Bringing Climate Change Criticism to a Green Energy Company

[lbnuke]

I recently read the mises.org article that Stef read in this video about climate change in 12 minutes. I had heard the podcast before, but the article provides graphical representations of both the model supporting the case FOR climate change, the model for the case in OPPOSITION to climate change (man-made, global-warming, etc.), and the actual data. I found this article to be concise and efficient at explaining where the case FOR climate change falls flat on its face. While I don't know enough about CO2 emissions and their link to temperature rise on Earth (air, atmospheric, ground, or ocean temps) to say I have an opinion either way, I don't think the link to temp rise is causal with CO2.

 

Howevet, that's not the point of my post.

 

I work for a company that specializes in renewable energy certification, technical and contract review, and estimates that support funding for renewable energy projects. As such, many of the people that I work with, and come in contact with, on a daily basis, have drunk the climate-ade and mock people that are skeptical of the conclusions. This verbally occurs at meetings with mocking tone and laughing by most, but not all.

 

A top technical expert in our field recently attended an internal program that presented some of the conclusions of the big data analysis regarding climate change and those conclusions painted a doom and gloom scenario for our world, of course, which left some of the people, specifically in the group I work, feeling down, depressed, angry, and motivated to do something. Quite a mix of emotions.

 

So, in an effort to help bring some light to the situation, I thought of sharing this article with my co-workers, those I work with on a daily basis, with hopes of presenting the alternative to the mainstream opinion for the sake of discussion and perhaps bringing some relief to a gloomy scenario presented by the case FOR climate change.

 

Even now, when I type this, I get nervous thinking about sending that email out and what the consequences are for me within my colleague circles at work. Stef has discussed and is very key in pointing out that it is the slaves that monitor each other and that it's horizontal, not vertical, social forces that influence our decision making more. However, I was also motivated by one of Stef's recent podcasts encouraging us to reach out, speak with reason and evidence, curiosity, and humility about these things.

 

I wanted to share this because of the experience of myself internally. Some of the thoughts I have or questions to myself include:

• why do I do what I do professionally (I'm a civil/structural/electrical engineer specializing in solar energy)?
• does working for this company and doing what I do professionally present a value separation or disagreement within me?
• if I send this out to my team, what will their responses be?
• will sending out this article affect my professional future?

Any feedback is appreciated.

[Mister Mister]

that's really interesting.  I commend you to being open to new facts.  I have found that most people, though if you really press them, will admit that they don't understand the science, have a strong bias against any criticism of this subject.  I think this is for two main reasons: the "Growth Panic" phenomena, whereby people are uneasy with success, civilization, wealth, and technology, and have an almost religious conviction that it must be fundamentally wrong somehow for people to build stuff, improve our lives, and change the Earth in the process.  The other is that I think Academia functions as a kind of Church for the Left, and if academic consensus loses its authority, the Left loses a lot of power.

 

the real challenge you will face in my opinion, is that most people are driven more by economic self-interest than by any dedication to the truth and reason.  But at the same time, most people can't admit this.  So they may respond instead by trying to make you feel bad.

[A4E]

In your post, are you one of those who are sceptical and is being laughed at?

 

If so, I do not recommend linking to an article. It will look like you are defending yourself, which automatically puts the burden on you, and you will just receive more ridicule and condemnation. Sure a low percentage will actually read the first 10 words in the article, and have a few braincells awoken, but the status quo'ers will continue to dismiss you, or attack you. I don't think linking to it will have much negative impact on your relationship with them, because it shows that you are not scared of stirring things up, which earns some respect, but as I noted, and from my own experience, you will definitely look like you are desperately trying to defend your viewpoint.

 

Such an approach is commendable, but it is not effective, as I and many others can attest to.

 

The great hidden secret sauce of demolishing illusions is that it is those with the original claim that needs to defend themselves. I've just recently started switching my failed strategy to the effective approach, which is putting the burden where it belongs. People in the wrong are very unlikely to rethink their position, (unless it is one of those rare souls who are open to new information). That is not the kind of result you are looking for. The victory is where you ask a question, and it is followed by slander towards you. Quote: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -Socrates

 

When this happens I will just recognize that I have won, and that there is no point following up with anything, as they have clearly expressed that they are not willing to be open to the matter.

 

If light ridicule is their first answer, then you could point out that it is an important matter which affects people significantly, and that you hope the person will take it seriously. Then ask again. If you then get a "Your crazy.", you have won, and the person made it clear that he is not going to take you seriously.

 

Here is an example of the effective method, but you could do it in any way you want of course:

 

Also you are unlikely to grow the same sized balls as Christopher Monckton, so I don't think you need to worry about your workplace:

[AccuTron]

They won't listen.  (At least they won't admit it out loud.)

You will be the enemy.  You will be a dangerous psycho because you say insane things.  (Given that they will refuse to even look, then the truth can't get in the way of saying so.)

This is standard behavior.  

As RoseCodex points out, you are threatening their paychecks, because their paychecks are largely based upon fraud.  Therefore, you must be insane.

You will be appalled at people you formerly respected.

You are working in merely one office suite within the vast complex of The Well Appointed Gulag, and if you raise your head to speak, your career body will be dumped in a cold pit.

Do your job, get paid, and look for those who value truth outside of where you work.