Treacherous Words
How Climate Change Conspiracy Sceptics use Conceptual Metaphors to Extinguish our Future
Ida-Maria Chvostek
Student Vt 2019 Examensarbete för kandidatexamen, 15 hp Engelska
Abstract
This study examined the metaphors used in contemporary American conservative discourse between October 2018 and March 2019, focusing on material published by conservative think tanks (CTTs) and tweets made by Republican senators in relation to climate change. For the CTTs, a domain-specific corpus (36,388 words) was compiled and a smaller corpus (3967 words) was assembled based on 135 tweets. These datasets showed that conspiracy scepticism was the most common type of scepticism used to discredit climate change data, scientists and environmental policies. In addition, the datasets indicate that conservative agents frequently used metaphors of WAR, RELIGION, HEALTH, BUILDING, JOURNEY, WATER and PRODUCT to convey negative frames. These domains linked to the conceptual key LIFE IS A STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL and were presented in a moral context. In response to these findings it is suggested that the scientific community incorporate emotional language, metaphors and moral values when communicating environmental issues.
Keywords: United States of America, conservative think tanks, critical metaphor analysis, IPCC, framing
Table of contents
1 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Background ...... 3 1.1.1 Anthropogenic warming and the IPCC ...... 3 1.1.2 SR15 and the global community ...... 4 1.1.3 Conservative agents and climate change scepticism ...... 4
2 Aim and research questions ...... 6
3 Theoretical framework ...... 7 3.1 Thought control and hegemony ...... 7 3.2 Metaphors and frames ...... 7 3.2.1 Critical Discourse Analysis ...... 9 3.2.2 Critical Metaphor Analysis ...... 9
4 Material and method ...... 11 4.1 Domain-specific corpus: the ACCC ...... 11 4.1.1 Targets of scepticism ...... 12 4.1.2 Identifying conspiracy metaphors ...... 12 4.2 Social impact: Republican senators on Twitter ...... 13
5 Results and analysis ...... 14 5.1 The ACCC: metaphor identification and classification ...... 14 5.1.1 War metaphors ...... 15 5.1.2 Religious metaphors ...... 16 5.1.3 Health metaphors ...... 17 5.1.4 Building metaphors ...... 19 5.1.5 Journey metaphors ...... 20 5.1.6 Water metaphors ...... 21 5.1.7 Product metaphors ...... 23 5.2 Twitter: metaphors and political action ...... 24
6 Discussion ...... 27 6.1 A war on Earth ...... 28 6.1.1 Science: responsibilities and collaborations ...... 29 6.1.2 Environmentalism: heuristic techniques ...... 29 6.2 A war for the future ...... 31
7 Conclusion ...... 32
8 References ...... 33
1. Introduction For decades, a small portion of humanity has warned us that we are heading towards a catastrophe. While not on the palisades screaming their message, climate scientists have continuously affirmed that our actions are threatening the very planet on which our existence depends (e.g. Haeberli & Beniston, 1998; Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007; Nerem et al., 2018). Nevertheless, climate change research is frequently ignored, questioned and scorned by conservative politicians and interest groups who use their power to silence rather than listen to these expert voices (e.g. Jacques et al., 2008). In America, this has resulted in environmental agencies being censored, international agreements being abandoned, and the general public remaining sceptical of climate change (Barron, 2018; The White House, 2017; Capstick et al., 2015). In order to reverse this trend, it has been suggested that the environmental community must tailor how they communicate climate change to shift the public’s operational ideology from conservative to progressive values (Zia & Todd, 2010). One way of achieving this switch is through interdisciplinary collaborations, where scientists from multiple fields contribute their unique expertise to strengthen climate change messages by addressing socio-ecological issues (e.g. Bifrost, n.d.). As a contribution to this field this paper will examine the metaphors and frames used by climate ‘sceptics’ when discussing global warming. However, before we begin to analyse sceptic discourse, let us start with a short summary of the risks and impacts associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the key players involved in the climate change debate.
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Anthropogenic warming and the IPCC Our understanding of man-made global warming has grown immensely over the last 200 years, and in 1988 the UN General Assembly established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to review the available scientific literature on climate change. Since then, the IPCC has released five assessment reports, as well as multiple special reports, making recommendations based on the most current climate change research (IPCC, n.d.). In October 2018, IPCC released special report SR15 detailing the severe impacts associated with a global mean temperature of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (IPCC, 2018). According to this report, which is based on more than 6000 peer reviewed papers and compiled by 91 scientists from 40 countries, this degree of anthropogenic warming will have devastating effects on natural as well as human systems. As our planet has already warmed with 1°C due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are at risk of disintegrating in the next few decades, causing global sea levels to rise and displacing millions of people. In addition, as extreme weather
3 events increase, we will face large-scale species loss as well as increasing food insecurity. These scenarios are not just doomsday prophecies; at 1°C above pre-industrial temperatures species are already going extinct, corals are struggling to survive and persistent droughts have caused an upsurge in asylum applications to the European Union (Gynther et al., 2016; Hughes et al., 2017; Missirian & Schlenker, 2017). The scientific community is clear; if greenhouse gas emissions continue unmitigated the environmental consequences will be both costly and deadly.
1.1.2 SR15 and the global community In order to limit global warming to 1.5°C humanity must drastically reduce carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions, with the IPCC recommending wide-ranging policies, practices and innovations on national and international levels to achieve this goal. However, while some governments have responded to SR15 by asking for advice on how to achieve net zero carbon by 2050 (e.g. Cunningham et al., 2018), some major stakeholders have instead refused to take action by question the report’s legitimacy (e.g. Hewson, 2018). Among these countries is the U.S. who in 2018 refused to welcome the IPCC to the United Nations’ annual climate change conference, provoking Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman to declare:
“There's a new axis of evil: Russia, Saudi Arabia -- and the United States” Paul Krugman on Twitter
At a first glance Krugman’s statement might seem a rash exaggeration, but with the U.S. being the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide (UCS, 2018) the tweet efficiently highlights the moral issues associated with a key nation distancing itself from the climate concerns shared by the majority of the global community. However, the U.S. attitude towards environmental issues is nothing new, instead following a decades-long pattern of American conservative politicians openly questioning climate change while simultaneously expressing distrust in the scientific community (McCright & Dunlap, 2010).
1.1.3 Conservative agents and climate change scepticism Conservative entities questioning climate change are known as ‘climate sceptics’, or ‘climate deniers’, and their attacks are carefully crafted to undermine the scientific community as well as progressive initiatives to reduce emissions. Generally, sceptics use a few key strategies to spread doubt: 1) trend sceptics deny that there is any global warming, 2) attribution sceptics argue that the current changes are natural, 3) impact sceptics argue that a warmer climate will be beneficial (Rahmstorf, 2004), 4) consensus sceptics state that the scientific community does not agree that climate change is happening and/or to what extent it is occurring (Engels et al. 2013), and 5) conspiracy sceptics claim that “powerful
4 and malevolent groups” use climate change as a front to promote hidden agendas (Douglas & Sutton, 2015: 99). Relying on one or several of these strategies, CTTs spread doubt about climate change while simultaneously framing themselves as a legitimate counterweight to the scientific community (Jacques et al., 2008). As a result, CTTs have been granted significant press coverage, augmenting the impression that anthropogenic climate change remains highly questionable (Schmid-Petri et al., 2015). Consequently, 25% of Americans report that they are sceptical of climate change, with a full 14% of the population believing that climate change will never have any harmful consequences, and 55% of Americans stating that they are unwilling to pay to combat global warming (Saad, 2014; Brechin & Bhandari, 2011). Assuming that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, climate scepticism thus constitutes a serious threat to humanity and environmentalists must improve their communication strategies to make the general public aware of this danger.
5
2. Aim and research questions George Orwell once wrote, ”The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image” (1946: 5). This argument is as central today as ever, and conservative politicians have learned that metaphors, imagery, and emotional language have the power to win over a crowd. In contrast, progressives struggle with changing the narrative to their advantage, and the situation is made worse as they frequently argue within the same conceptual frame as conservatives while erroneously believing that more facts will engage the public (Lakoff, 2009). As a result, progressive politicians lose elections and environmental legislation is blocked. As traditional strategies to engage the general public in environmental efforts have proven inadequate, progressive politicians, scientists and environmentalists will have to change their approach. One way to communicate climate change more efficiently is to improve communication strategies; with re-framing and conceptual metaphors being suggested as potential tools to achieve this goal (Hassol, 2008). Building on the idea of metaphors and frames as powerful communication tools, I argue that the environmental community needs to invest more time and money on shedding light on climate change scepticism, its motives and strategies, and use this knowledge to construct organized and powerful outreach strategies. As a way to contribute to this process, I will analyse a language corpus compiled from material publicised by American CTTs as well as data collected from Republican tweets to: 1) Identify what type of scepticism has dominated the CTT discourse since SR15. 2) Identify the metaphors most frequently used by conservative entities. 3) Expose conservative frames by linking these metaphors to their conceptual metaphors and keys. Lastly, I will discuss the moral aspect of these frames and provide suggestions on how environmentalists can use these findings to fight the conservative agenda more forcefully.
6
3. Theoretical framework Politics, whether it addresses trade, immigration or climate change, is about one thing: power. In terms of fighting global warming, temperatures will increase to 3°C above pre- industrial levels by 2100 unless politicians use their power to implement sweeping changes (IPCC, 2018). However, politicians are often reluctant to reduce emissions, instead maintaining the status quo to protect vested interests in the fossil fuel industry (Heywood, 2015). To combat this deliberate inaction, environmentalists must put pressure on current anti-environmental administrations, and to do so they must understand the three different dimensions of power: 1) the authority to influence decisions, 2) the weight to shape the political agenda, and 3) the ability to manipulate people’s thoughts (Lukes, 2004). While previous research has shown that conservatives frequently rely on second dimension strategies to delay environmental legislation and promote climate scepticism (McCright & Dunlap, 2010), we will look closer at the role of thought control in anti-environmental efforts.
3.1 Thought control and hegemony Manipulation as a practice is intimately connected to language, as well as critical theory, and entities that are capable of funding propaganda machines have a clear advantage when it comes to shaping public opinion (Heywood, 2015). Chomsky refers to these influential groups as ‘agents of power’, and as these agents shape the news flow to fit their worldview the effect is that their audience experiences a form of sophisticated indoctrination. In other words, many of those news stories that people read and share on blogs, Twitter and Facebook are constructed to support special interest groups on a subconscious level. This is dangerous, because as these messages are repeated they gradually change the way people perceive the world (Lakoff, 2009). What is more, as one’s worldview changes so will one’s actions, and gradually a society will develop where people’s thoughts and behaviour echo that of a powerful elite instead of reflecting their own preferences (Heywood, 2015). In political theory, this state is known as the theory of hegemony, where the ideologies of society’s most powerful are forced onto everyone else (Heywood, 2015). In terms of global warming, this means that politicians and interest groups backed by money from industry and conservative foundations will push messages to make the public believe that global warming is harmless and that the only issue lies in scheming scientists and money grabs disguised as mitigation efforts (Dunlap & McCright, 2010).
3.2 Metaphors and frames Part of the reason why climate sceptics are so successful at spreading their messages is that they use cognitive tools such as conceptual metaphors and frames to their advantage.
7
Looking closer at conceptual metaphors, this field of cognitive linguistics was first introduced by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in 1980 and refers to the idea that certain concepts constitute the foundation for different metaphorical expressions. As such, we often talk about ARGUMENTS as WAR (e.g. the president attacked the senator’s case) where ARGUMENTS is the target domain we try to understand via the source domain of WAR (Ungerer & Schmid, 2006). In other words, metaphors can facilitate the understanding of complex subjects by transferring meaning, or mapping, between different domains while simultaneously presenting better than dry facts by engaging their audience (Charteris-Black, 2004; Väliverronen & Hellsten, 2002). As such, conservative leaders such as Republican senator Rand Paul are more likely to forgo reports and instead declare that a carbon tax “…puts the brakes on innovation…” (Paul, n.d.). Statements like this serve a dual purpose; by blending mental spaces they trigger an image of INNOVATION as a MACHINE, and they also cast the progressive politician arguing for carbon taxes as someone deliberately obstructing improvement. These connections are important, because metaphors are more than mere words: we think, speak and act metaphorically and as the innovation example shows, conservative politicians understand this power and use conceptual metaphors to activate conservative thinking among voters (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lakoff, 2009). In addition to metaphors, conservatives also use framing to deter the American public from environmental causes. Frames are conceptual structures used for thought processes and they are based on four different properties: 1) all words conjure some sort of frame, 2) words related to a certain frame can activate that frame, 3) denying a frame still triggers it if you use words associated with it, 4) every single time your words trigger a frame it gets stronger (Lakoff, 2006). To illustrate these morals, lets look closer at another statement made by Rand Paul in regards to climate change:
“It’s anti-American and anti-freedom”.
