Mar 03

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.

7 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


One Response to “Doubling down vs. going all in: Card playing strategy and the man-made global warming movement”

  1. […] Greens are going ‘All-in’, but we can see right through their po-po-po-PO-PO-po-poker faces.  Groovy. […]


preload preload preload