Pajamas Media’s PJTV has a new 26 minute video interview with Lord Christopher Monckton. Al Gore was discussed, of course, and specifically mentioned was Al Gore’s “doubling down” on man-made climate change via his blizzard of lies op-ed he wrote for the compliant New York Times. However, in my opinion the “doubling down” analogy is a weak one. Doubling down is a strategy that is used in blackjack, and is done when playing from a positon of strength rather than weakness, e.g. when a player is dealt a ten or an eleven, or when the dealer is showing a very weak hand to your own nine:
Double Down: double your initial bet following the initial two-card deal, but you can hit one card only. A good bet if the player is in a strong situation.
On the other hand, “going all in” is a more apt analogy for the collapsing global warming movement. “Going all in” is a poker term, and is a strategy that is generally employed out of weakness or desperation:
This is often the act of desperation, when a player is close to being eliminated from the game.
It has become apparent to anyone who is paying attention, i.e. global temperatures decreasing for a decade, Climategate, Amazongate, et. al., that the hand of cards that Al Gore and the rest of the alarmists are holding is not a strong one. Therefore, when Al Gore penned his NY Times op-ed, “We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change“, he was certainly employing the more desperate “going all in” poker strategy, rather than “doubling down” on a strong hand as is done in blackjack.
Possibly Related Posts:
- “Global warming without warming”: Global warming realism leads mainstream newspaper above the fold
- Video: DeSmogBlogger Chris Mooney admits, “You have the rise of the blogosphere, where global warming denial is actually running rampant, and I think it’s totally got us whupped”
- New Chevy commercial features new Volt owner: “I’ve found that the fire really helps me get to my destination faster, for fear of my life”
- Arctic native ribbon seal swims to Seattle to escape global cooling
- From the Climategate 2.0 files: CRU scientist admits ‘…”our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.’