The Case For Climate Change 3 (Last)

January 21, 2011

(The third and LAST in a series of posts, the first can be found Here, the second Here)

Originally, “The Case For Climate Change” series, was intended to be a thorough debate.

In this post I was going to talk about practical solutions to Global Warming (such as deforestation).

BUT, after watching a 20 minute lecture on TED-Women, given by Naomi Klein, I have decided to end the series with this:

a recommendation to sit down with a cup of tea, relax, and watch THESE 19 minutes.

If this doesn’t do it for you, go back to watching FOX-news or to reading the newest on NASDAQ. I’ll probably be meeting you sometime soon in the hospital, totally confused as to why you have cancer, even if you never smoked.

The Case For Climate Change 2

January 14, 2011

(The second in a series of posts, the first can be found Here)

Once: we’ve established that scientific data, pointing to the fact that the earth is in fact warming, exists, and that many respectable people, institutions, governments and individuals have both seen it, documented it, researched it, analyzed it and deducted from it.

And: regardless at this point of weather or not you accept that Humans play a role in these changes.

There ARE in fact climate changes. And what is important to realize now is that these changes play a dual role:

(1) On one hand, they are caused by _____ (we’ll fight about that when Fox News presents their arguments in the 4th post) => and are therefore an EFFECT.

(2) On the other hand, they are, within themselves A CAUSE of ____ –> Exactly what this post will deal with:

The effects of global warming/ climate change/ temperature rises (whatever your congressman or news anchor wants you to call it) on us, the citizens of the world.

Main Primary Effects of Global Warming:

  • Rising Sea Levels
  • More severe storms, droughts, floods
  • Changed migration patterns of various species (including humans!)

Links: NatGeo, GlobWarm, LiveSci

Main Secondary Effects of Global Warming:

  • Health: Spread of diseases such as Malaria and increase in cardiovascular and respiratory related incidents
  • Politics: Shifting of borders between countries, migration
  • Economics: increasing costs

Links: CAP, TimeMag, MedIndia, EnvGraf, CTV-News

Since we have accepted that there is a rise in temperature, from there, the deduction of the primary and then of the secondary effects of global warming are mainly logic-based and the scientific data can be found in all of the articles I’ve linked here (and in the previous post).

From acknowledging these effects, one can then reach the logical conclusion that increased pathological incidences in health, increased destruction of populated areas and of tourist-oriented areas, all can be summed up into increased spending and decreased earning.

So, the earth is warming, and it will cause these events, but- where do we begin to fix it? And, more importantly- whose gonna pay for the fixing?

You know what you greedy readers? I know that no matter how much I go on about HOW and WHAT to fix, you’re gonna keep thinking about WHOSE GONNA PAY. So, whadya say we jump right into that one first?

You. and me. All of us are going to pay. Money makes the world go round. More specifically- our money goes into other people’s pockets and they make the world go round.

Should we increase taxes to cover global warming prevention and, slowing and solving costs? if you ask me the answer is no. Take it from the defense budget. From the homeland and internal security budget. From the ministry of foreign affairs budget. From the “pay-off wall-street” budget. Now, do I think that a president that just sent 150,000  ADDITIONAL soldiers to Afghanistan will do that? No. But just because our leaders insist on spending all of our money to make their jobs more exciting, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be paying to deal with a problem that actually exists. And just because our leaders are BFFs with the people and organizations causing the most damage, doesn’t mean we should pay with our health or money for the increasing health spending and for buying the Saudi Prince Pop-tarts when he comes to visit cause those are his favorite bedtime treat, and all because we rely on him for oil.

Who else should pay? Industries that are directly involved. Obviously- General Motors, Microsoft and George W. Bush have a larger Carbon Footprint than I do, so they should pay more (they also just plain have a lot more money than me and should pay more, but I guess that’s a whole different box of Wheaties!)

STOP! I know what some of you wise-asses are saying to yourselves (while checking that no random penny has suddenly vanished from your wallet just from reading this), you’re saying: “ok, there will be costs, and we will pay, but if we can’t calculate EXACTLY how much, how do we know if we’re not going to spend too much on this carbon bullshit? How can I know that by giving 3 pennies I’m not losing 1.04 pennies because it will one day turn out that I could have given 1.96 pennies and gotten the same result?”

Point taken corrupt readers. Money matters to you. Every penny. Forget that your govt. is currently spending all of your money on blowing up people halfway around the world for no reason, you’re not willing to lose a penny to the environment unless it saves you from losing 2 pennies tomorrow.

This can be answered on 3 levels:

(1) You are corrupt morons that seem to think you’re so smart by yelling about public spending when it comes to the environment, but when it comes to yelling about public spending about, hmmmm lets see, basically ANYTHING else, including your govt. sacrificing your lives for anything that comes to their mind, THAT you’re quiet about.

