My fellow comrades:

There seems to be a new light shining down from above, a change to the Current Truth blowing in the breezes created by hundreds of energy-generating windmills.

Since too many of the masses are beginning to view the idea of "Global Warming" as a joke, what with record cold winters in recent years; and let's face it, "Climate Change" is too ambiguous as it can be manipulated according to seasons and is just plain too "well, duh" to be a useful tool; henceforth we are to use a term that will tug at the heartstrings, appeal to the most basic human emotions, and ergo raise awareness among the masses and motivate them to deeply, deeply care to such fathomless depths that there can be no bottom limit to how low far we can go to advance this important agenda.*

That term, Comrades, is OUR DETERIORATING ATMOSPHERE!

From no less reliable a source than the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/po ... nviro.html
~

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.”

I'm reminded of something Mr. Burns once said on an old Simpsons episode, that instead of "nuclear meltdown" he preferred to call it "an unrequested fission surplus." Make it sound like it's a gift! The masses love the idea of getting something for free, and we should feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing how much we care by giving them the gift of that idea!

“When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,' a certain group of Americans think that's a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

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.

Now, unlike Al Gore or Laurie David or even Leonardo DiCaprio, I'm no expert on this subject, so perhaps I shouldn't bother my pretty little red-scarfed head over petty details such as whether uttering long $50.00 sentences like "saving money for a more prosperous future" and "the air we breathe, the water our children drink" dumps more lethal carbon dioxide into Our Deteriorating Atmosphere than stating the more concise "energy efficiency" or "the environment." The important thing is caring about Our Deteriorating Atmosphere while we continue to contribute to its further deterioration in the name of caring about . . . HEY! Who's heckling me out there, and accusing me of running and talking in circles? Some rightwing plant? Hey you! YOU LOST! WE WON! YOU'RE A LOSER AND YOU'LL ALWAYS BE A LOSER! YOU AND YOUR FELLOW IDEOLOGUES AND IDEOLOGY HAVE FAILED AND ARE DEAD, DO YOU HEAR ME? DEAD FAILED LOSERS ALL OF YOU!!! YOU'LL BE THE FIRST TO DIE FROM OUR DETERIORATING ATMOSPHERE!

Someone drag that wingnut out of here and sick Yelling Yelena the Braying Babushka on him.

Where was I? Oh yes . . .

Obviously, all of this will also require us to change certain sentence structures. No longer will we “fight Global Warming” as that evokes horrible Bush-era images of war and blood and killing and violence and waterboarding. It makes no sense to “fight Our Deteriorating Atmosphere” as if it's the aggressor—WE have been the aggressors all these years, Comrades, and Our Deteriorating Atmosphere is but an innocent, peace-loving victim that would never strike at us except in self-defense—that's why we had so many hurricanes and tsunamis under the Bush regime. No, from now on we are out to “save Our Deteriorating Atmosphere.” Doesn't that sound noble? Doesn't that fill you with Hope? And don't you just love the idea of getting cash back from all those dirty coal companies?

How do you plan to spend YOUR pollution reduction refund? I was thinking of some $540 sneakers with sparkly pink toes like Michelle wears to visit her descamisados and assure them that she cares about them, because she's Just Like Us.

I think The New York Times deserves a government bailout for this, don't you?

*The VRWC calls this by the more concise but pejorative “fearmongering”, not only to smear and marginalize the great cause and moral imperative of saving Our Deteriorating Atmosphere, but to desperately pander for what few swing voters remain by creating the illusion that they too care about the Planet by using shorter, more concise terms to cut down on the release of carbon dioxide into Our Deteriorating Atmosphere. Don't be fooled by this shameless tactic, comrades. Ignore them, and don't listen to a single word they say—not unless you want to be dragged back to a darker age when death and destruction and oppression abounded, when none of us were allowed to speak out and think for ourselves out of fear for our lives, and when all of us lost everything—homes, jobs, hope—because of the lies heaped upon us by Bush and the conservatives. Remember, on November 4th, 2008, you called for Hope and Change—you wanted it, and by Obama you are going to get it, so submit! I just warned you of the bleak alternative.

Ahh the Glorious World of Next Tuesday ™ moves one step closer to fruition.

