schmotive, part 2

schmotive -

Function: noun

Etymology: prefix schm from the Yiddish, meaning "Who needs it?" (example: "Eat, schmeat! I'm in a hurry!"), from Latin motus, past participle of movEre, meaning to move.

Definition: Dismissive mention of the concept of something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act.

In case you couldn't tell from the last post, I'm not exactly a fan of our cultural obsession with scrutinizing motives. I started that whole business as an introduction to a post about An Inconvenient Truth. I'm running out of time so I'm just going to throw some questions out there for you to consider & hopefully respond to:

1. One criticism of this film is that it is an obvious play for the 2008 presidential race. Does that mean the content is invalid? Also, if someone sees a serious problem with the way energy policy is handled in this country and is terrified by the ramifications of it, aren't they obligated to run for public office so that they can change that policy? In other words, would Gore be less susceptible to this criticism if he gave these lectures and made this film and then just stood back and smirked at everybody about it?

2. People also accuse environmentalists and climate scientists of manipulating the facts to prove that global warming is happening. What do they gain from this? What is their motive for it? It seems obvious to me why oil companies and other people & organizations who rely on processes and materials that generate carbon emissions don't recognize this trend - it could mean devastation for their livelihoods. But if environmentalists "invented" global warming from whole cloth, what do they have to gain by it?

I also want to write about human nature in response to Chadwick's comment but alas, the hourglass is empty. Farewell! Until next time!!