By any other name....

So, you don't like the sound of "Global Warming"? Not to worry; we will just change the name of one of the most politically charged issues of our time in mid stride. That way you might not notice that we are changing the rules in mid stream. A N.Y. times article yesterday reports that the environmentalist have decided that the reason they are losing the battle has to do with terminology instead of flawed ideology. Their focus groups have informed them that people do not like the term "Global Warming", so they are going to call it something different like "Climate Change". Yea, that sounds better.

The problem they ran into is that the temperatures stopped going up. We got through a warming trend in the 80's and 90's and suddenly temperatures started dropping again and returned to what was considered normal. Amazing! Seeing as how warming and cooling trends have occurred throughout the earth's history, even before man had the capability of having any influence on the climate. So now they are taking the tactic of toning down the language; making it sound less confrontational. Add the dropping temps to the fact that people now have other things to worry about and they are really losing ground. It seems that when the economy was booming and we were not real concerned about terrorist or our jobs, that the environment starting scoring as important in the polls. Why not? I have nothing else to be concerned about, lets save the planet! Now we get to 2009: the world is an unstable place, the economy is taking a beating, people are losing jobs. And what do the latest polls show? Global warming ranked last in a list of 20 concerns people were asked about.

So, what do we do now? Well, lets change the game plan. We are no longer concerned about the environment or global warming. We are concerned about you and your well being.

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. (NY Times)

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? What happened to the great principles of Saving the Planet? Here is another goody:

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.”

Don't "confuse people with cap and trade"? Let's just not talk about one of the most economically damaging policies introduced in 60 years. Scare people instead and talk about "refunds". Where do these refunds come from? Those of us paying taxes, that's who.
So the pollsters and advertisers have decided that "climate change" is easier to sell than "global warming." The real problem is that none of them are really interested in saving anything. They are only concerned about bringing about destruction; specifically, the destruction of capitalism. Any perceived damage to the environment is placed directly at the feat of "greedy, evil big business." If they were really concerned with change for the better, they would get out of the way of nuclear power. It is clean and efficient and SAFE. The left are always wanting to follow their socialist brethren in France. Why not follow their lead on this issue? France converted 80% of their power grid in 3 years. No meltdowns.

Sorry folks; I have to agree with Boortz on this one. The environmental movement is nothing more than defeated communist with a new platform. Their cause is the same, the defeat of capitalism. Just the names are changed.