Apparently deniers still insist on cherry-picking their data, utterly ignoring any evidence contrary to their wished-for world. And ignoring that far more scientists saying that climate change *is* occuring than those who say otherwise -- and in the latter group's case, it's worth noting that some of them are on the payrolls of companies such as oil companies. And that reminds me of the medical doctors who assured us tobacco isn't harmful to health -- often themselves employees of tobacco companies.
As for the semantics of "global warming" versus "climate change," there's a good reason for that shift in terminology. Contrary to what the deniers would have us believe, scientists supporting the cincept that global warming is occuring never said every square inch of the planet would heat up simultaneously; indeed, some places have experienced record-setting cold. But *on average* -- a difficult concept for some to grasp -- global temperatures are rising. But to call it "climate change" allows for broader inclusion of data.
I keep reading about "fewer hurricanes," too. Right. I guess that's why the part of the world I live in, Southeast Asia, had four typhoons last month *alone.* In some places, such as Bangkok (where I live) nearby coastal areas have experienced rises in sea levels; one place I've visited on the outskirts has seen the move of the shoreline inland of about half a mile or a little less. The "cool season" made it's initial appearance this year in late October -- and it normally doesn't arrive until mid- or late December (if at all). But last year we basically didn't *have* a cool season. Australia has been badly hit by both heat and drought. Ditto parts of Africa. Check on melting of glaciers in the Swiss Alps, the American Rockies, and on Mount Kilamanjaro. Not to mention the Greenland ice cap, and the Arctic, as well as portions of the Antarctic ice shelf.
And so on . . .
The Plan That Saved The Planet
A reality that's still within reach.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Not too many years from now, a new generation will look back at us in this hour of choosing and ask one of two questions. Either they will ask, "What were you thinking? Didn't you see the entire North Polar ice cap melting before your eyes? Did you not care?"
Or they will ask instead, "How did you find the moral courage to rise up and solve a crisis so many said was impossible to solve?"
We must choose which of these questions we want to answer, and we must give our answer now—not in words but in actions.
The answer to the first question—what were you thinking?—is almost too painful to write:
"We argued among ourselves. We didn't want to believe that it really was happening. We waited too long.
"We had so many other problems crying out for attention. I know this is of little comfort, but we did try. I'm sorry."
The second question—how did you solve it?—is the one I much prefer that we answer, and here is the answer I hope we can give:
"The turning point came in 2009. The year began well, with the inauguration of a new president, who immediately shifted priorities to focus on building the foundation for a new low--carbon economy. The resistance to these changes—especially by corporations that were making a lot of money from coal, oil, and gas—was ferocious.
"But the truth about the global emergency gained ground. The evidence presented by the scientists accumulated, slowly at first, but then a few of the opponents of change changed themselves.
"Whatever happened, it made a powerful difference when these former opponents became passionate advocates for a new direction. The momentum shifted. One by one, others joined in a powerful consensus that we had to act, boldly and quickly. At the end of 2009, the United States passed legislation that changed the way business and civic leaders made plans for the future.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss