Over the years, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve resisted the trappings of the ongoing zeitgeist of the day in favor of the ongoing preservation of my sanity. As such, you’ll find that I apply my perception of life as we know it through a particular paradigm which doesn’t waiver.
When I’m presented with a premise, be it new or old, I subject it to parameters which I know to be true and then make an assessment. Based on the performance of said premise within those parameters, I subsequently accept it or reject it.
Easy as that.
As you may know, I’ve never been one to subscribe to the thought that human activity here on God’s Green Earth is a harbinger of our collective Blue Screen of Death.
You should know that my opinion has been modified in the last year or so.
The modifications conform to my outlook on life, so my sanity for the time being reigns supreme in perpetuity.
Until it doesn’t.
The discussion about climate change is the embodiment of Schrodinger’s cat for me. There is plenty of well-reasoned evidence on both sides of the discussion to persuade me into believing one approach over the other.
At the same time, there is plenty of poorly developed evidence on both sides of the discussion to demand me to call bullshit on the argument.
The discussion of how much of an impact we’re having on the climate boils down to the status of the cat in the box.
So what do we do?
That’s more of a metaphor than it is a suggested solution to Schrodinger’s cat.
I’ve come to believe that we’re at an impasse with the discussion about man-made climate change. In the end, we’ll never really know whether we’re to blame if and when things go sideways on us. The planet has too many processes and systems in place which transcend our ability to fully understand our impact (or lack thereof) on our climate.
So why not dispense with the discussion and move on to other things?
One side of the climate change discussion says that we’re generally screwed if we continue to use fossil fuels.
The other side of the same discussion rejects the argument and asserts that our use of fossil fuels is more effective than any of the other suggested forms of energy.
The key is to identify a form of energy which solves both sides of the discussion.
More often than not, whenever I have a problem before me which refuses to be solved, I will start over. I throw all of the elements of the problem into a proverbial box, shake it up, and dump them out.
This method forces me to take a different approach of finding a solution for the problem at hand.
I used this approach with ugly math problems in my college days.
I’ve used it for years at work.
I use it here at home with the budget.
I’ve even used it while composing this particular installment of verbal brilliance.
I’m suggesting we use this process now to solve the climate change question. We have several elements of a problem that we’re not quite sure how to solve. For that matter, we can’t even agree it’s a problem.
So let’s take a different approach.
I’m talking about nuclear, people.
Ladies and gentlemen, are you aware that Generation IV nuclear reactors are not subject to meltdown and can feed off of nuclear waste?
Clean burnin’ nucular (my term) could be used to replace our need for fossil fuels.
Clean burnin’ nucular (again, my term) would resolve our concerns about what we’re doing to the environment.
Clean burnin’ nucular (do I have to say it again) would put an end to all of the stupid discussions we’ve had about climate change over the years, and help us to refocus our efforts on more productive behavior.
But don’t take my word for it.
Git ‘r’ done, y’all.
