Debate with a Climate Change Skeptic

In 2000 Debbie and I returned to the Cleveland, Ohio area, for good. Notice the comma in that sentence; it’s important.

After living in the Detroit area for fourteen years, and in the far southern part of Ohio for the seven year prior to that, we did move here for good in the sense that this would be one of our last moves, and certainly our last big one. But the for good part has an additional meaning: we returned to be closer to our family and many of our old friends. We are happy that we did it; it’s proven to be a very good move.

Although we were sad to have left our Michigan friends, the old Ohio buddies welcomed us back. We also made several new friends, and many of these were through running. One of the very first of those to welcome me personally was Mike George. Mike was one of several that I met through the Dead Runners Society (aka DRS, an international internet group of runners who write about their running).

Since we’ve stayed in touch, Mike and I have now been friends for seventeen years. We traveled to Maryland together to run the JFK 50-Mile run, and even met up in Prague before the Prague Marathon. We now work at the same company and still occasionally run together.

I know what you’re thinking. That’s nice Dan, but what does it have to do with pooping (or not) in the pool? And the answer is: lots.

Mike is a self-described climate change skeptic. He has written some thoughtful, even analytical comments in response to my If You Believe post. My answer follows, but first I want to say that we need to keep this kind of dialogue going. I truly appreciate all comments and criticism. But I am still struggling mightily to understand how and why reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people – many of them family members and friends like Mike – either a) don’t believe the climate is changing, b) believe it’s changing but the change is not man-made, or c) believe in anthropogenic climate change, but don’t think it’s important enough to vote accordingly. This struggle is described in greater detail in my An Open Letter post, and it's still going.

Now that that’s out of the way, I should say that I’m not so sure I’m the best person to conduct a debate such as this, for several reasons:

1) I consider myself a lousy debater. I almost never win. I can only barely convince my wife that I’m not such an awful guy, and that’s only after 41 years of marriage (just kidding there – I think she thinks highly of me).

2) Even though I believe in the science, I’m certainly not a scientist. I only write about it in this blog because I feel it’s important with regards to the future of our little planet. Where’s Bill Nye when you need him?

3) Despite what I said about keeping the dialogue going, I have other feelings in the back of my head, to the effect that we ought to be well beyond debate on this issue. We no longer debate whether the earth is the round, whether we’re at the center of the universe, or whether gravity, relativity or electricity exist. That would be counter-productive; discussion on those topics now centers around how best to work with the facts at hand. It’s the same with climate change. It’s where that issue/debate ought to be now.

Now, aren’t you happy that’s out of the way? On to Mike’s assertions.

The amount of change appears to vary widely, depending on the source. Mike cites one source stating the rise has been +1.0 C in the past 50 years, and another claiming +0.8 C in 100 years. My response is that this is the internet; anyone can say anything. Some discrepancies may be due to different start and end points, including, if it’s a little older, no reference to the data of the past couple record heat years. My preference is data from NASA. I don’t think there can be any dispute of that. This page states a rise of 0.6 C to 0.9 C degrees between 1906 and 2005.

Secondly, Mike questions data projected into the past, before humans began to record it. One of my favorite charts begins 20000 BCE. Where and how do they get data going back that far, or even as far back as 1950? The answer is that there is an entire field dedicated to this end called paleoclimatology. Here is a high level overview. The Wikipedia page explains that, ‘it uses a variety of proxy methods from the Earth and life sciences to obtain data previously preserved within things such as rocks, sediments, ice sheets, tree rings, corals, shells and microfossils.’

Thirdly, Mike asserts that variation in solar radiation is considerable, and ought to have a much greater impact on the earth’s temperatures than the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million (PPM). According to information from the EPA, many factors, both natural and human, cause changes in Earth’s energy balance, including variations in the sun's energy, changes in the reflectivity of earth’s atmosphere/surface, and changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by earth’s atmosphere. The EPA goes on to say, ‘Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.’

One final piece of information: a general purpose reference provided by Mike himself, that I think provides some very useful information.

I lied. This recent article by Bill McKibbin is as pertinent as important as any.

I very much doubt that I’ve convinced Mike, who does admit that he’s better informed after some of the same research. This is a little discouraging. If we can't convince a friend who is thoughtful and thorough, who can we convince? Anyone?

An Open Letter

Dear Donald Trump Voter,

It's been a couple weeks now. Like them or not, the election results are in, and there's no serious challenge to them. We are now digesting the way President-Elect Donald Trump is appointing cabinet members and otherwise preparing for his presidency. Time for a letter to my family, friends and others who voted for Mr. Trump. I am probably not the first or the only person to think of writing an open letter such as this. The difference between this one and all the others? This one does come from me; it will be at least a little unique. I will also try to confine my thoughts mostly to the environmental aspects of our post-election world, since that is the focus of my blog.

If you are outwardly bigoted, racist or violent, you may indeed have voted for Trump, but this letter is not directed at you. This is for those who consider themselves concerned, good-hearted, fair-minded, sincere, well-meaning people... like many of my friends and family. We've all learned that political discussion doesn't accomplish much. We often, especially lately, avoid broaching the subject at all. What's the point of arguing, just for the sake of being argumentative? Negative emotions from these disagreements are exacerbated then we use social media to get our point across. Better to just get along.

You voted for Trump not because you thought he was a good person, but because you thought he would shake things up. He would drain the (Washington D.C.) swamp, get control of legal and illegal immigration and otherwise Make America Great Again. You furthermore thought that Hillary Clinton was too secretive with her private email server and her charity, too much like President Barack Obama in policy matters and generally part of the Big Government problem. Furthermore, you just didn't like her. Do I have this right so far?

