For donations, particularly for those overseas, I would encourage people to give to the Philippine National Red Cross (although online you can't specify the purpose of the donation it seems), or www.txtpower.org (I can personally vouch for one of the founders/leaders).
While browsing through facebook, I read a post with regard to climate change alarmism.
So here's a thought: we can wait for a few years' or decades' time for a scientifically sound and unassailable verdict (if such were even possible and non-contradictory) on, say, whether or not Tropical Storm Ondoy is an extreme weather event with a provable causal link to human-originated climate change. In the long run, we are all dead anyway--so we shouldn't bother to try to make a difference today.
The thing is...
I have followed the international climate change negotiations from 2002 when only scientists and government negotiators were mainly involved in this milieu. Certainly before it became a pop phenomenon with Al Gore and his "Climate Change for Dummies" media campaign (not to denigrate at all the important work that the IPCC has produced to deserve--more than Gore--the honor of accepting the Nobel Peace Prize).
Some researchers, scientists and policy wonks are saying, and some with evidence, that climate change discourse is domineering, and that it is alarmist. I respect and believe in the exigency of contrarian views that question 'authoritative' narratives as a condition for healthy public policy debate.
But... here are some of the arguments against pernicious, human-led climate change:
- Changes in climate can be explained by natural phenomena e.g. solar activity
- Artificial emissions aren't sufficient to explain climate change, natural emissions (sheep farting) are greater
- It's not global warming, it's global cooling! (yeah, I'm sure the dinosaurs would have appreciated a heads up when it was their turn)
- The IPCC forecasts and models are wrong (flawed, I can accept. but plain WRONG?)
- The pro-climate change negotiators "use science to argue the polemics of the case rather than just draw attention to the science" thus blurring the line between scientific inquiry and politics
- The IPCC fudged the data in the report
- Every major national scientific body in the world is wrong and/or they are simply silencing the opposition
[for less sarcasm, here's one such article: Forecast: A cooling trend on climate change]
When I first started getting interested in the climate change issue, I even read Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist when it first came out--and with an open mind. But after going through that hefty book, it seemed to me that the skeptic's arguments were flawed because the technical criticisms that he and his students made against the IPCC and related research, particularly on methodological grounds, were weak. I just googled him and found that he and his book have been discredited by the Danish committee on scientific dishonesty, yet vindicated by the Danish ministry for science, technology & innovation; one verdict is rejected by some in the scientific community, one verdict is rejected by others. Well, I suppose inquiring minds would argue that this is another example of the Authorities beating down dissent. Bjorn Lomborg isn't exactly the poster boy for the Weak and the Helpless--having made quite a killing with his bestseller (fiction or non-fiction?) and even appointed by the Danish conservative government to head the national Environmental Assessment Institute three years after he published his signature book. One wonders whether he whispers to himself, 'And yet it moves!' before going to bed each night...
Anyway. My conclusion as a layperson is that I have no reason to doubt that climate change is real and that it is caused by human activity.
I am even more so skeptical of skeptical wannabe-environmentalists that, say, dominate the US Congress and block constructive American action in the international community's efforts to address climate change that negatively affects people throughout the planet--especially those who are most vulnerable. What pro-climate change conspiracy can exist when powerful politicians have the means to wage a counter-campaign that decries a significant portion of the world's scientific community as frauds? These politicians are in the pockets of the oil companies, the automakers and big industry--and blatantly so: they monger fear of negative impact on the American economy (a tune they played in the boom years that they play louder in the middle of an economic crisis).*
Global consensus on climate change is a myth itself; two of the biggest polluters, the US and China, have not agreed to binding commitments on mitigation. And if we blame the Bush administration for stalling international action on climate change we can also point a pinky at Al Gore who pushed UN consensus to the lowest common denominator by having brought the Kyoto Protocol to the table in the first place as a flooded-down version of what the protocol could have been. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Kyoto agreement that the US government refused to sign for 12 years was actually their idea. Who says Americans don't have a sense of irony?
I don't doubt that there is a certain amount of exploitation from researchers who want funding (because they often get too much already as it is?), from the $64 billion-worth emissions trading market players (in comparison, rescuing Wall Street we were talking in the trillions), from beneficiaries of renewable energy subsidy (i'd rather that governments subsidize solar or wind than oil), et cetera.
Still, I can't help but think that there isn't enough alarm! Who's pulling the wool over whose eyes? We feel it, we see it. We grew up knowing what to expect in May and December, and now we are reliant on the daily AccuWeather on our iPhones. To climate change deniers, I say this: convince the pacific islanders, cancer-ridden sunbathers in Australia and the polar bears. Then maybe you can convince me.