Here, the first goal is to create a frame where the public links the term ‘climate change’ with governmental boundaries, and a shift away from American values and towards communism. Second, sceptics achieve this goal by combining ‘climate change’ with words such as ‘anti-freedom’ and ‘socialist’, eventually reaching a point where people hear the word ‘climate change’ and immediately think about global warming as a disguise for a large-scale governmental takeover. Third, if politicians and activists try to defend themselves by saying, “I’m not an communist, climate change is a real danger to humanity”, the general public will hear little more than ‘communist’ and so the choice of words will strengthen the conservative frame. Four, as ‘anti-freedom’ is repeated the frame gets stronger and eventually the public is lead to believe that a conservative vote is the only
8 way to avoid a hostile governmental takeover, crippling restrictions and an end to the American lifestyle. Hence, as simple as Paul’s statement might seem it is powerful from a cognitive linguistic perspective because it contrasts environmentalism with being American. Successfully framing anti-environmental messages is thus a key component of climate change scepticism, but is there a way to avoid being manipulated and to expose thought control strategies? There is no straightforward answer to this question, but it is at least possible to protect yourself by learning to recognise when metaphors and frames are used treacherously. As George Lakoff puts it (2009: 34), there is real political power in making the “…cognitive unconscious as conscious as possible…”. One way to achieve an increased level of consciousness is through critical theory (Heywood, 2015), where theoretical perspectives such as critical discourse analysis and critical metaphor analysis can be used to expose ideologies, thereby making it possible to confront social injustices and change society so that freedom becomes something everyone can enjoy.
3.2.1 Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) provides a method to address socio-political issues by examining the significant role language plays in power inequality (van Dijk, 1993; Charteris-Black, 2004). As no text is considered neutral in CDA, all utterances are seen as intentional and as components of an intertextual and socio-political framework. As such, language is thought to mirror a society’s power relationships and can be used as a tool to interpret ideologies. To illustrate the role language plays when shaping public opinion we will look closer at another statement made by Senator Paul (Paul, 2017):
“The federal government should be beholden to one authority and one authority alone—our Constitution—and not some U.N. bureaucrats.”
In this example, Paul could have made his point without adding the last clause or used more neutral wording as in “…—and not the U.N.”. Instead, as ‘some’ and ‘bureaucrats’ both carry negative connotations, the Constitution is portrayed as the one rightful source of authority and the reader is conditioned to view the U.N. as an inflexible and illegitimate source of power. Hence, the addition reveals Paul’s personal view on power and authority, while simultaneously highlighting the importance language has in shaping ideology.
3.2.2 Critical Metaphor Analysis Once considered little more than stylistic flavour, metaphors have also become an essential component of CDA as they form our view of reality by influencing our judgement on what is right or wrong (Ungerer & Schmid, 2006; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Charteris-Black, 2004). Once again relying on Rand Paul to demonstrate these ideas (Paul, 2017), the
9 following statement shows not only Paul’s personal attitude to conservation efforts but also his political beliefs and intentions:
“Why can’t we work toward a future that protects both our environment and our jobs? Why did the past [Obama] administration always force the latter to be a martyr for the former?”
To begin with, Paul’s political sympathies are made clear as he provides a negative evaluation of the Obama administration by stating that they consistently favoured environmental legislation over American jobs. However, he also introduces the idea of jobs as something that can die or feel discomfort by using the word ‘martyr’. As a job is an abstract entity incapable of feeling physical pain or making personal sacrifices, ‘martyr’ is clearly used in a metaphorical sense to ascribe human characteristics to work. This habit of assigning human qualities to abstract phenomena is referred to as personification (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), in this case resulting in the conceptual metaphor JOBS are VICTIMS. Based on this mapping, jobs are not only seen as a living entity, but they also become part of a dramatic narrative where the Obama administration is the villain and Republicans are the heroes who will try to protect work. This division into a society built around entities of good and evil is important because evaluative meaning is not something that is unique from person to person. Instead, different communities will share the same worldview of what is good or bad, which in turn is reflected in the way they express themselves (Charteris-Black, 2004). Hence, while metaphors make it possible to understand difficult concepts they also provide a conceptual foundation for members of a culture (Graesser et al., 1989). As such, metaphors constitute an integral part of opinion building and by critically evaluating metaphors in the context where they occur they can be used to explore ideology.
10
4. Material and method To establish what types of metaphors climate sceptics use, a domain-specific corpus was constructed with the explicit intent to analyse the rhetoric characterising CTT discourse. The reason think tanks were selected for this analysis, rather than opinion-page content or scientific papers expressing scepticism, is that CTTs produce a significant amount of source material used to question anthropogenic climate change (Boussalis & Coan, 2016). In order to avoid making unfounded assumptions, a second dataset was also assembled to cross-check results. This approach of using multiple data sources is known as triangulation and is commonly used in social sciences for verification (Jick, 1979). In this specific case, the additional dataset was compiled from tweets made by Republican senators in an attempt to explore the rhetorical similarities between CTTs and high profile conservative politicians.
4.1 Domain-specific corpus: the ACCC Due to the sheer volume of sceptic publications online, a number of steps had to be taken to reduce the dataset to a more manageable size. First, the domain-specific corpus was limited to material published on-line by five well known CTTs: the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Heartland Institute and The Heritage Foundation. This choice of organisations mirrors that of Boussalis and Coan (2016), and largely overlaps with the CTTs analysed in McCright and Dunlap (2000). However, rather than analysing the full range of think tanks covered in those publications, this paper focuses on the most prolific CTTs also known to receive significant funding from conservative foundations such as the Koch Brothers (Boussalis & Coan, 2016; Brulle, 2014). Second, using the search section on each CTT website, the terms ‘IPCC’, ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ were used to generate an initial dataset covering the time interval from October 8th, 2018 to March 8th, 2019. This five-month time frame was selected to cover the CTTs reactions to SR15 as well as the Green New Deal (GND), the Democrats’ strategy to transition America to a zero- carbon economy. Third, only commentary posts from the Heritage Foundation were included and all pages linking to policy reports were excluded. This limited the dataset to 469 publications, with a total of 315 documents after accounting for duplicates. Fourth, before the close reading, the dataset was finally reduced to only incorporate texts cross- distributed in at least one other conservative outlet. These high-exposure publications were then scanned to determine whether they were sceptic in nature and, if so, what form of doubt they promoted. Any article deemed non-sceptic was removed, resulting in a domain- specific corpus of 46 articles.
11
4.1.1 Targets of scepticism Table 1 provides a summary of the domain-specific corpus, displaying what target, or type, of scepticism each CTT text promoted:
Table 1 The number of documents and words published by five high-profile CTTs between October 2018 and March 2019. Denial type indicated as following: (A)=Trend sceptic, (B)=Attribution sceptic, (C)=Impact sceptic, (D)=Consensus sceptic, and (E)=Conspiracy sceptic. The apparent mismatch between the amounts of documents listed under ‘Denial type’ and the ‘Total docs’ is due to the fact that some documents qualify for two or more of the denial categories (modified from Boussalis & Coan, 2016).
Trend sceptics (A), attribution sceptics (B) and impact sceptics (C), as defined by Rahmstorf (2004), all belong to what Van Rensburg terms ‘Evidence scepticism’ (2015). The consensus definition (D) is based on Engels et al. (2013) and could be seen as a type of ‘Process scepticism’. Conspiracy scepticism (E), belongs to the same center of scepticism as D, and its definition is based on the work of Douglas and Sutton (2015).
4.1.2 Identifying conspiracy metaphors Based on the predominance of texts representing conspiracy scepticism, it was decided to focus the analysis solely on this target. This resulted in a domain-specific corpus containing 36,388 words spread over 44 publications. According to Aston (1997), a smaller corpus (20,000-200,000 words) is often more efficient than a large one when examining texts on highly specific topics. Hence, the sample set is considered a representative sample of conservative climate change conspiracy communication in America, and will be referred to as the ‘American Climate Conspiracy Corpus’ (ACCC). For the purpose of this paper, and following the definitions provided by Charteris- Black (2004), the metaphors in the ACCC were defined as words or phrases causing semantic tension by shifting from an expected domain to another domain. This semantic tension can be released by displaying how the domains are related, thereby exposing the underlying conceptual metaphor. Following a three-step procedure suggested by Cameron and Low (1999), all ACCC articles were subjected to a close reading to: 1) identify and collect examples of metaphors used in conspiracy discourse, 2) identify the conceptual metaphors they relate to, and 3) use these results to discuss what thought patterns and actions these metaphors are expected to activate. In addition, the resonance for each source
12 domain was calculated following Charteris-Black’s approach (2004): Resonance=sum of types x sum of tokens. Bibliographic information for the ACCC is available in APPENDIX A, and key metaphors with examples are listed in APPENDIX B.
4.2 Social impact: Republican senators on Twitter To determine whether the conspiracy metaphors identified in the ACCC occur outside the CTT sphere the results were compared against a second dataset compiled from tweets made by Republican senators. Limiting tweets to all but those class I senators newly elected in the 2018 midterms, and using the same time frame and search terms as for the ACCC resulted in an extremely limited dataset. Out of 47 senators, not a single one used twitter to discuss the IPCC or global warming and only eight senators mentioned climate change. Between those eight senators, a total of 16 tweets on climate change were published over the five-month time frame. In an effort to obtain more data, the search terms ‘Green New Deal’ and ‘#GreenNewDeal’ were added and the time frame was extended to include the Senate’s March 26th vote on the Green New Deal resolution. Based on these revisions to the search process an additional 135 Republican tweets, or 3967 words, were identified (see APPENDIX C for domains and examples).
13
5. Results and analysis As shown in the methods section, the initial analysis suggests that climate change sceptics have come to gravitate towards conspiracy theories. According to this theory, powerful entities use global warming as a scare tactic to gain influence and fame, to receive funding, and as a mechanism to dismantle capitalism so that a socialist world order can rise from the resulting turmoil (Douglas & Sutton, 2015). The following section will focus on identifying and analysing what metaphors and frames conspiracy sceptics use to promote these messages.
5.1 The ACCC: metaphor identification and classification The qualitative analysis of the ACCC identified 284 cases were metaphors were used (Table 2). Based on frequency, eight larger domains were identified after linking targets to their representative source domains. In addition, 21 smaller domains (resonance ≤60) were identified and grouped under the label ‘other’.
Table 2 Summary of the source domains and their resonance in the American climate conspiracy corpus (modified from Charteris-Black, 2004).
However, as the majority of the metaphors under the SPATIAL/DIRECTIONAL domain were considered highly conventionalized (e.g. “The Green New Deal would introduce significantly higher level of cronyism…”) this domain was not included in the subsequent analysis. This left seven larger domains, all characterised by significantly higher individual resonance than any of the smaller domains (resonance >180). Together, the domains WAR, RELIGION, HEALTH, BUILDING, JOURNEY, WATER and PRODUCT comprised close to 80% of the total resonance. For more information on the smaller domains, as well as individual types, see Appendix B.
14
5.1.1 War metaphors Previous studies have shown that conflict, or war, constitutes a key source domain in political discourse (Charteris-Black, 2004), and in the ACCC war metaphors account for close to a third of the data (Table 3).
Table 3 ACCC war metaphors, and the frequency with which they are used to highlight political battles and sacrifices. * denotes different prefixes such as ‘eco’ or ‘climate’.
Based on the conceptual metaphor POLITICS IS WAR, Howe argues that politicians frequently use military metaphors to frame opponents as callous or treacherous (1988). As climate change conspiracy scepticism rests on a foundation of distrust (Douglas & Sutton, 2015), it is unsurprising that words such as ‘protect’ and ‘warrior’ are used in a metaphorical sense throughout the ACCC to invoke negative frames:
Text 5.1 “It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change.” Heartland Institute Bell (2018) Text 5.2 “The study, funded in part by climate warrior Tom Steyer, calculates these costs by assuming that the world will be 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by 2100.” The Heritage Foundation Loris (2018)
Protection means to prevent someone or something “from being harmed or damaged”, and is frequently used when talking about the environment (COBUILD; COCA collocation
15 freq. 10724). However, as Text 5.1 shows, in the ACCC the world is instead presented with negative semantics when talking about the environment, with the positive framing being reserved for what conservatives would view as morally acceptable concerns such as defending property rights and preventing governments from interfering with business. In addition to this type of framing, the corpus also contains war metaphors that are used to ridicule environmentalists, where the contrast between words such as ‘eco’ or ‘climate’ creates a sarcastic effect when coupled with ‘warrior’ (Riloff et al., 2013). Based on their frequent use of war metaphors, CTTs seem to consider anyone questioning the Western lifestyle their moral foe, triggering them to defend themselves by framing climate scientists and environmentalist philanthropists as enemies of society.
5.1.2 Religious metaphors RELIGION constitutes the second largest domain in the corpus (Table 4), possibly due to the close links between conservatives and American evangelicals (Nagle, 2008).
