There have been a number of posts on this site regarding global warming, or lack thereof.Now we discover that the Democrat Party think tanks are warning their Congressional representatives to play down the term "global warming" and others. Hmm Why? Could it be that the global warming push isn't as critical as the media and Democrats have portrayed it to be? Could it be because the public is wising up to the fact that there is another side to this supposed catastrophe? (Check this site for a readable summary of the GW components, many of which are ignored by the media and people who have already drawn their conclusion.)

Regardless, here's what the Democrat think tank advisers are asking their Democrat supporters of major government "reform" to address this GW "problem" to do:

In a strategy memo, Democratic think tank Third Way and top party strategist Stanley Greenberg warned Democrats that swing voters don't care about fighting global warming, and said terms like "cap-and-trade" are useless. Instead, the memo suggests that Democrats tap into Americans' optimism that clean energy can help improve the faltering economy.

"For most voters, global warming is not significant enough on its own to drive support for major energy reform," the memo says. "So while it can be part of the story that reform advocates are telling, global warming should be used only in addition to the broader economic frame, not in place of it."

Thus, the words the Democrats and their media microphone chose to use will be changed. Watch for new vernacular regarding GW. It seems they are more concerned about wording than accuracy. Reading this, one sees that the Democrat agenda to control more of our lives via taxes and energy restrictions is alive and well, but it is also an admission that the terms they have been using no longer carry the necessary clout (fear?). Now we are to be guilted into buying into the Democrat agenda about global warming because we need "clean energy to improve the faltering economy?" (Hint, there are other ways besides DC to "fix" our economy.)

I was once asked if it would be wise for us to do nothing about GW and find out we should have? The reverse to that question is this: Would it be wise to spend money on something that is highly debatable, possibly unprovable (earth has been around for a very long time; civilizations about only 3000 years), and would add even more $n,000,000,000,000s of debt to our kids for a theory that may well prove to be false or may fix itself?

For the record: Animals exhale CO 2, plants inhale it; plants expel oxygen, animals inhale it. My 4th graders knew this - this normal exchange keeps plant and animal life in balance. Gee, maybe we should just let Mother Nature do her thing and get out of the way.

Labels: Democrats, global warming????