(No Joke)
In that war of words over the changing climate, sparks have erupted between California and Florida. While lobbyists in Florida demand disuse of words like wet, flooding, excess water, global warming, snakes, and sea level rise. Lobbyists in California seek more use of words like wet, flooding, excess water, global warming, and a lessening of words like desert, drought, overhyped, geo-engineering, and stupid. At the same time, the opening of the tornado season in Oklahoma has prompted an effort to disallow words like rain, tornado, huge-ass-hail, and storms–putting Oklahoma and Florida lobbyists at odds with California lobbyists. Parties in Alaska appear to be seeking a ban on the word mud while sources in Colorado are considering a ban on the words forest, beetles, and fires–with an uptick on words like water and hey dude. (This is a joke.)
“We have quite a battle. It’s a class-war-of-words out there,” says one federal negotiator. “And it looks like the situation will get worse. For example, along the west coast, fish stocks are migrating north due to a warming coastal current. This causes declines in other populations that feed on them. So for example, a decrease in sardines and anchovies leads to a decrease in salmon. In event, this means California has jellyfish by the tanker full, while Washington is dealing with dead baby salmon. (No joke.)
“Even so, we’ve made some progress. Lobbyists have agreed to replace the phrase, Climate change affects the Pacific with words like, Blob or We love the PDO. We are also very close to an agreement replacing the phrase, A warming ocean due to climate change with the words, Unfavorable ocean conditions. (This is not a joke.)
“Along the east coast, there is a different problem. Too many states and too many lobbyists–so, we have a cooling coastal current directly impacting storms and the human population–causing havoc in negotiations and politics nationwide. (Also not a joke.)
“North Carolina lobbyists, in an effort to send aid, will deliver a thousand college science textbooks to east coast school districts deleting the terms Extreme weather and replacing them with the words, Weather patterns supporting investment. Applications for student loans will be enclosed in the textbooks as well. A federal negotiator has been called in to establish common ground between the state lobbyists. A therapist will be sent to Charlotte.” (Another joke.)
One candidate for President, discussing water issues in Florida and California, suggests trucking water from Florida to California, while claiming trucking the drought from California to Florida is beyond current technology. Another Presidential candidate, alluding to the Keystone pipeline, declares trucking an inefficient method for moving large volumes of liquid. Instead, he and a politician from Oklahoma are floating the idea of pumping the water from Florida to California through Keystone–just in case the current plans to facilitate the use of more fossil fuels through the pipeline fails. (Yup, a joke.)
It didn’t take long for the tech savvy Californians to remind the candidates that the pipeline runs north and south not east and west. Spokespersons for the two Texas candidates, in a rare show of unity, quickly responded, “…Solar powered pumps could be used to force the water north from Florida during the day. Then at night we can allow the water to flow into California…” (We hope this is a joke.)
Another source adds, “The degenerating climate regime is definitely impacting our language; soon, all we will be allowed to do is gesture and grunt. On a lighter side, Washington lobbyists appear to be supportive of Colorado lobbyists on the words, Hey dude and Roll a fat one.” (Nope, not a joke.)
Lobbyists in California add, on the assurance of anonymity, “Geo-engineering is the answer.” (It remains unclear if this is a joke, a horror, or desperation – Planktos, anyone?)
Satirists just make fun, for example, “Let’s pay attention to carbon intensity.” (Always was a joke.)
Federal negotiators trying to decide where they should have their annual convention, Washington or Colorado, were unable to comment–while certain think tank scientists were heard giggling behind closed doors. (Lemme’ see you smile…)
When asked why words mattered, only a plumber from Trenton responded. “Global warming is the defining event of our generation. Unfortunately, computer models are far less reliable than we would like due to a lack of granularity in the models so consensus has been difficult to obtain. On the other hand, just by monitoring the change in watts/square meter of forcing, the changes in anthropogenic forcing becomes decipherable. Then by comparing the numbers over time, we can see the trajectory of the climate problem–which scientists have been doing for years. All of which means: With simple math and a basic science education, the populace can now see there is no question of a human imprint on the rapidly changing climate as well as the deep trouble we are aiming towards by our use of fossil fuels. I just don’t understand why the population is kept in the dark about this. After all–for a free society to cope with the changing climate, there must be political will to support politicians, and keep the PACS under control. Why undermine political will? Though I have heard it said that when information is considered dangerous to the equities of some large corporations…” Further comments were too garbled to be understood. (Wait for it.)
In regards to the crisis of words, the NOAA subsidiary of the US Department of Commerce recently received Senate lobbyist approval for expansion of the Department of Commerce’s ‘No Regrets’ program on the climate. Said one spokesperson, “Certain states have requested federal assistance to deal with the crisis of words. We are here to help them. The new makeup of the Senate gives us the votes we need to extend the sham of ‘No Regrets’ through absurd committee appointments. This means lobbyists can now expand our reach from mere words to concepts we don’t approve of, like, First amendment rights are now subject to lobbying events.”
When asked if censorship will become more common with our changing climate, one government official responded that he is, “Not a climate scientist and therefore not able answer the question…” (This is not a joke.)
While a source in the Administration declared human forcing of the climate an economic issue. (There’s a joke in there somewhere.)
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.