James Delingpole gets to the climate scare at 21:30, where he says “It’s just another branch of the culture wars”. That is the position I have reached. Above or aside from the science, or the “science”, of climate catastrophism, is a political purpose, which is to destroy capitalism, and have us buy into it, pleading to have shackles placed on our wrists, for our own good. It is very clever and many intelligent people believe it. Like Papal infallibility.
Mr. President, I’m beginning to smell a big fat commie rat!
Words can describe the same thing at various levels of politeness and social acceptability. Moreover, as soon as the euphemism becomes too clear, the word can be changed to something less vulgar. Euphemism piles on euphemism. Thus the place where we void our noxious bodily effusions goes through various evolutions. The incompatibility of shitting with the maintenance of personal dignity causes a continuous slow migration of words to describe the place where the deed is done.
Likewise climate alarmism has changed the terms of the debate whenever it suited them. “Anthropogenic global warming” is a scientific theory. “Global warming” hides the crucial term that attributes human causation to the reality that the world has been warming since 1850. “Climate change” obscures the causal relationship even further. Anything that happens in nature is assumed to be human caused, without that realization ever consciously arising in one’s mind.
“The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.
“Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.”
Not banned you say? How civilized of them!
The Guardian continues:
“Other terms that have been updated, including the use of “wildlife” rather than “biodiversity”, “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks” and “climate science denier” rather than “climate sceptic”. In September, the BBC accepted it gets coverage of climate change “wrong too often” and told staff: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”
“Updated”? The use of the term “climate science denier” is not an update, it is a slander.
Yes the climate has changed. 11,000 years ago, where I write was under 4,000 feet of ice. I deny nothing, I merely allow for a wider range of facts to impinge on my understanding of climate.
Martha’s Vineyard stands off the coast of southern Massachusetts. Together with Long Island and Nantucket, it was formed by rubble pushed ahead by mile high ice fronts of the latest glaciation, which ended a mere 9-11,000 years ago, depending what latitude you are on the planet. when the ice retreated, the gap between Martha’s Vineyard and the Massachusetts shore became Long Island Sound.
But I digress. I had heard the phrase which is the title of this piece and went to Google to find its source. Someone has said it before me and I thought it should be the title, but I like to attribute quotes to their sources.
No such luck. I invite the readership of Barrelstrength to try its hand at finding who spoke this phrase. All you will find is quotations from Greta Thunberg, the sixteen year old Swedish climate fanatic, and page after page of denunciations and supposed refutations of climate science, climate alarmism, and climate catastrophism. So as I began with the evident hypocrisy of the Obamas settling on the shores of Martha’s Vineyard, I end with the worse problem of Google’s failures as a search engine.