Skip to comments.What's in a name? With 'Climate Change,' a lot of reckless misuse
Posted on 11/21/2018 4:33:24 AM PST by b_Cap37
"If a rebrand will help the activist cause, who really cares about rigour in the scientific discipline?" ..... "One of the more distinguishing aspects of the global warming frenzy is the playful manner in which its adherents approach language. Whenever they feel the need to rearrange the terms of debate, counter the emergence of inconvenient facts, or simply put a whole new banner on the crusade, neither shame nor consistency offers any brake to their innovations."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
You can see the benefit of English-style schooling and literary tradition in both Rex Murphy and Mark Steyn. In both of them, the wit is brilliant, pointed, smooth, and dangerous.
20 Nov: BBC: UN environment chief Erik Solheim quits amid expenses row
It (the audit) said this harmed the reputation of UN Environment - a body that highlights green issues and sustainability...
Climate change jet-setter
By Matt McGrath, BBC environment correspondent
The auditor’s report had also upset some European countries to such an extent that they had threatened to withhold millions of dollars in funding if he continued in post.
While many in UN circles will be glad to see him go, some will miss the energy and greater visibility he brought to a once-lacklustre branch of the organisation...
What did the audit say?
The report was particularly critical of the travel undertaken under Mr Solheim, UN Environment executive director since 2016. A total about $58m was spent in the two years since then.
While all UN staff are expected to complete “mission reports” within two weeks of travel, the audit found that these were often missing.
When they requested reports for 596 trips undertaken by 32 managers and staff, 210 mission reports were not provided, while around 200 others were only completed after the request was made...
On one occasion, it says, “he made an eight-hour trip from Washington DC for a weekend in Paris, before taking another flight to New York city.”
Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Glabal Warming
Ain’t happening, at least provably.
Language terms can persuade, which is why ALL conservatives should replace the term “unborn” with “preborn”.
Any time some ignorant clown tells me I’m a “climate change denier”, I ask them if they believe in climate stasis - do they believe the climate would stay the same, forever, without humans.
Of course the climate is always changing, naturally, and no one denies that, and so they have to admit that fact as well (otherwise *they* become the reality “deniers”).
Once we get to that point, I ask them if the climate changes naturally and continually, then over a period of time, some feature of it (like global temperature) should naturally be going either up or down (since if stasis isn’t the normal situation, staying constant won’t happen). And it that’s the case, I ask them what should global temperature be doing now, naturally - going up or going down?
Of course they won’t know, but will generally reply it’s going up too much or too fast. To which I’ll reply, again, as a result of natural oscillations, should temperature over the past, say, 50 years be going up or down, and how rapidly or slowly should it be changing?
Again, they won’t have a specific answer, it will just be “temperatures are rising too fast” - but if you don’t know if, due to natural changes, temps should be going up or down, or how fast or how slowly, how can you say that what we’re observing is the wrong direction or occurring at the wrong pace?
Eventually, since they have no positive answers (only negative criticisms), the discussion devolves into “scientific consensus”, at which point you’ve got them - in other words, they don’t know what they’re talking about, they just *believe* something somebody else has told them.
It’s almost as if it is imperative that this ought to be read out aloud during the family Thanksgiving dinner, eh? ;-)
“Language terms can persuade, which is why ALL conservatives should replace the term unborn with preborn.”
Replace “Pro-Choice” with “Pro-Abortion.”
Climate science = political science
“Replace Pro-Choice with Pro-Abortion.”
And pro-life with anti-abortion.
I’m sure most so called pro-lifers are in favor of the death penalty.
Let’s face it both sides play the word game, it’s just that the left is so much better at it.
Do the libs have anything other than climate change and racism in their political vocabulary.
The issue is that Leftist’s in general twist the language and the truth for their cause, thus...The “corrupt” media is actually very accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.