Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose.

By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB), January 30, 2014

weasel word 02_flat

Let’s start this article by examining the deceptive use of words and phrases and later i will explain how i believe such deceptions are used in the global warming debate.

A few examples of what i mean.

save02_200pxWhat exactly is being promised by a sign in a store window that says, “Save up to 50% on everything in the store?”

Does it mean:

  1. The discount is 50%
  2. The discount is somewhere between 0% and 50%
  3. The discount applies to everything in the store
  4. The discount only applies to some things in the store
  5. Nothing in the store is discounted
  6. All of the above.

Of course the correct answer is “F” – all of the above.

This is a classic case of advertisers intentionaly using deceptive wording to create a false impression. In this case, the meaning of the words “… up to . . .” can mean anything from 0% to 50%, which renders the rest of the statement meaningless. So even if NOTHING in the store is discounted, this sign is technically true.

Though this kind of deceptive wording might be obvious to some, you might be surprised to learn how many people reading such a sign will interpret it to mean everything in the store is heavily discounted. Deception sells.

Another example . . .


nutriSystem_cropped_250px
Look at the NutriSystem ad to the right. NutriSystem ran print ads like this along with TV commercials and the promise-sounding sales pitch, “… lose all the weight you can at Nutri/System for only $199. Don’t wait, call now.”

Wait a second, back up the truck. Did you catch the deception in this pitch?

For only $199 you will lose all the weight you can? I’m sure you see the problem with this wording. So did the Federal Trade Commission (PDF).

If you don’t lose any weight, then this would be all the weight you can lose. See? NutriSystem didn’t lie – you DID lose all the weight you can – now pay $199!!

One more quick example and i’ll move on to global warming . . .


loan_250pxThis used car salesman on the right. Is he guaranteeing you a loan or is he promising to accept your loan application (so he can toss it into the round file)? There’s a big difference.

How about car dealerships that promise “guaranteed credit” or “cash for all trade-ins!”

Do these sales pitches sound like you will get all the credit you need to buy your dream car and maximum dollars for your used car trade-in? Or do they really mean you’ll get $5 of credit at 25% interest and a whopping $10 for your used car trade-in?

Words mean things. How words are used, misused or not used at all (conspicuous by their absence), also has meaning and can give us a glimpse into the motives behind the words.


I was going through some global warming articles about a week ago and i found this statistic in an article from LiveScience.com:

63pct

My gut finds this statistic hard to believe. It just seems too high compared to other polls i’ve seen in the last few years on the same subject. Two years ago it was reported to be about 50%, now it’s reported at 63%? We haven’t seen any warming in over 15 years and the belief in global warming has climbed? Time to investigate.

So i found the survey upon which this statistic is based (Download the PDF) and i found something interesting on page 34 – the definition of global warming as it was defined for the respondents of this latest survey (November 2013):

GW definition

For the purpose of responding to this survey, there are 3 criteria to consider to determine if you are a global warming believer:

  1. If temperatures have increased over the last 150 years,
  2. future temperatures may increase, and
  3. the worlds climate may change as a result.

Recall the “50% off” sign, the NutriSystem ad and the used car salesman ad at the top of this article. Now look at the wording in the above three criteria. There is one word that renders two of the three criteria completely meaningless.

Do you see it?

The weasel word is “may” in the second and third criteria.

“May” is synonymous with “optional” – something may, OR may NOT, occur.

Thus the three criteria above and these three criteria below are exactly the same from a logic standpoint:

  1. If temperatures have increased over the last 150 years,
  2. future temperatures may OR may NOT increase, and
  3. the worlds climate may OR may NOT change.

With the second and third criterias rendered meaningless, the question of whether global warming is real comes down to one, single question:

  • Have temperatures increased over the last 150 years?

As reported in my last global warming article, this is the temperature record for the last 150 years:

The Record_600px

Like asking if the earth is round, answering the question “Have temperatures increased in the last 150 years?” comes down to a simple, objective, recitation of fact:

  • Yes, the squiggly line is higher on the right side of the graph than it is on the left side of the graph.

Because neither the definition used to assess the answer to the question nor the question itself asks the respondent to consider anything beyond the vertical movement of the squiggly line, the answer to the question cannot be construed as agreeing with the more expansive definition of global warming and the theoretical causes:

GlobalWarmingDefinition


The following screen shots are from the actual survey. These are the only two places in the survey where they mention the results of the global warming question talked about directly above in the previous section. Note the use of the phrase “global warming.”
survey02

Continuing my review of the survey, i noticed something else interesting:

  • NONE of the questions contain the words “climate change.” EVERY question asks only about “global warming.”

livescience03

Why is this interesting and notable?

Look again at the quote from the LiveScience.com article (image to the right).

LiveScience and many other news outlets reported 63% of those surveyed believe in climate change.

This little switcharoo in terminology is not benign, it’s important because global warming is NOT the same as climate change:

definitions02_600px

Global warming is basically defined as the squiggly line rising with a bunch of causes and effects attached.

Climate change, on the other hand, is an effect of global warming and is an enormous expansion of the global warming definition to include all conceivable weather (and some non-weather) events.

Some how, acknowledging the squiggly line has gone up over the last 150 years has been turned into an agreement not only on the reasons for the squiggly line rising (the causes of global warming), but it is now twisted into an agreement on how that rise is causing all weather (and some non-weather) events on the planet earth.

This is a flow chart i made to visualize how a simple acknowledgement of the rising squiggly line at the top dominoes into an agreement with everything on the global warming menu:


flip-coinFlipping a coin and declaring “heads we win, tails you lose!”

This is how the global warming/climate change argument works. They can’t lose the bet.

Here’s what i mean . . .

According to the global warming alarmists, these are the current or future effects of global warming/climate change:

Here’s a two headed coin for you: Things that are causes AND effects of global warming:

Note: Download a zipped file of all sources for the above list (22 PDF files).

See?

“Heads they win, tails you lose!”

Like magic.

“But Mason,” you ask, “what about the correlation between the warmer temperatures and the CO2 levels?”

I think more of us need to become pirates!

:)

Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)

P.S. For your enjoyment, a few non-weather related problems that global warming and climate change have already caused, or will be causing:

Note: Download a zipped file of all sources for the above list (8 PDF files).


Posted in: Educational, Global Warming, Science. Tagged: 63%, 63% agree, avalanches, cloud cover, Droughts, earthquakes, Floods, Glaciers, Global Warming, hurricanes, Ice sheets, Ice sheets Growing, Ice sheets Shrinking, increased, LiveScience, LiveScience.com, Melting, Melting Glaciers, NutriSystem, ocean, poll, Polls, rainfall, sea levels, survey, temperature record, temperatures, temperatures increased, Volcanoes.

3 comments on “Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose.

  1. Pingback: Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose. | Illuminutti

  2. Pingback: Top Ten Good Skeptical Arguments (Global Warming) | Illuminutti

  3. Pingback: Global Warming: “POP!” goes the weasels! | Illuminutti

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s