebrand of “global warming” and we only heard about “global warming” after people were going nuts about a new ice age in the 1970s.

So this idea of rebranding this weather apocalypse bullshit is not a new concept. What is new is how they are openly talking about using scarier terms to brainwash people into accepting this unproven idea that the planet is going to be destroyed from fossil fuel emissions within the next 12 years. They aren’t even hiding their agenda.

But if all this was really true, the logical thing to do would be to get the countries which are polluting the most to stop polluting. Namely China and India. There is however no attempt to do this.

All of this hysteria is focused on brainwashing White people because objectively White people are among the few people who actually care about a clean environment. White women have been particularly susceptible to this baseless propaganda. They are misdirecting people’s legitimate concerns as an excuse to raise taxes and do other nefarious things in the name of this dumb hoax.


Global warming and climate change were ineffective and don’t pack quite the punch of chaos, meltdown or collapse.


Climate stuff is a business, a brand: and since the current has grown old and useless (((they))) need a new one to make it more appealing and popular among their target population.

It never was about the planet or ecology: it was about taxes and controlling people.


The millions that get spent on advertising boggles the mind. They know they are losing their grip on people and are employing more fear tactics. These people never tell us the dark side of ‘renewable energy’. For example the raw materials used in making solar panels are non-renewable and come from…China. China’s supply of these raw metals is depleting with the push toward more solar power. Then what?? This is bullshit folks. Electric cars are still on the grid. How is that better? Leftists never think things through before speaking and merely act on emotion, which is wrong every time.


The focus on this weather apocalypse hoax has pretty much ensured that real environmental problems don’t ever get solved.


Advertising uses a lot of energy and is 99% unnecessary for intelligent people. We can deal in facts and do not need convincing. Think about how much carbon is generated to show ads on TV, streaming video, Internet, etc. But of course we hear absolutely nothing as that industry will stop at nothing to try and convince us that human society was lost before mass advertising ( (((Bernays))) ).


You are correct. It occurred to me all those annoying drug ads and how if they didn’t spend the millions on those ads maybe medicines would be affordable and there would be no need for medical insurance and so on.


I fucking hope that the world as we know it is ending. I couldn’t think of anything that would make me happier.