Table 4 ACCC religious metaphors, with end of time metaphors displayed separately at the right.
Charteris-Black describes this relationship as POLITICS IS RELIGION (2004), but Atanasova and Koteyko have also demonstrated that conservative newspapers in the UK frequently use religious metaphors to frame sceptic arguments (2017). These metaphors are used to downplay the urgency to reduce emissions, and rely heavily on the darker or more extreme aspects of religion:
Text 5.3 “The government would be conscripting all factories, and by extension their workers, into GND’s warlike crusade against chimeric climate change.” Heartland Institute Burnett (2019)
16
Here, ‘crusade’ could either refer to the religious wars fought to win the Holy Land during the medieval period or to describe a ‘long and determined attempt to achieve something for a cause you feel strongly about’ (COBUILD). In this case, it seems likely that the author uses ‘crusade’ in the first sense of meaning, framing the GND as a progressive sanctioned campaign by alarmists, or ‘extremists’/‘fanatics’, to take over the U.S. In addition, by combining ‘crusade’ with ‘chimeric’, the author also creates a Don Quixote effect, framing progressive politicians as fools fighting a non-existent foe. Apart from ‘crusades’, conspiracy sceptics also tend to use end of time metaphors such as ‘doomsday’, ‘Armageddon’ and ‘apocalypse’:
Text 5.4 “Every apocalyptic pronouncement you hear or read is nothing short of insanity.” Heartland Institute Lehr and Harris (2019)
Similarly to the previous example, Text 5.4 invokes the basic frame of an imaginary enemy, which in the apocalyptic sense would be Antichrist. As the apocalypse refers to the social and cosmic upheaval described in the Book of Revelation, evangelical Americans would know that the apocalypse is associated with a series of environmental disasters: fires burning a third of the trees and all the green grass, a third of the sea creatures dying and a third of the rivers and springs poisoned (Rev. 8:7-11, English Standard Version). While the idea of suffering through the early onset of the apocalypse would be upsetting for anyone, this scenario would be particularly salient for anyone believing in the Bible because if we are living through the apocalypse right now, who would Antichrist be? The person you yourself voted into power? From a psychological perspective it might be more comfortable to denounce science as corrupt, and dismiss any idea of impeding environmental disaster as madness, to avoid feeling morally responsible when scientists are detailing a future that looks increasingly dark.
5.1.3 Health metaphors As seen in the previous section (Text 5.4), CTTs also use HEALTH metaphors to create negative frames. According to Lakoff (2016), conservatives frequently use health as a way to talk about morality and they apply these frames to individuals as well as society at large. Looking at the individual level first, CTTs generally rely on mental health references when framing climate scientists and progressive politicians as immoral:
Text 5.5
17
“Yet today’s modelers believe they can tell you the planet’s climate decades or even a century in the future and want to manage the economy accordingly. Either they are crazy to think this or we are crazy to believe them.” Heartland Institute Lehr (2019)
As Text 5.5 shows, scientific findings are framed as ‘beliefs’, and when coupled with ‘crazy’ the author efficiently blur the lines between science, faith and insanity. What is more, by using the word ‘want’ the author also frames climate scientists as subjective, thereby questioning their motives and morality. As morality is conceptualized as health the author efficiently connects modelers with the conceptual metaphor IMMORALITY IS A DISEASE. In addition to mental health references, the ACCC also contains numerous metaphors based on physical health (Table 5):
Table 5 ACCC health metaphors: mental health metaphors listed to the left and physical health/injury metaphors displayed on the right.
In the ACCC, physical health is generally used to map BODY-related metaphors to more abstract entities such as politics, the state and society (Musolff, 2004). This type of mapping is characterised by negative frames conveyed through physical impairment, injuries and agony:
Text 5.6 “An agreement that will cripple our ability to compete on a level playing field, while doing very little to solve the non-existent problem of harmful man-made warming.” Heartland Institute Wrightstone (2018)
18
As the example refers to the Paris Agreement and its impact on the U.S. economy, this example suggests that the conceptual metaphor we are dealing with is SOCIETY/A POLITICAL ENTITY IS A HUMAN BODY. Since a cripple is someone so seriously injured that they can never move their body properly again (COBUILD), the author manages to frame a lifeless entity (i.e. the nation) as a real person wilfully assaulted and injured by environmental policies. This interpretation of the market or society as a body is also supported by previous research revealing that disease metaphors are often used in financial crisis discourse (Pühringer & Hirte, 2013).
5.1.4 Building metaphors Building metaphors are frequently used in political discourse (Charteris-Black 2004), and a number of examples can be found through the ACCC (Table 6):
Table 6 ACCC building metaphors, generally carrying negative connotations to indicate unstable (societal) constructions or to describe what the authors consider undesirable political and societal changes.
Buildings are frequently used for political agreements, with ‘doors’ being left open and large-scale environmental efforts described as ‘makeovers’ or ‘overhauls’:
Text 5.7 “Among other things, the GND would overhaul the U.S. energy grid, eliminate all fossil fuels by 2030, require "upgrades" to every home and business building in the country…” Heartland Institute Talgo (2019)
Here, ‘overhaul’ is used to refer to the energy grid, but it also indicates a complete dismantling of the U.S. economy, resulting in undesirable outcomes for citizens as well as corporations. These frames are based on the mapping SOCIETY IS A BUILDING, where the American people constitute the builders and the social system is the building (Xue et
19 al., 2013). From a conservative perspective, God is the architect overseeing the construction and the GOP constitutes the supreme foundation. In other words, if God’s master plan is obeyed, the foundation remains solid and the building will progress vertically following the orientational metaphors GOOD IS UP and BAD IS DOWN (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). However, if the foundation is replaced by an immoral entity the whole building risks collapse:
Text 5.8 “The GND would also undermine U.S. national security, because the United States is 100 percent import-dependent on China, Russia, and other nations for more than half of the critical minerals that are the foundation of green technologies.” Heartland Institute Burnett (2019)
Here, the NATION IS A BUILDING ties in with the conceptual metaphor: A WORTHWHILE ACTIVITY IS A BUILDING (Charteris-Black 2004). By using metaphors such as ‘undermine’ and ‘collapse’, CTTs frame social endeavours designed to reduce CO2 emissions not only as worthless, but also as catastrophes where society will crumble if scientists and progressives are allowed to have their way. That is, if the general public does not support a conservative moral foundation, America will break down and cease to exist.
5.1.5 Journey metaphors In political discourse, journey metaphors also tend to focus on social efforts in terms of worthwhileness, with Lakoff describing journeys as: PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY TRAVELLING ALONG A PATH TOWARDS A DESTINATION (1993). For a society, changes can also be expressed as SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT IS A JOURNEY. In the ACCC, CTTs rely on both of these conceptual metaphors, often using journey metaphors with a strong negative orientation:
Text 5.9 “After her office… posted a similar version on her congressional website, they were met with withering criticism — prompting Ocasio-Cortez to furiously backtrack, seeking to disown and discredit documents [GND] her office had produced, posted, and distributed.” American Enterprise Institute Thiessen (2019)
In this case, the journey metaphor is used to describe a particular political opponent. Rather than travelling decisively and competently along a path until reaching the goal of making the world a better place, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is framed as someone forced to retrace her
20 steps, making her seem irate, unsuccessful and thoroughly lost. As seen in Table 7, this is a recurring tactic used by CTTs to invoke feelings of lengthy efforts and sufferings:
Table 7 ACCC journey metaphors establishing negative frames by implying that the destination is far away, that the journey has stalled or is characterised by confusion.
Not only are the metaphors selected to highlight the negative aspects of journeys, but they are also designed to make the reader question the worthiness of the destination:
Text 5.10 “They are milestones on the way to the new world order.” Heartland Institute Wojick (2018)
Text 5.10 refers to the UN and the COP24 climate summit, and constitutes an example of the most frequent use of journey metaphors in the ACCC, where governmental, organizational and societal activities are conceptualised through journeys. Here, journeys are used to convey the message that efforts towards reducing CO2 means abandoning America’s moral trajectory in favour of a global socialist regime.
5.1.6 Water metaphors Previous studies have shown that the financial market is understood as an ocean, where consumption is de-emphasized by using the conceptual metaphor MONEY IS WATER or LIQUID (Oberlechner et al., 2004; Wilk, 2004). Although water metaphors constitute the smallest group of metaphors examined in this study they are noteworthy because they directly relate to the destruction of the people and the state (Table 8):
21
Table 8 ACCC water metaphors, either used in the sense MONEY IS LIQUID or MARKET CHANGES ARE WAYS OF MOVING IN THE WATER/NAUTICAL CONDITIONS.
Viewing the economy as an ocean, Text 5.11 constitutes an excellent example of giving substance, as well as a negative frame, to research grants. In this case, it is particularly easy to negatively frame scientists as grants are a fuzzy concept to most people:
Text 5.11 “This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate.” The Heritage Foundation Moore (2018)
To the general public, frames like this not only make grants seem like an extraordinary waste of tax money, but they also distort the way people think about researchers and funding: 1) it suggests that climate scientists accepting grants are corrupt, 2) that the impending disaster is not climate change itself but rather in the exploitation of science, and 3) drawing on the analogy of an impactful natural disaster they also suggest that America risks drowning under a tidal wave of immoral money. Similarly employing frames of drowning, CTTs also use a modified version of the conceptual metaphor: MARKET IS A BOAT (Chung et al., 2003):
Text 5.12 “Unless you desire an army of federal bureaucrats barking more orders than a drill sergeant and a mountain of debt that will sink the U.S. economy faster than a hole-riddled boat, the Green New Deal sure seems like a raw deal for Americans.” Heartland Institute Talgo (2019)
22
Here, the mapping invoked is that of America rather than the stock market, giving: SOCIETY IS A BOAT. Using this conceptual metaphor, the GND is framed as a ship failing to move to a safe harbour, or a desirable destination, instead bringing the nation down as it sinks to the ocean floor. Moreover, the hole-riddled boat conjures images of a boat that is neglected, which could also be seen as a metaphor for how the Democrats would run the country. Rather than maintaining the image of America as a powerful warship, a nation able to protect and defend itself independently, the Democrats’ incompetence would steer the country towards chaos, immorality, and death.
5.1.7 Product metaphors Finally, the ACCC shows that CTTs also use metaphors to convey the message of environmental policies as poor products that progressives try to sell to the general public (Table 8):
Table 8 ACCC product metaphors, where the conceptual metaphors are: POLITICS IS SALES/A PRODUCT. Here, climate change is framed as the main product, GND as by-product, and progressive politicians as the untrustworthy salespeople.
CTTs create negative frames by using words such as ‘salespeople’ and ‘showroom’:
Text 5.13 “Although Green New Deal salespeople love to tout how its brand-new product will fight “catastrophic” climate change, supposedly preventing it from becoming an extinction-level event, that messaging is just designed to get you in the showroom.” Heartland Institute Benson (2019)
By using metaphors such as ‘showroom’, the author once again paints progressives as adversaries by invoking frames of immoral car salesmen (car being the most frequent
23 collocate to showroom, COCA freq. 998), only interested in personal gain rather than safe and happy customers. In addition, CTTs also frame progressive policies as expensive to individuals by using words such as ‘price tag’ when talking about the GND:
Text 5.14 “They place the price tag at roughly $1 trillion a year.” The Heritage Foundation Moore (2019)
While most people are unable to grasp this type of sum, anyone can relate to a price tag and that sinking feeling when you turn it over only to realize that it is way out of your budget. By promoting this type of frame, CTTs might be able to get the general public to believe that reforms such as the GND are too expensive, and in extension make them vote for conservative policies even if that generates larger, even immeasurable, costs in the future.
5.2 Twitter: metaphors and political action Viewing the ACCC, a similar set of ideas are echoed in the choice of metaphors: Democrats use climate change as a disguise to lead us towards socialism, scientists facilitate this agenda as they are corrupted by money, and if these ideas are allowed to infect America the societal effects will be devastating. We will return to the root of these viewpoints in the discussion, but first we need to establish whether or not these ideas and metaphors are restricted to CTT websites and blogs or if this type of rhetoric has also become part of the established political domain. To answer this question, a smaller dataset was compiled with tweets published by Republican senators. As stated in the methods section, the available data were limited as the majority of Republican senators choose to ignore the issue of climate change. However, perhaps as a testament to the media attention given to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the GND, the majority of Republican senators (33 out of 47) did break their silence on climate related issues to voice their disapproval of the package. Analysing these tweets, some of the metaphors used by CTTs are clearly echoed in the rhetoric of senate leaders. Out of 91 different instances of metaphor usage, divided over 16 different domains, all eight main categories defined in the ACCC occurred in Republican tweets:
Table 9 Summary of source domains and resonance in tweets by Republican senators reacting to the Green New Deal (modified from Charteris-Black, 2004).
