President Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren is worried about global warming. Having noticed that there hasn’t actually been any global warming since 1998, he feels it ought to be called “global climate disruption” instead. That way whether it gets warmer or colder, wetter or drier, less climatically eventful or more climatically eventful, the result will be the same: it can all be put down to “global climate disruption.”
Yes. This is convenient for them. No more "global warming." Lack of recent warming and questions of their data about past temperatures made that tough. And "climate change" is kind of vague when you consider the climate simply changes whether we do anything or not. But now, when any incident of "disruption" from what is supposed to be the norm is a sign of the Apocalypse, and the solution is more government regulation of our lives, there is no point when we can send home the experts appointed to save us from ourselves after solving the problem.
I'm not convinced that the data over thousands of years is sound enough to conclude we are the warmest ever; I'm not convinced, even if we are the warmest ever, that we can pin it on man; and even if it is demonstrably warmer because of man's activities, I sure as heck don't buy the socialistic and anti-liberty solutions peddled by the global disruptionists. That's my basic position.
They can go disrupt themselves, as far as I'm concerned.
