When you really, really, really need to just blow into a conversation with something totally different that most people really do not care about without sound like a Debbie Downer
‘How do I talk about climate change at social gatherings?’
A guide to bringing up the topic without turning into Debbie Downer.Dear Sara,
I feel an urge to talk about climate change bubbling up within me at social gatherings if people talk about trivial things like food or sports for too long. But it is always such a downer and I know people need a certain amount of time to feel safe and ordinary and relaxed.
Any advice on how to handle this and break through the “tyranny of politeness†that makes talking about climate – and many other serious issues – so awkward?
– Matt in Toronto
Matt sounds fun, and his Climarettes means he doesn’t get invited to many parties
Debbie Downer, the Saturday Night Live character played by comedian Rachel Dratch, can ruin anyone’s fun with just a few facts.
In a skit set at Disney World, for example, she announces to her family that she’s given up eating steak. “Ever since they found mad cow disease in the U.S., I’m not taking any chances,†she says. “It can live in your body for years before it ravages your brain.â€
Then, she further fouls the mood by reminding everyone that “if this greenhouse effect keeps up, we’ll all be living underwater.â€
Debbie’s not wrong for wanting to talk about climate change with loved ones, but the way she brings it up is utterly demoralizing. For guidance on what you can do differently, look to Peterson Toscano, a Pennsylvania-based performance artist who leads workshops on climate communication.
And the solution is comedy! You can talk about it in a comedy fashion! But, what if you’re not a professional comedian looking for applause instead of laughs?
Even if you’ve never taken an improv class, you can still look to comedy for lessons on speaking up about difficult topics.
The first step is to learn from Debbie Downer’s most crucial mistake: She doesn’t listen. Other people’s interests aren’t meaningful in their own right, only as cues for spouting dismal facts.
Good luck with getting Warmists to give up this. But, hey, you can tackle this from a different direction
To break out of that pattern, Toscano encourages people to consider why they care about climate change, beyond typical concerns about the environment and future generations. Ask yourself, how does climate change affect something that you feel personally passionate about?
Yes, how does it affect implementing lots of tax and fees and government controls on Other People?
“Yes, how does it affect implementing lots of tax and fees and government controls on Other People?”
I’ll tell you what is comedy gold: seeing Porter Good harp on this theme as though this were the only possible way to deal with climate change. It’s f##cking hilarious, lemme tell ya.
To implement such nonsense, let’s have a look at some real world (if we can call the Euros real) examples
income tax
Sweden 61.85%
Denmark 55.80%
Austria 55.00%
Belgium 53.70%
Netherlands 52.00%
Finland 51.60%
Slovenia 50.00%
Luxembourg 48.78%
Ireland 48.00%
Portugal 48.00%
Germany 47.50%
Iceland 46.30%
France 45.00%
Greece 45.00%
Spain 45.00%
United Kingdom 45.00%
Italy 43.00%
Switzerland 40.00%
sales tax
Hungary 27.00%
Denmark 25.00%
Norway 25.00%
Sweden 25.00%
Finland 24.00%
Greece 24.00%
Iceland 24.00%
Ireland 23.00%
Poland 23.00%
Portugal 23.00%
Italy 22.00%
European Union 21.50%
Belgium 21.00%
Netherlands 21.00%
Spain 21.00%
Austria 20.00%
France 20.00%
United Kingdom 20.00%
Germany 19.00%
gas/gallon w/ tax
Austria 4.77
Belgium 5.6
Finland 5.94
France 5.5
Germany 5.38
Greece 6.13
Hungary 4.69
Iceland 5.68
Ireland 5.68
Italy 6.44
Netherlands 6.93
Norway 7.04
Portugal 5.56
Spain 5.11
Sweden 6.09
Switzerland 5.30
United Kingdom 6.02
This is what all that “affordable” stuff really costs.
Yeah, living in Europe is a real scream.
I agree. Facts and Leftism are incompatible.
Bill Bear does not deny that taxes and controls over people are part of the plan.
Margaret Thatcher would agree:
“Global Warming Provides A Marvelous Excuse For Global Socialism.” – Margaret Thatcher
And that is ALL this is about.
Bill589 wrote:
“Bill Bear does not deny that taxes and controls over people are part of the plan.”
True. However, neither do I affirm that taxes and control over people are a necessary part of the plan. It is possible to say nothing at all about that, and still discuss the topic of climate change.
What I do say is that anyone who predicates their denial of the reality of climate change upon some inchoate fear of “socialism” or “more taxes” — and this is true, so far as I can tell, of both the proprietor of this blog and most (if not all) of the far right wing commenters — is exhibiting both abject intellectual dishonesty and a sad disinclination to think beyond the simplistic capitalism-vs-socialism false dichotomy.
The unreality of climate whatever is being pushed by socialists, who never met a tax they didn’t like.
The connection is inescapable.
If AGW was real. There might be a discussion. However the preponderance of evidence suggests that given the facts that it is so dire as to have the world balancing on a banana peel walking a tight rope over the abyss and yet, not a single one of the doomsayers are doing anything but token effort to abate CO2.