The New York Times is absolutely correct: we must not let the intelligentsia scum confuse the proletariat with science. We must silence those doubters who say that the Earth is now in a cycle of global cooling and that it is the interaction of a cold air-mass with a warm air-mass that causes extreme weather.

I even heard those Enemies-of-the-People question the integrity of our selfserving selfless prophet of The Deteriorating Atmosphere^tm, Al Gore. They have been spewing lies that his is poised to make billions of dollars on "cap and cash back" schemes. It is lies, I tell you! He is doing it for the children!

P.S. I am certain that Commissarka Pinkie will look more equal than others while working in the beet fields while wearing the $540 sneakers with the sparkly pink toe-caps.

I visited the ecoAmerica website to see what I could glean. Their blog on this article has only two responses (neither of which by me):

https://ecoamerica.typepad.com/blog/200 ... field.html

You can sit there and change the terminology all you want, your mission is to reduce the freedoms Americans enjoy by pressing the Government to charge exorbitant taxes on energy and gasoline to make sure that only a select few can drive motor vehicles or fly on aircraft. You and your type are pushing for "smart grids" where the government can determine how warm I am allowed to have my home. It is you and your type that are pushing for "cap and trade" (or "cap and cash back" as you call it) where I have to buy the right to breathe (just an FYI for you, we produce carbon dioxide through living so I presume that you are calling for the removal of mankind...?) Call it what you want, man made climate change is bunk and you know it. Anyone who takes the time to do a little research knows this.

Posted by: OIF Veteran | May 02, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Wow ... tree huggers finally get it. What happens next week, hell freezes over?

Reduce use of dirty fuels and energy independence, yeah, who doesn't agree with this? So support nuclear, say alternative energy is being explored, and emphasize no one's standard of living is going down.

Global warming has made a mockery of the environmental movement, to the point that folks begin to question whether lead is a bad thing. No kidding.

So all the hard fought (and they WERE hard fought) victories to clean up America, that cost beaucoup bucks, that really made a difference in the air we breathe and water we drink, are being questioned.

Oh, and the radicals that say earth could do with a few less billion people doesn't help. Even Hitler wasn't that bold.

As it stands, environmentalists have painted themselves into a corner. If global warming was the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it ... they would immediately support nuclear to save civilization. Nuclear being the only current proven off-the-shelf technology with zero carbon emissions that everyone would accept. There is no uncertainity about its success.

If environmentalists dither around and bet the future on some future breakthrough in alternative energy that may never materalize ... then global warming really wasn't quite the critical issue they make it out to be.

Cap and trade just isn't going to happen. Not with China and India spewing CO2 with no intention of reducing emissions.

And, I haven't heard anyone on either side of the debate say CO2 levels are going down. CO2 goes up with temperature. No one doubts the physics of warming oceans releasing CO2. We all have experience with soda pop warm and cold.

Whether CO2 leads, lags, or is lockstep with temperature ... it is going up. So the end result of cap and trade is a gigantic tax increase, CO2 continues to rise ... and who knows about temperature.


Posted by: oracle2world | May 02, 2009 at 10:56 PM

This comrade is willing to reduce his carbon footprint, by bayoneting dissidents and counter-revolutionaries, rather than shooting them, thus saving the gunsmoke from being produced!

The revolutionaries acting toward disarming the proles of the evil assault weapons should instead be acting toward mandating their use, with reusable bayonets instead single-use bullets and gunpowder. Think how much cleaner the air in our cities would be if the criminal gangs battled with drive-by bayonetings, thus saving the bullets for our police and military, who should really be the only ones with such disposable provisions.

Comrade Meatshield:

The People's Republic of Great Britain (otherwise known as the United Kingdom) has experienced a wave of "knife crime" among the criminal element since the imposition of stringent gun control. It is comforting to know that the socialist utopia of the P.R.G.B. has already started on reducing the carbon footprint of the kulaks.

