Surely by now you've seen the White House's latest response to the inconvenient truth that the two-decade warming about which you heard so much has plateaued and is projected to cool off for a few decades more. As is what sort of happens with cyclical things. But flexibility has been the name of the game for these people who decided that claiming certainty about weather-related calamity would serve as their latest vehicle to ride to Utopia.
The famous, erstwhile warming had followed a three-decade cooling, which in turn had followed...well, you get the point -- leading them to finally (?) settle upon a re-branding of global warming as "global climate disruption".
Yes, yes, I know what you're thinking: didn't we just agree to re-brand the already re-branded Panic Formerly Known as Global Cooling, as "climate change"? The more attentive may even recall Al Gore bragging that he had been given $300 million -- he didn't say from which parties who stand to benefit from the prescription, and when she tried Leslie Stahl shrugged at his and Tipper's stammering non-answer.
That lucre, Gore said, was to recast climate change as "the climate crisis".
So, here we go:
The witch did it, let's burn her!
The SUV did it, let's burn it!
Global climate change
The climate crisis
Global climate disruption
The latest choice is just as slippery as 'climate change' -- what with the only constant with climate being change; that's what it does. Also like 'climate change' this trades off the risible "at this rate!" hysteria on which the movement dined out during its 'cooling' and 'warming' heyday, in return for the claimed ability to point to everything as its evidence (like many other faiths and doomsday cults).
So how about just getting where you've been going with this all along, and calling it "whatever happens you did it so give me your money and freedoms"? Works for me.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article