March 4, 2009

3 comments:

  1. It was rather amusing to see the recent global warming protest in D.C. taking place in the early-March snowstorm.

    Isn't it true that climate alarmists will use the term "global warming" when it's hot somewhere, but change to "climate change" when the setting makes "global warming" sound obviously ridiculous?

    Doesn't this tactic allow them to hedge in the event that the earth does cool some years, letting them keep the alarmist tone to fuel their politico-economic agenda?

    No one has more financial stake/conflict of interest in this debate than Al Gore himself.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It might be amusing but irrelevant. One snow on one day in one location says absolutely nothing about global warming. And you are actually wrong about the phrase "climate change." The guy who really made that phrase popular is Republican strategist Frank Luntz. He did so because it does not sound as scary as "global warming" and thus might not get the same response. So, your middle two paragraphs are completely incorrect. Get the facts next time. As for the final paragraph, I would say no one has more financial stake than the oil companies. One person does not have as much at stake as a large international corporation, not to mention several of them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian,

    Thanks for responding back!

    My middle two paragraphs were questions, so thanks for the answers, but no thanks for the scolding.

    I'm glad I needn't pay any heed to the "climate change" card when human-induced global warming needs to be blamed for extreme cold.

    Since Washington D.C. is somewhere on the globe (I think), your assertion that its early March snowstorm says "absolutely nothing about global warming" is certainly exaggerated. One could just as well say that any given warm day in any other spot on the globe says nothing about it.

    Then where would Al Gore be?

    ReplyDelete