They put brine on the roads on Monday, but Tuesday’s rain washed most of it away. So when it started snowing — hard — around noon on Wednesday, traffic quickly ground to a standstill. A photo showing a car that caught fire when its driver tried desperately to get unstuck (a photo taken about 3 miles from my home) became an Internet sensation.
And sure enough, like icicles on the eaves, the climate skeptics started cropping up. It’s so darned cold in the eastern U.S., they say, that climate change must be a fraud. Never mind that other parts of North America are experiencing weather that’s much warmer than normal. Never mind that the winter of 2014, harsh as it is, is still milder than what we were used to in the 1970s. (Don’t take my word for it. Take Justin Gillis’ word in the New York Times.)
Lindsay Webb of Raleigh, N.C., took this photo during the snowstorm of February 12, 2014
Climate change (or global warming, if you prefer) is real. It’s one thing to disagree over what causes it, or to disagree about what should be done about it. But how can we still be arguing about whether climate change exists, as happened this week on Meet the Press?
We’re arguing because we need less propaganda (on both sides) and more factual information, presented in a way that’s understandable to the general public and doesn’t push any one public-policy agenda.
Fellow technical communicators: this is our chance to shine. Who else has the talent and the know-how to convene a group of subject-matter experts, distill and organize information, and write content that’s balanced, dispassionate, yet informative and easily to understand? Get the facts out there, then let people debate about causes and about policy.
I’ll be the first to tell you that I don’t like snow and ice. Warming sounds pretty good right now. But I’m under no illusions: climate change is a serious problem. Its effects are profound. Technical communicators have a vital role to play. Will we answer the call?
Leading Technical Communication 
I think the problem is that we are arguing about concepts that are too complex for the general population (including me), thus the uncertainty has caused many people to latch onto their favorite political party’s “official” stance.
I think the discussion needs to be return to what it was for years, are your for or against pollution?
I remember a “Meet the Press” interview (2005) in which John McCain had this to say:
“The terrible thing about climate change is that we’re not going to see the effects of this for some years ahead of us although we’re seeing some now in the Arctic, in the Antarctic and other manifestations of it. But the worst effects of it are down the road, and if we wait until those effects have taken place, then it’s going to have serious consequences. Tony Blair said–look, suppose we act now and develop these technologies and reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and there’s no such thing as climate change, we have a cleaner world. But suppose we’re right and climate change is taking place and we don’t act, it’s very serious consequences for our environment.”
Or another expression of the same sentiment:
http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/