Obfuscation

Obfuscation is a wonderful word. Say it out loud, and you already know the meaning just by the sound of it. For the record, the definition is: ‘the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.’

Climate science deniers claim to be skeptical about the amount of global warming (“it’s not so bad”), humanity’s role (“you can’t say how much we’ve contributed”), and the 97% scientific consensus (“it’s nowhere near that”). Most are sincere; they believe what they want to be true, and they listen to those who reinforce those false beliefs.

During the holidays, we gather with family and friends to enjoy each others’ company. Although we may try to avoid discussion of topics such as religion or politics, climate change shouldn’t necessarily be off-limits. Why should it be political, or even controversial? The reason is, those who’ve made it their business to obfuscate the topic have to this point, been successful. Who would do such a thing?

ExxonMobil knew about human-caused climate change as early as 1981, well before it became more widely known and accepted. It wasn’t until 1988 that NASA Climate Scientist James Hansen testified to Congress about the science of climate change to place the information in the public domain. Not only did Exxon know through their scientific modeling that the burning of fossil fuels (their product) causes the buildup of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere leading to catastrophic results, they actively tried to squelch the report and the science itself.

Exxon was joined by Peabody Energy, the Koch brothers, and others in actively funding climate science denial. Much of the funding enables obfuscation of the science by muddying the waters. Remember the “you can’t say how much we’ve contributed” argument? (By the way, it’s 100%.)

Now that it’s generally known that Exxon did know, and did actively obfuscate the facts. Now that we do know the facts, will we (finally) do the right thing?

The Attacks on Greta Thunberg Continue

The attacks on Greta Thunberg were discussed in this recent post. They haven't stopped. Here's a social media response to the criticism that I recently gave.

Either you believe the science of climate change or you don’t. If you do, then you understand that the problem is global and it requires global solutions. The Paris Agreement that you mention, was a first step, but only that. It’s so disappointing that one nation, in a fit of insane arrogance, pulled out. Since that agreement doesn’t go far enough, a champion, especially a young one who can garner support from other young people, is exactly what is needed. If you have a better way to reach zero emissions in a couple decades, I would be happy to listen. On the other hand, if you do not believe the science, then you’ve bought into the obfuscation and outright mendacity fomented by the likes of Exxon and the Koch family. They have paid for access to opinions of the far right, and they’re getting their money’s worth. Either way, leave the kid alone.

The latest from the right

Based on observation of social media, the latest from climate science deniers appears to be in two areas: backlash against Climate Activist Greta Thunberg, and statements to the effect that science has been wrong about the climate in the past (with the implication that we therefore shouldn’t believe it now).

The first is easy. In this Vox.com article, the author, David Roberts, states that in its typical vile fashion, the right has attempted to use Ms. Thunberg’s mental health against her. But the attempt has backfired. She is patently authentic, direct in a way that is unique among public figures, and not at all subject to coercion.

Thus, we have Greta’s impassioned appeal to the governments of the world through her speech at the United Nations and others, the enormously successful Global Climate Strike that she helped lead, and the miserable failure of attempts to discredit her. Watching it all unfold, and even taking part in the Strike itself, has been more than gratifying.

But we are also now seeing a resurgence of climate-denial talking points to the effect that as late as the 1970s, scientists thought that the earth was cooling, and that even when global warming became widely accepted science, predictions have often been wrong. Let’s break this down a little.

1) Science isn’t always right, and scientists will be the first to admit that as a discipline devoted to understanding and pursuit of knowledge, there have indeed been errors. So yes, before the effect of greenhouse gasses on atmospheric temperatures became widely understood, there were theories about a current ‘ice-age cycle.’ The thing about science is, however, that it’s self-correcting. And we should trust this mechanism. Just because people once thought the earth was the center of the universe does not mean we should disbelieve scientists when they now say that it is not.

2) Some of the "previous science" being brought out now never was. It's a pack of lies. Like the doctored Time Magazine cover and the purported scientific predictions about the polar ice cap melting before its time.

3) Climate science has only existed in its present form for about 35 years. Yes, the climate had been studied before that, but it was only in the 1980s that global temperatures could be measured precisely over time, and that computer models could become powerful enough to become useful. They are more useful now than previously, and they will continue to improve. This is not to say that we should wait to act because the "science isn't complete" yet. Science is never complete. At this point, however, it's certainly complete enough to understand the path forward.

The Right continues to try to muddy the waters of science and the green movement. We’ve lamented it before, but this shouldn’t have ever become political at all. Unfortunately, powerful forces continue to purchase goons on the Right to use as political hacks and spread nonsense. More unfortunately, these forces, such as Exxon and Koch Industries, have resources that are virtually unlimited.

