I was struck recently by the release of a scientific report that said that one of the effects of Global Warming "could" be a decrease in the number of hurricanes that hit the US. The reason that this information had such a profound effect on me was not that it might mean getting some good out of the doom and gloom preaching on global warming. It was instead curiosity, since Al Gore had told us in "An Inconvenient Truth" that global warming would increase the number and severity of hurricanes. It made me wonder how both could be true. After pondering this poser for some time, I realized that both statements only talked about what "could" happen and not the realities of what will happen in the future.
WOW!
In a moment of sanity and clarity (which seem to come about as often as the recent February 29th), I realized that if this were the case, then anyone can comment on the possibilities and anything is possible. With that in mind, I take up my trusty keyboard, place tongue firmly in cheek, and attempt to do so for the enlightenment and amusement of those who read this.
- If Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS would take off all of the talking head segments on their shows (especially during election years) that try to interpret the news instead of just reporting it, the resultant reduction of carbon dioxide "could" begin to reverse the effects of global warming and save the planet. (As a side benefit, there would also be a savings to landfills passed on through a reduced use of duct tape to keep our heads from exploding.)
- If the Federal government mandated the use of anti-gas tablets for all US residents, the resultant decrease in methane emissions "could" seriously reduce our carbon footprint.
(You will please note that I said residents and not citizens. Without attempting to appear racist or get into side issue, some ethnic foods produce more gas than others. White Castles, unfortunately for me, would simply have to be banned as a bio-health hazard.)
- If Congress would limit the length of floor speeches to 90 seconds (which is after all considered long enough for the answer to a question in a political debate), global warming in the US "could" be reduced significantly from a simple lowering in hot air production.
- If Al Gore and Michael Moore would make only one copy of the movies that they produce and just show them over and over again, we "could" significantly reduce the oil used in film, video tape, and plastic DVD disc production. (Better still, they could either recycle their movies before showing them, or simply not make them in the first place.)
- If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie would adopt children in this country instead of flying half-way across the world to find their latest offspring, the resulting reduction in greenhouse gases "could" reduce the number and severity of typhoons in the Far East.
- If grocery stores would go back to the use of paper bags instead of the plastic, it "could" have a significant impact on the environment. Not only is paper a more renewable material than plastic, since it uses trees and not oil; but the process might encourage the planting of trees, one of the planets natural filters. Such new timber stands in the US "could" make the US self-sustaining in grocery bag production and might also help the planet recover from the the increases in carbon dioxide production and the decimation of the Amazon rain forest.
- If everyone would just drink tap beer, the world "could" significantly reduce the energy costs and environmental damage done by the manufacture and use of bottles and cans that would be otherwise used. (Personally, I suggest Guinness; but I'm just saying...)
- If everyone on the planet would just become Amish and go back to horse-drawn carriages, then the effect of carbon emissions and greenhouse gases "could" be reversed (in about a thousand years). Besides, I really like the hats.
4 comments:
Verbs are also often accompanied by verb-like words called modals (may, could, should, etc.) and auxiliaries(do, have, will, etc.) to give them different meanings.
Much has been done with editing modals in the global warming debate. Most striking is the mincing of scientists' words.
When Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of National Climatic Data Center, appeared before the House Oversight Committee, his testimony was heavily edited by both White House officials and political appointees at the Commerce Department. He was not allowed to say in his written testimony that “modern climate change is dominated by human influences,” that “we are venturing into the unknown territory with changes in climate,” or that “it is very likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are largely responsible for many of the observed changes in climate.” His assertion that global warming “is playing” a role in increased hurricane intensity became “may play.”
-Curious
While tongue in cheek, you bring me to something i try to remember (like every four yrs it works lol) about taking everything I read with a grain of salt! Thanks
Carole,
I can't help but agree with you, though I came up with two slightly different ways to say it:
• Any statement handed out as fact should be treated with a healthy does of skepticism.
• Anyone who tells you that they “understand” something is trying to sell you a book.
Keep a sense of the ridiculous, it may be the only thing that saves you.
Anonymous,
I believe in the concept of climate change. It has been going on since the world was formed billions of years ago and will continue until the planet becomes a burned out cinder. I likewise believe that human beings have had "some" impact on the environment.
The rhetoric and parsing by so-called experts has gotten out of control however, and someone needs to put it in some perspective. I don't believe that I am the best one to do it; but a village idiot, like a court jester, must tell truth to power.
Post a Comment