The lexicon shift in 2010
Posted on 08/15/2013 12:18:02 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Back in 2010, I pointed out that White House science adviser John Holdren had made a shift in naming conventions for the twice renamed “global warming”.
The lexicon shift in 2010
It seems that another shift in the lexicon has occurred, again at the White House. Organizing for Action, President Obama’s campaign machine declared Tuesday that there was a new name.
The Washington Times picked up on this shift, and I’ve updated the graphic to reflect the new name. There’s also a poll to choose/predict the next name after this one.
The doomed planet movement has been losing momentum. Inconvenient scientific findings have confirmed the lack of any significant warming of dear old Earth over the past 16 years. It’s hard to scare people into action when nothing bad is happening. That’s why the White House has changed its vocabulary again — first “global warming” was changed to “climate change” — and now the correct name of the scam is “carbon pollution.” It’s a way to paint carbon dioxide as if it were black soot billowing out of industrial smokestacks. Carbon dioxide is actually what humans exhale, and it’s food for plants.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/13/wearing-out-words/#ixzz2c3XmuaV7
Its seems that since global warming has stalled, and scientists are puzzled by it, plus major players in science are poo-pooing the “climate disruption/extreme weather angle, they had no choice but to make a lexicon shift.
Here is the updated graphic to reflect the lexicon shift. Feel free to share far and wide:
What should the next name be? Take the poll, you can also add your own answer. Be sure to post your new answer in comments. (I’ll add some of the best ones manually)
[NOTE: for some reason the poll won't display other answers from voters in the voting or the results, so I disabled it - A]
h/t to Small Dead Animals for some of the names
Irritable Climate Syndrome ahead.
Don’t like Carbon? Stop breathing, or plant a tree.
LAUGH at these shysters and then kick their asses.
LLS
I don’t think this will work, for an odd reason.
Molecules that contain carbon are called organic molecules.
But this term is abused with “organic farming”, though their intent is to suggest that they do not farm with synthetic chemicals.
In any event: “Carbon Pollution” equals “Organic Pollution”.
Imagine how the “organic” food eaters would feel about their “organic” food being declared “pollution”?
Seriously, as Daffy Duck would say, “Obviously, I am dealing with inferior mentalities.” Which pretty much defines Obama’s supporters.
PTWS.. I heard about that. Nasty thing to get. Happens to many UK climate scientists who spend time in Antartica.
Gaia’s Revenge? :-)
If I live to be a hunnerd, it won’t be be us of globull farming.. nope.. beer, pizza and hugs .. uhhh not filner hugs but yaknow hugs
be us = becuz
Oops
CO2 is not a pollutant. Without CO2 this planet would be empty, just rocks and dust, like the moon. Without CO2, there is no vegetation. Without vegetation, there is no food chain and no animals and no humans — just rock and dust.
Progressive. . . . . . is to . . . . Communist
as
Carbon pollution . . . is to . . . . global warming
Meanwhile, greenhouse growers are investing in CO2 generators because the plants produce so much more.
There are occasions when one simply runs out of words to say. :)
Carbon has 6 electrons, 6 protons, 6 neutrons. It’s the atom of the beast. It’s also what colors High-Carbon-Content-Skinned-Americans.
How about ‘Climate Insecurity’.
Whoops, ....Hard core Scientific knowledge is outdated by the current REGIME....
fyi
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.