But we, the people, have Greta. And a couple million other Kids.

Climate Strike - September 20, 2019

Debbie and I were proud to attend the Global Climate Strike on September 20, 2019. The strike was organized by young people in the Sunrise Movement and other organizations such as the Sierra Club and 350.org. Greta Thunberg is the spiritual leader of the entire movement, and she is everyone's environmental heroine.

When we first heard of the strike, we made plans to attend the New York City one. Greta would be in attendance, so it promised to be a moving experience. But when local events became organized as well, we decided to attend the Cleveland strike. Although I'm sure we missed a lot of excitement in the Big Apple, the Cleveland one was just fine for us.

We arrived at noon with our signs, and immediately joined a rather small crowd marching around Public Square and chanting. We all stopped when the speakers began, and at that point, the crowd began to build. After a while, a good portion of Public Square was filled with protesters.

I was particularly impressed that many of the great speakers, not to mention the organizers and the protesters were quite young. Many were high school and college students.

And that's the entire point: adults have nearly entirely destroyed the planet's ecosystem. Young people, who will inherit the earth, need to become the catalysts for change. And so they are. And since those of us in my generation have also proved incapable of correcting our madness, maybe the kids can. We only need to stay out of their way.

That's what Debbie and I are doing. Being supportive in every way we know. But we also know we can't be the leaders of the movement. That ship has sailed. We are happy to follow those most affected. And those most enthusiastic.

My Question to the Candidates

CNN is holding a Climate Change Town Hall on Wednesday, September 4 at 5:00 PM EDT. Many of the top Democratic presidential candidates will take part. The Sierra Club asked me if I wanted to submit a question. I did. Here it is:

The Green New Deal or anything like it requires a transformation of our entire economy. Besides Executive Action, major legislation will be required. How will you convince reluctant and even hostile Republicans in Congress to join Democrats and go along? More importantly, how will you convince more of the American people that it’s necessary?

Do Sign the Petition

A month or so ago, the Ohio State Legislature passed HB6 to bail out Ohio's two nuclear power plants as well as some coal plants by making consumers pay an extra amount on their electric bills. This is an awful piece of legislation for consumers and for the environment. Our Ohio House and Senate representatives, most of whom are being paid off by electric utilities, should be ashamed.

Now a group is trying to repeal this dirty bill. To do so, a referendum is required. To have a referendum placed on Ohio ballots, there must be a certain amount of signatures. Every Ohio consumer ought to sign the petition and then vote for the repeal. The repeal language is still being written, so there's nothing to sign yet.

Even though the petition isn't out yet, we're already seeing ads telling us not to sign it. The ads couldn't be more mendacious. They show alarming scenes of Chinese leaders and military and warn us that “The Chinese government is quietly invading our American electrical grid” and “coming for our energy jobs” via “a special interest group" about to start collecting signatures for the referendum -- a special interest group the ad warns is "boosting Chinese financial interests” and “risking our national security.” That is one heck of a bunch of lies. Ohioans for Energy Security is the group behind the ads. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Don't believe the Big Lies. Sign it... Whenever it's written.

You can find the spurious ad in this Cleveland.com article.

I Told You So

No one likes an I-told-you-so. And there is nothing I would have rather been wrong about. But unfortunately for all of us, I was right. Those of you (including many friends and family members) who denied and doubted anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change was wrong. I’m sorry - and you have no idea how much – but I told you so.

How did this happen? I know I’m not smarter than any of you. I do, however, choose to believe and trust in science. You have chosen to believe those who have been supported by people with a vested interest in the status quo of burning fossil fuels. Their purpose is to cast doubt on the facts and the science and to convert this into a political debate, such that they can maintain their fossil-fuel burning, pollution-fueled fortune. Their investment in certain politicians and unscrupulous news outlets has paid off handsomely. This is evidenced by the fact that so many still, despite all the factual information to the contrary, believe their lies. If you’ve believed them in the past, you probably still do as well.

You probably don’t like being called a science denier. You’d rather be considered a 'climate-change skeptic.' That sounds better. Since the global temperature measurements are now literally and figuratively through the roof, you have now been forced to face the fact that the planet’s climate is changing fast. Based on what you hear from Fox News, President Trump, and most members of the Republican Party, you believe you can still be a skeptic, however. Their skepticism and yours take on various dimensions. I prefer to consider them fall-back positions.

Fall-back Position 1: It’s only been a little warmer where I live, so what’s the big deal? The big deal is that July 2019 was the hottest month in human history. It was 0.07 degrees hotter than July 2016, the previous peak month. The past half-decade is likely to become the warmest five-year period ever recorded. The result is unstable weather events occurring worldwide, along with unprecedented melting of Greenland and arctic ice.