It is not just about taxes. I think any rational man, woman or child on the other side of the debate would be willing to spend heavily if the sky were falling. If we were indeed in danger of catastrophic disaster.
I present to you evidence. In 2038 an Astroid is set to impact earth. It will be an extinction level event. The world will end. Nothing will survive. In fact the entire atmosphere might be blown off and the water on the planet will slip into space. MARS REDUX.
The spin from the scientists is that this asteroid will miss by 50k miles when in fact they know it will annihilate the earth. So the question then becomes do we tell people they are going to die in 19 years? Or do we go along as if nothing is happening?
Right now several agencies are attempting missions to astroids to see if it is possible to alter their trajectory. In fact one is set to detonate a nuclear device to see if it is possible to destroy the subject Asteroid.
Question. Why would all of these scientific agencies suddenly be so interested in missions of this type if they were certain this was going to miss? Where did over 2 trillion dollars that disappeared from the pentagon GO?
Hint: Google pentagon missing trillions or whatever and you will find all kinds of debunking of various differing amounts. Debunking after debunking. YET
Google Donald Rumsfeld says pentagon missing money and you will find he claims there is 2.3 trillion unaccounted for. Forget the articles debunking this. He is on record the day before 9/11 giving testimony on the hill and is video taped doing such.
Why are there networks of underground tunnels going from east coast to west coast? Why is fema buying all the food they can get their hands on?
Now none of this points to anything ominous but it does point to something that is quite distressing and yet. Little outwardly appears to be being done to alter the trajectory of the asteroid in hopes of preventing its impact. Life goes on. People pay their bills, governments are silent.
So with AGW. The question is if we are on the precipice and we are facing catastrophic destruction because of AGW then would governments actually do nothing about it? Yes they might but not outwardly. It would create massive panic and the dissolution of society.
So the question remains. Is it about Taxes? Yes. No. I think the world would pay almost anything if there was no doubt of our impending doom. But AGW proves daily their is constant doubt and the Asteroid sweeping the cosmos is unknown to man other than in passing. Out of sight out of mind.
If the governments of the world started taxing countries to avert an ELE event life would become anarchy if all the kings and queens and presidents and politicans were building massive bunkers and buying up all the food and ammo they could get their hands on.
IF AGW proponets were all buying bicycles, using solar and wind, refusing to use any CO2 at all and become vegetarians all the while planting forests in their backyard then yes, many opinions might be swayed.
So hey, what’s one more elaborate hoax? Why stop now?
The last sentence in StillAlive’s rant is the most telling. he justifies his denial of the reality of climate change by means of the (alleged) inaction on the part of AGW proponents.
This relieves him (he believes) of any responsibility to examine the scientific evidence for climate change. He can simply wave his hand in the direction of (conveniently unnamed) individuals, and ignore the facts.
StillAlive has certainly made certain that his belief system requires no expenditure of thought whatsoever. Insofar as his mode of thinking is concerned, he has definitely found a zero-energy solution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHOyfyGwpes
It’s called Drill, Baby, Drill or Frack You.
This is worth watching.
Read his book. His company was basically efficiency consultants and had developed energy saving strategies for large energy consuming businesses such as trucking firms, airlines, car manufacturers, … etc.
He had many good ideas Carbon fiber bodies (lighter stronger) for simpler cars that used fewer parts in the building of an auto from thousands of parts down to a few hundred or so…
A lot of excellent ideas AT THE TIME 2010-2012 when oil was trading at ~$100 bbl.
That’s why a lot of his predicted savings on certain things are somewhat inflated along with the now debunked declaration of reaching of “peak oil” in 2016.
Agreed. His point was that there’s much we can do by unleashing the market. And he also pointed out the negative externalities associated with fossil fuel burning without saying “negative externality”!
Guess you ignored the part about government rebates.
Politicians vs Science
Thinking that politicians are generally honest is the joke.
I’ll believe the science.
Whether politicians or science you should really opt to believe the truth. When it comes to AGW neither of those are telling the truth.
“Comedy can help iterject climate change into conversationsâ€. . Yes, by laughing at how fricking stupid it is. Here’s a partial list of the things “caused†by climate change over the years. A list of the things it hasn’t caused would probably be shorter. https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
The last sentence in StillAlive’s rant is the most telling. he justifies his denial of the reality of climate change by means of the (alleged) inaction on the part of AGW proponents.
Mine was not a rant. Once again you use ridicule to discredit anything I say. I was trying to establish a thought out position on why people do not run willy nilly thru the streets of the world worrying about AGW.
Either way I do not care what you think. This website has become too toxic for me and growing season, calving season and much to do is upon me. My work days will grow to 16 yours per day from now till November so I bid you all a good day.
Incidently. I majored in Ag. Science in college with a degree also in meterology because my daddy always said it is extremely important to know the weather. So unlike many people I do have some semblance of an understanding of weather and climate. But with that said I am out of here. Perhaps the OP of this website will use one of the applications that force you to register to comment on his blog and then banning someone for their toxicity would be meaningful as its not all that easy to keep making new accounts in these apps Such as Disqus.
Bon voyage my friends.