24
However, comparing Table 9 with Table 2, it is evident that the resonance differs between the datasets. War is much smaller in the twitter set, and religion, the second largest domain in the ACCC, is barely represented, whereas health metaphors are used to a much higher degree in tweets than on CTT platforms. Part of this disparity could be explained by the small size of the twitter set, or differences related to search terms and time frame, but the crossover still indicates that the rhetoric broadcasted by CTTs is also audible in conservative political discourse. Looking closer at the metaphors used by Republican senators, two domains stand out as health and journey metaphors comprise close to 50% of the total resonance. Comparing these domains to the ACCC, Republican senators similarly use health metaphors to draw parallels between environmentalism and mental illness:
Text 5.15 “The “Green New Deal” is nuttier than a pot of boiled peanuts. This resolution is chock- full of socialist strategies for invasive government intervention. It calls for outlandish initiatives that contradict many of our American capitalist values.” Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana
Attacking the GND as mentally unsound frames the proposal as invalid and misleading, a reform based on faulty logic that must be ignored. However, some senators take the health metaphors even further:
Text 5.16 “The #GreenNewDeal could have deadly serious consequences for many struggling communities. I spoke yesterday about this proposal and the impact that responsible resource development has had on the health and well-being of Alaskans.” Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska
25
Here, the GND is no longer framed as something that can be dismissed as ‘batty leftist fantasies’, instead it is cast as a mortal threat to individuals, communities and the nation. Rhetoric like this is dangerous; framing climate mitigation efforts as the enemy, and the GND as the weapon used by immoral Democrats to attack innocent and vulnerable Americans, can cause fear and trigger people into violent action. As for journey metaphors, the ACCC indicates that CTTs often use journey metaphors with a strong negative orientation. This connection is also made in Republican tweets:
Text 5.17 “How we do things matters, and while we must continue working to conserve our environment, the #GreenNewDeal is a divisive step backward that takes away from serious policy discussions about efforts to address our changing climate” Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas
However, more frequently than in the ACCC, the senators selected metaphors invoking frames of straying from a path:
Text 5.18 “The Democrats’ #GreenNewDeal goes far beyond the mainstream and includes policies completely unrelated to the environment…” Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri Text 5.19 “Nothing encapsulates the Democrat’s hard left turn towards socialism more than the Green New Deal.” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
In these cases, journeys are not only seen as a PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY TRAVELLING ALONG A PATH TOWARDS A DESTINATION, but the action/motion is also related to morality (Lakoff, 1995). As the conservative societal path relies on fossil fuels, anyone steering towards green energy threatens conservative American values and is thus seen as immoral.
26
6. Discussion As the results indicate, conservative agents in the U.S. feed the idea of climate change being a scam by primarily using metaphors belonging to the domains of WAR, RELIGION, HEALTH, BUILDING, JOURNEY, WATER and PRODUCT. At a first glance, this list might seem an odd collection of unrelated words, but once you consider the message and context of these metaphors it becomes clear that they share a common root. By relying on a set of conceptual keys relating to an overarching notion of ‘struggle’, conservatives link scientists/environmentalists/progressives to the idea of unhealthy principles → which, if given free range, will drive society off its proper moral path → causing the nation to collapse and result in ⇒ widespread suffering (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 A hierarchical cognitive model of conceptual metaphors and the conceptual keys (displayed in the grey field) they relate to.
Previous research has shown that the notion of ‘struggle’ is central in political discourse (Straehle et al., 1999), and this study supports these results with the core conservative idea being that LIFE – for individuals as well as countries – is a STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL. This idea of having to battle for one’s survival is in turn related to the concept of enemies, victims and saviours, where enemies are viewed as corrupt and sinful cowards
27 whereas saviours are seen as just and virtuous heroes. From this perspective, life becomes a moral battle between good and evil.
6.1 A war on Earth Constructing an image of a common enemy (Feindbild) to strengthen bonds, forge solidarity and strengthen certain worldviews (Weltbild) is an important component of political power (Straehle et al., 1999; Merskin, 2004). As the conservative perspective is based on capitalism (McCright et al. 2016), where the planet is viewed as an infinite source of wealth, conservatives see no need to use less of the very fuels they consider necessary for our economic well-being. Hence, by challenging the ideological foundation of conservatism, environmental values and mitigation efforts are considered a direct threat to conservative interests. As such, conservative politicians and CTTs will not only refuse to reduce CO2 emissions, but they will also attack environmentalists and the very concept of global warming as immoral (Lakoff, 1995):
1) The conservative view on morality requires the world to continue on with business as usual - to follow a prescribed path. As climate change mitigation requires a shift from a carbon to a green economy, conservatives consider climate efforts a departure from said moral path. 2) Climate change mitigation is thus seen as immoral, and as immorality is considered a disease, environmentalists are automatically viewed as unhealthy and dangerous. 3) Sick and immoral individuals are a threat to society, incompatible with “…American exceptionalism” (Scott, 2019), and need to be fought and defeated for the nation to survive and prosper.
Based on these premises, environmentalists must recognize that American conservatives view life not only as a struggle but also as a moral war, and any entity that is morally corrupt must be overpowered (Lakoff, 1995), as clearly expressed in the following quote:
”Green is the new red, as the saying goes, and unless conservatives defeat and discredit these dingbat ideas, Donald Trump will be proven wrong” The Heritage Foundation Moore (2019)
Tailoring their messages so that they create an image of a common enemy – a ‘we’ against ‘them’ – conservative agents efficiently feed the division between conservatives and environmental values in an effort to manipulate voters to think and behave within a capitalist frame. In this light, it does not matter how much data you have to prove the dangers associated with climate change. As conservatives picture you as evil, you are roped into a moral war over Earth, and to stand any chance of winning you will have to adapt to the playing field.
28
6.1.1 Science: responsibilities and collaborations As fundamentally important as science is, the sad truth is that no gladiator ever won their freedom by walking out on the arena all alone armed with nothing more than a stack of scientific reports. So what can scientists do to strengthen their case? I would argue that the moral aspect of global warming must be incorporated into every single paper focusing on climate change. Only when we collectively acknowledge that it is our shared moral duty to safeguard the planet for coming generations will the costs and sacrifices associated with climate mitigation make sense to the general public. As part of this effort, scientists must also recognize that metaphors are not synonymous with being vague ore elusive, but that they are vital components of communication. In fact, texts without metaphors tend to make for an unexciting read, meaning that they risk being read by little more than a handful of scientists in the same field. At a time when our future is at stake, this is no longer a viable option. Hence, climate scientists must learn to speak to the general public, and to utilize metaphors to channel personal fears and feelings. Fighting a moral war, where facts do not matter to one’s opponent, and simultaneously having to reinvent one’s language is no small task and could easily trigger feelings of frustration or helplessness. In order to avoid feelings of disempowerment, I firmly believe that climate scientists must branch out and invite interdisciplinary collaborations. By breaking professional isolation and involving scientists from the social sciences, climate scientists could strengthen their perceived self-efficacy through producing more approachable papers while simultaneously improving our understanding of the planet. As scientists experience a heightened sense of efficacy, their motivation and personal sense of well-being will also improve (Bandura, 1994), energizing them to keep creating messages that resonate with the public in order to challenge the status quo and the conservative worldview.
6.1.2 Environmentalism: heuristic techniques Once you learn to recognize conceptual metaphors you will notice them everywhere, from the metaphors lacing your family dinners to the frames repeatedly promoted in political speeches. This ability is a superpower, an ability to see the meaning behind the words. However, identifying the conceptual metaphors used in climate conspiracy discourse is not enough to trigger the changes needed to protect Earth. Apart from developing a societal awareness of sceptic metaphor manipulation, environmentalists need their own set of climate metaphors to create new perspectives that speak to the public. Creating a war cry that can be echoed through society is neither straightforward nor easy, but something simple and concrete is more likely to achieve this goal than metaphors that are too complex and abstract (Charteris-Black, 2004). This does not mean settling for uncreative and uninteresting metaphors, just that the words must resonate with as big a population as possible. War metaphors have previously proven successful as they create a sense of
29 urgency and need for firm action (Flusberg et al., 2017; Dunford & Palmer, 1996), but I would argue that it is fundamental that we first rethink the way we view Earth. Under the conservative system our planet has been reduced to a commodity: EARTH IS A RESOURCE. However, by retraining ourselves to view our planet through a different metaphor, EARTH IS HOME, we might be able to avoid a global environmental disaster. This idea, thinking about Earth as an extension of our homes, might seem simplistic but the fact is that we currently do not think about our planet in this context. A COCA search for EARTH IS HOME resulted in no more than two hits, and when HOME was used as a collocate with EARTH there were only 171 hits of which most were not related to the subject (e.g. “My parents were on their way home from an Earth, Wind & Fire concert”). Considering that this planet is the only one known to host life, we must start to think about Earth as something close and precious. We need to retrain our brains to think about it as something to protect, and just as we would do anything to shelter our children we must do everything in our power to create a safe future for our planet. Environmentalists might be able to achieve this cognitive transition by introducing metaphors designed to trigger images of Earth as home instead of a resource. As the concept of home is frequently associated with a sense of well-being, your home being connected to feelings of wealth, happiness and safety, it holds significant metaphorical power especially as well-being is strongly connected with morality (Lakoff, 1995). Hence, environmentalists might be able to utilize this connection by linking the idea of fossil fuels with environmental collapse, homelessness and immorality. In one sense, activist Greta Thunberg has already introduced this frame, “I am here to say, our house is on fire” (UPFSI, 2019). This quote illustrates how home metaphors provide a relatable image of the dangers we are facing, with the plethora of home-related words also facilitating the creation of novel metaphors. To demonstrate this point, the following examples have been assembled based on a corpus search (COCA) using common collocates to HOME:
“By failing to combat this climate emergency you evict your children from their one home” “Conservatives will leave our children empty-handed by destroying the foundation for life”. “By catering to the fossil fuel industry, Republicans will demolish the home of the brave and turn Earth into a funeral home”
By building on Greta’s quote, activating environmental values in voters, environmentalists might be able to move from individual to collective action by reinstating positive state power.
30
6.2 A war for the future With a Republican in the White House, Republicans controlling the senate, and the American public unwilling to commit to large-scale mitigation efforts, the future might seem dark. However, whether you are a scientist, a grassroots environmentalist, or a concerned parent, progressives must gather forces and keep fighting. First, more research should be devoted to identifying the types of metaphors used by conservative entities. This way, progressives can learn to recognise conservative framing and avoid using metaphors that will only strengthen these frames. Second, progressives should focus more of their energy on intergenerational learning (e.g. Lawson et al., 2019). If done successfully, this would mean that children would be able to drive the cause by inspiring their seniors to take action. To achieve this goal, more funds should be devoted to teach children about climate change and conceptual metaphors in schools, to arrange summer camps on the topic, and to create large-scale programs focusing on intergenerational learning. Third, progressives must devote energy and resources to increase voter turnout among youth (18-24-year-olds). This way, also relying on interdisciplinary collaborations, progressives could encourage, assist and empower today’s youth to learn more about what is at stake, to recognize metaphorical manipulation, and to question the conservative worldview. Regardless of what path scientists and progressives choose, trying to sway the general public with facts or through emotional language, conservative attacks will continue. Hence, environmentalists must prepare for accusations of being unscientific, immoral and promoting hidden agendas. Pre-emptively responding to these arguments, I will begin to point out that all humans have their own conceptual baggage. This means that all research is subjective to some degree, the only uncertainty being whether it is done consciously or subconsciously (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). However, as long as there is self-reflexivity and transparency one can still produce high quality research that is engaging (Tracy, 2010). In this spirit, I should lay open that I have a background in paleoclimatology, actively arguing that climate change research requires more data (e.g. Langebroek et al., 2012), and that I am a mother who fears for my child’s future. These facts are absolutely part of the rationale behind this paper, but do not let conservatives harass you into accepting that personal details like these belongs in a negative frame. Instead, use their arguments against them by creating your own frames: that your actions are based on world-view where our children deserve a future and that your language reflects your conviction to fight for the common good. On this last note on language and honesty, I should also point out that I have incorporated metaphors of light and dark through this text when talking about environmentalists and sceptics respectively. These metaphorical expressions are used to conjure the ideas that GOOD IS LIGHT and BAD IS DARK. I highly encourage all readers to try to identify at least a couple of these metaphors because they are there for a specific reason, to demonstrate how profoundly metaphors shape texts, to expose the power of metaphorical manipulation, and to remind you that we are in the middle of a war where conservatives have already used these tactics for years.
