Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I've never liked Dr. Luntz but I have always admired his mastery of words. I have read all his books as soon as they were released.

      I didn't like how he renamed what seemed to be clear legislation (Estate Tax) to something scary and misleading (Death Tax).

      He did that for global warming during the George W Bush years, calling it climate change because it was less threatening. He devised a strategy of claiming there wasn't scientific certainty.

      Anyway, to his credit he testified to the Senate that that was a lifetime ago and he was wrong. He has since used his mastery of words that few scientists possess for these suggestions:

      USE: Cleaner, safer, healthier.
      LOSE: Sustainable/sustainability.
      USE: Solving climate change.
      LOSE: Ending global warming.
      USE: Principles and priorities.
      LOSE: Values.
      USE: Reliable technology/energy.
      LOSE: Ground-breaking/State of the art.
      USE: New careers.
      LOSE: New jobs.
      USE: Peace of mind.
      LOSE: Security.
      USE: Consequences.
      LOSE: Threats/Problems.
      USE: Working together.
      LOSE: One world.

    • It’s also important to frame climate action as a “no-regrets strategy,” Luntz said. Legislation would lead to cleaner air, cleaner water, less dependence on foreign fuels, enhanced national security, and more innovation in our economy. “And that’s if the scientists are wrong,” he said. “If the scientists are right, we get all of those things and begin to solve what could be the most catastrophic environmental problem that any of us have ever faced … That’s why it’s the right thing to do.”

      He's good.