Unpredictable. Unfocused. Just like life.

I guess the alarmist global warming/climate change hue and cry isn't having its intended effect. Perhaps that's because science and reality seem to be contradicting the scare tactics.

Whatever the reason, I've started to notice a different rallying cry of late. The was even a video by a science teacher from Independence, Oregon, and just a couple of days ago my local paper printed it almost verbatim in an editorial:

How much more evidence do you need? And isn't it better to do something even if the warnings about climate change are overstated, than to do nothing to stop global warming and risk stumbling into a first-rate, full-blown global catastrophe?

Now we do purchase insurance in case of catastrophic events, so on its face this makes sense. So yes, it might be good to do something, and some folks do. We turn our thermostats down. We drive less. We wash the dishes by hand. We turn off lights we aren't using.

But these statements are always predicated on a "full-blown global catastophe". Just a really scary line with nothing more specific. And the people warning us about the catastrophe, such as Al Gore, have no plans to do anything such as change their lifestyle in any way.

Furthermore, the proposed solutions always seem to involve taxes and carbon trading. There are just money transfers that do absolutely nothing to resolve the problem if there is one. The occasional talk of actually cutting emissions centers purely on a few developed countries, regardless of where the emissions actually come from.

The statement above is a wedge; it convinces you that maybe we should do a little bit just in case. Then once we start we should do a little more. Then a little more. Well you should anyway, because the people that are warning you about it are too important to do so.

Today's paper had an even more questionable message:

As for the charge that global warming is science fiction, the fact that delegates from nearly 190 countries met in Bali last month to confront climate change should silence the skeptics. If the governments of virtually every country in the world can't agree exactly what to do about this crisis, they at least concur that it exists and demands urgent, comprehensive action.

Is the fact that people from 190 countries wanted to take a free tropical vacation at this time in the year now accepted as proof that global warming is real? Bali seemed to be all about chastizing North American countries. After all, it isn't about 190 countries cuttiing emissions; it's all about a few developed countries cutting emissions, regardless of the effect globally.

I especially love reading biased statements such as this one:

Despite assurances that it will cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has failed to provide either a credible action plan or the moral leadership needed to enlist 33 million Canadians in a national initiative that will be as all-encompassing as fighting a war.

The Conservatives should, in short order, show that they can lead on climate change -- or make way for a party that can.

Neglecting of course to mention that a previous government made a similar claim then did nothing - for 10 years. Will that government be running on their record?

Perhaps both of these governments realize something the media fail to grasp; that people like to appear concerned about the environment, but that concern fades pretty quickly once it hits you directly in the wallet. And regardless of how bit a hit to the wallet, global warming won't change in the slightest.

Wait. Of course global warming will change. Climate is constantly changing, and it always will be. We should certainly endeavor to treat our planet well. But buying carbon credits and throwing money arbitrarily at the problem does nothing to improve the situation.