Liberal Media and Politicians Drop 'Global Warming' in Favor of 'Climate Change'

Interesting:

Over the past three years, the number of believers in anthropogenic global warming has been on a steady decline, while the number of believers in natural planetary warming and cooling cycle has been on a steady incline. The shrinking pool of people who still swear by Al Gore's Hollywood version of the climate trend is especially populated with journalists and politicians who refuse admit they were wrong and consider any science debunking manmade global warming.


As the numbers fail each year to match Gore's wild predictions, it is becoming increasingly difficult to form any logical support for Gore's gloom and doom global warming scenarios. To rectify the situation, the global warming community has quietly rebranded its cause as 'climate change,' which allows activists to push an environmental agenda without the threat of the earth's temperature not rising with it.


Following one of the coldest winters in history earlier this year, warmists are struggling to defend an ever imposing doom that global warming might in fact be an entirely natural phenomenon.


As Marc Morano reiterated Thursday at the sixth annual International Conference on Climate Change (or the 'Climate Denier Conference,' as the Washington Post would call it), warmists believe 'any weather event is proof of the theory,' whether it be snowfalls in April or hurricanes in November. In a world in which we can rarely predict ten-day forecasts accurately, it is astounding that such a large community still props up Gore's fabricated data and charts as explanations for every catastrophic weather event that occurs.


The shift away from the global warming rhetoric has actually come quite ironically. As Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Institute points out, the 'climate change' term was originally used by President George W. Bush in 2002. Of course, Bush was quickly lambasted by left-wing media for the move away from 'global warming.' One such hit came from the UK's Guardian:


The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.


The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.


[...]


The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".


Today, though, the same people who criticized Bush for his coining of the 'climate change' term are now flocking to the buzz phrase to pretend they were right all along, that heavy winters, too, can be a result of global warming.


A study released earlier this year might explain the newly warm embrace of the term 'climate change,' which proved that skepticism of global warming drops to much lower levels when it is called 'climate change.' While the latter is traditionally understood to mean the climate change that occurs during natural cycles of warming and cooling, liberals have warped it be synonymous with global warming, enabling them to push the same environmental agenda under a more widely accepted moniker. According to the authors of the study,


Republicans were less likely to endorse that the phenomenon is real when it was referred to as “global warming” (44.0%) rather than “climate change” (60.2%), whereas Democrats were unaffected by question wording (86.9% vs. 86.4%). As a result, the partisan divide on the issue dropped from 42.9 percentage points under a “global warming” frame to 26.2 percentage points under a “climate change” frame.


As the lead author of the study, Dr. Jonathon Schuldt, explained, 'wording matters.'


Wording does matter, as the crumbling global warming debate has become emblazoned with a new vocabulary masking the same relentless green message, using the trendiest language to morph the science to their agenda. While the term 'global warming' failed as a catch-all, the term 'climate change' can be used as a convenient excuse to explain any weather pattern environmentalists want to blame on human activity and to impose ever more burdensome environmental regulation on us.

Rush Limbaugh: MSNBC's Response Different If Halperin Defamed George W. Bush

Of course Limbaugh's right. It's always a different standard for liberals on how to treat the President when a Republican is in there as opposed to a Democrat:

As NewsBusters reported Thursday, MSNBC has put Mark Halperin on indefinite suspension for making an intemperate remark about President Obama on "Morning Joe."


Just a few hours later, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his audience the network's response would have been much different if Halperin had said this about George W. Bush when he was president

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Now, let me ask you a question: If Mark Halperin had said this about say George W. Bush, would they be falling all over themselves to apologize? Nope. He would be, my guess is, “New ground had been broken. Finally, finally,” they would say, “a reporter has had the courage and the guts to tell the nation just exactly the kind of President we have. A gutsy move. It might have been over the line. It might have been a little bit risky. And it might be something he would never do again, but by golly, by gosh, the courage.”


That’s how they would play it had Mark Halperin said it about George W. Bush.


Taking this a step further, since Halperin apparently believed what he said was going to be edited out - he specifically asked if MSNBC was on a seven second delay - it's quite likely the technician that failed to bleep his comment about Bush would have been the fall guy - assuming there was one at all.


But because MSNBC is the leading television propaganda outlet for this White House and the Democrat Party, that certainly wouldn't be enough in this instance.


Something else to consider is it's unlikely the minor vulgarity bothered the network.


As Breitbart reported a few hours ago, MSNBC allowed an audible f-bomb on "The Last Word" during prime time Wednesday evening. Nobody involved in that show has been suspended including the host.


As Limbaugh pointed out there likely wouldn't have been this response if Obama was Republican, one must conclude the network just didn't like such a thing being said about a president it so faithfully supports.

