House of Eratosthenes

From the administration that brought you “man-caused disaster” and “overseas contingency operation,” another terminology change is in the pipeline.

The White House wants the public to start using the term “global climate disruption” in place of “global warming” — fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is.

White House science adviser John Holdren urged people to start using the phrase during a speech last week in Oslo, echoing a plea he made three years earlier. Holdren said global warming is a “dangerous misnomer” for a problem far more complicated than a rise in temperature.

I thought this had something to do with clear, scientific, independent thinking. How come it always seems to be inextricably interconnected with a lifestyle and political fabric that depends on queen-bees and worker-bees? “Today, we’re calling it [insert new term here].”

Are they trying to make this thing look like a foot-in-the-door for turning America into a socialist paradise?

Today’s favorite color is purple. Today’s favorite number is three. You like cabbage.

I have a new standard for people who try to sell me on global…whatever. Lights in the bathroom. That’s my standard. I want to see half of them unscrewed. Don’t tell me how many light bulbs you’ve put in. I want to know how many you’ve taken out.

No, not “see” them unscrewed…I’ll take your word for it. That may be a mistake, but I’ll believe what you tell me. Nevertheless, I must insist on this: Half your bathroom lights should be removed from their fixtures, or unscrewed so they don’t light. RIGHT NOW. I don’t want to hear some pledge that it’ll be the first thing you do when you go home tonight.

Because let’s face it, it’s the easiest thing in the world to do. In fact, at five in the morning it feels pretty good. Haven’t had your coffee yet, bathroom is only partially lit. Gotta save the planet, it’s the only one we have.

If you have the bathroom fully lit up like an actress’ makeup mirror, while you’re trying to tell me I have to scale back, and feel bad, and “offset” myself…I find that unforgivable. You are beneath contempt. You shouldn’t even be consuming oxygen in the same room as me.

Ten CFR light bulbs every time you take a leak? You serious??

So tell me, John Holdren. How many lumens bouncing off the bathroom wall at Holdren Manor. It’s my business, I have a right to know. You brought it up.

So, when the data of “Global Warming was proved to be A LIE, the FIRST desperate attempt to simply make the lie even bigger by renaming it
“Climate change” only lasted for…what? Three weeks, before global critics had to take the effort to deny Gub’mit, GE, T. Boone Pickens, and Al Gore a cut of EVERY TRANSACTION on the planey YET AGAIN?
OK, So NOW we’ll just call it Anthro-global warming.
And we all KNOW that when “anthropological” enters into common parlance outside of academic humanities class , it refers ONLY to western hetrosexual misan-gina (sic) white men. BAM the “them” is defined.

Well, after three weeks of ridicule of retards barely able to recite the script on cue,
Emeril want’s the department of propaganda to kick it up ANOTHER notch, and chant “some new longer name for a simple lie, that’s too complicated for the unappointed and unannointed to fully understand, and ADD the term “dangerous” to any
“language” used in exposure of the attempt at perpetration of outright academic/political fraud, TWICE in a row.
Yeah, “newspeak” worked out really well for professional “African-Americans”, and other (fill in the blank) challanged folk.

I propose the term “Global Myth” in honor of “The Administration” taking their unrealistic plaint, with a reworked, re-“keyworded” story, to mommy(oslo), after daddy (the actual taxpaying constituancy/ independant “intellectuals”) said NO! in no uncertain terms, TWICE.
- CaptDMO | 09/17/2010 @ 10:43
You know, this is exactly what I had always thought they should have called it, to the very words. Anthropogenic climate disruption.

I’d actually considered that maybe “anthropogenic climate-disruption catastrophism” would be even more accurate, but then I realized the acronym for that was ACDC, so I knew nobody would ever take it seriously.

If they’d started with this they might have made more headway. But if they’d started with this it would be because they had people more concerned with accuracy than perceived impact, and if they’d had those kinds of people they wouldn’t have gone nearly so far as they have.
- Stephen J. | 09/17/2010 @ 14:02
That’s a good point, but you have to factor in how much they’ve been helped by having captioned the phenomenon inaccurately. Over and over we have seen the (technically accurate) argument presented that “there is measurable global warming” and “global warming is a scientific fact.”

Reminds me a lot of dyslexia/ADD. Someone says “my child has ADHD” and you say “your child seems pretty normal to me” and, reliable as gravity, the argument comes back your way: “Are you denying that it exists?” The discussions continue to veer off from the central question:

Is human activity altering the global climate into a state that is unmaintinable? Answer: Yes…in the sense that the question “when did you stop beating your wife” reveals that I’ve never stopped. We don’t maintain the climate, we don’t control it in the slightest. Even measuring it, in the way we do, is an exercise in measuring the temperature of a three dimensional object over the two dimensions of its surface. The very existence of the statistic referred to as “earth mean temperature” is scientifically dubious.
- mkfreeberg | 09/17/2010 @ 14:10
As an Austrian shrink not named Freud said, the battle for the world is a battle of definitions.The perversion of language is the first tool of the left in that battle, and they take more pride in it than group sex.
- jamzw | 09/17/2010 @ 20:50
But that’s the crux of the difference, isn’t it? “Perversion” is only a meaningful concept if you acknowledge an optimal, objective norm from which you can deviate in greater or lesser degrees, and from which the greater the deviation the less desireable the result.

They don’t see it as perversion; they simply see it as, “can we maintain the definition we find preferable for us, instead of submitting to the definition they would impose on us because they — in their self-delusion or their hypocritical claims that their definition is somehow ‘objectively true’ — find it preferable for them?”

As long as they were content to simply say, “don’t impose your definition on us however true you think it is,” I could even be willing to live with that. But the problem is that for all too many leftist/progressives, it’s morphed into, “We no longer believe you can refrain from imposing your definition on us — so we’ll impose our definition on you as a pre-emptive first strike.”

To be fair, it’s not like some rightist/conservatives haven’t said themselves, “We find even allowing the existence of a false definition is unacceptably detrimental to upholding the true definitions, and there’s too much at stake to indulge you, so we will make you at least act in accordance with the truth even if you believe it to be no such thing.”

(Although now that I come to type that description, it does seem rather more descriptive of most progressive platforms I’ve heard of these days….)
- Stephen J. | 09/18/2010 @ 07:46

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Global Climate Disruption”Friday, September 17th, 2010

“Global Climate Disruption”
Friday, September 17th, 2010