The Shifting Global Warming Argument

  We have all seen how the environmentalists have been shiftingthe argument from “global warming” to “climate change” as it was learned that the earth is in a cooling period. Suddenly it seemed stupid to be warning of the warming planet and the damage being done by humans when the planet was cooling. This is all part of the effort by the environmentalists and their all too willing nanny state politicians whose only true goal is to regulate and tax us until we have lost our freedoms and liberties.

  Much like Janet Napolitano (other than  calling veterans possible terrorists) will not use the term terrorist; she prefers “man caused disaster” to terrorist attack, she will not use the term “war on terror”; preferring the term “overseas contingency operation”, the environmentalists are now urging a change in the terminology being used to promote “global warming.”

  Yes we have all seen this shift in the conversation over the last few months and now according to this article we can see that it has indeed been a concerted effort to change the global warming lexicon because people just do not believe this hoax is real. (And they see the alarmists as a bunch of tree hugging hippies.)

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica

  According to the article the alarmists have had trouble drumming up support for the issue. People just aren’t warming up to the issue.  Out of twenty issues people who were polled were concerned about, global warming was dead last, so instead of trying to convince people that global warming is real they have decided to change the terms used to make their scam seem more believable.

“We know why it’s lowest, when someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument.

  That is because that is exactly what this issue is– a political issue not a scientific issue. If it was a scientific issue the leading voice wouldn’t be a washed up politician who stands to make millions of dollars if the alarmists ever succeed in forcing their regulations on us.

  We have seen this coming, we have known that this was the case and now it is official. Global warming is over so it is time for them  to rephrase the argument and come back at us again.

  Here is a list of the new suggested terms to be used when talking about the hoax formally known as global warming:

• Instead of “global warming”, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.”
• instead of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.”
• cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”   
• instead of   “Energy efficiency” speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.”
• drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

  They want to get away from “carbon dioxide” because in reality it is a vital and necessary part of nature without which plant life would die. They want to get away from “cap and trade” because it is a tax on the American people and they want to re-frame it as somehow we are going to get a refund out of this scam. As far as “our deteriorating atmosphere” goes, didn’t they already try that with the hole in the ozone layer years ago? Are they really going to bring that argument back?

  If these people were ever to tell the truth they would admit that this is all about regulating behavior and not protecting the planet. The talking points to be issued addresses the fact that people are worried about there freedoms and so the argument is going to be turned into a patriotic argument.

Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology

  They are going to try to present to us that giving up personal freedoms and liberties for the greater good is patriotic and American. 

   But here is the real kicker in this article:

emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.

  Now we have gotten to the heart of the issue; they can’t rely on scientific argument. There is no scientific argument to be made yet because scientists still haven’t reached a conclusion. We are told there is scientific consensus, but the fact that some scientists agree but many still do not does not mean that debate is over. There is still ongoing arguments in the scientific community even as the political community tells us that the debate is over.

  So that brings us to the real issue; common sense. That is what this is all about and all that it has ever been about. Most people use common sense, we don’t want to hurt the planet, we take care of it. Most of us use common sense when it comes to the environment and energy consumption. But that isn’t good enough for the environmentalists and the politicians; they want to regulate common sense. Pure and simple. In other words they are nothing more than nanny state politicians who, as I have been saying, want to regulate and control our behaviors. They believe that they are smarter than us and know what is best for us and therefor they believe that they need to tell us how to live. They believe it is for our own good. In their eyes the government is the “common” sense.

 And finally:

And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”