Friday, October 14, 2011

The End of the Climate Change Debate

As the smartest guy in the world and I'd like to once and for all put to rest the "Climate Change Debate". So, what is the answer? Is humanity the cause of climate change or not? Where do I stand? Well, I’m not saying because IT DOESN’T MATTER! 

Of course, I’m kidding about being the smartest guy in the world, but I would like to and think we can put this to rest because for the life of me I can't understand why we are collectively allowing ourselves to be duped into having it. 

Consider an analogy: Expectant parents are about to give birth and they know they will have to buy diapers for the baby. However, one parent introduces the question of whether the pooping will be a result of eating or digesting. They inexplicably and irresponsibly decide they aren’t going to buy diapers until they resolve the question. The debate starts, the debate never ends! And still shit happens!  Would that be a rational exercise that benefits the child? Of course not! These parents would be considered unfit to raise the child. Similarly, anyone (politicians, lobbyists, the public) who insists on coming to a consensus on the Climate Change Debate before we clean up our act is unfit to have any say in anything. They should have to don the Dunce Cap and sit silently in the corner.

Ultimately, the only rational answer to the debate is to end it immediately and take care of the situation which is a clear and present danger. A clear a consensus on climate change is far from being reached, not so in understanding that action needs to be taken regardless. Is there any likelihood of finding a single sane person on the planet who believes that pollution (emissions, fossil fuels, etc) is not detrimental to our well being? I think not! The debate is nothing short of moot. 

Ostensibly we are having the Climate Change Debate as means to an end, to bring about positive effectual change. But the Climate Change Debate is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, a classic divide and conquer technique designed to stymie useful and desperately needed action (undoubtedly perpetrated by those who stand to lose if change is enacted).  Pollution is bad. We know this. As a rational and conscientious race of supposedly intelligent beings we should not allow ourselves to be distracted and derailed from solving a problem that undeniably needs to be addressed at once. Pollution of every kind is toxic to our welfare. Whether or not it also tweaks the Earth’s thermostat is a completely unnecessary fact in deciding to reverse the damage we know is being done.  Are we seriously going to continue to debate the unacceptability of temperature change all the while ignoring the unacceptability of suffering cancers and illnesses caused by the degradation of our water, land and air? At the risk of being unconscionably adversarial, if you are still on the fence, I suggest asking a child and following their advice. Or better yet, find a homeless person and trade them some spare change for some common sense. 

 If we must debate I suggest it is infinitely more productive to focus our debate on whether or not we should be having the climate change debate. Clearly I’m taking the negative position. I sincerely welcome challengers.