Fall-back Position 2: The climate is always changing, and this is just a natural cycle. The temperatures noted above and elsewhere are not just the highest ever recorded. They are the highest in all of human history. In fact, the last time the planet was this warm was 125,000 years ago. Science had predicted this change, and it’s happening before our eyes.

Fall-back Position 3: You can’t prove that human activity is to blame. Even if it is, science hasn’t been able to say how much. The first argument is beginning to fall away, as the scientific proof of the greenhouse effect has been overwhelming. Fox News is still hanging on to the second argument, however. Although there is some uncertainty due to the role of natural variability, researchers state that ocean fluctuations and similar factors are unlikely to be the cause of more than a small fraction of modern global warming. The best estimate of the human contribution to modern warming is 100%.

Science is not always right. When it is wrong, however, it does manage to self-correct and continue to build upon itself. What would it take for science to get this one wrong? A lot. According to Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims (such as all other climate scientists are wrong), though not necessarily wrong, do require extraordinary proof. That has not happened. Not even close.

You’ve made the mistake of believing what you want to be true, instead of what is true. I’m sorry, but you were wrong.

What can we do? Two very simple things: First, live your life like the environment matters. It does. The planet is your home and mine. Don’t mess it up. Second, vote for people who will do the right thing. If a person refuses to pass legislation to protect the environment, he or she is not a good person, and does not deserve your vote.

The Green New Deal

“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” That’s a joke, and it’s funny because a lot of people feel that the government couldn’t possibly do anything to help anyone. Americans, more than citizens of most countries, distrust their government. Most of us believe that we’d be best off if the government would just leave us alone. We don’t always consider that the government makes sure the food we eat is safe, that we’re not invaded by a foreign power, that our children are educated, and that our air and water remain relatively clean.

Permit me to take it a step further. There are some things that only the government can do. Think: create the interstate highway system, build the Panama Canal, defeat Hitler, and put a man on the moon. Let me also add, create the New Deal to vanquish the Great Depression, and, I hope, create the Green New Deal.

In the early 1930s, the nation was in dire straits. The stock market had crashed, and the Great Depression was only just getting going. The nation was seized by fear. There was no end in sight. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt instituted a series of programs and projects aimed at stabilizing the economy and providing jobs and relief to those who were suffering. This was the New Deal.

The New Deal wasn’t a clear or instant success. Many of the jobs and programs didn’t last. The Depression proved more resilient than anyone thought possible. But some of the New Deal Legacy is still with us, however. Parks and their infrastructure, much farm legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate financial markets, and this thing called, ‘Social Security.’ But most of all, the New Deal gave people hope. Hope was something only the government could provide in this instance. Hope is the opposite of fear, and it was what we needed most.

In the early part of this, the twenty-first century, the nation and the world are in dire straits. Pollution is overwhelming and climate change is spiraling out of control. There appears to be almost no progress toward curbing our nation’s use of dirty fossil fuels, as entrenched powerful interests with unlimited resources fight to keep the status-quo.

We’ve known about climate change and its causes for 35 years now, and yet we’ve only continued to make this existential problem worse each year. Furthermore, Indigenous People, People of Color, the disadvantaged, the poor and the working poor are disproportionally affected by the disastrous results. Witness Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. Witness the Dakota Access Pipeline protests and arrests.

In 2007, New York Times Columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an article and book in which he coined and made popular the phrase, ‘Green New Deal.’ The idea was that a green revolution in America can drive innovation, spur new industries, help the disaffected, and enhance our security. Although President Obama referred to it as he ran for President in 2008, the concept didn’t really catch on.

Until 2019, that is. In January of this year, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a newly elected Congresswoman from New York, took up the challenge. She and Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts wrote a detailed national, industrial, economic mobilization plan to transition the country away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy within ten years.

The plan is only fourteen pages in length. I’ve read it. It doesn’t contain any specific legislation but is rather a road map for radical change in our nation’s economy and especially our energy production and usage. Is this what’s needed to reverse climate change? Yes; this, or something like it.

The Green New Deal (GND) has now gained attention. Other countries are following suit. It’s nice to be a leader once again, even when our Presidential leadership won’t. Several presidential candidates, the Sierra Club, 350.org, and the Sunrise Movement have endorsed it. I am most encouraged by the signing on of Sunrise. They are primarily students and other young people. They’re the ones who will need to live with climate change as it continues to get worse. I attended one of their meetings and came away more encouraged than ever. The energy was contagious. Since we old people have made such a mess of this planet, we have no other choice than to rely on those who inherit it from us.

Here is Sunrise’s description of the GND.

...

