Manipulating The Terminology To Confuse People About Climate Change

So, when "global warming" turns out to be "global cooling" what is a leftist activist to do? The main thing they try to do is to muddle the argument by changing the terminology they use to describe their agenda and the reasons for their agenda.

The is why the United Nation talks about "climate change" rather than "global warming." When it became clear that the earth was in fact cooling down and the people of this planet were witnessing record snowfalls and record cold temperatures, the left-wing climate activists knew they had made a mistake with the "global warming" theory and needed a way to tidy things up so that they wouldn't lose their cause nor the millions of dollars in donations they use to pay their own salaries.



From the New York Times:

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, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington. Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

That's right. Instead of admitting that they've bought into a flawed and scientifically untenable theory, they try to confuse people with new terminology in the hopes that the new words will somehow make people believe in the cause again.

And here is how they are doing it:

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders. Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.

Not only are they doing research on how to make the issue more confusing, they do it in secret so that no one would have a chance to analyze what was really going on.

But why are they scrambling to do this? What changed so radically that they have to make this radical adjustment in their language?

Read on:

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists.

Despite shrill claims that the oil and coal lobbies are causing this, the truth is that Americans can look outside their windows and see what is really happening. They do not see a world getting warmer as the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) alarmists predicted. They see a world getting cooler and are trying to find the real answers as to why. That is what scares the left-wing environmentalists the most: that the truth might actually be revealed by legitimate scientists.

And how far has this gone?

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.” “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,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study. Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

I hope you notice the following clause from EcoAmerica's quote: "... while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology."

They want to avoid the science behind the issue. The studies of climatology, meteorology and astrophysics are not to be allowed into the debate. Why would they want these aspects kept out of the discussion? Because it would allow people access to more information and more data, most of which shows that global warming, global cooling and climate change are natural phenomena rather than man-made.

Also note that they are briefing members of Congress to use the same words and terminology, just like trained parrots.

You can access an excellent webpage with loads of answers to questions about the global warming/cooling and/or climate change debate here:

The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
JunkScience.org
August 2007

And you can access the New York Times article on-line here:

Seeking To Save The Planet, With A Thesaurus
John M. Broder
New York Times
May 1, 2009

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions To Form New World Economy

The United Nations, that lovely bastion of anti-Americanism, wants to control the world's economies by invoking the hoax of human-induced climate change.

The very first paragraph of the Fox News story covering this says it all and should send chills up your spine:

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

The document is 16 pages long and it involves sending millions of American jobs offshore to other nations, all in the name of environmentalism.

And here is what is even worse:

The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.

Didn't Barack Obama chastise American companies for out-sourcing jobs overseas and threaten to punitively tax anyone who did out-source their jobs? Yes, he did.

And now, Obama wants to send more American jobs overseas by signing on to this ridiculously anti-American U.N. treaty. I say anti-American because the United States will be the one nation that is hit the hardest in terms of economic losses. I also beleieve that the people at the U.N. who wrote this treaty are aiming precisely for such results.

The news article goes on:

The note adds only that industrial relocation "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment." But at the same time it "would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries."

This is what Obama supports? U.S. companies cannot out-source employement as a revenue saving measure, but he will allow the U.N. to force American jobs to "relocate" to other nations?

Can Obama possibly be a bigger hypocrite on this issue?

Here is more evidence of the anti-American slant that this treaty holds:

A "climate change levy on aviation" for example, is described as having undetermined "negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce," as well as "tourism services." But no mention is made in the note of the impact on the aerospace industry, an industry that had revenues in 2008 of $208 billion in the U.S. alone, or the losses the levy would impose on airlines for ordinary passenger transportation. (Global commercial airline revenues in 2008 were about $530 billion, and were already forecast to drop to an estimated $467 billion this year.)

The language of this document was no accident. It is clearly aimed directly at the economic throat of the United States and Barack Obama has already signed on as a supporter. Maybe Obama didn't read this proposal, just like he didn't read the Dodd Amendment of the stimulus package.

