By Jo Nova
This is a very sweet win. The phrase fossil fuels was used like kryptonite, and Big Oil was the AntiChrist.
The spinmeisters spent three decades telling the world that dirty fossil fuels are killing people, destroying the planet, and funding the evil climate deniers. Now they say there’s “too much opposition” and countries won’t sign up to the UN COP climate deals if they talk about reducing fossil fuels, so let’s call it “decarbonization” instead. (Y’think Saudi Arabia won’t notice?)
The truth and the skeptics are winning — helped no doubt, by two energy crises and Donald Trump’s “Drill baby Dill” success with unapologetic US energy dominance. The harsh fact of the wartime price spikes for coal and oil was that it’s obvious no one wants to live without their fossil fuels or pay one red cent more for them if they don’t have to.
As usual, the lefty wordsmiths don’t solve their stupid mistakes by changing their policies, instead they just change their language.
Phasing out fossil fuels too unpopular, call for ‘decarbonisation’ instead
By Noah Yim and Elizabeth Pike, The Australian
Labor environmental activists have told Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen, as the president of negotiations at the next United Nations climate change conference, to push for “decarbonisation” because language about the phasing out of fossil fuels meets too much opposition.
After Mr Bowen left, Labor Environment Action Network national secretary Janaline Oh said that calls to transition away from fossil fuel had become a major international obstacle to committing countries to more action at UN conferences of parties.
“But if that is the blockage, maybe we just need to change the words,” she said.
The activists really do hope the rest of the world is so stupid they won’t notice that “decarbonizing heavy industry” means reducing fossil fuels and we could just trick them into signing? Seriously…?
“The countries that are opposing those words are not necessarily evil. They don’t necessarily want to cook the planet, but they are deeply concerned about delivering affordable and reliable energy to their people.
“So let’s lay the pathway for them that they can walk along that will end up in a fossil fuel-free world.
Thus the smug arts graduates, who’ve never met an engineer, think they can just say “decarbonize” and it will happen…
“And if we can actually decarbonise those heavy industry supply chains, which is what every single economy in the world is relying on for basic goods and services, maybe that is the pathway. “So maybe if we can’t get the COP to agree to transitioning away from fossil fuels again, maybe we can get them to agree to decarbonising those supply chains.”
Language has always been their weapon
Back in 2009 The Blob was trashing the word skeptic to the point where some skeptics would even write to me suggesting we call ourselves realists instead. So I started a campaign to remind everyone that being a skeptic is the only kind of scientist there is. If they were going to try to tar us with “Skeptical Scientist” we would mirror that right back at them, and call them “Unskeptical Scientists”. I thought I’d help them out with some badges and stickers.
What’s the opposite of skeptical? — Gullible.
The plan to proudly own the term worked. By 2011 even Stephan Lewandowsky, Mr “Science is settled” was saying “Science is Debate“. Joe Romm was saying “All Scientists are Skeptics“. And John Cook was trying to explain how being a genuine skeptic was different to being a denier.
It took until 2015 for Associated Press to change their style guide and stop using the phrase climate skeptics, along with the petty namecalling like climate deniers. They decided to call us climate change doubters instead and save the phrase climate skeptic for the registered official kind of Skeptic TM . You know the ones who agree with every government scientist and bravely throw conferences debunking spoon-bending and astrology?
We won back the definition of the word Skeptic. Now we’ve won back Fossil Fuels, next, we’re we’re coming for “carbon”.
Is carbon non-binary?
If not, de-carbonization would be intolerant.
I refuse to tolerate intolerance.
I think CO2 is binary.
A threesome perhaps, but it is a Cis Normative molecule.
Which unfairly marginalizes the other molecules.
So there.
20
Do they even know what carbon is?
I’d be willing to bet they don’t.
That’s why they had to dumb-down the schools first.
10
We can always look to the Leftist instruction manual, Nineteen Eighty Four to see what the Left has in mind.
00