The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan introduced by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey to mobilize every aspect of American society toward 100% clean and renewable energy, guarantee a good job to all members of our society, and create economic prosperity for all. The goals of the Green New Deal are:

to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;

to secure clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all people of the United States for generations to come; and

to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, de-industrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.

…

Most importantly, the Green New Deal can give us hope. Hope that can win over fear.

You may think that it will be too costly. You may wonder whether we can afford the Green New Deal. We can’t afford not to do it.

Specifics

Environmentalists are well aware that the Trump Administration is putting forth toxic policies at a huge human and environmental cost. Others, such as those who voted for him, or even those who say they're neutral, may not be so savvy. Here, courtesy of the Sierra Club is a list of seven current policies that should be of concern to all; they will damage our planet for generations.

• Moving forward with construction of the environmentally destructive, inhumane border wall.
• A new budget that cuts major environmental and health programs.
• Stripping federal protections for gray wolves in the lower 48 states.
• Beginning seismic testing for offshore drilling off the Atlantic Coast, endangering marine mammals along with countless coastal economies.
• Finalizing new rules gutting the Endangered Species Act.
• Issuing seismic testing permits for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain, harming or even killing polar bears.
• Finalizing a reckless new 5-year offshore drilling plan, the first draft of which made more than 90% of U.S. waters available to oil and gas companies.

Not included here, presumably because they're not quite so current, are dropping from the Paris Climate Accord, and allowing the dumping of mining waste into streams and rivers.

You Know Better

This is an open letter to those of my friends and family who know better. It adds up to quite a few of you. I hope you read through it all.

You know better than all of the scientists who study Climate Change. Okay, I'll bring up the 97% agreement you hear about, but only to stipulate that the actual number is higher than that. But whether it's 97 or 99 percent, it's enough to call a consensus. You wouldn't know about the consensus by watching Fox News, listening to talk radio, or listening to the President. Those people know better, and that's why you do as well.

Real scientists, those conducting peer-reviewed studies that are published in scientific journals, all agree; there is no debate on the matter. Is it possible that they are wrong, and that you and Fox News are right?

Of course, it is. In your mind, it may even be likely. After all, you have President Trump on your side. And let's just apply some common sense here. We can't even see carbon dioxide, so how can we say that we're pumping so much of it into the atmosphere. And it's been a cold couple weeks, so how can they say the earth is warming? Forget for the moment that most of Modern Physics is outside our realm of common sense as well.

In fact, history is rife with examples of science getting things wrong. Some individuals (I am thinking of people such as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein)  have changed the world by proving the existing science incomplete, inadequate, or just plain incorrect. Will it happen again? I'm sure it will.

There's only one little itsy-bitsy item to consider: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The great thing about science, the reason I don't know better, is that it's based on provable facts and that it is self-correcting. In all those instances where the existing science did get it wrong, once that extraordinary proof was presented, the new paradigm was made part of the existing base of knowledge.

Will Climate Science, in particular, be proven wrong? Will you, who know better, be the one to do it? I, for one, will be more than happy to see your extraordinary proof.

Tale of Two Archipelagos

Debbie and I were fortunate to have been able to visit two island chains in the Indian Ocean during a cruise: the Seychelles and the Maldives. For those who have heard of them but not visited, they may both conjure thoughts of island-paradise. But from our perspective, they were quite different.

Although there are other types of islands, most are volcanic or coral. Volcanic islands are mountainous, while coral ones are flat and often just above sea level. Some island chains, or archipelagos, have both, although many have one type or the other. The Seychelles are volcanic and mountainous, while the Maldives are coral and flat. But the differences don’t end there.

Island of Mahe, Seychelles

The Seychelles (we visited Praslin, Mahe, and Coco Islands), considered by some the original Garden of Eden, are as close to an island paradise as you can get. Other than tea production, the main industry is tourism. The locals understand this well, and they nurture their assets accordingly. More importantly, they consider the environment as critical to their current and future well-being. Literal and figurative signs regarding the importance of the environment, including climate change, were everywhere.

The Maldives feature excellent beaches, snorkeling, and diving. Several of our fellow passengers can attest to that. But it’s only true for the outer islands.

Island of Male, Maldives

Our arrival into the chain was greeted by several small, flat, beachy islands. But when we approached the inhabited ones, we saw piles of trash that formed artificial mountains, burning garbage, trash in the ocean, air pollution, and a plethora of boats and people. The main and central island of Male is something to behold. It is entirely one city. There’s nothing but buildings, jumbled streets, motorbikes, and people, obviously way too many.

After walking just a bit, the rubbish, pollution, and din of the city forced us to turn around and retreat back to the cruise ship.

The obvious problem: too many people. The solution, like it or not, will come soon. Rising sea levels will affect the Maldives in short order.