Anthroprogenic Global Warming is a hoax. But it is a hoax that the United Nations believes in and apparently Barack Obama does as well.

This new treaty would destroy the already fragile U.S. economy, destroy millions of American jobs and surrender our national sovereignity to the United Nations. I wonder if Obama is already aware of this.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions To Form New World Economy
George Russell
Fox News
March 27, 2009

The Leftist Double-Standard Against The Jews

If leftists didn't have double-standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all. The typical leftist (socialist, communist, Democrat, etc.) usually holds very low standards for their own kind while holding their political opponents to much higher standards. For example, leftists were all over Florida Rep. Mark Foley for the lewd text massages he was exchanging with Congressional pages, but felt that there was absolutely nothing wrong when Rep. Barney Frank ran a gay prostitution ring out of his Washington D.C. apartment.

That's a prime example of the double-standard.

The latest example of left-wing hypocrisy comes from Hamas firing rockets that deliberately targeted Israeli civilians for which Israel had to act in self-defense and target Hamas sites in Gaza.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Rabbi Marvin Hier spells out clearly and conscisely exactly what the double-standards are and show how arrogant those leftists are who hold them. From his column:

Just look at the spate of attacks this week on Jews and Jewish institutions around the world: a car ramming into a synagogue in France; a Chabad menorah and Jewish-owned shops sprayed with swastikas in Belgium; a banner at an Australian rally demanding "clean the earth from dirty Zionists!"; demonstrators in the Netherlands chanting "Gas the Jews"; and in Florida, protestors demanding Jews "Go back to the ovens!" ... At the U.N., no surprise, this double-standard is in full force. In response to Israel's attack on Hamas, the Security Council immediately pulled an all-night emergency meeting to consider yet another resolution condemning Israel. Have there been any all-night Security Council sessions held during the seven months when Hamas fired 3,000 rockets at half a million innocent civilians in southern Israel? You can be certain that during those seven months, no midnight oil was burning at the U.N. headquarters over resolutions condemning terrorist organizations like Hamas. But put condemnation of Israel on the agenda and, rain or shine, it's sure to be a full house.

Exactly. The leftists in the U.N. are perfectly okay with the terrorist organization Hamas launching rockets at Israeli civilians, but will not tolerate Israel defending itself from such terrorist attacks.

More:

Red Cross officials are all over the Gaza crisis, describing it as a full-blown humanitarian nightmare. Where were they during the seven months when tens of thousands of Israeli families could not sleep for fear of a rocket attack? Where were their trauma experts to decry that humanitarian crisis? There have been hundreds of articles and reports written from the Erez border crossing falsely accusing Israel of blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching beleaguered Palestinians in Gaza. (In fact, over 520 truck loads of humanitarian aid have been delivered through Israeli crossings since the beginning of the Israeli counterattack.) But how many news articles, NGO reports and special U.N. commissions have investigated Hamas's policy of deliberately placing rocket launchers near schools, mosques and homes in order to use innocent Palestinians as human shields?

That is the hallmark of an Islamic terrorist: no concern for anyone's safety, not even their own people. Hamas has no interest in defending Palestinians. Their only interest is gaining power for themselves, even if it means doing that which will kill their own.

Does the rest of the world see this? No! They only feel their own hatred for Israel and the Jews. So much so, that they will make every effort to ensure that Israel's enemies have the time and resources to rest and re-arm for the next round of terrorist strikes.

Rabbi Hier goes on:

And then there are the clarion calls for a cease-fire. These words, which come so easily, have proven to be a recipe for disaster. Hamas uses the cease-fire as a time-out to rearm and smuggle even more deadly weapons so the next time, instead of hitting Sderot and Ashkelon, they can target Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The pattern is always the same. Following a cease-fire brought on by international pressure, there will be a call for a massive infusion of funds to help Palestinians recover from the devastation of the Israeli attack. The world will respond eagerly, handing over hundreds of millions of dollars. To whom does this money go? To Hamas, the same terrorist group that brought disaster to the Palestinians in the first place.

