Climatologist Timothy Ball made an astute observation about the strategy shift that sunspot-deniers are applying to global warming ("The politics of global warming," Q&A, Feb. 10 and PghTrib.com).
He noticed they "switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change." That's chillingly familiar.
Remember how Osama bin Laden morphed into Saddam Hussein• Or how the mission switched from finding WMDs to freeing Iraq• Or when border security became citizen surveillance?
Next, politicians will put carbon dioxide on the altar of unending wars alongside terrorism, drugs, smoking, trans fat, etc. Expect a new Cabinet-level Department of Hot Air.
Also expect the Department of Education to require that "Greenland" be renamed "Glacierland" to rewrite an inconvenient history about that island's more moderate climate around 1000 A.D.
If the temperature cools rapidly over the next decade, government will proclaim "Mission Accomplished." Do you think, however, that dismantling misguided government programs stands a snowball's chance?
While global warming deserves debate, there's no debate why big government supporters are hot for global warming.
Mark Crowley Plum
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Badges’ before Brooks
- Corbett, the reformer
- Boys, girls & toys
- Miss Penney’s catalog
- GOP: Integrity
- Failing to lead
- GCC 19, sportsmanship 0
- Renaming in order?
- Teachers’ rights
- Science on fracking’s side
- A spectacular celebration