31
7. Conclusion We have the data; Earth’s temperature is rising and unless we drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions we will face an environmental and humanitarian crisis. However, rather than fighting emissions and polluters, American conservative entities are focusing their energy and resources on attacking the scientific and environmental community. Referring to themselves as sceptics, these conservative agents primarily rely on conspiracy theories to undermine science by spreading doubt in the general public. This effect is achieved through negative metaphorical framings, where conceptual metaphors are used to picture anyone in support of mitigation efforts as corrupt, as frauds and as enemies of the state. In order to study the metaphors used in association with SR15 and the Green New Deal, publications from five well-known CTTs, as well as tweets made by Republican senators, were examined over a five-month interval spanning from October 2018 to March 2019. Focusing on conspiracy texts, and using the search terms ‘IPCC’, ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’, ‘Green New Deal’ and ‘#GreenNewDeal’, a domain-specific corpus referred to as the ACCC (36,388 words) was assembled from the CTT publications while a smaller dataset was compiled from 135 Republican tweets (3967 words). These datasets revealed that American conservatives create negative frames by primarily using metaphors belonging to the domains of WAR, RELIGION, HEALTH, BUILDING, JOURNEY, WATER and PRODUCT. These metaphors in turn relate to the conceptual key LIFE IS A STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL, where conservatives cast themselves as heroes, the general public as victims and scientists and progressives as villains. From an environmentalist viewpoint these frames might be dismissed as little more than illogical fabrications that must be refuted with facts, but dismissing sceptics and conservative arguments on this basis allows conservative agents free range to promote their worldview. Hence, in order to intercept conservative strategies, improve communications tactics, and steer our society onto a climate-resilient pathway, progressives should: (1) work to expose conservative frames, with metaphors playing a central role in this effort, (2) engage in interdisciplinary collaborations, (3) promote progressive moral values by incorporating emotional language, (4) uphold the idea of EARTH as HOME rather than an endless resource free to rule and reap, and (5) inspire children and youth to nurture, respect and protect the only place we can call home.
32
8. References Aston, G. (1997). Small and large corpora in language learning. In B. Lewandowska- Tomaszczyk and P. Melia (Eds.) Practical Applications in Language Corpora (51-62). Lodz, Poland: University Press. Atanasova, D., Koteyko, N. (2017). Metaphors in Guardian Online and Mail Online Opinion-page Content on Climate Change: War, Religion, and Politics. Environmental communication, vol. 11, no. 4, 452-469. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.) Encyclopedia of human behaviour (vol. 4, 71-81). New York: Academic Press. Barron, L. (2018). Here’s What the EPA’s Website Looks Like After a Year of Climate Change Censorship. Retrieved from: http://time.com/5075265/epa-website-climate- change-censorship/ Bell, L. (2018). Hell Freezes Over at Global Climate Crisis Confab. Retrieved from: www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/hell-freezes-over-at-global-climate-crisis-confab Benson, T. (2019). ‘Green New Deal’: It’s a Dessert Topping and a Floor Wax! Retrieved from: www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/green-new-deal-its-a-dessert-topping-and- a-floor-wax Bifrost (n.d.). Retrieved May 30, 2019, from https://bifrostonline.org/ Blunt, R. [RoyBlunt] (2019, March 1). The Democrats’ #GreenNewDeal goes far beyond the mainstream and includes policies completely unrelated to the environment, like single-payer health care and a federal jobs guarantee [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/RoyBlunt/status/1101606572218814470 Boussalis, C., Coan, T. G. (2016). Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt. Global Environmental Change, vol. 36, 89-100. Brechin, S. T., Bhandari, M. (2011). Perceptions of climate change worldwide. WIREs Clim Change, vol. 2, 871-885. Brulle, R. J. (2014). Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climate Change, vol. 122, no. 4, 681- 694. Burnett, H. S. (2019). The Green New Deal’s Electric Power Transformation is an Impossible Nightmare. Retrieved from: www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/the- green-new-deals-electric-power-transformation-is-an-impossible-nightmare Cameron, L., Low, G. (1999). Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: CUP. Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., Upham, P. (2015). International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. WIREs Climate Change, vol. 6., 35-61. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
33
Chung, S. F., Ahrens, K., Sung, Y. (2003). STOCK MARKETS AS OCEAN WATER: A corpus-based, comparative study of Mandarine Chinese, English and Spanish. PACLIC Vol. 17, 124-133. COCA, Corpus of Contemporary American English. corpus.byu.edu/coca/. Collins Cobuild English Grammar. (2014) Sinclair, John (Ed.), (8th ed.). Glasgow, UK: HarperCollins Publisher. Cunningham, R., Perry, C., Griffiths, L. (2018). Letter to the Chairman on Committee on Climate Change. Retrieved from: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi le/748489/CCC_commission_for_Paris_Advice_-_Scot__UK.pdf Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M. (2015). Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 71, no. 2, 98-106. Dunford, R., Palmer, I. (1996). Metaphors in Popular Management Discourse: The Case of Corporate Restructuring. In D. Grant and C. Oswick (Eds.) Metaphor and Organization (95-109). London: Sage. Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M. (2010). Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies. In C. Lever-Tracy (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society (240-259). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Engels, A., Hüther, O., Schäfer, M., Held, H. (2013). Public climate-change skepticism, energy preferences and political participation. Global Environmental Change, vol. 23, 1018-1027. Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., Thibodeau, P. H. (2017). Metaphors for the War (or Race) against Climate Change. Environmental Communication, 1-15. Graesser A. C., Mio, J., Millis, K. K. (1989) Metaphors in persuasive communication. In D. Meutsch and R. Viehoff (Eds.), Comprehension of Literary Discourse: Results and Problems of Interdisciplinary Approaches. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Gynther, I., Waller, N., Leung, L. K.-P. (2016), Confirmation of the extinction of the Bramble Cay melomys Melomys rubicola on Bramble Cay, Torres Strait: results and conclusions from a comprehensive survey in August-September 2014. Unpublished report to the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland Government, Brisbane. Haeberli, W., Beniston, M. (1998). Climate Change and Its Impacts on Glaciers and Permafrost in the Alps. Ambio, vol. 27, no. 4, 258-265. Hassol, S. J. (2008). Improving How Scientists Communicate About Climate Change. Eos, vol. 89, no. 11, 106-107. Hewson, J. (2018). Government’s arrogant and irresponsible response to IPCC report. Retrieved from: www.theherald.com.au/story/5690311/coalitions-response-to-ipcc- irresponsible/
34
Heywood, A. (2015). Political Theory: An Introduction (4th ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P. J., Hooten, A. J., Steneck, R. S., Greenfield, P., Gomez, E., Harvell, C. D., Sale, P. F., Edwards, A. J., Caldeira, K., Knowlton, N., Eakin, C. M., Iglesias-Prieto, R., Muthiga, N., Bradbury, R. H., Dubi, A., Hatziolos, M. E. (2007). Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Science, vol. 318, 1737-1742. Howe, N. (1988). Metaphor in Contemporary American Political Discourse. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, vol. 3, no. 2, 87-104. Hughes, T. P., Kerry, J. T., Álvarez-Noriega, M., Álvarez-Romero, J. G., Anderson, K. D., Baird, A. H., Babcock, R. C., Beger, M., Bellwood, D. R., Berkelmans, R., Bridge, T. C., Butler, I. R., Byrne, M., Cantin, N. E., Comeau, S., Connolly, S. R., Cumming, G. S., Dalton, S. J., Diaz-Pulido, G., Eakin, C. M., Figueira, W. F., Gilmour, J. P., Harrison, H. B., Heron, S. F., Hoey, A. S., Hobbs, J.-P. A., Hoogenboom, M. O., Kennedy, E. V., Kuo, C.-Y., Lough, J. M., Lowe, R. J., Liu, G., McCulloch, M. T., Malcolm, H. A., McWilliam, M. J., Pandolfi, J. M., Pears, R. J., Pratchett, M. S., Schoepf, V., Simpson, T., Skirving, W. J., Sommer, B., Torda, G., Wachenfeld, D. R., Willis, B. L., and Wilson, S. K. (2017). Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature, vol. 543 (7645), 373-377. IPCC, n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2019, from https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ IPCC (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp. Jacques,P. J., Dunlap, R. E., Freeman, M. (2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, vo. 17, no. 3, 349- 385. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 24, 602-611. Kennedy, J. [SenJohnKennedy]. (2019, February 11). The “Green New Deal” is nuttier than a pot of boiled peanuts. This resolution is chock-full of socialist strategies for invasive government intervention. It calls for outlandish initiatives that contradict many of our American capitalist values [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/SenJohnKennedy/status/1095110317003153410
35
Krugman, P. [paulkrugman]. (2018, December 10). There’s a new axis of evil: Russia, Saudi Arabia – and the United States [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1072120074650181632 Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.) Cambridge: CUP, pp. 205-251. Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, Morality, and Politics: Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals in the Dust. Social Research, vol. 62. no. 2, 1-22. Lakoff, G. (2006). Simple framing: An introduction to framing and its uses in politics. Rockridge Institute. Retrieved from: www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/simple framing/ Lakoff, G. (2009). The Political Mind. New York: Penguin Books. Lakoff, G. (2016). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (3rd ed.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By (2003 ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Langebroek, P., Bradshaw, C., Yanchilina, A., Caballero-Gill, R., Pew, C., Armour, K., Lee, S.-Y., Jansson, I.-M. (2012). Improved proxy record of past warm climates needed. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, vol. 93, no. 289 14, p. 144-145, doi: 10.1029/2012EO140007. Lawson, D. F., Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Carrier, S. J., Strnad, R. L., Seekamp, E. (2019). Children can foster climate change concern among their parents. Nature Climate Change. doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0463-3 Lehr, J. (2019). Climate-Modeling Illusions Not Based on Reality. Retrieved from: www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/climate-modeling-illusions-not-based-on-reality Lehr, J., Harris, T. (2019). Global Warming Myth Debunked: Humans Have Minimal Impact on Atmosphere’s Carbon Dioxide and Climate. Retrieved from: www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/global-warming-myth-debunked-humans-have- minimal-impact-on-atmospheres-carbon-dioxide-and-climate Loris, N. (2018). Latest Climate Report Feeds into Alarmist Fearmongering. Retrieved from: www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/latest-climate-report-feeds-alarmist- fearmongering Lukes, S. (2004). Power: A Radical View (2nd ed.) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. McConnell, M. [senatemajldr]. (2019, March 6). Nothing encapsulates the Democrat’s hard left turn towards socialism more than the “Green New Deal”. One estimate pegs the cost of this centrally-planned nightmare at around $93 trillion. That’s more than every dollar our federal government has spent in its entire history to date [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1103326974288818176
36
McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E. (2000). Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter-Claims. Social Problems, vol. 47, no. 4, 499-522. McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movements Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy. Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 27, no. 2-3, 100-133. McCright, A. M., Charters, M., Dentzman, K., Dietz, T. (2016). Examining the Effectiveness of Climate Change Frames in the Face of a Climate Change Denial Counter-Frame. Topics in Cognitive Science, vol. 8, 76-97. Merskin, D. (2004). The Construction of Arabs as Enemies: Post-September 11 Discourse of George W. Bush. Mass Communication & Society, vol. 7, no. 2, 157-175. Missirian, A., Schlenker, W. (2017) Asylum applications respond to temperature fluctuations. Science, vol. 358, issue 6370, 1610-1614. Moore, S. (2018). Follow the (Climate Change) Money. Retrieved from: www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money Moore, S. (2019). Green Is the New Red. Retrieved from: www.heritage.org/energy- economics/commentary/green-the-new-red Moran, J. [JerryMoran]. (2019, March 26). How we do things matters, and while we must continue working to conserve our environment, the #GreenNewDeal is a divisive step backward that takes away from serious policy discussions about efforts to address our changing climate [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/JerryMoran/status/1110653109628559360 Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and conceptual evolution, in: metaphoric.de 7, Retrieved from: www.researchgate.net/profile/Andreas_Musolff2/publication/253659751_Metaphor _and_conceptual_evolution/links/5857bcdd08aed3146d890d1e/Metaphor-and- conceptual-evolution.pdf Nagle, J. C. (2008). The Evangelical Debate Over Climate Change, 5 U. St. Thomas L.J. 53 Retrieved from: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/433 Nerem, R. S., Beckley, B. D., Fasullo, J. T., Hamlington, B. D., Masters, D., Mitchum, G. T. (2018). Climate-change-driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era. PNAS, vol. 115, no. 9, 2022-2025. Oberlechner, T., Slunecko, T., Kronberger, N. (2004). Surfing the money tides: Understanding the foreign exchange market through metaphors. British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 43, 133-156. Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English Language. Horizon magazine, 1-8. Paul, R. (n.d.) Rand Paul U.S. Senator for Kentucky: Advancing Energy Security. Retrieved from: www.ipcc.ch/about/history/
37
Paul, R. (2017). Sen. Rand Paul: Say au revoir to Paris Climate Agreement. Retrieved from: www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-say-au-revoir-to-paris-climate- agreement Pühringer, S., Hirte, K. (2013). The financial crisis as a tsunami Discourse profiles of economists in the financial crisis. ICAE Working Paper Series, No. 14, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy (ICAE), Linz. Retrieved from www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/171391/1/icae-wp14.pdf Rahmstorf, S. (2004). The Climate Sceptics. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam. Retrieved from: www.pik- potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pdf. (Accessed 18 March, 2019). Riloff, E., Qadir, A., Surve, P., De Silva, L., Gilbert, N., Huang, R. (2013). Sarcasm as contrast between a positive sentiment and negative situation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 704–714. Seattle, WA: USA. Saad, L. (2014). One in four in U.S. are solidly sceptical of global warming. Retrieved from news.gallup.com/poll/168620/one-four-solidly-skeptical-global-warming.aspx Schmid-Petri, H., Adam, S., Schmucki, I., Häussler, T. (2015). A changing climate of skepticism? The factors shaping climate change coverage in the US press. Public Understanding of Science. Online first, DOI: 10.1177/0963662515612276 Scott, T. [SenatorTimScott]. (2019, March 26). The #GreenNewDeal is not simply the beginning of socialism, but a massive leap towards policies antithetical to American exceptionalism. My full statement on today’s vote here: https://www.scott.senate.gov/media-center/press-releases/sen-scott-statement-on-green- new-deal-vote [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/SenatorTimScott/status/1110643749292519424 Straehle, C., Weiss, G., Wodak, R., Muntigl, P., Sedlak, M. (1999). Struggle as metaphor in European Union discourses on unemployment. Discourse & Society, vol. 10, no. 1, 67- 99. Sullivan, D. [SenDanSullivan]. (2019, March 7). The #GreenNewDeal could have deadly serious consequences for many struggling communities. I spoke yesterday about this proposal and the impact that responsible resource development has had on the health and well-being of Alaskans [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/SenDanSullivan/status/1103766842831765510 Talgo, C. (2019). Green New Deal Guarantees More Red Tape and Red Ink. Retrieved from: www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/green-new-deal-guarantees-more-red- tape-and-red-ink
38
The White House. (2017). Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord. Retrieved from: www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump- paris-climate-accord/ (Accessed 6 April, 2019). Thiessen, M. A. (2019). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accidentally exposes the left’s big lie. Retrieved from: www.aei.org/publication/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-accidentally- exposes-the-lefts-big-lie/ Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 16, no. 10, 837-851. UCS, Union of Concerned Scientists (2018). Each Country’s Share of CO2 Emissions. Retrieved from: www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each- countrys-share-of-co2.html Ungerer, F., Schmid, H. J. (2006). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. [UPFSI]. (2019, January 25). Greta Thunberg “Our House is on Fire” 2019 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrF1THd4bUM van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, vol. 4, no. 2, 249-283. Van Rensburg, W. (2015). Climate Change Scepticism: A Conceptual Re-Evaluation. Sage, vol. 5, no. 2, 1-13. Väliverronen, E., Hellsten, I. (2002). From “Burning Library” to “Green Medicine”: The Role of Metaphors in Communicating Biodiversity. Science Communication, vol. 24, no. 2, 229-245. Wilk, R. (2004). Morals and Metaphors: The Meaning of Consumption. In Eckström K and Brembeck H (eds) Elusive Consumption. Oxford: Berg Publishers, pp. 11-26. Wojick, D. (2018). COP 24: Climate Summit Language Reveals Hidden Agenda. Retrieved from: www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/cop-24-climate-summit-language-reveals- hidden-agenda Wrightstone, G. (2018). Trump Just Says “No” to Crippling Climate Policy. Retrieved from: www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/trump-just-says-no-to-crippling-climate- policy Xue, J., Mao, Z., Li, N. (2013). Conceptual Metaphor in American Presidential Inaugural Addresses. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol. 3. no. 4, 678-683. Zia, A., Todd, A. M. (2010). Evaluating the effects of ideology on public understanding of climate change science: How to improve communication across ideological divides? Public Understand. Sci., vol. 19, no. 6, 743-761.
