White House tries rebranding global warming

Week Three: Ninth Anniversary Fund-Raising Drive for Behind the Black

It is now the third week in my annual anniversary fund-raising campaign for Behind the Black.

Please consider donating. I am trying to avoid advertising on this website, but will be forced to add it if I do not get enough support from my readers. You can give a one-time contribution, from $5 to $100, or a regular subscription for as little as $2 per month. Your support will be deeply appreciated, and will allow me to continue to report on science and culture freely.

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Rather than address the many questions people have about climate research (questionable research, unclear data, corrupt scientists), the White House has come up with a much better approach: Change the name of “global warming” to “global climate disruption.” Now, doesn’t that explain everything?


One comment

  • Chris L.

    I started questioning the whole AGW idea when global warming advocates started calling it “climate change”. It smelled a bit too much like PR (as in propaganda) and made any change in climate (what we used to call weather) “proof” they are right. At that point, AGW became an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *