Soft climate denial.

The softest, most pernicious of climate change denial from @abcnews

See how it’s done.
It’s about climate, and drought.

Is there any discussion of climate CHANGE?

No. But that’s not denial, is it?
It’s subtler than that.
/1 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-28/bom-summer-outlook/11734828

There’s “climate drivers”, “climate conditions”, “past climates”, but no CHANGE.

The subtlety continues.
Are we looking more frequent droughts? Increasingly long or dry droughts? In other words, are we looking at, and talking about CHANGE?

No.
/2

We’re comparing absolutes.

“Is this the worst on record?”
“Is this worse than the Federation drought?”

And here we see the true evil. This comparison of absolutes, with no mention of trend or change, is inviting the logic:

If there was a worse drought 120 years ago, then...
/3

things have been worse. And if things were worse, and got better, then

THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE.

Because comparing absolutes with no discussion of trends, in the context of climate, is deliberately misleading.
In the context of “weather”, maybe not. “Hottest day on record”/4

The deliberate evasion continues.

There’s discussion of the Indian Ocean Dipole, & all sorts of official, sciencey stuff, with graphs and videos. But always in the context of “it comes and goes”, never “it’s getting worse & worse”.

Then the subtlest, most evil stroke of all.
/5

The front page sub-head says “a tiny ray of hope”.
The article says “but there is a distant glimmer of hope”.

What? That CLIMATE CHANGE has stopped?

No, that summer might “return” to “more normal conditions”.

That’s not “hope”, that’s the *possibility* of a reprieve.
/6

And that’s it. Possibly the worst drought on record, with only the possibility that it might end this season, and not a single mention, anywhere, of trends before this drought, or probabilities of more, worse droughts, or CLIMATE CHANGE.

But there’s “hope”.
/7

That’s how to do soft climate denial.
It’s been on full view in the bushfire reporting ever since the Prime Minister ruled that it was “too soon” to talk about climate change.

In fact, rather than talk about it, what’s been happening constantly is this pervasive soft denial.
/8

This “drought” story is a blatant example, since it’s not about bushfires, it specifically is looking at historical events, and nevertheless it carefully avoids any discussion of trends or future events, concentrating on absolutes and mechanisms. That’s not an accident.
/9

But the general formula is simple, and summed up in the graphic.
Concentrate on the now, on the specific, on the local. Talk about who lit a fire, how to fight it, talk about how to prepare better next time, compare it to other bad fires, ask if it’s the worst ever. /10

If possible, conclude it’s *not* the worst, there was a worse one previously, setting up the implicit argument I mentioned earlier.
Talk about people, talk about costs, stay focused in the present & if you talk about the future only talk about preparation.
/11

You can even say “we know it might get worse”, but never talk about why, and NEVER EVER talk about the underlying cause.

Always treat symptoms, and never connect one symptom with another. Don’t connect bushfires to floods, droughts, sea-level rise, more violent weather.
/12

Obviously, never talk about climate change.

And in constantly focusing on the small, on the symptoms, on absolutes & not trends, on the trivia & not the core, you are repeatedly suppressing & diminishing & denying the single most important story of all.

CLIMATE EMERGENCY
/X

p.s. the graphic & headline that the ABC provide for a social-media share are different again from the front-page headline (pictured) or the actual headline (pictured).
Note that this is filed under “weather”, not “climate”. Because the Indian Ocean Dipole predicts showers, right