This is a climate change lesson plan. Pretty much all you need to know in nice simple Bruce-like words.
As I said in Global Warning Part 1 I am an unequivocal global warming skeptic.
Here’s the deal.
I am going to do them a favor and show all the climatologists <note: I never even knew there was such a thing as a climatologist until this entire climategate email thing and global warming/climate change discussion> how they can get me off the skeptic “no action ignore the buzz” space to skeptic “I am going to start doing my part” space.
The reported sections below are actual published statements.
REPORTED: Several polls indicate that all these email and scientist disagreements <crap> have contributed to a growing skepticism of climate science in the USA. In a national poll of 1,000 likely voters released last month by Rasmussen Reports, just 35% of respondents said they believed human activity was primarily responsible for global warming, down from 47% in April 2008.
“Primarily responsible.” One would have to be nuts to think we <people> are primarily responsible. All they have to do is change it to “significantly contribute to global warming” and maybe point out that the last time the good ole globe had a climate swing that there were maybe 2 billion people and now we have 6+ billion <so possibly the people impact may be more significant>.
Seems like an easy leap for me to get there.
REPORTED: Mead says the backlash has been especially strong because many politicians in the USA and elsewhere had said the content of the IPCC report was “unequivocal” and used it to support legislation that could dramatically alter the way the world produces and consumes energy.
In business, if your primary source for your recommendation becomes invalid you are screwed.
I get that.
Production and consumption are two different things.
In the energy consumption world most of us little folk are sheep. In other words … I will use what you give me.
Please stop talking to me about “dramatically altering the way I consume energy.”
<note: unless you have figured out a way to make energy bars stop tasting like chalk.
Those kinds of words kind of scare me and make me look for objections to changing.
And if you stop scaring me with change shit … the reality in the big energy scheme of things is me, as a person, won’t have to do shit but buy whatever the producer happens to be offering.
Who trusts politicians anyway? “unequivocal.”
From a politician? Yeah. Right.
REPORTED: “The fundamental problem is that these scientists are asking people to change the way the entire world’s economy works based on what they’re telling us.”
So scientists are asking businesses <that are made up of people> to change the way they do things so that maybe the world is a better place to live.
Scientists are asking people to consider doing some things they are currently doing differently so that maybe the world is a better place to live.
What’s the big deal? <part 1>
Regardless of environmental issues is anyone debating that these new energy source ideas aren’t better for the world? Is anybody questioning that using recyclable material is better for the world?
Anyway … the key word is “consider.” Scientists are not asking us to do anything. They are simply providing information so that we can judge what to do.
All this finger waggling <good visual there, huh?> at scientists is simply a way to deflect the real discussion.
What’s the big deal ? <part 2>
The world economy will be fine. Current companies <production & producers> are pissed at climatologists because they will have to change.
And seeing the words “change economy” scares people <but it shouldn’t because while media makes a big deal out of it the world’s economy changes all the time>.
In fact … if someone actually listens to the scientists … some entrepreneur out there is already chomping at the bit to knock off some big stagnant profit bloated energy company.
REPORTED: “Global Warming” (the words)
For lack of a better phrase <at this time> we are stuck with this pairing of words – this is an unreasonable suggestion … but – throw it away.
There is no bigger fuckup in this world than the way we mangle the environment.
Maybe think of it this way .. The world is going to hell in a hand basket and we are focused on global warming “causes”.
How nuts is that?
With all the ways we have to help combat “environment mangling” <which leads to pollution, global warming/cooling/climate change/whatever, diminishing resources, social security bankruptcy … oops .. wrong post> somehow people are STILL arguing over what caused global warming in the first place.
Does it really matter who or what is to blame?
While no one is 100% sure exactly what caused global temperature changes, I think we can all agree that humans have only added to the problems and we have to believe we have sped the process along. The fact is that climate change may result from both natural and human causes. Accept your part of the responsibility <even if you only want to accept a sliver>.
So now what?
What is the downside to developing more environmentally responsible energy sources and have more environmentally responsible individual habits?
<none … is the answer to that rhetorical question>