Many tuppences make a pile of change

I have another couple of tuppences:

  • I find it encouraging to see that there are so many initiatives working to deal with the serious issues facing our world.
  • I find it disheartening to see this resulting in a great many mixed messages.

For instance:

The not-stupid.org website currently shows a countdown… to a 2009 (non-)event in Copenhagen.

Not-stupid.org website shows a countdown to a 2009 (non-)eventIt’s a sad indictment on our situation that I can even ask the question “is not-stupid.org stupid?”

Is it really such a bright idea to give something a name based on a date — one that’s now in the past (e.g. ‘10:10‘)?

I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry” Monbiot says, while at the same time helping to promote nukes as a solution. Jeremy Leggett says flat-out: “George Monbiot is wrong. Nuclear power is not the way to fight climate change — renewable energy is a safe, clean source which will become cheaper as we invest in it”.

I agree with Jeremy Leggett. But that just means that I’m as much to blame as the next blogger — for adding to the noise 😦

All these tuppences add up to is: a loose pile of change.

The biggest problem we have in this so-called ‘civilisation’ is that the idiot box is still the way to reach the people who have the power to force our governments to make meaningful change. Those who own the now-digital airwaves clearly don’t see a problem with a ‘business as usual’ that is killing us softly with its siren song.

Advertisements

About pendantry

Phlyarologist (part-time) and pendant. Campaigner for action against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and injustice in all its forms. Humanist, atheist, notoftenpist. Wannabe poet, writer and astronaut.
This entry was posted in News and politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Many tuppences make a pile of change

  1. witsendnj says:

    Ha, I like the “loose pile of change” aka “squabbling over the scraps!” There is too much competition and outright conflict between various factions trying to save humanity from greed and stupidity – climate change activists and scientists, environmentalists, government agencies, “not-for-profit” NGO’s that are more concerned about getting money from green-washing corporate-based foundations etc…and almost no coordination with the peak-oil crowd. As usual, the liberal/progressive/educated factions are fragmented and don’t have a chance against the united front of industry: Monsanto, Bayer, Koch, Blackwater et al.

    http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/03/squabbling-over-scraps-at-taminos.html

    “…scientists frightened by positive amplifying feedbacks leading to a runaway Venus syndrome prefer to be oblivious to ozone, because the last-ditch hope they secretly cling to is that catastrophic warming might be slowed with geo-engineering technology…and geo-egineering won’t do a damn thing to stop trees from going extinct, taking most other life-forms with them. Now, that’s a seriously disheartening notion.”

    • pendantry says:

      One possible problem with highlighting ozone is that in the minds of some[1] the word triggers ‘Montreal Protocol’, and ‘no longer a problem’ — though that’s referring to high-level ozone, not the ground-dwelling stuff you’re talking about. And as high-level ozone is no longer a problem[2] anyone talking about ‘ozone’ probably thinks that ‘global warming is caused by ozone’ and is, therefore, ‘clueless and not worth listening to’… 😦 Could it perhaps be a similar problematic issue to the one I referred to in a comment on your squabbling over scraps post?[3] This kind of thinking does my head in.

      [1] Mine, for instance! until I read your basic premise, that is. There’s (at least) one thread on the Manpollo forums on ‘Dead Trees‘ — have you seen that?
      [2] Except that I’m sure I heard not so long ago that it is becoming an issue again. Of course, now I can’t recall where I got that snippet. Possibly the Manpollo Project forums, though the search facility there can be painful…
      [3] I find that sometimes writing can be as painful as having teeth pulled. Especially when one has to smith the words while also attempting to deal with the odd quirks of the multiple user interfaces at various bloggers’ websites. Blasted machines — I’m sure someone once told me that they were supposed to make things easier.

  2. witsendnj says:

    Thanks, the “ozone agenda” needs all the support it can get!
    As far as “hide the decline” goes, the data was discarded – that’s the decline that was “hidden” which is as you rightly point out, is a distortion of the scientific process by deniers. The proxy data about tree rings was discarded because it was anomalous, and contradicted by the temperature date which by that time was being recorded by thermometers. Briffa and others published speculations years before climategate accused them of not doing so, saying that possibly the tree ring decline was due to anthropogenic sources – but they will go no further than that, because they are scientists and can’t prove it, and they’re not even botanists or foresters so they just aren’t qualified to make any such claims. This left the field open for the deniers to hijack the debate and of course, the timing right before Copenhagen was ever so convenient.

  3. Pingback: Change: solar, IPCC and Bundy | Wibble

I'd love to hear what your views are!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s