Frank Luntz, of all people! That's right, you greeny left-liberals, your whole green movement was invented by a neocon spin doctor!

Climate spin: Who changed "global warming" to "climate change"?

Answer: It wasn't the enviros who changed the use of this term, but rather high-powered corporate lobbying interests and their allies in Bush government and the Republican party, spearheaded by leading Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz, who in 2002 pushed Republicans to move the public discussion away from "global warming" to "climate change".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

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 scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

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".

Words such as "common sense" should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.

The environment, the memo says, "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable".

A Republican source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said party strategists agreed with Mr Luntz's conclusion that "many Americans believe Republicans do not care about the environment".

The popular image is that they are "in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle manically [sic] as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit", Mr Luntz adds.

The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced.

Environmentalists have accused the party and oil companies of helping to promulgate the view that serious doubt remains about the effects of global warming.

Last week, a panel of experts appointed at the Bush administration's request to analyse the president's climate change strategy found that it lacked "vision, executable goals, clear timetables and criteria for measuring progress".

"Rather than focusing on the things we don't know, it's almost as if parts of the plan were written by people who are totally unfamiliar with where ecosystems science is coming from," panel member William Schlesinger told the Guardian.

Mr Luntz urges Republicans to "emphasise the importance of 'acting only with all the facts in hand'", in line with the White House position that mandatory restrictions on emissions, as required by the Kyoto protocol, should not be countenanced until further research is undertaken.

The memo singles out as a major strategic failure the incoming Bush administration's response to Bill Clinton's last-minute executive order reducing the permitted level of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion.

The new administration put the plan on hold, prompting "the biggest public relations misfire of President Bush's first year in office", Mr Luntz writes. The perception was that Mr Bush "was actively putting in more arsenic in the water".

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.

"The memo singles out as a major strategic failure the incoming Bush administration's response to Bill Clinton's last-minute executive order reducing the permitted level of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion.

The new administration put the plan on hold, prompting "the biggest public relations misfire of President Bush's first year in office", Mr Luntz writes. The perception was that Mr Bush "was actively putting in more arsenic in the water"."

Thanks, yet another glistening turd on the Dippic's pile. It's funny tho~...the OP's title is not what the story is about and it's damning to the Dippic, OOPS?....and it futher exposes the Neocon-artist's influences in the disasters we are still enduring today.

But what's the point anyway? I mean really...lol.

>>The point is that the left's adoption of environmentalism was a scam invented by the neocon "right"-I'm hoping to help those around here who don't understand that the dems and reps are just 2 wings of the same statist bird. As Ben Franklin used to say, it takes time and effort to convince men to do things, even when it is in their best interest.

"to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases"

Climate change is real...and this: "they're all bad " (so forget how bad the GOP were) isn't flying here...I hope..lol. Even the Dippic admitted that the planet is warming...the thing the Dipwad tried to stick with was whether it's partially man-made. It is and not to mention the polution...planet Earth is sick with human waste.


As bad a Holocaust deniers...sheesh...

Pathetic.

People STIL can't accept the fact that the planet cools and WARMS in cycles that we can't do one....single....thing.....about.

We CAN clean up the environment. I am all for that.

But to think that HUMANS can do anything at all about a naturally occurring cycle speaks to nothing more than man's arrogance and inflated view of itself.

Utterly pathetic.

Oh, I guess you forgot about all of those trees felled to support the lumber industry. Europe has less than 10% of its original indigenous forest population. And that CO2 absorbs heat more than any other atmospheric gas. This is not a cycle. This is man's pollution for the last 130 years catching up with the planet.

Hmmm...so...let's see here....

People cut down a whole lot of trees and continue to do so every day.

CO2, which isn't even the worst greenhouse gas, has risen.

So...the solution....

Let's drive a whole bunch of businesses into the ground. Put them out of business by putting unrealistic caps on how much CO2 ( which isn't even the worst greenhouse gas ) can be put into the atmosphere.

What YOU forget is that the CO2 isn't going to disperse anytime soon.

blame Centralia and all the volcanoes that have polluted the earths air for millions of years, my gosh. what are people panicking about yes we shouldn't add fuel to the fire but i think its more of nature taking its course than it is us......then you have the ones that are like no we are the major contributors,yeah so uh what have volcanoes done in the past? give me a break, plus also our own oceans release methane and hydrogen sulfide into the air....hell when every animal farts they release methane so come on it's not just our fault there is way more contributing factors

And you conveniently forgot that industrial activity only accounts for a tiny fraction of co2 in the atmosphere. Your assertions have been disproven numerous times by everyone from the National Weather Center to the IPCC fraud. I guess it will take time for reality to catch up to you and vice versa.