39
APPENDIX A
Table 1 Bibliographic information for the ACCC
CTT Author Denial type URL Heartland Inst. J. Dunn, J. Bast B, C, D, E https://tinyurl.com/yxpprh47 Heartland Inst. S. Motley C, E https://tinyurl.com/yyvubnfq Heartland Inst. J. Lehr, T. Harris B, E https://tinyurl.com/y54eqyup Heartland Inst. H. S. Burnett B, E https://tinyurl.com/y3d2ojft Heartland Inst. H. S. Burnett E https://tinyurl.com/y3cgo8zo Heartland Inst. J. Taylor E https://tinyurl.com/yyyt9kmn Heartland Inst. H. S. Burnett E https://tinyurl.com/yydck22n Heartland Inst. S. Goreham E https://tinyurl.com/y52r64bz Heartland Inst. D. Wojick E https://tinyurl.com/ybustp7v Heartland Inst. G. Wrightstone B, E https://tinyurl.com/y3pr9f4m Heartland Inst. L. Bell B, D, E https://tinyurl.com/y4vskq4o Heartland Inst. G. Wrightstone B, C, E https://tinyurl.com/yy6o6afb Heartland Inst. J. Lehr B, E https://tinyurl.com/y2hoffck Heartland Inst. C. N. Steele E https://tinyurl.com/y5rjn2tw Heartland Inst. J. Taylor C, E https://tinyurl.com/y4jffjzf Heartland Inst. T. Benson E https://tinyurl.com/y54pqsrm Heartland Inst. C. N. Steele E https://tinyurl.com/yxjspwt4 Heartland Inst. C. Talgo E https://tinyurl.com/y3tup3c3 Heartland Inst. J. Lehr, T. Harris B, E https://tinyurl.com/y5excm6m Heartland Inst. J. Lehr B, E https://tinyurl.com/yxnytz6s Heartland Inst. H. S. Burnett E https://tinyurl.com/y4rasocw Heritage Fdn. N. Loris D, E https://tinyurl.com/yxw8pnuj Heritage Fdn. N. Loris E https://tinyurl.com/y4k9yp4a Heritage Fdn. K. Tubb E https://tinyurl.com/y45ltexw Heritage Fdn. N. Loris B, D, E https://tinyurl.com/yxjobwns Heritage Fdn. S. Moore E https://tinyurl.com/y3cgn7nl Heritage Fdn. S. Moore, A. Vanderplas E https://tinyurl.com/y4pksr8p Heritage Fdn. N. Loris B, E https://tinyurl.com/yyp4emfo Heritage Fdn. N. Loris D, E https://tinyurl.com/y6tfrm9t Heritage Fdn. E. J. Feulner D, E https://tinyurl.com/y5fjvf8c
40
Heritage Fdn. D. Kochis E https://tinyurl.com/y5cmbola Heritage Fdn. S. Moore C, E https://tinyurl.com/y53b7528 Heritage Fdn. N. Loris E https://tinyurl.com/yyhtr7ae Heritage Fdn. S. Moore E https://tinyurl.com/y2rk9vrl Heritage Fdn. N. Loris E https://tinyurl.com/y5oxtefz CFACT CFACT ed. D, E https://tinyurl.com/yycrbmt3 CEI M. Lewis Jr E https://tinyurl.com/y4vyxaed CEI M. Ebell, R. Darwall E https://tinyurl.com/y5jgzw5a CEI M. Ebell E https://tinyurl.com/yxqwegc5 CEI B. Lieberman E https://tinyurl.com/y5kyn46e AEI B. Zycher B, E https://tinyurl.com/y55oamng AEI M. Rubin E https://tinyurl.com/y2hdpxoo AEI M. Rubin B, E https://tinyurl.com/y52l6k3g AEI M. A. Thiessen E https://tinyurl.com/yymbzt8g
41
APPENDIX B
Table B-1 Source domains with types and examples from the ACCC. Metaphors in italics.
the nation.
are… predictions
saviors -
doomsday planet
is to… victory for climate change change climate for victory
that would… bankrupt
, not scientific economic analysis. could love these… initiatives. love could requickly becoming Democratic
climate change. climate
hungry these hungry - Armageddon apocalypse ideology fanatics
extremists...
they can tell you the planet’s climate…in the future ignore the data and rely on discredited computer models.
e against chimeric against
doom believ
on free market capitalism a capitalism market free on crusade a single brain cell even considering the the considering even cell brain single a
out of the wealthy the of out
conclusion.
hell
.
. GND would bring an economic economic an bring would GND
Examples a not tested, be to hypothesis a be to change climate …human… preordained climate and politicians IRS, the Only ...actions taken by global warming resounding a not were elections midterm 2018 …the zealots climate avoid to requirement other The predicting experts The modelers today’s Yet waste we Should IPCC’sproposals are driven by green ...taxing the …her warlike …GND’s money how of sense a you give to Then ... frontal assaults orthodoxy
tic -
se/ -
rmageddon Types preordained fanatics extremists zealous/zealots a doom believe doomsday ideology hell apocalyp crusade saviours orthodoxy
Source Domain Source RELIGION (R=420)
42
Table B-1 (cont'd)
.
clear
view...
the economy will
landscape
more orders than a drill sergeant… drill a than orders more
throughout the weekend…
s justify the skeptical pointof skeptical the justify s for lawsuitsfor
icy progressive Democrats have been smokescreen barking
view t for big government spending... fodder this Greatest Scam on Earth.
wish lis wish imated talking heads
an
hawking and expressions of “confidence” are irrelevant... are “confidence” of expressions and
– of data of
that attempts by government planners to redirect
scenarios that
shows it for what it is…
mountains
saw for
Examples .... sound science and Trump’s global warming semantic a just is summit climate a this calling So pretty get things it, understand you once but deceptive, deliberately is language The rightly He also Economics resultin unsustainable catastrophe ...the IPCC's energy the in change sea revolutionary a to led have …capitalism billions his made fact in Gore provide perniciously report… climate …the pol economic every be will Deal New Green …the salivating ...the Green New Deal resolution is a bureaucrats federal of army an desire you Unless doomsday the But
Types view/views smokescreen clear saw shows mountain landscape hawking fodder salivating wish list barking heads talking
Source Domain Source SEEING IS BELIEVING (R=55) PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (R=6) PROGRESSIVES ANIMALS/ ARE SIMPLE (R=42)
43
Table B-1 (cont'd)
existing coal coal existing of gloom and gloom of
border policy. border -
stories stories
survive… on a global warming… global a on
during the Great Recession Great the during
for bothfor new and .
week, aims to aims week, —
societywith
GND also favor an open an favor also GND
in the USGCRP report to double down out of energy poverty energy of out
death sentence death pushing roots fables climb
unlawful standards unlawful again…
... springup cover climate cover - to - of climate catastrophism into the mind of the public... the of mind the into catastrophism climate of strayed far from strayed far its backwards fuel powerfuel plantsbefore theypaidareoffand before endthe oftheir
- in GDP is more than twice the loss suffered
seed leap
improbabilities isn’t science.
drop ...
were tantamount to a regulatory regulatory a to tantamount were top, cover -
— the -
yet another yet
propagating Examples people same the of many why is this Perhaps percent 10 a But green a even But to start people of millions of …hundreds over The harassed have alarmists warming global decades, three For doom ...forced to close fossil lives productive not could that company failed a of example one merely is Solyndra and unrealistic administration’s prior The plants power ...the World Bank has last just released Assessment, Climate National latest The plant But not may or may unrest Civil
Types push/pushing drop leap climb fables story lives survive death roots plant seed propagating spring up
Source Domain Source CHANGE IS MOVEMENT (R=44) FANTASY (R=8) ARE COMPANIES ORGANISMS (R=9) PLANT (R=25)
44
Table B-1 (cont'd)
billions from from billions against a against
fromtaxpayers
lifted
stolen fall… marshalled
for scientists… for
motive
level of cronyism...
t governments have
higher
taxes to the insane level she desires...
the one economic system that has
— " by climate change climate by " raise actors have opportunistically opportunistically have actors
will not stop global greenhouse gas levels from increasing. from levels gas greenhouse global stop not will right
- victimized far is banning all actual energy…
and
– backwards
left - rytois end capitalism
cause grandiose plans for social engineering social for plans grandiose far
Cortez could somehow somehow could Cortez -
left’s Leftist limate change hysteria and research in the history of the United States, causing energy demand to c
poor countries they have " have they countries poor
Examples economic and depression sustained largest the cause to certain almost is GND decline significantly introduce would Deal New Green The Ocasio if Even necessa that’s …all suffering and poverty leap green a even But main His ...the hard of amalgam An violence and anarchy spread to protests the utilized … ...after which sufficient evidence to demonstrate probable cause must be suspect…specific financial powerful a reveal does funding of wave tidal …the tha dollars trillion near the of scandal real the here’s Now to fund
ized d
- -
s/
-
left right
- - Types decline/ fall higher raise lifted backwards leftist left far far victim marshalled motive stolen
Source Domain Source DIRECTIONAL (R=320) CRIME (R=20)
45
Table B-1 (cont'd) -
. …
forces at the new the at
ces
ultimatum... allian them
quality…care. - fight
with low with
on the country. the on
of the nation's health care system care health nation's the of victory…
besieged it.