Image property of Kipper Williams
* Just to continue on this ad hominem rant: These are politicians that can't even find the conscience to provide adequate healthcare to their citizens, who are furthermore probably the same ones that deny they descended from apes, and to quote a certain presidential aspirant, cling to guns and religion.
The thing is...
I have followed the international climate change negotiations from 2002 when only scientists and government negotiators were mainly involved in this milieu. Certainly before it became a pop phenomenon with Al Gore and his "Climate Change for Dummies" media campaign (not to denigrate at all the important work that the IPCC has produced to deserve--more than Gore--the honor of accepting the Nobel Peace Prize).
Some researchers, scientists and policy wonks are saying, and some with evidence, that climate change discourse is domineering, and that it is alarmist. I respect and believe in the exigency of contrarian views that question 'authoritative' narratives as a condition for healthy public policy debate.
But... here are some of the arguments against pernicious, human-led climate change:
- Changes in climate can be explained by natural phenomena e.g. solar activity
- Artificial emissions aren't sufficient to explain climate change, natural emissions (sheep farting) are greater
- It's not global warming, it's global cooling! (yeah, I'm sure the dinosaurs would have appreciated a heads up when it was their turn)
- The IPCC forecasts and models are wrong (flawed, I can accept. but plain WRONG?)
- The pro-climate change negotiators "use science to argue the polemics of the case rather than just draw attention to the science" thus blurring the line between scientific inquiry and politics
- The IPCC fudged the data in the report
- Every major national scientific body in the world is wrong and/or they are simply silencing the opposition
[for less sarcasm, here's one such article: Forecast: A cooling trend on climate change]
When I first started getting interested in the climate change issue, I even read Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist when it first came out--and with an open mind. But after going through that hefty book, it seemed to me that the skeptic's arguments were flawed because the technical criticisms that he and his students made against the IPCC and related research, particularly on methodological grounds, were weak. I just googled him and found that he and his book have been discredited by the Danish committee on scientific dishonesty, yet vindicated by the Danish ministry for science, technology & innovation; one verdict is rejected by some in the scientific community, one verdict is rejected by others. Well, I suppose inquiring minds would argue that this is another example of the Authorities beating down dissent. Bjorn Lomborg isn't exactly the poster boy for the Weak and the Helpless--having made quite a killing with his bestseller (fiction or non-fiction?) and even appointed by the Danish conservative government to head the national Environmental Assessment Institute three years after he published his signature book. One wonders whether he whispers to himself, 'And yet it moves!' before going to bed each night...
Anyway. My conclusion as a layperson is that I have no reason to doubt that climate change is real and that it is caused by human activity.
I am even more so skeptical of skeptical wannabe-environmentalists that, say, dominate the US Congress and block constructive American action in the international community's efforts to address climate change that negatively affects people throughout the planet--especially those who are most vulnerable. What pro-climate change conspiracy can exist when powerful politicians have the means to wage a counter-campaign that decries a significant portion of the world's scientific community as frauds? These politicians are in the pockets of the oil companies, the automakers and big industry--and blatantly so: they monger fear of negative impact on the American economy (a tune they played in the boom years that they play louder in the middle of an economic crisis).*
Global consensus on climate change is a myth itself; two of the biggest polluters, the US and China, have not agreed to binding commitments on mitigation. And if we blame the Bush administration for stalling international action on climate change we can also point a pinky at Al Gore who pushed UN consensus to the lowest common denominator by having brought the Kyoto Protocol to the table in the first place as a flooded-down version of what the protocol could have been. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Kyoto agreement that the US government refused to sign for 12 years was actually their idea. Who says Americans don't have a sense of irony?
I don't doubt that there is a certain amount of exploitation from researchers who want funding (because they often get too much already as it is?), from the $64 billion-worth emissions trading market players (in comparison, rescuing Wall Street we were talking in the trillions), from beneficiaries of renewable energy subsidy (i'd rather that governments subsidize solar or wind than oil), et cetera.
Still, I can't help but think that there isn't enough alarm! Who's pulling the wool over whose eyes? We feel it, we see it. We grew up knowing what to expect in May and December, and now we are reliant on the daily AccuWeather on our iPhones. To climate change deniers, I say this: convince the pacific islanders, cancer-ridden sunbathers in Australia and the polar bears. Then maybe you can convince me.
Image property of Kipper Williams
* Just to continue on this ad hominem rant: These are politicians that can't even find the conscience to provide adequate healthcare to their citizens, who are furthermore probably the same ones that deny they descended from apes, and to quote a certain presidential aspirant, cling to guns and religion.
