Friday, June 16, 2006

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!!


Anonymous Mark said...

I don't think the current debate has so much to do with whether environmentalists "invented" global warming, but rather the claim that mankind/industry is responsible for the current trends.

as far as motive :
1. The "green" industries (alternative fuels, hybrid engines) are just as ripe for economic gain as the oilmen are.

2. Moral highground, or political influence.

3. Funding for their foundations.

4. Putting handcuffs on the free market system they detest. (I'm not implying that all environmentalists are socialistic, just could be the motive for some...)


9:08 AM

Anonymous Chadwick said...

"Putting handcuffs on the free market system they detest??????????"

Seriously. D'you get that from Bill O'Reilly?

As for the "current" debate not being whether the environmentalists invented global warming, it WAS the debate until every scientific body in the galaxy showed the all-American, true hearted champions of honest, free market economy to be the total chodes that they are.

Whether global warming is a natural trend or by product of pollution is a legitimate scientific debate worthy of being pursued by scientists not on the payroll of Exxon.

Also, anyone mentioning free market anything is immediately disqualified from the debate.

8:33 AM

Blogger karen said...

Choad is the proper spelling, by the way.
Like toad, only nastier.

1:10 PM

Anonymous Chadwick said...

According to several online resources I checked (the information on the internet is always the most accurate) "chode" is a perfectly cromulent spelling.

8:17 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home