Was Waxman-Markey A Waste of Energy? | Mother Jones

Also frustrated are those House Democrats who took a significant political hit by voting for the cap-and-trade bill, which was attacked by Republicans as a measure that would kill jobs, empower the "global warming Gestapo," and cripple struggling consumers with exorbitant energy bills.
...
It's not clear whether the approach being peddled by Kerry, Lieberman and Graham will manage to get 51 votes in the Senate, let alone the 60 needed to prevent the GOP from scuttling the effort. But even if the bill passes, Rep. Inslee warned that too many compromises won't fly on his side of the Capitol: "I hope the Senate doesn't think that somehow whatever they come up with is going to be something that will get 218 votes in the House."

American Thinker Blog: Cognitive dissonance at the Smithsonian magazine

One might think that tying global warming to the range of topics covered by Smithsonian would be rather challenging, and it is. But, more often than not, the authors and editors of this iconographic periodical succeed in drawing a connection. It does not matter how tortured the tie might be. (This writer has often mused that there should be a good "drinking game" tucked into this quirk.)

[Since the little people have refused to buy into "global warming", or "climate change", or "global weirding", let's try "climate disruption"]

Instead of climate change it should be called climate disruption. In my mind, disruption makes me scared. I think of someone breaking into my house, or getting robbed, or a perfectly working engine that breaks down. To me, it brings up imagery of a system that used to work well that broken and needs to be fixed ASAP.

I’ve laid out my arguments and why I now use the word ‘climate disruption’ when talking about ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’.

What do you think will be more effective to change peoples actions: climate change or climate disruption?

MediaBite - 'Balancing' the Climate Consensus - Part 1

John Gibbons has covered the issue of Climate Change for the Irish Times for the past two years. Several weeks ago his weekly column abruptly came to an end.
...
JG: You throw a stick and you will hit a journalistic climate sceptic.  You will also find that most of them are over 60, they think they have seen it all and that these environmental types are extremists, apostles, believers. Ironically they try and ascribe religious overtones to people who are by and large not very religious.

MB: The new religion...
...
As you know there are between 2 and 3,000 full time lobbyists working in Washington with the specific purpose to undermine the US's ability to ever produce solid climate legislation [Can we see a list of their names?] and they'll be effective in their work.
...
JG: Yes, I remember her interrupting a scientist trying to explain a technical point on Prime Time saying: “we're losing our audience.” The sceptics know that, they know they can throw in a hand grenade and by the time you have defused it the damage is already done. To be honest, if I wanted an easy ride I'd just switch sides and become a climate sceptic because any monkey can become a climate sceptic.