That would be the point of naming them in such a fashion. What type of evidence and how much time is necessary to prove it has created the desired change?

But "Molecules of Freedom" and "Freedom Gas" were both brought up with regards to exporting natural gas. They had nothing to do with climate change.

So please explain how it's hypocritical.

What's even funnier is that it's hypocritical from the other side as well. Trumps opposition, who's hardcore about political correctness, see's this, and bashes Trump and his administration for using political correctness.

But "Molecules of Freedom" and "Freedom Gas" were both brought up with regards to exporting natural gas. They had nothing to do with climate change.

But "Molecules of Freedom" and "Freedom Gas" were both brought up with regards to exporting natural gas. They had nothing to do with climate change.

I didn't think it needed to be said due to how obvious it is.
But the far-right, Trump included generally whinges about political correctness... And then goes ahead and promotes political correctness because it fits in with their narrative.

Indeed, Trumps opponents who typically promote Political Correctness are being a little hypocritical as well.
I'm not one of them though. :P

Yeah. I don't think it will impact climate change efforts from either side.
The worst it will do is paint fossil fuels in a slightly more positive light for your average Patriot.

I think we are at that tipping point where the science is pretty solid on how fossil fuels affect climate, renaming a few things isn't likely to undermine that a great deal going forward.

Two planes fly into two skyscrapers...

'Ah, nothing to look into here. Just a couple pilots who made a mistake. No biggy'... 'Terrorism? That's absurd, obviously that's not what happened. How do you explain them getting into the country, getting on the planes, getting control of the planes, veering way off course, avoiding the air force, and crashing them into those two specific buildings?'

'Oh... well then... who would have thought?'...

You can't make this stuff up.  I wish this were an Onion story but it's not and it's...I don't even know what it is.

The US Department of Energy has "rebranded" the terms fossil fuels and natural gas.

"Increasing export capacity from the Freeport [liquid natural gas] project is critical to spreading freedom gas"
- U.S. Undersecretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes.

“With the US in another year of record-setting natural gas production, I am pleased that the Department of Energy is doing what it can to promote an efficient regulatory system that allows for molecules of US freedom to be exported to the world,”
-US Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Steven Winberg.

"I didn't think it needed to be said due to how obvious it is.
But the far-right, Trump included generally whinges about political correctness... And then goes ahead and promotes political correctness because it fits in with their narrative."

>But this isn't Trump we're talking about: Mark W. Menezes and Steven Winberg are NOT Trump.

What are you getting at?

Now let's include the rest of the quotes:

"Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy. Further, more exports of U.S. LNG to the world means more U.S. jobs and more domestic economic growth and cleaner air here at home and around the globe,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes, who highlighted the approval at the Clean Energy Ministerial in Vancouver, Canada. “There’s no doubt today’s announcement furthers this Administration’s commitment to promoting energy security and diversity worldwide."

"Approval of additional LNG exports from Freeport LNG furthers this Administration’s commitment to promoting American energy, American jobs, and the American economy. Further, increased supplies of U.S. natural gas on the world market are critical to advancing clean energy and the energy security of our allies around the globe. With the U.S. in another year of record-setting natural gas production, I am pleased that the Department of Energy is doing what it can to promote an efficient regulatory system that allows for molecules of U.S. freedom to be exported to the world,"

https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-authorizes-additional-lng-exports-freeport-lng

I feel there's a context that has been removed in your original quotations.

From Slate: "Freedom gas. It appears that turn of phrase originated earlier this month, when Secretary of Energy Rick Perry signed an order aimed at doubling U.S. liquefied natural gas shipments to Europe. At a press briefing in Brussels, he explained that the move would help European nations diversify their energy supply away from Russia, the region’s major supplier of gas. “The United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” he said. “And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquefied natural gas.” Afterward, a cheeky reporter from EURACTIV asked whether “freedom gas” would be a correct way to describe the new fuel shipments. “I think you may be correct in your observation,” an apparently inspired Perry responded."

It's not Trump directly but you would think Trump would've been against it. It's possible he was and let it go. He can be controlling but is also a businessman and realizes you can't win them all, and to let them go, especially if it's small pea's. He also has been using lefty tactics and politics against their implementor's, so it's possible it was done on purpose. Hard to say.

I'm saying just because they haven't said or hinted that it has to do with climate change as well, doesn't mean it wasn't taken into account, and in time, it's probably likely we will find out if that was the case. The name change is fairly recent so time would be necessary to find out if there is more to it or not. Maybe it isn't and is a wasted opportunity for the fuel interests. Hard to say.

"The name change is fairly recent so time would be necessary to find out if there is more to it or not."

>Well so far, the Department of Energy still refers to fossil energy as fossil energy.

https://www.energy.gov/fe/about-fossil-energy

It's not Trump directly but you would think Trump would've been against it. It's possible he was and let it go. He can be controlling but is also a businessman and realizes you can't win them all, and to let them go, especially if it's small pea's. He also has been using lefty tactics and politics against their implementor's, so it's possible it was done on purpose. Hard to say.

I'm saying just because they haven't said or hinted that it has to do with climate change as well, doesn't mean it wasn't taken into account, and in time, it's probably likely we will find out if that was the case. The name change is fairly recent so time would be necessary to find out if there is more to it or not. Maybe it isn't and is a wasted opportunity for the fuel interests. Hard to say.

Even with the context, still pretty stupid and it sounds like it should belong in an onion article.