Global Warming

Cant we all agree to just disagree and then move on?

There is so much talk and disagreement about global warming (better labeled global weirding), which in actuality should be called climate change (because people don't do shades of gray in our progressively stupider society). The thing is that the climate models have so many variables and so many assumptions and so little data to calibrate them that in many cases its no more accurate than a dartboard (the Monte Carlo method of modeling, i believe its called). Of course the people (who like I said are dumb) cant understand the models, much less understand what modeling even really is (it TELLS the future, PREDICTS reality, or verifies FACTS, right?), and even much much less understand that models are based on assumptions, guesses, and simplifications of the much more complicated reality.

For every climate model scientist who thinks we are in great danger there is another climate model scientist (paid or unpaid by corporate devils) who will point out any number of assumptions made and claim this invalidates the model. Let's get past this part of the arguing and focus on something more tangible.

When it was shown that acid rain was devastating our forests and killing mountain ecoysystems, we decided to stop releasing sulphur dioxide. Since 1990, a 40% reduction in acid rain has been achieved thanks to legislation. The goals set for 2010 were achieved in 2007 and the cost ended up being half of what was projected. Why cant we just do more of this?

Thus, the challenge:

1) I challenge you to walk 50 ft in an urban stream and not see a large piece of garbage. Why don't we focus energy on preserving our urban waterways? I can quantifiably prove to you that there is garbage in our streams and i can show you the negative effects it has on us. Think about it this way too: would you let your kids play in the stream? What if the water was clear and there were no car tires in the water? Your answer probably changed to yes, even though the visible pollutants are the least of your concerns. Our urban streams are toxic. Wouldn't it be nice to have streams our kids could play, catch fish in, and generally learn from instead of watching TV shows about streams?

2) I challenge you to look at statistics of asthmas and other respiratory illness occurrence in major cities. Compare those to areas where people drive less and tell me there inst some correlation. Wouldn't it be nice if it literally was easier for us to all breath? Wouldn't it also be nice if our commute could also double as fitness (or even, what if we listened to audio instruction on learning a language, making it a 3-way winning situation)? Our kids would be able to breathe, we would be healthier, and we would all be able to communicate better.


3) I challenge you to visit a landfill, a wastewater treatment plant, or a factory animal farm. Then I challenge you to somehow preserve the shock-and-awe of what we are doing to our natural resources (i feel like senseless rape is a pretty good descriptor, since its not consensual and we don't even appreciate it). Use that energy to waste-less. Consciously think about your power usage (do you sleep with lights on? If so, we cant be friends), water usage (but i NEED to shower in the morning to wake up AND at night to go to bed), and garbage creation (1 bag a day). Then, make some minor adjustments (one light at a time, 1000 gallons a month, 1 bag of garbage a week, 1 bag of recyclables a day).

We may never truly know whether or not we are affecting the climate, but we can damn well be sure we are affecting our waterways, our health, and the local environment around us. The thing is that if we focus on improving areas such as these last 3, then the climate problem, if there is one would go away. And if there is no climate problem, well then, we will have still improved our quality of life...which as it stands now, is not something we want to do. How does that make sense?