1.
Symbolism Comms Thread: Humpback Whale

Let's start with an example.

01/27/2016 Dead humpback whale washes up on North Carolina coast

"a baby humpback between 1 and 2 years old"

"More biologist on scene. Something's about to

1. - Gator Comms Post Election
11/11/2020 Minnesota deer hunter bags 10-point buck — and an alligator
"odd chain of the events from Saturday’s firearm hunting opener"
https://t.co/aorxJ8hYib
Hunting Opener.

1. - Kashyap Patel

05/14/2018 Nunes, Gowdy accuse DOJ (Rod Rosenstein) of launching anonymous attacks on congressional investigator

Nunes: "Kash is always 2 steps ahead of the DOJ and this is why they are launching anonymous attacks on him in the

1.
"Pull the brakes" comms

09/10/2018 SHOCK: Italian Motorcycle racing star does the unthinkable by grabbing a rival's brakes at 140mph in Race on Live TV!

Moto2 star Romano Fenati SACKED by team for sabotage and endangering a

1. - Meat Loaf comms

01/04/2021 Ivanka Trump causes confusion by mistakenly tagging Meat Loaf instead of her Father in

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Some 70% of people, depends how you ask, accept the global emergency. Climate system destabilisation is one aspect, declining biodiversity and increasing pollution is another. I ask: what would actually *break* if humanity responded decisively? 1/

Climate: a decisive response = cap on fossil fuel extraction and planned phase out. Fewer private car journeys, less electricity. Nothing would *break*. We still live and eat. There are alternatives and we can all cut back and share more. So what are we afraid of breaking? 2/

Pollution: reducing the above helps all that, cracking down on pollution and biodiversity loss will reduce materials consumption but changing and sharing we can still live on the planet. What would break? 3/

Most pollution and resource consumption is done by rich people. Billions of poor people live and thrive so the rich can too. Nothing will *break* there? 4/

Of course, a rapid reduction in resource consumption, less of most things and enough of the essentials for everyone will *break*something. Economic growth for one thing. But if that broke, what would *break*with it? 5/

Now, before the stupid conservatives begin sneering and laughing AGAIN about climate change and a massive snowstorm, one more time trying to educate:

A warming climate causes extreme weather events, *including* huge snow and plunging temps. 1 example why: (Note: I realize.../1

...that no matter what is said, anti-science and arrogant conservatives who failed high school science will still sneer and laugh because this is more complicated than "temp goes up, it gets cold. HAHAHA!" Plus, they don't wont read anything longer than 20 words. But this.../2

...will at least help reply to their foolishness.)

Here is what is happening right now: there is a large area of low pressure and cold air at both poles. That cycles around the poles and is contained there by higher pressure surrounding it. However, a warming planet changes.../3

...that. The higher pressure/low pressure contains the cold air, but as that warms, what essentially serves as a fence weakens. Plus, simultaneously, the warmer climate is changing the jet stream. Even before this, sometimes the contained area expanded and hit the jet stream.../4

...which brought the polar cold down, thus plunging temperatures. However, with a warming climate - because of the change in pressures and the moving jet steam - the polar air is coming down more frequently. A few years back, *Texas* was hit by polar air. That's how far down.../5

1/13 #ClimateChange is a result of a mindset, that is based on monoculture, fossil fuels, chemicals, corporate control. @BillGates cannot alter a condition with the same mindset that created it in the first place @Trevornoah @drvandanashiva

2/13 The mad rush for #FakeFood and #FakeMeat, ignorant of the #diversity of our food cultures & the role of biodiversity is a recipe for accelerating the #climatecrisis, the destruction of the planet & our health @drvandanashiva

3/13 The perpetrators of the industrialized & now digitized predatory economic model that has led to worldwide ecological devastation are trying to sell us their solutions as the only path forward @drvandanashiva @NnimmoB

4/13 The #GatesFoundation works to create a friendly regulatory environment to push its innovations regardless of risks or past failures by funding to align to its interests- media, research, start-ups, government programmes & international institutions

5/13 Amnesia and denial of past failures becomes evident with the @gatesfoundation new initiative #AgOne where only digital tech and the #GreenRevolution is seen as the solution to the #ClimateCrisis & #BiodiversityCrisis @drvandanashiva

As 2020 comes to a close, we're taking a look back at some of our best reporting on the environment.

The American landscape has become 48 times more toxic to insects since the 1990s, a shift largely fueled by rising use of neonicotinoid insecticides.

Banned in the EU, a sophisticated information war has kept these insecticides on the U.S. market.

Amid California's severe wildfires, grape growers in Sonoma County got exemptions to send in farmworkers who have few alternatives or options for support into fire evacuation zones.

With Trump's election, a small and previously marginalized group of toxics apologists suddenly took control over health and environmental regulations, ushering in higher profits for polluters and higher cancer rates for the American people.

Steven Donziger won a multibillion-dollar judgment against Chevron in Ecuador. The company sued him in New York — as of December, he has been under house arrest for over 500 days.

Many wonder how epidemiology could have become so politicized. But epidemiology - like climate science (the other "mysteriously politicized" subject) has intrinsic politics: to take epidemiology seriously, you have to acknowledge that our species has a shared destiny.

1/

Much of the debate over "liberty" can be summed up as "you do you" - I'll swing my arm over here, you keep your nose over there, and so long as we both respect each others' "freedom," I won't punch you in the nose and your nose will remain unpunched.

2/

This breaks down when applied to epidemiology: "You wear your mask, I'll leave mine at home, and we'll both exercise our freedoms" is like "You swim in the no-pissing end of the pool, I'll swim down here in the pissing end, and we'll both get our way."

3/

We're in the same epidemiological pool, and the science is clear: masking's benefit is primarily in protecting others from you - your presymptomatic, asymptomatic (or symptomatic) spread of particles. Your decision not to wear a mask puts me in danger.

4/

If your worldview ascribes political outcomes to individual choices (implying that poverty or misfortune are the result of a combination of laziness and inferiority), then anything that demands a systemic view challenges its very foundations.

5/