Homosexual, Far-Left Sex Columnist Dan Savage Says Marriage Needs More Infidelities

Anyone who disputes that the real goal of the far-left's agenda is not to destroy every bit of what's left of America's moral fabric is either stupid or seriously in denial. To think, Dan Savage is the kind of liberal scum that Barry begs people to listen to:

Savage’s position on monogamy is frequently caricatured. He does not believe in promiscuity; indeed, his attacks on the anonymous-sex, gay-bathhouse culture were once taken as proof of a secret conservative agenda. And he does not believe that monogamy is wrong for all couples or even for most couples. Rather, he says that a more realistic sexual ethic would prize honesty, a little flexibility and, when necessary, forgiveness over absolute monogamy. And he believes nostalgically, like any good conservative, that we might look to the past for some clues.


“The mistake that straight people made,” Savage told me, “was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitar­ian and fairsey.” In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always endured. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.”


In their own marriage, Savage and Miller practice being what he calls “monogamish,” allowing occasional infidelities, which they are honest about. Miller was initially opposed to the idea. “You assume as a younger person that all relationships are monogamous and between two people, that love means nothing can come between you,” said Miller, who met Savage at a club in 1995, when he was 23 and Savage was 30. “Dan has taught me to be more realistic about that kind of stuff.


“It was four or five years before it came up,” Miller said. “It’s not about having three-ways with somebody or having an open relationship. It is just sort of like, Dan has always said if you have different tastes, you have to be good, giving and game, and if you are not G.G.G. for those tastes, then you have to give your partner the out. It took me a while to get down with that.” When I asked Savage how many extramarital encounters there have been, he laughed shyly. “Double digits?” I asked. He said he wasn’t sure; later he and Miller counted, and he reported back that the number was nine. “And far from it being a destabilizing force in our relationship, it’s been a stabilizing force. It may be why we’re still together.”

White, Liberal New York Times Writer Sheryl Stolberg Warns Obama Twice On Gay Marriage, Casually Flips The Race Card

Because, yunno, sexual choice is deemed the same as race by white liberals. And because only white liberals are the only ones who care about us blacks, they can use the race card whenever they want to, even when it comes to a President who's done more for teh gheys than any other in history:

New York Times Washington reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg has fired two warning shots on consecutive days across Barack Obama’s left flank, regarding his hesitation to fully endorse gay marriage.


Wednesday’s “Obama’s Position on Gay Marriage Faces New Test” painted Obama in an “awkward” situation regarding his gay supporters. Stolberg twice shoe-horned in race-based arguments to challenge Obama’s position.




When President Obama’s guests arrive at the White House on Wednesday for a Gay Pride reception -- just days after New York became the largest state in the country to make same-sex marriage legal -- they will no doubt be in a mood to celebrate.


But for their host, who does not endorse same-sex marriage, it could be somewhat awkward.


“I think they are trying to share the joy, which is genuine on their part, without changing his position,” Hilary Rosen, a prominent Democratic strategist, said of the White House. “I don’t think he can have it both ways here.”


Stolberg flipped the race card:


Others took issue with Mr. Obama’s word choice at the Manhattan fund-raiser, where he noted that “traditionally marriage has been decided by the states.” His critics say that by invoking states’ rights, the president -- a former constitutional law professor and son of a black father and a white mother -- brought up arguments once used to justify laws that would have prevented his own parents from marrying.

Professional Psychiatrist Keith Ablow Confirms That Bill Maher Hates Women

Nice to see a professional verify what conservatives have long known about the misogynist that is Bill Maher:

Today on Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor and professional psychiatrist Keith Ablow gave his assessment of HBO’s Bill Maher based on his recent rant about Bristol Palin. Maher, you’ll recall, went after the younger Palin for a passage in her new book, Not Afraid of Life, where she describes losing her virginity to Levi Johnston, her then-boyfriend and father of her child. During his show, Maher asked Bristol to simply admit that that she was “horny” and shared that “Bristol Palin has to admit that the reason she fucked Levi over and over until a baby fell out is because she liked it.”


Ablow wonders whether Maher’s diatribe stems from an overarching hatred of women.


This guy needs his head examined, so it’s good that you called me in. Bottom line is, here’s a guy… You have to understand, her book is called Not Afraid of Life. Here’s a guy who never saw a life he didn’t question. For euthanasia. For the death penalty. For abortion. This is somebody who’s not affiliated with life at all. No children. So you have to look at him and say, “You know what, why is he so hostile toward women?” He has a deep-seated, it seems, hatred, to some extent, of women. Frequents the Playboy Mansion. All the girls that he dates – the women he dates – they have to be supermodels.


Bottom line is, you really have to wonder: Is he projecting onto her?


Ablow also notes that Maher “is very much divorced” from the “beauty” of birth, as evidenced by his comment about a baby “falling out” of Bristol, and that he seems to want to believe that “all women are sluts,” and so wouldn’t be able to believe that Bristol slept with her boyfriend out of anything other than lust.

Conservative Blogger Spots 13 Factual Errors in Time Editor's Attack on the U.S. Constitution

Newsbusters.org:

Last week my colleague Eric Ames addressed the bias and some misstatements of fact in Richard Stengel's recent attack on the Constitution/defense of ObamaCare here.


Today, Aaron Worthing over at Patterico's Pontification's ticked off 13 factual errors in the Time magazine editor's piece and systematically addressed each one.


