Top 5 Faux Careers To Avoid Discussing Global Warming

Published: February 20th, 2012

COMMENTARY
By Andrew Freedman

This may come as a shock to you, but global warming is a controversial subject in the United States these days. (No, really, it is.)

The very existence of man-made global warming, not to mention the array of policy choices for responding to it, are such flash points in American politics that it’s nearly impossible to raise the subject in social settings without sparking an awkward conversation. Worse, those discussions are nearly always set spiraling downward by the most annoying question ever posed to a climate scientist or journalist: “So, do you believe in global warming?”

I’ve been in too many uncomfortable global warming-related conversations with strangers to count at this point, and it’s tiring. It’s one thing if I’m speaking at a public event or a scientific conference, where I’m trying to foster greater understanding of the climate challenge. In other settings, I really don’t want to get into a debate with people, like the time I was seated next to a coal industry lobbyist at my cousin’s bar mitzvah. (He really, really wanted to talk about “Climategate.”)

As much as I hate to admit, sometimes it’s simply easier to dodge a question about what I do for a living -- or flat out lie -- than to endure another heated argument.

I’m sure my wariness is shared by many fellow climate researchers and communicators. We share a bond with others whose work is controversial or unpopular -- like personal injury attorneys, Goldman Sachs executives, and, judging from recent approval ratings, any member of Congress -- and those who truly need a cover story, like CIA operatives.

So as a service to fellow climate professionals, here’s a ready-made list of the Top 5 socially acceptable -- and conversation enabling -- professions to fall back on in case you’re on a plane or at a cocktail party and are aiming for pleasant banter with strangers rather than a heated conversation about global warming.

1. Chiropractor

Pros: The quintessential boring-sound profession. Who really wants to find out more about what it’s like to be a chiropractor? I’ll tell you who: no one.

Cons: You might be asked to help crack someone’s back. To avoid this, say you would be happy to, but you’re not a very good chiropractor.

2. You work at Baby Gap

Pros: Everyone loves baby clothes. Even people who aren’t fond of babies think baby clothes are super cute.

Cons: Be prepared for an onslaught of baby photos, boring stories about their kids, or being asked to hold a baby you didn’t realize was hiding under the table.

3. You work in a knot store

Pros: Because this is so clearly a lie, it will discourage follow-up questions. But if you have an offbeat sense of humor, it might be worth trying. It’s inspired by a sketch from the IFC television show, “Portlandia,” in which Jeff Goldblum plays a purveyor of different types of knots, which are sold for decorative purposes.

Cons: Because this is so clearly a lie, people will think you’re a jerk.

4. Tech entrepreneur

Pros: Launching a tech start-up in New York or Silicon Valley sounds hip and cool and you don’t need a coherent explanation of what your company does because no one would understand it anyway. Just say it’s a cross between Twitter, FourSquare and Instagram, with none of Facebook’s privacy concerns.

Cons: If you don’t know what a thumb drive is or haven’t figured out how to use e-mail, let alone fill out a Facebook profile, you might want to skip this one.

5. Consultant

Pros: It’s the least descriptive job title of the modern era. So it’s perfect. And you can pretty much come up with anything as an answer to the inevitable follow up question. For example: “I consult with Jos. A. Bank clothing stores on what sales to advertise. This week, it’s ‘buy one suit, get nine suits, a tie, a shirt, and a pair of wrinkle-free pants, free!’ ”

Cons: You may have to explain how Jos. A. Bank makes money given how its over-the-top promotions have grown more ridiculous with each passing week.

The key with each of these is to then steer the conversation off in another, non-controversial direction.

Or you can tell them you’re really a CIA operative.

Posted in Responses, Climate, Society, Global

Comments

By Gator
on February 20th, 2012

Once bankers were sdmired. Then came Bernie Madoff et al. It is the same with climate science, if Mann and Hansen (et al) had not created a fraudulent enterprise, you would not need to hide you ID in public.

Or maybe if you just started telling the truth, that climate changes are natural, and you still do not know what the driving forces are.

Hint: the Sun.

PS - I was a climatology student thirty years ago and we all laughed at AGW when it was first put forth, because we had the privelege of unbiased learning, and knew that climates change all on their own.

By RichW (Altoona, Iowa 50009)
on February 20th, 2012

Well, since “Human caused climate change” is a lie to begin with, lying about being involved is probably a very good idea. Better than saying you’re a professional liar.

By Andrew
on February 20th, 2012

Gator, Rich W:

You’re entitled to your opinions. But the argument that manmade climate change is a coordinated lie on the part of climate scientists worldwide is completely unproven, and the contention that solar influences are driving climate change also have not held up under scientific scrutiny.

By Secret Admirer
on February 20th, 2012

Finally something of interest and usefulness. This is great advice for any climate scientists the next time they are on a jet plane destroying the planet by flying all ever the world to promote their latest book, heading to their next paid speaking engagement or travelling to the next exotic and remote meeting on climate. You forgot….

6. Astrologer:

Pros: easy to pretend you know the future with certainty as you have Tarot Cards and Zodiac Maps to produce future outcomes that are as knowable as the climate in 2100. This will give you confidence to better fool the extremely perceptive people capable of reading facial geatures and body language.

Cons: Some people may find astrology to be more believable than climate science and actually take you serious and like you. This might be a blow to some over-inflated egos.

ROTF

By Craig (Mankato, MN 56001)
on February 20th, 2012

Andrew, if solar influences have no proven effect on climate, I guess we could turn the sun off for a couple of days without affecting the weather? Would this hold up under scientific scrutiny, or would you still be operating in the dark?