of the nation. the of
in order
takeover sanctions out in Poland concludes with an an with concludes Poland in out lity - attacking
us
taxes and
realityCOP and his and -
– disarming America’s determination to protect the nation’s economic interests economic nation’s the protect to determination America’s
mount aggressive opposition aggressive mount an ignorance of basic economics basic of ignorance an
defended its citizens and the economic vita
betrays strongly protect the 2018 midterm elections were not a resounding impose economically crippling Examples energy including Absolutely via it do will Bloomberg … change climate undoing for case legal administration’s Trump the weaken will report This regulations,and strengthens it the hands of those who go to court to Infact the largest group of terms thoseis that refer to the various political table… design order This climate alarmist senselessly The market of effect an as emissions… gas greenhouse its reducing already is …U.S. … … would it Rather to government a is GND the of plank …major and budget over hopelessly are programs …these
ce ion
-
ed/ ing
ed/ -
d -
-
Types attack/ disarming victory fight alliances betrays ultimatum forces defen sanctions aggressive mount protect/ takeover besieged
Source Domain Source WAR (R=950)
46
Table B-1 (cont'd)
.
poverty
t and discredit these emitting fuels currently currently fuels emitting - defea
target
the world into economic despair
?
npopular the npopular
upon is that the worst climate scenario could cost cost could scenario climate worst the that is upon
catapult consumed hit way too close to home? to close too way hit
seized , all that’s necessary is to end capitalism deprivation… more orders more
missile
warriors on free market capitalism are quickly becoming Democratic Democratic becoming quickly are capitalism market free on
-
army … eco cent of its gross domestic product domestic gross its of cent assaults
climate change climate
developed nations into into nations developed
frontal .S. 10 per lunge Examples an desire you Unless barking bureaucrats federal of than a drill sergeant would… magnitude that of tax energy An some to According have outlets media that statistic One the U rhetorical this that be it Could actually in worldwide progress no almost been has there admission own industry’s the By combatting ...these orthodoxy. conservatives unless and goes, saying the as red, new the is Green wrong proven be will Trump Donald ideas, dingbat u however preserved, is freedom how is That carbon conventional where world, real the in out play that would How energy all of percent 80 about generate Inthe developing world, more than 1.4 billion people suffer still from energy ...p
s
warriors Types army orders sergeant drill catapult - seized missile combatting frontalassault defeat target consumed poverty deprivation
Source Domain Source WAR ENERGY IS FOOD/WEALTH (R=18)
47
Table B-1 (cont'd)
” of ”
-
realscience.
... Cortez and Sen. Sen. and Cortez -
. overhaul
engineering undermines of the U.S. economy. U.S. the of
steroids
Mass., released their much their released Mass., eover - technologies.
mak " to every home and business building in in home building every business and to "
of green green of , driven by ideology, not science.
and little else little and upgrades
platform
foundation dependent on China, Russia, and other nations for more for nations other and Russia, China, on dependent - barrier
N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D Markey, Ed Sen. and N.Y., for America’sfor agreement...the to return -
crumbling. Cortez, D Cortez, into anarchy within days without fossil fuels. -
for a Greena for New Deal Thursday
“Green New Deal” (GND) offered by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Alexandria Rep. by (GND)New offered “GreenDeal”
collapse of the GND are to be commended for acknowledging that this “transformation this that acknowledging commendedfor be to GND are the of
a door was left open left was door a
blueprint
hyped hyped scientific report andreport more scientific political a - architects ong other things, the GND" would…require the things, other ong the United States is 100 percent import Examples done, successfully so has left the as science, climate of politicization The are efforts climate Global Interestingly, lessIt’s a … than half of the critical minerals that are the social for plans grandiose left’s hard the of skeptical normally public …a suspectI this would simply to be a trade ...the report’s reduction targets won’t be met through some massive energy Am the country much The socialist complete a constitute enacted, if would, Markey Ed Ocasio Alexandria Rep. anticipated The the U.S. economy won’t come cheap. would Society Inimmigration terms, GND would be the transcontinental railway on
s
-
Types undermine/ crumbling open door left platform foundation engineering barrier overhaul upgrades makeover blueprint architects collapse steroids
Source Domain Source BUILDING (R=234) DRUG (R=2)
48
Table B-1 (cont'd)
, economically, reductiontargets -
on the dark side. dark the on
frombada dealfor
lk wa left behind
on a global warming agenda agenda warming global a on
walk away walk all in for green energy... green for in all
at being at
of the climate should be left to the the to left be should climate the of
— World Bank’s Bank’s World
went
divert
... to meeting carbon dioxide to double down
direction t the economy will result in unsustainable
pathway pathway backtrack
redirec to
fromroots its
especially in rural areas areas rural in especially
to Musk’s desire to cut off fossil fuels. —
strayedfar
Cortez to furiously furiously to Cortez on the way to the new world order. world new the to way the on
-
. frompressing environmental concerns… circle back circle
lost
away milestones ly contrary to the needs of the countries it is allegedly trying to aid... attempts by governmentbyplanners attempts ll include increased nuclear buildout... Examples are They the notwithstanding, politicians of hubris The cycles... solar to decision his for scorn and criticism withering received He the United States … development. sustainable not catastrophe, ...just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they let’s However, ...prompting Ocasio Importantly,an extreme climate policy would also resources any that acknowledges report the While wi be would etc.) plants, gas natural nuclear, (coal, assets existing energy of dollars of Trillions strandedand ...the World Bank has direct anger widespread is There elite… ruling the by the end to opportunity the opens departure Kim’s Dr.
Types milestones direction away walk redirect went back circle backtrack divert away path/pathway lost far strayed behind left walk
Source Domain Source JOURNEY (R=308)
49
Table B-1 (cont'd) ’s and
Climate Climate Cortez Cortez -
wrapped into one one into wrapped industry billion dollar dollar billion -
of her Green NewDeal. Green her of
price tag tag price
showroom
to a public normally skeptical of the hard left
it
to American families and businesses. sell
love to tout how its for billions ofdollars… billions for when theyforcedareclose to
to
of the plan, since many of them believe we need to consume to need we believe them of many since plan, the of
int it, it’s still the same old socialism. steepprice
salespeople on the hook the on Doomsday level event, -
selling po selling package will fight “catastrophic” climate change ,supposedly preventing it from from it preventing ,supposedly change climate “catastrophic” fight will
“Green New Deal” (GND) offered by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Alexandria Rep. by (GND)New offered “GreenDeal”
of $100 billion in annual payments… annual in billion $100 of
hyped hyped -
. lure new product new e Industrial Complex Industrial e fuel powerfuel plantsbefore theypaidareoff - - every economic policy progressive Democrats have been salivating for, for, Democratssalivating beenhave progressive economicpolicy every of messaging the using this is probably a
Examples Deal New Green Although brand extinction an becoming that messaging is just designed to get you in the … package they how matter No … engineering social for plans grandiose ...this would not come even close to the whopping much The Markey Ed Sen. … less to save the Earth. a with come mandates These InAmerica and around the globe governments have created a multi Chang change climate the of off rich really really, getting are people of lot A the But be likely would Taxpayers fossil
new product new s - -
Types salespeople brand showroom one in wrapped package package sell/ tag price offered point selling price steep industrial complex industry lure hook on the
Source Domain Source PRODUCT (R=204) BAIT/TRAP (R=4)
50
Table B-1 (cont'd)
all the the all an give you give an
dioxide emissions. dioxide - pour of funding. of
els chann
richcorporations so we c
-
of both of , not reducing, its carbon
boat..
in the press for its refusal to endorse the report.
offshoring floodgates distorts science... distorts riddled
heat -
.
, blowing a gigantic hole in retirees’ pension payouts sink of natural gas natural of in the energy landscape
plunge oceans
of funding... of
seachange
of government money government of
lost.
the millionaires and billionaires and mega
and
tidal wave soak tsunami
he U.S. has taken a good deal of of deal good a taken has U.S. he a revolutionary revolutionary a vast the developing This This Examples … … ...a mountain of debt that will the U.S. economy faster than a hole would portfolios Stock be would States United the Moreover, We’ll stuff. free to willing were and together came company and billionaire every if Even resourcesattheir disposal into this investment… the But the all of track keeping be to seems one no Surprisingly, be would etc.) plants, gas natural nuclear, (coal, assets existing energy of dollars of Trillions stranded the open would Deal New Green The …t
Types change sea oceans sink boat plunge offshoring soak pour wave tidal channels tsunami stranded floodgates heat
FIRE FIRE
Source Domain Source WATER (R=182) IS CONFLIC (R=1)
51
. United Nations report report Nations United insanity
rangingsocialist agenda
- fromenergy poverty.
its citizens and the economic
unsound suffer a wide a ideas, Donald Trump will be
than wasted taxpayer money.
dingbat dingbat to believe them institute
in order to protect oes much more to reduce poverty and generate generate and poverty reduce to more much oes
and scientifically scientifically and crazy
transformation to the electric power system in the cuts deeper cuts
environmental policy… environmental
our ability to compete on a level playing field… playing level a on compete to ability our
wrenching good - cripple feel opposition aggressive
to think this or we are .
of green cronyism cronyism green of
of a a of pronouncement you hear or read is nothing short of short nothing is read or hear you pronouncement
being crazy pain
-
about a bureaucracy’s ability to managemarkets energy to ability bureaucracy’s a about
well the very the heart of Paris
of the nation. the of
delusion a guise the using the Democratic Socialists of America, aims to these discredit and defeat conservatives unless
ance is now in its second week of protests, which began in rural areas and nowand have areas rural whichbeganin weekprotests, second of its now in is ance Examples … are they Either … … apocalyptic Every … wrong proven will that agreement An mount would it Rather vitality d planning, central not system, market free A economic a mandate GNDwould The States… United Inthe developing world, more than 1.4 billion people still Fr stricken was It a hyperbolic summary of an alarmist emissions gas greenhouse on economic The
ling
-
/ity
e/
-
-
e
- being good /cuts - - Types delusion crazy feel institute insan dingbat cripple vitality well wrenching suffer stricken unsound Pain
Source Domain Source HEALTH (R=285)
52
Table B-1 (cont'd)
all the the all
dioxide emissions. dioxide - pour of funding. of
channels
richcorporations so we can give you
-
of both of , not reducing, its carbon
boat..
gigantic hole in retirees’ pension payouts pension retirees’ in hole gigantic in the press for its refusal to endorse the report.
offshoring floodgates distorts science... distorts riddled
heat -
.
, blowing a sink of natural gas natural of in the energy landscape
plunge oceans
of funding... of
seachange
of government money government of
lost.
the millionaires and billionaires and mega
and
tidal wave unami soak ts
he U.S. has taken a good deal of of deal good a taken has U.S. he a revolutionary revolutionary a vast the developing This This Examples … … ...a mountain of debt that will the U.S. economy faster than a hole would portfolios Stock be would States United the Moreover, We’ll stuff. free to willing were and together came company and billionaire every if Even resourcesattheir disposal into this investment… the But the all of track keeping be to seems one no Surprisingly, be would etc.) plants, gas natural nuclear, (coal, assets existing energy of dollars of Trillions stranded the open would Deal New Green The …t
Types change sea oceans sink boat plunge offshoring soak pour wave tidal channels tsunami stranded floodgates heat
Source Domain Source WATER (R=182) FIRE IS CONFLIC (R=1)
53
Table B-1 (cont'd)
fromthe
tax on the freshly
dark side dark —
as the freshly freshly the as as the as
on the the on
pure state holdovers state - a grim future for our for future grim a
burdensome
driven deep driven , painting - and undulyand
World Bank’s walk Bank’s World
— blew in blew agenda
. and are being driven by developing nations nations developing by driven being are and
in the next 11 years.
winter all Americans, and the rest of the world’s population population world’s the of rest the andAmericans, all
clean out clean
… enlighten dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as are you Sam, Uncle from grants dollar as are you Sam, Uncle from grants dollar - - brain cell even considering the doomsday predictions doomsday the considering even cell brain climate changeclimate
rtfoliostandards are a regressive have never been higher been never have timillion
in, and you’ll get garbage out.
into the climate change amelioration pot may feel good, but it often a single single a
place in the sun the in place
of hypocrisy makes it all that much worse. much that all it makes hypocrisy of . waste .
money garbage
for their their for
shaky
stench allen snow allen Examples report Nations United timed conveniently a Then on act to fail we if planet ...but if you get multimillion f long a for in be could Macron President and subject the simplify Let’s well. as emissions …global looking the end to opportunity the opens departure Kim’s Dr. ...need for the Trump administration to administration Obama we Should Throwing reinforcespoor governance and corrupt regimes put Well, ...but if you get mul snow.fallen The always has Fund Climate Green the for funding 2010, in 16 COP at established Although been ...high renewable po poor.
