Ok, cover one eye today. I am going to write about Global Warming again. But this time I am not going to tell you why I think the idea is a hoax, that the earth is permanently warming and that humans are causing it. I am not going to comment about the content of the theory and the fallacies I see. No I am just going to mention something about the language that global warmers use to describe their belief.
You see, I hear different people call the alleged effects of Global Warming different things. You tell me. Is it "Global Warming" the "greenhouse effect", "climate change", "climate crisis", "thermal catastrophe", environmental heating" or as the Europeans in their flamboyant and and sloppy manner say "climate chaos". Global Warming advocates can't even make up their mind what to call the condition they imagine is happening. True, all the terms refer to the same thing, but there is quite a difference, for example, between climate change and climate chaos.
When a global warmer wants to exaggerate his beliefs he calls it "climate Chaos", when wishing to merely define it as a problem it is "climate change".
Such imprecision is ironic in that the theory of global warming is as problematic as the ill-defined vocabulary used by advocates. And is the catch all term "Global Warming" really accurate? Do people who believe in Global warming mean the entire planet will warm? I think not. Even the most histrionic of advocates, Al Gore for instance, admit that Global Warming refers to regional warming , not world wide increases in average temperature.
Maybe that's why the favored term is "Global warming", because it is imprecise and confusing. Well, I do think the Global Warming crowd does try to use clever manipulation of terms in order to frighten people into supporting the ideology.
Sigh...Maybe this Global Warming thing has cooled off language more than it has warmed up the earth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment