Polarize Chaps

Yesterday, John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, threatened to chuck a lawsuit at Al Gore to, and I quote, “finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.” At first glance, this guy sounds like a crackpot with a vendetta and a frivolous lawsuit – well, on second and third glance, too. BUT, the lawsuit could help clarify the innards of the carbon offset market – something I don’t care to delve into.

“Then what the hell do you care about,” you might ask.

Polarity. Not north or south polarity, but the stridency of global warmists and skeptics.

Let’s tackle the patchouli-caked global warming alarmists first. This might rub some folks the wrong way, but hear me out. I recently strolled through memory lane and dug up some fodder from Fern Bluff Elementary in Round Rock, Texas - something I’ve generally avoided. I seem to recall the swath of elementary school campaigns imploring youngsters to prevent the eradication of the rainforest – save paper, save wood, kill a beaver, etc. – or else…BAM! Mad Max in 20 years. Ironically, we’ve pretty much eradicated the campaign against the eradication of the rainforest. In due time, people went about, slogging through the minutia of average Joe-ness until the next five-alarm fire.

[Cue daunting crescendo]

Global Warmings. How often do you hear the rainforest siren today? It’s this pinball effect of global catastrophe campaigns that gives rise to skepticism. Ergo, people feel like they’ve been duped by the shrill clarion of the eschaton when the world doesn’t perish, and are less inclined to roll along with the next call to arms. I’m certainly not denying the reality of rainforest dissipation, but alarmism pisses jingoistic Americans off. It’s like saying someone can beat America at the game of war. This is best characterized by Robbie DeNiro’s classic, “Fuck me?! Fuck you!” line. Now you’ve pissed off the people who not only won’t listen, they’ve actively sought to form the opposition voice –

“There’s no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. Climate is cyclical. Your track record of predicting catastrophic events is abysmal.”

Ultimately, this creates an unnecessary war (yes, another one) that altogether misses the point. Conservation and moderation are virtues. Go on and drive your car, but consider a more efficient vehicle or a more efficient route. Recycle, save, moderate, take it easy with the waste you twit. If you’re on board the warming train, your rationale can be the protection of our ample-bosomed Mother Earth. If you’re among the skeptics, your rationale can be the protection of your wallet. Shit. Take simple economics. Very simple economics. Supply and demand. The more gas we consume, the more we need. The more we need, the less available. The less available, the more expensive. The more expensive, the more anger. The more anger, the lower stock market. The lower stock market, the more blowhards.

Which leads me to John Gordon of Round Rock, Texas. Gordon narrowly dropped the contest for state representative on a…wait for it…PRO-GLOBAL WARMING platform. He’s not even debating the merits of each side, he’s fucking pro-global warming, for completely un-superficial reasons: more beaches. I’m serious. Yes, punch yourself to make sure it's real.

So, to hell with the divisive language of the apocalypse, conserve for the sake of the economy, the planet, the beaches, whatever it takes. It’s unnecessary to ram red-hot metal pokers up each other’s asses just so one side can claim symbolic victory.

UPDATE

I just heard a report from Meeechelle (what’s with the enunciation) Norris on NPR concerning the toxicity of China’s air, and the steps going forward to remedy the filth before the Summer Olympics. Essentially, the Chinese subjugate the misnomer of “global warming” in favor of the concept of conservation. It’s a positive approach to a ubiquitous malady.