By Heather (Sydney)
on February 21st, 2012

Cute, but you’re not thinking outside the square of nice white collar jobs.

6. Dog walker. Pros - good segue to entertaining dog stories (come prepared) and social responsibility of having companion animals. Cons - not many really.

7. Fencing contractor. Pros - good seque to entertaining stories about homeowners and neighbourhood disputes. Cons - they might ask you for a quote.

8. Medical receptionist (you’re not sexist are you?). Pros - good seque to entertaining (or heart rending) medical stories. Cons - they might want to bore you with their symptoms, or worse, show you their…xxx.

By Connie (Minneapolis, MN 55421)
on February 21st, 2012

Today I am surrounded by people who deny or ignore the reality of climate change. For quite some time, I had difficulty understanding their inability to be open to the FACTS of climate change. It is difficult for me to understand the irrationality of their thinking.

In general most people have no problem with science. Most people do not have problems with the science that creates all the cool technology that surrounds us every day. They have no problem with the sciences that support the medical field. They have no problem with the sciences that even provide us with weather reports. The list could go on. But apparently for some reason, people will not give the same respect to the science of climatology. Is it because it is revealing bad news for us and our planet? The other technologies generally improve our lives, makes us feel good, and more importantly doesn’t ask too much of us. Unfortunately, climatologists have discovered serious problems with our climate, more importantly, that we are the cause of the climate problems. Climatologist’s news does not make us “feel” good. The response by many is that we didn’t do it, the science is bunk, it’s not real. It reminds me of a parent catching a child being naughty, the child will go to great lengths to deny that they were naughty even though the evidence of their wrongdoing is staring them in the face.

So why don’t we want to admit that we caused the problems of climate change of more importantly that climate change is real? I think people do not want to accept the reality of climate change because they hate change. Humans hate change in general. The motivation to change generally requires a extreme discomfort before someone considers a real change. For example, an alcoholic usually has to hit bottom before he/she decides to get help. Obese people are often confronted with serious health issues before they make serious changes to their lifestyle. The same principle applies to change with regards to climate change. Most humans will not make the necessary changes to address climate change until dire circumstances force them.

Historically, the only way to bring about change without going through catastrophic events was to create laws that addressed the behaviors rather than beliefs. For example, when the civil rights laws were passed, those who created the law knew it would not change the racists beliefs of those who oppressed African Americans, but the laws could address the behavior that was guided by these racists beliefs. It became illegal to oppress African Americans. In the same way, we will not be able to successfully change the beliefs of people who deny climate change, but we can write laws that address the behaviors that created climate change. We can invest in research and development of technologies that might hopefully save us and the planet. The alternative is to wait for the catastrophic events that will bring us, the human race, to our knees, unfortunately at that time it will probably be way to late.

Piaget defined IQ as the ability to adapt, the question is, “Does the human race have the intelligence, the ability to make the adaptations necessary to prevent the serious consequences of climate change? Only time will tell.

By Andrew
on February 21st, 2012

Gator: There’s no doubt that solar variability plays a role in the climate system and has helped drive climate events in the past. However, studies show that solar variability cannot explain the sharp warming trend during the latter half of the 20th century into the 21st century. We’ve covered many of these findings at Climate Central, such as:

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/the-sun-is-not-causing-global-warming-nor-will-it-prevent-it/

By John Ward (Gainesville FL 32605)
on February 26th, 2012

Andrew, I was amused to find your piece on dodging climate change conversations after reading Joe Romm’s essay in which he laments that even those who want to combat climate change avoid the term or even the concept: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/26/432546/apocalypse-not-oscars-media-myth-of-repetition-of-doomsday-messages-on-climate/. But after I read the comments from the ignorati with which you are bombarded I can understand your gun-shyness. I am always amazed how the same widely disproved arguments keep being recycled by deniers who think they are well informed but haven’t really studied the issues.
The Climate Central essay to which you provide the link is a good explanation of why the sun has little influence on climate change. But if that does not satisfy skeptics, they should check out skepticalscience.com, where “It’s the sun” ranks second among the most common skeptics’ claims and is answered on three levels, basic, intermediate, and advanced, with multiple graphs and links to 18 scientific studies on the subject following the intermediate level discussion. The web site also addresses 172 other skeptics’ claims.
I think, rather than either getting into arguments without ready access to evidence or avoiding a discussion of the subject, one can refer those who want to argue to the website and tell them to get back when they are prepared to offer evidence that the explanations found there are flawed. If arguers have an Ipod or Iphone, Android, or Nokia smartphone , they can even read the information via the free app that the website offers, so the conversation could resume sooner on a more informed level.
Oh, and the website has an essay titled “The Big Picture” with a link in a blue box on the home page that gives the most important evidence supporting the near-certainty that we will be facing some pretty nasty anthropogenic climate changes that, if not addressed quickly, will continue to worsen for the next few centuries.
Unfortunately, the comments following your essay indicate that most of the commenters prefer to sneer rather than to learn—it takes a lot less effort and makes one feel superior.

By Ben Courtice (Melbourne)
on February 26th, 2012

For Rich, Gator, Secret Admirer, etc: that climate change would be some kind of elaborate hoax just doesn’t pass the most basic credibility test. In whose interest is it to make up such a hoax? A few researchers trying to justify their grants?

The really big money is elsewhere: fossil fuels and ancillary industries (chemicals, auto etc). The golden rule of finding a conspiracy is, follow the money.

This diagram explains it quite eloquently:
http://yes2renewables.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deniers-and-the-conspiracy.jpg

Name (required):

Email (required):

City/State/Zip:

Enter the word you see in the image below: