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.