A Challenge for You

Hey Conservative and Libertarian Friends, here’s a challenge for you: Just once will you please post something to the effect that, ‘Climate science is correct for practical purposes. Climate change is real and it’s happening now. Global warming is caused by human activity. We need to modify our behavior to mitigate the crisis.’ A statement such as this, without qualification or equivocation, will go a long way for you.

I know. It’s cool to be a skeptic. You believe the fake science and fake news that’s fed to you through your right-wing sound chamber. The one that is funded by the deep-pocketed fossil fuel industry.

The coolest skeptics of all do question biased, unqualified information. They conditionally, at least, accept scientific facts.

Sorry to Inconvenience You

‘Let me get this straight,’ begins the snarky meme, ‘I go to the store and buy ham wrapped in plastic, bread in a plastic bag, milk in a plastic jug, mustard in a plastic container, etc., and they won’t give me a plastic bag to carry it home because it’s bad for the environment?’

There are three very straightforward answers: 1) Yes, it’s only one thing, but at least it’s a start; 2) Yes, it’s a start and people are working on better non-plastic wrapping for those other items as well; and 3) Yes, life on our planet (including that of your kids and grandkids) depends on all of us drastically reducing plastic waste. Sorry that you may have been inconvenienced such that you felt the need to repost this smart little meme.

Another meme making the rounds shows a pile of trash along with the words, ‘Thank God California banned plastic straws.’ This ridicule is along the same lines as that of the plastic bag one, and of course, the response is the same. We have to start somewhere. Once again, sorry to inconvenience you.

Finally, there have been all kinds of memes making fun of Greta Thunberg. These are the meanest of all, and the least defensible. Much has been written about these attacks, including dontpoopinthepool posts, The Latest from the Right, and The Attacks on Greta Thunberg Continue. Thank goodness that the frequency of these mean attacks appears to be subsiding.

Yes, everyone wants to be funny, and everyone wants to appear smart. There are better ways to do so than taking sides against the environment. Even when you’re inconvenienced.

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?