Climate Change (except in Florida!)

Down in Florida, they’ve apparently banned government officials from using the terms “global warming” and “climate change.”

According to the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, those terms are no longer permitted in any official communications, emails, or reports. They seem to be operating on a theory along the lines of, “if we don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist.” So global warming in Florida is now the Lord Voldemort of problems; it is now, “that which must not be named.”

Upon hearing this, I’ve decided it’s probably a good thing that I’m not a government official in Florida (or anywhere else for that matter), because the first thing I would do is invent a different way of saying “global warming.”

For instance, I might instead use the words “Rick Scott” instead.

Any time I needed to say, “global warming” I would simply replace it with “Rick Scott.” In that way, the following sentence:

“It is estimated that because of global warming, water in Miami could rise  by as much as two feet by the year 2060,”

Would then become:

“It is estimated that because of Rick Scott, water in Miami could rise by as  much as two feet by the year 2060.”

There is of course, the possibility that Florida Governor Rick Scott might take offense at this change in language.

But thanks to the Governor, I’d be prepared for that. Mr. Scott, when asked for his opinion of climate change, famously said, “Well, I’m not a scientist.” So any complaints about the new improved way of saying, “global warming” could easily be met with, “Well, I’m not a linguist.”

The “I’m not a scientist” argument is one I’ve never understood anyway. Mr. Scott might not be a scientist but 97% of the people who are scientists in this field agree that climate change is a problem. It would be like having car trouble and 97% of the mechanics in town tell you the car needs a new carburetor. Instead of replacing the defective part, you ignore their advice and continue driving because, “I’m not a mechanic.”

Some people might say that substituting “Rick Scott” for “global warming” is an absurd approach to take but I would argue that thinking a problem will just go away (or not even exist) by outlawing words is even more absurd. It reminds me of the old high school homework technique I employed (with absolutely no success), “Maybe if I ignore this assignment, it will go away.” In addition to not being a linguist (or a scientist), I was apparently not a student either.

In the interest of fair play, perhaps I should consider the benefits of the Florida approach. After all, there are a number of words I’d like to eliminate from the English language (Kardashian is at the top of that list). Toward that end, I’ve banned all references to “weight” including “weight loss”, “overweight”, and even “welterweight” from my vocabulary. I wish I could report that as a result, I’ve instantly become thinner but tragically, a trip to the scale has proven otherwise. Alternatively I could replace the “W” word with something else. If I went with “Rick Scott” for that as well, it could then lead to the following conversation.

“Hi there Jeff, what’s new with you?”

“Me? I’ve been hitting the gym a lot; I’m trying to lose Rick Scott."

“Good for you. I’ve been trying to lose Rick Scott for years.”

You can see that “Rick Scott” could become a useful part of the language. Obviously it can’t be used for everything so we would ultimately need to settle on using “Rick Scott” to replace just one thing. For me, one word more than any other (okay there are two words but I’m going with the PG version here) comes to mind: “denial.” With apologies to Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the first stage of grief would then become Rick Scott. And then when politicians are asked where they stand on climate change, those that refuse to believe scientific evidence to the contrary could be said to be in “Rick Scott” about it.

Overall, I think it would be more fun and probably more appropriate for “Rick Scott” to become synonymous with Global Warming. In the long term it remains to be seen if the Florida approach of banning words can somehow prevent the seas from rising. Personally, I doubt it will work, but I could be wrong. Not that I’m worried about being wrong as I’ll simply ban the word “wrong” from my vocabulary which apparently will make me right. Remember, I’m not a linguist.