Margaret, thanks for that link. I must give EcoAmerica credit for one little thing--they don't even try to pretend they're a "non-partisan grassroots" organization, though I have to question the non-profit aspect.

http://www.ecoamerica.net/

From their "Challenge":

If we want Americans to change their priorities, we need to change ours. We need to make people a priority in order to affect public policy change. We need to connect nature with their core values and daily priorities. We need to start with people, and focus on opportunities and benefits instead of costs and consequences. [HIGHLIGHT=#ffff00]Only then will we build the public support necessary to provide business and government the confidence they need to take bold steps to fight global warming[/HIGHLIGHT].

And what do I always say, Comrades? If you ever wondered how seriously and deeply people are committed to a certain movement or issue or cause, just count the number of verbs in their mission statement. You can either build the public support necessary to provide business and government the confidence they need to take bold steps to fight global warming--or you can just STFU and fight global warming/ save Our Deteriorating Atmosphere.

ecoAmerica uses the consumer marketing practices that work so well in the business world to protect our natural heritage. We start with people, using sophisticated research to understand their priorities. Then we develop strategic partnerships with corporations and NGO's and develop innovative engagement marketing programs. We help people make better personal and civic choices while enhancing the success of our partners.

Umm . . . isn't the corporate/business model part of the capitalist free market system that has been proven beyond all doubt to be an utter, miserable failure--or so says the Left?

In addition to being very, very concerned about Our Deteriorating Atmosphere, Mr. Perkowitz (the genuis behind all the name changes) seems to be a very, very wealthy man who owns two houses on opposite ends of the U.S., and doesn't seem to realize that Africa and Asia could have safe, scenic, and convenient high quality bike trails of the same caliber found throughout Europe and America, if only they were as wealthy and industrialized, and consequently destroying the planet as rapidly and ruthlessly, to include upsetting the natural habitats of non-human beings with the construction of areas suitable for biking. I'm just sayin'.
<br>And Rafael Reyes must have his resume written by the same service that does them for Andrew Yu-Jen Wang and Mikael Rudolph. How else would I know that being born in Latin America is a career accomplishment?

I only wonder where he attended kindergarten?

[CONE]



I love this line from the article. The sheeples will be thinking his O'liness will be giving them even more money while he'll be robbing us all of everything!


Don't confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

ecoAmerica's entire purpose is to market environmentalism. You wouldn't think there'd be any money in that. But I see they have several "partners" and are a non-profit. They do marketing for non-profits and also for good old traditional for profit companies. At least that's what they say. I suppose as a non-profit they may even be receiving some kind of Federal money. Personally, I think a non-profit should be non-profit. Everyone that works for a non-profit should do so without getting paid for it. Now that's non-profit. If you have a non-profit company and you're making some six figure salary from your non-profit, or even a five figure salary, what's the difference? Your company is really for your profit. Non-profits should be on a volunteer non-profit basis.

Comrades, I'm having another cognitive dissonance spasm. How are we to usher in a new age of sustainable development by culling the population by 50% if we save the proles from environmental calamity?

We don't support war, we rescue the third world from famine and disease and now we won't even allow Mother Earth (or her News organ) to exact retribution for the sins of mankind.

How are we to ever achieve negative population growth?

Comrade Whoopie:

The answer is quite simple really: DEAR LEADER will just have to have those Enemies-of-the-State that are standing in the way of the Glorious World of Next Tuesday^tm executed. Don't forget, Comrade Bill Ayers had predicted that 25 million capitalists in the U.S. would have to be killed while he was planning his unsuccessful people's revolution.

Of course, that was 30 years ago and before The Deteriorating Atmosphere^tm was a planetary crisis. Comrade Ayers was incorrect in his calculations by a factor of 1000.

If purges were good enough for Comrade Stalin, then they're good enough for His O'liness!

Comrades, the first person to be silenced, with of course a knife to save the cordite, should be Bjørn Lomborg. This heretic wrote <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skept ... alist">The Skeptical Environmentalist</a> in which he, an environmentalist, says that the evidence for Our Deteriorating Atmosphere is not there, and that it's been politicized.

Despite the best efforts of dedicated comrades to rake Cambridge over the coals for publishing it, Cambridge refused to retract, and even stated that since it met their standard of peer review, they stood behind it.

Where is SHAC thuggery when you need it? We need ACORN goons on this. There is nothing more dangerous that someone who is not toeing the party line, and where were the shock troops?

<b>What is the world coming to if people who tell the truth are not silenced?</b>