We Didn't Wait

[c9]

While the narrative is US-centric, it applies to Canada just as much, and the campaign includes Canada.

To be honest, part of me is sick of the endless awareness-raising -- I want something to happen. But the "something" I want, large-scale governmental action, will only happen when governments are convinced of the need in order to keep votes. So this serves a purpose, just like the tiny changes we make like switching light-bulbs. One change can't stop global warming, but millions of changes will.

http://www.wecansolveit.org

Comments

[iambic-cub.livejournal.com]

I think everyone is getting sick of the awareness-raising, especially since it is often such blatant propaganda. I really feel that both sides of this debate tend to pick and choose the data they want and ignore the big picture.

Right now, if you want to solve climate change, become a climatologist. If you want government to do its part, have government put more funding into studying the climate. That is where the focus needs to be right now, but there are still so many unknowns.

The climate change crisis is build around climate models which show dire consequences, except that when these models have been tested, using empirical data from things like NASA'a Aqua satellite, the models have been shown to be wrong. By embracing a crisis whose basis is science that is currently proved wrong or lacking, you are basing your belief on faith rather than fact. This is the realm of the Christian Fundamentalists.

There is clearly something going on with the climate, but it needs to be understood. Until the science is solid, all these little actions we all take to solve it are nothing more than religious ritual.

If you feel strongly for the environment, there are other areas in which cause-and-effect are much stronger. In many cases, such as air pollution, the things we do to fight it are not so different than the things we are supposed to do to fight climate change, only we know those changes can make a difference. If you want to look at the political side of things, well, anything that reduces our reliance on oil significantly reduces the fucked-upedness of world politics. Most of the changes that climate change fanatics want us to make are good changes, it's just that they aren't applicable to climate change until we understand it better.

[c9.livejournal.com]

It's tricky to find the truth when there's so much disinformation. Yes, both sides (at the extreme edges) are full of shit. However, the situation can accurately be described like this:

- thousands of climatologists say X.
- hundreds of climatologists say Y.
- tens of climatologists say Z.
- the media reports each equally instead of proportionally.
- the climate change deniers seize on Z, they misinterpret Y, and they spot typos in X, and muddle the conversation even more.

I'd love some actual references for your climate model complaint. I've read accounts of climate models that use empirical data (actual weather from 1900 onward) and sometimes match and sometimes underestimate warming. The IPCC predictions have already been shown to be not strong enough compared to weather in the past decade. But the media screws up the science in almost every story, making it impossible to really understand.