Sunday, April 5, 2009

Topics like Man-Made Global Warming, You and I

Here is my method of making decisions especially on matters like Man-Made Global Warming, Malaysian Politics, Religious Beliefs etc try it please :)


SWOT analysis is one of my favourite management tools. It forces us to deliberately look for the good and bad side of an issue or problem with no emotional attachments. S is for Strengths (positives), W is for weaknesses (negatives), O is for opportunities (future positives) and T is for Threats (future negatives).

It helps me make better decisions.


John Maynard Keynes is one of my favourite economists, the other being Friedrich List. Keynes showed that the market left on its own, may not make the best of decisions. He suggested government should use fiscal and monetary measures to moderate the undesirable effects of economic recessions, depressions and even booms.

One of Keynes favourite quotes that I keep to heart is “When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?”


LA2D is short for “let’s agree to disagree”, a talk show I hosted last year. We are shooting the second season soon. It is a talk show that introduces to teenagers the concept of ‘agreeing to disagree’. I thought that it is good to start them young, a mature way to deal with differences of opinions.

It is a good project except that for reasons I cannot figure out yet, RTM 2 decided to air it at 6 am in the morning! Which teenager will wake up that early to watch a talk show? Duh! So I have some makchiks and mamak stalls waiters coming to me asking if I am the chap on TV every Thursday morning. Ha!ha!


I teach and consult in Negotiation Skills. Actually, my area specifically covers ‘how a brand can negotiate a price increase’... hehe! In negotiation, we talk about leverage; positive leverage, negative leverage and finding common grounds.

The hard-knock negotiators usually like to use the negative leverage approach, as Donald Trump puts it, “Leverage is having something the other guy wants. Or better yet needs. Or best of all, simply cannot do without”.

However, I usually stress on the ‘finding common ground’ approach, as competition that is rooted within the spirit of cooperation always bring better profit at the end – for both parties.


When confronted with important topics like these, best if we look at both sides of the arguments. Do a SWOT with both sides. If you have heard from those who are pro Al Gore, go listen to those who do not agree with him and vice versa.

For example you can watch the two documentaries (at minimum) that stand opposed to each other. One is the popular “The Inconvenient Truth” narrated by Al Gore. The other is the one produced by WAGTV.

Both are not without flaws, but good enough to give us a feel on the subject. Further investigation is recommended.

Unfortunately I cannot find you a link to the Al Gore video clip. If any of you can, pls post me the link. The good news is that it is also easily available in the stores.

As for the other it is titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle” - click here .

Watch both before you make your decision.

If you find that facts from the other side to be more compelling, you can do a Keynes and say “When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?”

But, should you remain unchanged, we can do an LA2D, we can agree to disagree.

Going further we can always find common ground. People who agree with Al Gore are not saying that the other CO2 producers are not to be blamed, too. And, those who do not agree with man-made global warming are not saying that we should not take good care of mother earth.

We must not ape President Bush’s “If you are not with me, you are against me” approach. That would be shallow and childish. Both sides can care in differing ways.

Now, let's turn off the lights if it is not necessary, not just because of Global Warming, but because we should not be wasteful. Earth history has shown that the world may just switch quickly into a global cooling period, too. Waste not during both circumstances.

The goal is good conduct; not about keeping the world cool or warm.

1 comment:

PahNur said...

In the spirit of agreeing to disagree Anas, I beg to differ on your some part of your statement of "The goal is good conduct; not about keeping the world cool or warm".

True, good conduct is the ultimate goal, but "good" sometimes can a be a subjective thing, especially to those who do not take "the higher level" as their reference for "good conduct", although it doesn't mean that they practice bad conduct, rather conducts based on common sense, which everyone knows "common" could mean "subjective" .

Take eating pork for example, for Jewish and Muslims. In their eyes, eating pork is not a good conduct, reason being the darn worm in pork's flesh that could be detrimental to human health, if it is not prepared properly. (Of course there are issues of haram of non flesh pork parts, but that is another matter altogether.)

But if it is,cooked at a temperature proven by science to kill these worms, then the end result is that it may not be detrimental to health and the question that arises is "since it is no longer detrimental for health if prepared with care, is the conduct still be considered as bad conduct?

Good or bad conduct,keeping in mind of their subjective properties, when it comes to human survival as a whole, you just have to do what is necessary to be done You just have to do the right thing. And the right thing is to deter global warming, before the human species suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs, doomed way before dooms day.

In the case of global warming, we know what we are suppose to do, but are reluctant to do it, because we come up with excuses and convincing statements (like those big tobacco companies spending billions on litigation and defending lies,) to rebuke global warming, since preventing global warming may make certain rich people not rich anymore. Money and greed will almost always win. Even Dumb Dumb Bush said it "We will embark in fighting the effects of global warming, only if it is not detrimental to our economy"...that's like Pak Lah saying "my best achievement in life is to win the 2004 GE", equally dumb.....Exactly where are how and where are we going to spend our wealth if we allow global warming to take revenge on what we did to earth, in Mars?