Blame for the Gaza crisis rests solely and squarely on the heads of Hamas. Were it not for their irrational hatred of the Jews and their brazen terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, it would not have been necessary for Israel to rise in defense of herself.

As Golda Meir once said: ""There will be peace in the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews"."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Jews Face A Double Standard
Rabbi Marvin Hier
The Wall Street Journal
January 8, 2009

The Most Intolerant Nation Leads Forum On Religious Tolerance

First, anti-semetic Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations condemning the Jewish religion, for which he was given a standing ovation and a hug. Now, Saudi Arabia, a nation whose record on human religious rights violations is so bad that it has few peers in that category, is hosting a forum on religious tolerance.

What is going on and why are President Bush and Secretary of State Condi Rice attending?

From Colum Lynch at the Washington Post:

Saudi Arabia's sponsorship of the event drew criticism from human rights advocates, who said that a country that oppresses its religious minorities lacks the moral authority to lead such a gathering. "Saudi Arabia is not qualified to be a leader in this dialogue at the United Nations," said Ali Al-Ahmed, a Saudi national who serves as director of the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs. "It is the world headquarters of religious oppression and xenophobia." Most leaders from Europe -- with the exception of Britain and Finland -- Latin America, Africa and Asia stayed away, sending lower-ranking representatives. Some U.N. delegates said they were put off by the prospect of holding a religious event in the world's premier diplomatic venue, the U.N. General Assembly chamber. They also expressed concern about having their top leaders participate in an event on religious tolerance sponsored by a government that has such a poor record on the issue. "We all know what happens in Saudi Arabia," one U.N. ambassador said. Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director for Human Rights Watch, said a U.N. discussion on religious discrimination should spotlight places "where religious intolerance runs deepest, and that includes Saudi Arabia."

Actions, not words, are what we need if people are to be allowed to worship as their own conscience dictates.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Saudi Arabia To Lead U.N. Faith Forum
Colum Lynch
The Washington Post
November 12, 2008

Modern Day Hitler Addresses The United Nations, Recieves Applause And A Hug

So, what type of person would Barack Obama sit down and negotiate with without preconditions? The Jew-hating President of Iran, that's who.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations this past week and said what pretty much everyone thought he was going to say. The only two nations to stand up in protest were the United States and Israel.

So, what did he say? Eve Epstein has the following from National Review:

Ahmadinejad has revealed his agenda. He is not just against Israel. He is against the Jewish community in its entirety. This was made plain by the dastardly speech delivered by the Iranian strong man from the platform of the General Assembly earlier this week. The text came straight from Joseph Goebbels. ... Amadinejad announced that the Wall Street financial crisis was the fault of the Jews. Jews, writ large. True, he spoke of “Zionists.” True, most Jews are, indeed, supporters of the state of Israel. But he attacked the Jewish community around the world for crimes they were said to have committed, with no relation to Israel. He is rebranding a real and full-throated antisemitism. The nightmare sketched by Philip Roth, in his novel about the possible revival of the real thing, has come out from under the bed. Listen to the Iranian president in his own voice of malevolence — citing the “deceitful, complex and furtive manner” of people who live as Jews. The Jews control the media. The Jews control financial centers. The Jews force politicians to hearken to their interests. The Jews are an “acquisitive and invasive people.” We have heard that voice before, and it did not end well.

No, it did not. What is even more distressing is that our supposed "allies," the same nations who helped us bring down Nazi Germany, didn't make one little peep of protest. Not Great Britain, not France, no one.

And after Amadinejad finished giving the U.N. his reasons for hating the Jews, what did the U.N. do? They applauded him. Not only that, but the President of the General Assembly embraced the Iranian President after conculding the anti-Semitic remarks.

This is why we need to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Where’s The Outrage, Turtle Bay?
Eve Epstein
National Review
September 25, 2008