10/19/2019, 8:56 am
Komrades!
Personal beet quotas are of utter importance, and the kollektive beet yield a most significant zeal indicator for our beloved Politbyuro (plus our stern normirovshchiki)!
But do your language skills, too, march vanward with the ongoing further progress of Politbyuro direktives? Your proglomsomol vocabulary up to date?
Komrade!
Check for unblemished korrektness & kompliance of your personal linguo-habits in all matters related to our kollektive Planetary Klimate! NOW!
Are YOU aware of NewKlim?
~
NewKlim:
A dialectic synthesis of GretAngstBabble, UNwifflewaffle and MerkeLinguoVapor. Strongly influenced by SciApocalWeasel and InconvTruthChitchat. Hysterically Courageously amplified via ShournAllGab, PolitRukDrone, ExperTattle, LobbYakyak, GreenPissBang, CeleBlather, you-name-it.
Freshly introduced by The Guardian, here the 1.) .. 6.) essentials (+ a few emphases/notes):
1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”
‘Climate change' is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense [...] .[btw, Holdren's (= Obama + Science Adviser) 'climate disruption' somehow didn't stick (since 2007)]
2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier' is more accurate. .[ahem, ahem.. semantic equilibristics in fullest blow]
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating' is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun's heat escaping back to space. .[sheer bunkum]
4.) “greenhouse gas emissions” is preferred to “carbon emissions” or “carbon dioxide emissions”. Although ‘carbon emissions' is not inaccurate, if we're talking about all gases that warm the atmosphere, this term recognises all of the climate-damaging gases, including methane, nitrogen oxides, CFCs etc. .[as 'warming' kinda stopped (since '98), switch to 'change'; as 'CO₂' goes in doubt, switch to 'gases'; etc.]
5.) Use “wildlife”, not “biodiversity”
We felt [jawohl! ze 'feelink'!] that ‘wildlife' is a much more accessible word and is fair to use in many stories, and is a bit less clinical when talking about all the creatures with whom we share the planet.
6.) Use “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks”
This change emphasises that fish [ja! ze 'feelink'!] do not exist solely to be harvested by humans – they play a vital role in the natural health of the oceans. .[coldly 'fish population(s)'? outrage! 'fish kollektiv(es)' it is!]
They only failed on
7.) Use “???????” instead of “carbon”
Of course, "???????"
(But comrades of The Guardian will surely close that gap on their own, soon.)
And of course, there is still room for even stronger aktivnye myeropriyatiya, active measures:
"global heating"? bullshit, "global overboiling"!
"climate emergency/crisis"? bollocks, "climate rupture/explosion"! "klimkatastrophia"!
"climate denier/science denier"? bellyflop, "klimkulak"! "sci rapist"! "white supremacist"!
Komrades, further progressive suggestions?
Viner said:
.
“People need reminding
that the climate crisis is
no longer a future problem
– we need to tackle it now,
and every day matters.”
Mystery item No. 1
Hide it back 