It's an excellent piece. Here's an excerpt that I think addresses some of Stengel's biggest errors:


False Claim #1: The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.


The relevant passage:


If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the “necessary and proper” clause, which delegates to Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Limited government indeed.

Herman Cain: ‘Jon Stewart Doesn’t Like Me Because I Am An American Black Conservative’

Don't you just love it when white liberals define your 'blackness'? Herman Cain sure does:

Herman Cain seems to have no interested in ending his newly-minted feud with Jon Stewart. On The O’Reilly Factor tonight, Cain came out swinging against Stewart again– who initially courted Cain’s wrath by making fun of his claim that bill longer than 3 pages would be vetoed automatically– explicitly stating that, although Stewart’s “Amos and Andy” voice was offensive to him, he wasn’t playing the race card. But Stewart had a problem, he asserted, with him being a “black conservative.”


Cain first began accepting Stewart’s adamant claims that Stewart is “a comedian,” and only a comedian, but that, precisely because of that, “he should have known” the “less than three pages” comment was a joke. “He’s a comedian, and I’m a problem-solver,” he asserted, though he did say that “when he mocks me in the dialect of old Amos and Andy, I think that’s a problem.” When confronted by host Juan Williams over that comment and how it contradicts his assertions that he was playing the race card, Cain argued that it was “some people in the media” who were playing the race card, and that his campaign and his statements were, he said familiarly, “not about color– it’s about content of ideas and it’s about character.”


Ultimately, however, Cain concluded that Stewart’s problem was not with him as a black person, but “Jon Stewart doesn’t like me because I am an American black conservative… he has a bigger problem with that than any race thing.” He added that “I know racism when I see it,” and that Stewart didn’t fit the bill. Williams agreed that black conservatives faced certain problems– “you don’t fit in the box”– though declined to emphasize the race issue.

Rod Blagojevich Found Guilty Of Selling Barack Obama’s Senate Seat

Somehow you knew this clown was going to go down hard:

It’s been nearly three years since former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich stole the national spotlight after being arrested for dozens of counts of corruption, including attempting to sell then-Sen. Barack Obama’s Senate seat. Today, after two reality shows, a mistrial, and an extended, confusing second trial for the former governor, Blagojevich was found guilty of 17 counts of corruption, including selling the President’s former Senate seat.


The verdict was announced today a little after 3 PM, after the first trial ended with Blagojevich not being convicted in 23 of his 24 corruption charges (he was found guilty of one minor charge of lying to the FBI). In this one, he escaped three of the 20 charges– one “not guilty” and two “no verdicts”– but was convicted of several counts of wire fraud and bribery, in particular the primary charge of selling the President’s seat. No word yet on how much jail time, if any, the charges will translate into. In the meantime, several Illinois media outlets have compiled “best of” retrospectives on Blagojevich’s rise to national ignominy; this one by Central Illinois radio station WJBC is particularly comprehensive.


The second Blagojevich trial, while receiving significantly less media attention, played out somewhat differently from the first trial. While keeping most of the comical shenanigans– threats for contempt of court, arbitrary deployment of the race card, etc.– that made the first trial a must-cover news story, the second trial also featured Blagojevich keeping his promise to testify in his own defense. The latter is a choice now many are considering a risk that brought down the governor, though the new sets of tapes produced on trial also did little to exonerate him. While he had several times noted that, after being found innocent of most crimes in the first trial, he was eyeing a return to politics soon, this now seems an impossibility– as well as his other side careers on reality television, giving ethics lectures, and singing the best of Elvis Prestley aside Fabio impersonators. Fare thee well, Blago, you gave the media as much joy as you gave your constituents grief.

House Rebukes Obama's War In Libya

The hypocrisy and lack of outrage by liberals on this one is outstanding:

Challenging presidential power, a defiant U.S. House voted overwhelmingly Friday to deny President Barack Obama the authority to wage war against Libya. But Republicans fell short in an effort to actually cut off funds for the operation in a constitutional showdown reflecting both political differences and unease over American involvement.


In a repudiation of their commander in chief, House members rejected a measure to authorize the Libya mission for a year while prohibiting U.S. ground forces in the North African nation, a resolution Obama had said he would welcome.


The vote was 295-123 with 70 Democrats abandoning the president just one day after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had made an unusual appeal to rank-and-file members. A Senate committee is to consider the same resolution next Tuesday and is expected to support it, raising the prospect of conflicting messages from Congress.


Friday's votes showed lawmakers' concerns about an open-ended U.S. commitment to a civil war between Moammar Gadhafi and rebel forces looking to oust him — as well as growing weariness among Americans with drawn-out conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.


In addition, the resounding number rejecting the authority resolution was a clear sign of anger toward the president for failing to seek congressional consent for the operation within 60 days, as stated in the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Republicans and Democrats argued that an arrogant Obama had run roughshod over the Constitution, ignoring the authority of the legislative branch that the founding fathers had insisted has the power to declare war.