Old George must be laughing in his grave! An expert on 'political-speak', how he would have enjoyed the slitherings and slidings, the nuances and the contradictions, the downright (or downwrong!) gang-banging of words indulged in by the HAFs (Hot Air Fanatics). First they told us it was 'global cooling', then it was 'global warming', but then, about a dozen years ago when global temperatures failed to rise much, it was 'climate change'. The only thing that did rise was the mounting chorus of disbelief, the snorts and giggles of derision and the shouts of 'Show us your willy!' This convinced them that as a rapidly diminishing minority they needed a new slogan and thanks to a report by Hot Air quoting The Washington Examiner I can reveal to you what it is:
In the face of this growing amount of new scientific evidence, environmentalists are not backing down, but changing their rhetoric.
One leader at a meeting related to the Rio +20 conference this week, noting that because conservatives reject the notion global warming, “We don’t use the term climate change anymore. It’s sustainable development.”
"Sustainable development"! There, remember, you read it here first! So hang on to your wallets!
"The Great Universal Name Game."
Global warming - climate change - global climate disruption - climatically challenged
Posted by: Jackson | Sunday, 24 June 2012 at 13:26
Although we can laugh at their antics now, they've been preparing this switch for some time and I suspect it will be a much tougher nut to crack. After all, who is going to support unsustainable development?
Posted by: A K Haart | Sunday, 24 June 2012 at 16:00
AKH makes a sound point. It is a bit like calling yourselves the "Freedom Party" or "Progress", in that opponents have to choose their words with care.
There was an excellent article by AKH a few days ago that showed how those fluorescent light bulbs were actually more dangerous to the environment than the old bulbs that are now taboo. Probably the best chance of fighting these loons is more of the same tactic. Show how their ideas of a bright new future are completely bonkers. Less than one percent of our electricity needs being met by means of wind-farms. Is that sustainable?
Ultimately, however, there are some people who simply don't like the idea of industrialised production. I suspect many of them adopted a dim view of factory-work when they saw what their parents went through. And there is the fact that in the American rust-belt, heavy industry has let people down and seems a bad bet. There is probably a PhD thesis lurking in these ideas. If only I were young, ambitious, and intelligent...
Posted by: Whyaxye | Sunday, 24 June 2012 at 19:55
Thanks, Jackson for a great new game: "The Great Universal Name Game." - my entry: Bloody weather!
If, 'W', you were indeed "young, ambitious, and intelligent" you wouldn't waste your time writing useless doctorate papers, and as you don't, ergo, you are . . . and all that!
AK, you're dead right, semantics matter in these debates.
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 25 June 2012 at 08:43