Slow Learner

By Ted Dieck | Recruiter’s View - Business Climate - ESG | Jan 29, 2024

I’m missing out on the big Greenhouse Gas argument.
As a carbon-based life form, I can’t quite grasp the premise.
But I do admire the catchy slogans.

I get that we’re all going to Save The Planet.
We’ll abandon Fossil Fuels
and use Green Energy.

We’ll reduce Carbon Emissions
by using Renewable Energy
to end the Climate Crisis
caused by Global Warming.

But before we hop in and take over for God, I’m just trying to understand.

Heated Argument

Authoritative personalities say that world temperatures are rising because…
Human activity increases carbon dioxide emissions.
And, somehow, CO2 makes things hot.

So, it’s my fault.
I’m clearly doing too much.

What if we reduced human activity?

Well, we did.  We enforced COVID lockdowns.
As it turns out, the stay-at–home travel bans had no effect on CO2 increases.

So, if human activity isn’t the cause, is it possible that climate change is normal?

Scientists suggest regular warming and cooling cycles have repeated for millions of years.

And, by the way, it seems the cooling cycles are the nastiest.


  • People die from cold.
  • Civilizations prosper with heat.

Here’s a study published in The Lancet…
Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature.

Using shorter words, the authors think cold is bad.

By extension, I’m supposing that a full-blown ice age would be very bad.

And recent centuries of (natural) warming have been very good.

The blessed rise of temperature that we are experiencing is lifting us out of the death-dealing cold of the horrific Little Ice Age, when half the population of Iceland perished.”  – Gregory Wrightstone

Bad Rap For CO2

So, if mankind doesn’t get credit for warming the world,
what do we do about the evils of carbon dioxide?

The way I remember it…
CO2 is fantastic for plants.
Plants generate oxygen, which is good for people.

A warmer climate means a longer growing season.
That contributes to greater harvests = more food.

I think that’s still true.

So, obviously,
that means we want more CO2 and more global warming, right?


Arriving at so many contentious conclusions is a bit unsettling.

That’s when I remembered to consult the [free] “InconvenientApp” on my iPhone.

It’s a compilation of documented graphics pulled from Greg Wrightstone’s book
Inconvenient Facts:  The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You To Know

Very handy.  You can find links and all kinds of climate-y observations at his Inconvenient Facts website.

Recruiter’s View

Every industry has to justify its existence.
It has to offer a real solution for a real problem.
Otherwise, we don’t need it.

There are two reasons climate-based initiatives can’t compete…

  • Existing solutions are cheaper and more plentiful.
  • Existing resources don’t reflect the “scarcity” argument.

There are two reasons climate-based initiatives CAN compete…

  • Fear and
  • Government funding

But that only works for awhile.

Ultimately, without demonstrating actual value, companies in this category will fail.
And they have.  Spectacularly.

Jobs and companies in this sector don’t strike me as a good investment.

We can do better.