d
-
Types in blew snow fallen winter enlighten sun the in place side dark out clean waste/ throwing garbage pure stench shaky burdensome
Source Domain Source WEATHER (R=4) SEASONAL(R=1) LIGHT (R=9) CLEAN/DIRTY GARBAGE (R=60) BALANCE/BODY (R=4)
54
Table B-1 (cont'd)
. shut on the the on
team up
pressure field...
tanks the U.S. economy and usher - playing playing
think
crash
in retirees’ pension payouts
wing
families. -
hole t would left tha
make more money per capita then any other other any then capita per money more make income - to gigantic gigantic
carbon taxes and other measures to effectively effectively to measures other and taxes carbon innovation and provide the affordable, reliable energy
s. stand
the nation… drive
will be low be will
is a pipe dream
fuel victims
hit winners and loser and winners - market market hardest -
cost reliable energy to to energy reliable cost
Underwood’s path lies a land called autocracy called land a lies path Underwood’s - existing energy product… energy existing
Examples to interest common a of enough share they feel that countries of groups are These level a on compete to ability our cripple will that agreement An and scientists of integrity the impugn I dare How machination bureaucratic than rather competition economic when served best are Consumers energy picks they since group, own its has Africa region. Down apply to continue will groups... advocacy environmental and leaders These administration current a blowing plunge, would portfolios Stock …low draconian impose must …governments down Inreality, the Green New Deal in a new "green" Great Depression. markets energy competitive Free, that families and businesses need… 6’s Question
losers
hit
& - es
- ting down ting
-
wing
- Types up team field playing left winners stand down pressure hole fuel shut/ crash/ drive hardest
Source Domain Source SPORT/GAME (R=20) PHYSICAL ORIENTATION (R=4) CONTAINER (R=6) NATION/ MARKET IS A MACHINE/ VEHICLE (R=35)
55
Table B-1 (cont'd)
fromthe
tax on the freshly always
dark side dark —
as the freshly freshly the as as the as
on the the on
pure state holdovers state - a grim future for our for future grim a
burdensome
driven by developing nations nations developing by driven driven deep driven
, painting - and undulyand Sam, you are as pure as are you Sam,
World Bank’s walk Bank’s World
— blew in blew agenda
. and are being are and
in the next 11 years.
winter all Americans, and the rest of the world’s population population world’s the of rest the andAmericans, all
clean out clean
… l get garbage out. enlighten dollar grants from Uncle from grants dollar as are you Sam, Uncle from grants dollar - - climate changeclimate
have never been higher been never have
in, and you’l
into the climate change amelioration pot may feel good, but it often a single brain cell even considering the doomsday the predictions considering even cell brain single a
place in the sun the in place
of hypocrisy makes it all that much worse. much that all it makes hypocrisy of . waste .
money garbage
administration
shaky
stench Examples report Nations United timed conveniently a Then on act to fail we if planet ...but if you get multimillion fallen snow long a for in be could Macron President and subject the simplify Let’s well. as emissions …global looking for their the end to opportunity the opens departure Kim’s Dr. ...need for the Trump administration to Obama we Should Throwing reinforcespoor governance and corrupt regimes put Well, ...but if you get multimillion snow.fallen The has Fund Climate Green the for funding 2010, in 16 COP at established Although been ...high renewable portfolio standards are a regressive poor.
d
-
Types in blew snow fallen winter enlighten sun the in place side dark out clean waste/ throwing garbage pure stench shaky burdensome
Source Domain Source WEATHER (R=4) SEASONAL(R=1) LIGHT (R=9) CLEAN/DIRTY GARBAGE (R=60) BALANCE/BODY (R=4)
56
APPENDIX C
Table C-1 Source domains with types and examples from the Twitter set. Metaphors in italics.
left - far
towards
leap
growth policies policies growth s the foundationsthe s solutions - for the futureofAmericanthe for
beyond anything Dems have Demshave anything beyond
mentally alter mentally . socialismmore than“Greenthe class infrastructure network, and network, infrastructure class - costs or destroying jobs, they are are they jobs, destroying or costs
vision socialist fantasies like the like fantasies socialist looks
towards that funda
raising
. to the left that goes far
hift hift in smart and efficient conservation. There is not one smart or
turn toward socialism
skilled Hoosier skilled workforce, world - believe to deal with climate change.
he #DemsDuck. he t at the #GreenNewDeal, the worseit at the
choice. We can continue to support rural Americapro and rural support to We continue can choice.
to a high
saw
called #GreenNewDeal. Today, they had the chance to vote on that proposal, proposal, that on vote #GreenNewDeal.to chance the hadcalled Today,they look
- h I were joking. were I h
clear energy bills, but that is just the beginning the just is that but bills, energy
me a farmer who does not practice conservation or does not use latest tech & I will will I & tech latest use not does or conservation practice not does who farmer a me
you a farmer in trouble in farmer a you
energy costs. But the #GreenNewDeal would crush Indiana’s affordable energy prices energy #GreenNewDeal affordable the But Indiana’s would costs. crush energy
higher Examples Montana of people The #GreenNewDeal. the about thing efficient a have We that boost our economy and create jobs, or we can allow in creep #GreenNewDealto weeksJust ago,my Democratic colleagues outlinedtheir so the energy, we instead but Show show you more The s massive a is #GreenNewDeal This before. proposed massive a but socialism, of beginning the simply not is #GreenNewDeal The exceptionalism. American to antithetical policies trillion $93 a need don’t We country. our of year per $3,800 to up families American cost to projected is #GreenNewDeal Democrats’ The in of kind what see to deserve Americans Deal! New Green the on vote Let’s offering are Democrats about concerned seem don’t @SenateDems While fast #GreenNewDealairplanes and cow emissions their eliminate won’t that concerned wis I enough. Indianahomeis low turn left hard Democrat’s the encapsulates Nothing Deal”. New
est -
ing
-
s
er/ -
- e/
- left
- Types believe clear vision saw show look/ shift leap turn high far rais low toward
CHANGE IS Source Domain Source (R=5) RELIGION SEEING IS BELIEVING (R=40) MOVEMENT (R=9) DIRECTIONA L (R=60)
57
Table C-1 (cont'd)
- left
-
left
our environment. our
instead… work with
nd combustion. nd protect the #GreenNewDeal.
on cars, cows a cows cars, on .
advance
heard of the Green NewDeal. Green the of heard
. this month’s squeal award goes to the
assault e, their #GreenNewDeal, is so far out in out #GreenNewDeal,far so their is e, — effective solutions to to solutions effective - big green bomb green big strategies
in sailboats
this
n’s founding n’s war for climatefor chang duck roughly$10 trillionmore than the entire recorded spending of
—
to deal with climate change.
full of socialist ofsocialist full - climate change with windmills windmills changewith climate
offering
government intervention. government
the Democrat cure
fighting
realsolutions since before anyone had ever
that not many are going to take it seriously. legislation.
Democrats are are Democrats it creates. invasive
I believeI
Examples I proposal. #GreenNewDeal the to resolution alternative an introducing are Democrats Senate to trying for them blame don’t votedI against Democrats’ #GreenNewDeal because, with nuclear power available, its for strategy to going as sense much as makes an basically is #GreenNewDeal Democrats’ The chock is resolution This for to opportunity an wish: their got Democrats week, This hopeI Democrats turn away from the outlandish #GreenNewDeal… and cost with up come to Congress in Republicans to fashion bipartisan a in working been have who us of those to disservice huge a That’s deliver TRILLION $93 estimated the down paying with Montanans stick would #GreenNewDeal The tab tag price trillion $93 a With the US government since our natio #GreenNewDeal. far solutions of kind what see to deserve Americans Deal! New Green the on vote Let’s left … field radical, this on position their to as record the on be should Congress of member Every wing
ing
-
wing
-
Types bomb fighting war assault strategies invasive advance protect/ deliver tab tag price offering field left left
Source Domain Source WAR (R=80) PRODUCT (R=20) SPORT (R=6)
58
Table C-1 (cont'd) our our out in left left in out
grow , is so far
d space for violent, violent, for space d
. .
.
thrive thrive
GreenNewDeal years!
.
help America America help ratein 13
of energy and fuel sources to help help to sources fuel and energy of
seriousconsequences manyfor struggling
of Alaskans. of
all of that. of all
deadly class and working families the most. the workingandfamilies class - at the highest the at
for climatefor change,# their being
-
nuttier than a pot of boiled peanuts boiled of pot a than nuttier grew well cure
middle
Requirements Of The Green New Deal New Green The Of Requirements over Green New Deal and now limiting detention be detention nowlimiting and New Deal Green over
agriculture industry. agriculture
hurting eenNewDeal could threaten thousands of Hoosier jobs and our ag our and jobs Hoosier of thousands eenNewDeal threaten could vital crazy
Insane #Gr
New Deal” is is Deal” New
the Democrat
that not many are going to take it seriously. Green
harmful I believeI Examples … field Most 10 The America help that industries the support that ideas need We go Democrats illegal immigrant criminals. have could #GreenNewDeal The communities spokeI yesterday about this proposal and the impact that responsible resource development and health the on had has eliminate would It unaffordable. and unachievable, unworkable, is #GreenNewDeal The industries, entire “ The The community. livelihoods whose Hoosiers hardworking 107,000 the for news bad is #GreenNewDeal The our on depend In2018, the US economy In#Montana we rely on a diverse portfolio Montanaour waylife of preserve and jobs, goodpaying economy,create uproot would #GreenNewDeal The that industries the support that ideas need We
ing
being
-
-
Types cure insane thrive crazy deadly well hurt/ nuttier harmful vital grew grow uproot thrive
Source Domain Source HEALTH (R=140) PLANT (R=16)
59
Table C-1 (cont'd)
the Green our our
more than the “ the than more alters the the alters
fromserious policy
tana way of life.
. the mainstream and includes policies that takes away
over almost every aspect of their lives is is lives their of aspect every almost over
of energy and fuel sources to help grow help to sources fuel and energy of America’s economy and society through a radical radical a through society and economy America’s
renewableenergy sources, but this proposal theisn't
beginning
p backward p hard left turn towards socialism towards turn left hard ste remake goes far beyond far goes towards
, the answer is an overwhelming no.
with these and other commonsense efforts instead of extreme extreme of instead efforts commonsense other and these with
fromoutlandishthe #GreenNewDeal proposal they’reusing to
move
to think of a more harmful “deal” for Hoosiers than the
base… with the Agriculture committee and with farm country. farm with and committee Agriculture the with
ntion from the Green NewDeal. Green the from ntion turn away move forward move atte wing
- pressed - catch up catch inspired plan aims to -
of our country. our of
divert hard
ope Democrats Democrats ope the #GreenNewDeal is a divisive Examples socialist The government. of role the and infrastructure energy, to approach new fundamentally that socialism toward turn trillion $93 a need don’t We foundations #GreenNewDeal Democrats’ The environment the to unrelated completely willI continue to #GreenNewDeal.. the like ideas impractical and to try Nice Democrat’s the encapsulates Nothing Deal”. New to need They Ifyou ask most Americans governmentif control take us see to want they direction and emissions cut must We answer. ... climate. changing our address to efforts about discussions year per $3,800 to up families American cost to projected is #GreenNewDeal Democrats’ The in higher energy bills, but that is just the h I left their to cater In#Montana we rely on a diverse portfolio Monour preserve and jobs, goodpaying economy,create be You’d #GreenNewDeal.
pressed - oundation Types remake f goes far beyond forwardmove divert turn left hard up catch direction move backwards step beginning away turn portfolio hard
Source Domain Source BUILDING (R=4) JOURNEY (R=130) (R=1) MARKET (R=1) CONTAINER
60
Table C-1 (cont'd)
clean ble, its its ble,
as a as .
.
resourceson the
—
wasting masquerading
environment, but this proposal proposal this but environment, tossed to the side by positive incentives, research & research incentives, positive by
wishlist driven
left - all the gains we’vemade. gains the all
ers wouldbe ers alarmism.
reverse for ourresourcesfornatural & of Oklahoma, and America, moving America, and Oklahoma, of
fashionedclimate - handed regulation. handed a New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy, a five year project with project year five a Energy, Clean New for a ManhattanProject
- stewards
s a massive,a s expensive far
by old by
climate change with windmills makes as much sense as going to war in warin to going muchas makes as sense windmills changewith climate
t launch
not heavy not innovation engine
—
.
ground to a hal a to ground Examples votedI against Democrats’ #GreenNewDeal because, with nuclear power availa fighting for strategy sailboats should U.S. …the Challenges. Grand Ten good be to want all We goal. that achieve it would nor doable, practically serious, not was risks it because dangerous, but understandable is Exaggeration answers policy wrong pipefitt and miners coal farmers, ranchers, Our i #GreenNewDeal The plan. energy the keep Let’s not would #GreenNewDeal Democrats’ … be should challenges environmental our to Solutions development
Types sailboats launch stewards wasting tossed clean engine halt a ground to reverse drive
Source Domain Source WATER (R=9) CLEAN/DIRTY/ GARBAGE (R=130) MACHINE/ VEHICLE (R=16)
61