Redstate

By kowalski Posted in Hollywood — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Every so often I spend some time thinking about the shifting terminology Big Political People, especially Democrats, use to describe their favorite cause celebre. I know as a former leftist Democrat that one of the most important things you do when your idea is running out of steam is to reframe the debate, and that begins with terms -- especially the terms you use for the purposes of indoctrination.

I would like to submit that the very next terms, which are currently in widespread use and signify a movement and encapsulate a liberal crusade -- but will nevertheless be gradually abandoned -- are the following:

"Global Warming"
"Anthropogenic Global Warming"

I believe that these terms will, over the next few months, gradually be superseded by the new terms:

"Climate Change"
"Industrial Climate Change"

This shift has to occur because as the United States moves into the winter months, obviously many fewer people are going to be concerned about "warming." Secondly, it is becoming clear from this year's lackluster Atlantic hurricane season, the resultant drought in the southeastern United States, and the recent arson wildfire outbreak in California (which has already been siezed upon by Al Gore) that the term Global Warming is dangerously specific to the Movement: it might evoke terrible dreams, but only half the time. Gore's very frightening cover art for An Inconvenient Truth was obviously rushed to market and didn't cover all the bases: there should have been pictures of fires and droughts as well, coming out of a tailpipe instead of a smokestack, perhaps. Global Warming is just not flexible or versatile enough to convey the sort of fear of *every* fluctuation in the weather that demands action by the Clinton Climate Initiative, the federal government, and the International "Communitarian" politburo. [Usage note: Hillary Clinton recently tortured the public spirit and civic virtues of Iowans by referring to their "communitarianism" -- no joke!]

Just reading the current statements on the home page of the Clinton Climate Initiative makes me realize that the Democrat terminology is becoming stale. Al Gore and Harry Reid, after all, are quick to point out that the arson wildfires in California have been caused by Global Somethingorother warming Climate Change, even while the CCI is hawking unprecedented rainfall as evidence of the crisis:

New evidence of unprecedented changes in the Earth’s climate continues to emerge. Glaciers are receding at an astounding rate. Ancient seasonal patterns are shifting. Rainfall is coming in more intense and concentrated bursts, just as predicted by models of global warming. The ten warmest years have all occurred since 1990, with 2005 breaking all records.

How can this be? Obviously the threat du jour is drought and wildfires, not "intense and concentrated" bursts of rainfall. That's soooooo two years ago, bro!

I believe that in the next several months -- in order to keep money flowing in their direction -- the AGW and GW terms will slowly be exised from general usage in the MSM and by the actors politicians themselves. They will be replaced, because after all, the term is not the important thing. No matter what it's called, no matter what it means, and no matter what is causing it, the Democrats will want people to take action and expand the government's role in taking that action.

So there is my Zeitgeist forecast for 2008.

[Author's note: Yes, I realize that by pointing out the conflicting messages that Al Gore, Harry Reid and Bill Clinton are simultaneously sending as evidence that they're full of hooey, I run the risk of having eminences like Tim Robbins and noted climate scientist Roger Ebert call me "Obtuse." I actually don't mind, because as an GW/AGW/CC/ICC skeptic I've already been compared to Holocaust deniers. Being called "obtuse" will be a distinct rhetorical improvement.]