(2) Transitioning to “Green(er) Energy”: investing in this transition is in our interest REGARDLESS of exactly how much money it takes to slow down global warming, because (video) (a) its in the political interest of many-a-country today to reduce their dependence on the unstable, inhumane, violent regimes that are in charge of a majority of the world’s energy sources and (b) its in our interest as citizens because in the long-run it decreases our energy expenses and is healthier.

Hold on! What is this green energy everyone is talking about?! It’s everywhere! This (several short videos) is what we mean when we say Green Energy. Or, if you’re the wiki-type, this. And, if that wasn’t enough, they list the benefits.

(3) You’re right. No one will be able to give us an exact number. And we should make sure that our governments don’t just use this as another excuse to rip us off. But hey, we’ve accepted changes are happening, we’ve accepted they will cause events that will require larger future spending- obviously SOME amount of money, an amount that can lead to a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE and not just a symbolic (“look, I’m helping”) good-will donation, is necessary.

Remember there were 2 questions?

(1) Whose gonna pay (Check!).

(2) How do we fix it? (and we’ve even already trotted a bit into that territory with the green energy point).

Next post we’ll go double-007 on our own little (or big) asses and talk about practical solutions, to what we now all agree is a practical problem, and not the practical joke Fox News seems to think it is.

The Case For Evolu…Uh, Sorry, For Climate Change

January 10, 2011

Or, hold on to your hats! For why MAN INDUCED climate change is an issue we should care about.

(The first in a series of posts… which, though attempting to be a little funny, will actually present valid information).

*Knock* *Knock* *Knock* This Court will come to order!

Judge “Common-Sense” will be presiding over the case of ‘Citizens-of-the-world‘ versus ‘Rich-people-that-control-our-wealth-and-our-health’ in the matter of ‘Man-Induced-Climate-Change, Really?!‘.

On behalf of the Citizens we will be hearing from Scientists, Experts, Researchers, Analysts, Policy makers, Doctors, Farmers and Poor Starving people with no viable crops.

On behalf of the Rich we will be hearing from Fox News and Oil-Industry-Funded-Pseudo-Climate-Organizations. Oh, and from Them.

We’ll begin with the Evidence brought forth by the People:

(1) Why did Al Gore and the IPCC receive a Nobel Prize? “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change“.

What is this much spoken about Data?

From which we deduce Fact1: respectable people, that check data for a living, the same organization of people that awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the DNA (that I don’t seem to find anyone contesting the scientific data proving of its existence), have acknowledged the scientific data the IPCC has presented, as legitimate.

(2) Let’s continue with some information (video) Rachel Maddow was kind enough to collect and report:

Koch Industries (i recommended reading #4): own oil and chemical plants–> as such, have an interest in denying climate change–>hence: invested 50million dollars in 40 different organizations that deny climate change (notice! we are not yet on the issue of man’s role in climate change, they are financing organizations that deny there is ANY change)–>who exactly are these organizations that are denying climate change? one example is: Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Who is the founder of this organization? One of the CEO’s of Koch. Who else does Koch invest in–>The Republican Party*. Q.E.D

From which we gather Fact2: many of the organizations invested in denying the existence of any climate change (including the previous government of the USA!), are not presenting scientific findings to back up their claims. They are being funded, and are sometimes even run, by wealthy people working in industries that would lose pennies if Government decided to tax them for the damage they are causing to our health.

But wait! Why then, are even the dirtiest industries today, going green?” This is why.

And why are companies like Exxon, great deniers of climate change in the past and of having anything to do with climate change if there is any, suddenly changing their minds? Money and Power :”The new govt. says there’s climate change and that we contribute to it? O.k. there’s climate change and we contribute to it”. (Which goes to show how strongly they felt about their previous statements that there is no climate change and that either way, they have nothing to do with it–> which relates to this article that I linked above, that basically goes to show that if the govt. tells the scientists to shut up and stop doing what they’re doing, then of course there’s no scientific data that the govt. needs to address).

(3) Onwards with our next item (video) brought to you, again, by the lovely Rachel Maddow:

Republicans see snow–>Republicans say this is stronger proof than 150years of documented science. The same people that say you don’t have to see God to believe in him. Uh??? I Can’t argue with this one…

From which we realize Fact3: a lot of the actual, substantial claims being made against the science of climate change, are, how should i put this? Ridiculous.

(4) Let’s use the help (video) of Comedian Bill Maher, to drive home some points 🙂

From which we learn Fact4: even not-scientists (and since we all agree that blindly following science is sometimes just as bad as blindly following Fox News), just by looking at recent National Geographic footage of Melting Icebergs, can tell that not only is the earth warming, EVEN IF it isn’t our fault, we may want to do something about it before we all drown.

To be continued…

*even if you don’t open any of the links- this one is a must! How the US govt. interfered with scientific findings in order to downplay climate change and be able to avoid having to deal with it– a report of the House Of Representatives.