Climate of Denial

Share this post...

Submit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Steel Cage Death Match: Climate Change Science vs. Corporate-Inspired Denial
(But what if we choose a third option?)
by Mickey Z.
Perhaps the best illustration of deeply engrained corporate values is the cottage industry of global warming deniers. Humans beings living on a poisoned and overheated planet but choosing to say it's just not our fault.

In a recent article, a group of American scientists "with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems" set out to "assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions." In the name of setting the record straight and turning the tide of public opinion, the scientists declare:

"The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process."

 
[For complete article reference links, please see source at Planet Green here.]
 
The Seat Belt Supposition

Wake Up Call: To get bogged down in debating the minute details of climate science is to miss the point...big time. If we simply choose to do the right thing, everyone (except corpulent corporations) wins. To paraphrase an old Hebrew proverb: "When faced with two options, choose the third." So, once again, I offer my Seat Belt Supposition:

What if all those ardent global warming deniers are correct? That's where seat belts come in. While some of us fasten our seat belts to avoid getting a ticket, many more do so as a safety measure (what some might call a "preemptive strike"). We don't wait until we see another vehicle spinning out of control to snap the seat belt into place. We fasten it upon entering a car. It can be a little uncomfortable to wear, but if we arrive at our destination without needing that seat belt, we typically don't regret using it. To apply this same mentality to climate change—to be unconcerned whether or not the human role in global warming is overstated—would be to live with a vision for the future. The only players with a vested interest in the status quo are those who profit off our indifference and our conspicuous consumption, so why not alter our lifestyle as if our very existence were hanging in the balance? To accept this challenge would be to overcome corporate propaganda—something we can feel good about on its own.  
 

Share this post...

Submit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn