May 15, 2014

Speaking of denying reality ...

If "progressives" and Greens get off on dubbing global warming climate change skeptics/deniers "anti science" and "deniers of reality," then how many examples such as this do fiscal and government conservatives have to demonstrate about the reality that big government constantly wastes big money?

Posted by Hube at May 15, 2014 08:01 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I have to correct you on something you seem to use as a go-to joke. You imply, sarcastically and regularly, that "climate change" is some sort of liberal phrase -- a backpedal of some kind. In an August 2011 post, you wrote, "By the way, notice how the term has been subtlely changed to "climate change" from "global warming." Why is that?"

It's because Frank Luntz, and the far right, changed it.

The phrase "Climate change" was put forth by Luntz --- the GOP's super-strategist and linguistics genius. Luntz's memos, as you probably know, were periodically distributed to right-wing think-tanks, media, and the White House during the Bush years. Luntz suggested everyone from Bush to Limbaugh say "climate change" instead of "global warming," because it sounded "less scary."

I'm too lazy to do the HTML link thing, but this has been documented ad nauseum, including interviews with Luntz himself.

Ironically, the scientific community found "climate change" to be a more accurate term to explain the overall situation, and adopted it.

Double ironically (but not surprisingly): Luntz now admits it's clear that humans are contributing to.....whatever you want to call it. But he defends his prior work by saying the science was...... "incomplete" at the time.

Posted by: dan at May 26, 2014 09:01 AM

Oh, I see, the scientific community suddenly decided to adopt the term -- which they originally DERIDED because they thought Luntz and co. were acting in an "unscientific" manner -- because it is "more accurate?" Then why do we continue to hear only sky-is-falling future tales of cities underwater if we do not act NOW? Sounds precisely LIKE global warming, not a nebulous "climate change." (Or is that "climate disruption," now?)

Again, I personally believe the climate is changing (or getting warmer) and the man plays a role. But there's been more than enough shenanigans by the GW scientists to make one skeptical of their alarmist claims, not to mention the usual fallacious "appeals to higher authority." Pardon me if I do not subscribe to the "we must act NOW or we all die" faction of "science."

I'll post the comments when they come back online sometime this weekend.

Posted by: Hube at May 26, 2014 09:02 AM

I'm agree with Hube. I don't subscribe to the "we must act now or die" alarmism. It's borderline pseudoscience. I don't doubt that climate has change but it occurs naturally and I wish enviro-nutcases would chill (no pun intended) with the doomsday rhetoric. I am not changing my lifestyle just to appease idiots like Al Gore.

Posted by: Carl at May 26, 2014 04:33 PM

I mean to say, I agree with Hube.

Posted by: Carl at May 26, 2014 04:35 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?