You don't consider yourself an enemy of the environment. In fact, you like clean air and water. You recycle and don't litter. You are a little concerned, but are generally agnostic about climate change. You believe in science, but you have listened to many arguments saying that the science isn't settled on the issue. You furthermore want less environmental regulation, just so long as our air and water remain clean. You don't want the government to subsidize renewable energy. Just a couple other things: you are against any war on coal. Clean coal is good for jobs and the economy. And you support oil pipelines to keep gas and oil prices down, and support jobs.

Now I'm really cooking, right? Music to your ears, I'm sure. I hope I have a good understanding of your viewpoint, because I think that a large part of our political problems stem form a lack of understanding, and an unwillingness to even attempt any meeting of minds. Now I'll tell you about my own thoughts on these matters. We'll take them one at a time. Please hear me out.

1) You like clean air and water. But (____) (fill in the blank here.... but not if it costs too much; but not if it hurts jobs or the economy; but not if I have to change my way of living...) You guessed it. It's the but that gets you. I will go as far as to say that if you're truly for clean air and clean water, there can be no buts!

2) You now acknowledge that the climate is indeed changing fast. Although there has in the past been resistance to even this postulation, the evidence is overwhelming; 2016 has been the hottest year on record, and it is only following a huge general trend. Now you say that it could well be part of a natural cycle. But there's only one problem:  Andropogenic (caused by humans) Climate Change is real as well. The evidence is overwhelming here too. To be agnostic about this is to deny what 97% of climate scientists have agreed upon. It's fine to challenge science; science isn't always correct. But it is self-correcting, and to mount a legitimate challenge, you had better have some extraordinary evidence to the contrary. For more, check out my If you Believe post. Would you also be agnostic about whether the Earth is flat?

3) You don't want the government in the business of subsidizing clean, renewable energy, or regulating industry in such a way as to cost everyone more money. But the government always does this. It has subsidized the fossil fuel industry for nearly 100 years, and that subsidy continues to this day. Oil, gas and coal companies can mine public lands, take advantage of tax breaks, make use of publicly funded infrastructure, and so on. If there is a tiny advantage provided to the manufacture, distribution and use of clean energy, it can only help our planet, and even our economy, in the long run.

4) Speaking of the economy, has it occurred to you that a clean-energy based economic system will be the best for our country for years to come? That with an emphasis on renweables, we can help lead the world? There truly is still time for this. That all this results in jobs - good, high-paying ones - and growth?

5) And clean coal? Please. That's about the same as saying dry ocean or sinless Nazi. It simply does not exist, and never will.

Now Mr. Trump's cabinet, including his choices for Secretary of State, and to lead the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency are making a mockery of the environment. What he is doing is completely dismantling our entire infrastructure of clean, renewable energy and environmental protection. None of it surprises me, but at the same time, it's very sad to be set back 50 years.

It's cold today. Global warming must be a hoax.

Common Sense

Common sense is, according to Merriam-Webster, the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions. Dictionary.com's definition is similar: sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence. Common sense is also the name of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine that strongly urged the United States to declare independence from Great Britain.

All good, right? Who could argue? Anyone? ... Okay, I will.

I have a problem with the whole, "independent of specialized knowledge, training, etc." part. The trouble is that sometimes training and specialized knowledge trumps (excuse the term) "reasonable" common sense. In fact, specialized knowledge such as science often does that.

The facts that the earth  is round, that it revolves around the sun, that gravity exists, etc., seem like common sense now, but this wasn't always the case. For most of human existence, our everyday knowledge and experience was that of a flat earth, which the sun, moon, planets and stars revolved around. Gravity? Yes, things fell, but so what? These observations served us well for millennia. Only now, when global manufacturing, communications and transportation depend on roundness, heliocentricity (I just made that word up!) and gravity, do we add such things to our collective common sense.

Along came modern physics, with its relativity and quantum mechanics. These are about as far removed from common sense as we can get. Yet they've been repeatedly proven and even applied, such that a mountain of science and engineering now depend on these theories. Most of us, however, don't normally take modern physics into account during our day to day lives. We turn on a light switch, and don't consider whether those electrons in the wires may have been generated at a nuclear facility. A nuclear explosion would encourage incorporation of modern physics into our common sense, but that would be a bit drastic.

You know where this is going.

Common sense tells us that species can't evolve, since we can't see it happen before our eyes. Yet science proves otherwise, believe it or not. Common sense tells us that burning something like fossil fuels may pollute the air with particulates that we can see, but not with carbon dioxide, that we can't. And common sense tells us that even if we do create a little carbon dioxide. it couldn't manifest itself into the atmosphere to create a greenhouse effect. Yet science begs to differ. Proof is readily available now, but it will take time to sink into our collective common sense. The trouble is that we are running out of time for this to happen. The burning of fossil fuels needs to stop now for the planet to have any chance to recover from the climate change crisis that is happening before our eyes.

It's almost like religious faith. Except for one thing: religious faith is unprovable (I just made that word up too!), whereas science, by definition, is absolutely verifiable. Further, it is self-correcting.

It's cold today. That proves that global warming is wrong. It's just plain common sense.

You Bred Raptors

It occurred early on in the movie Jurassic Park, and it was a statement; not a question. Overall, the scene is otherwise an endearing one: it's wonderful to watch the baby dinosaur hatching, as well as the peoples' reactions to the event. Then, just after one character famously states that 'Life finds a way,' the other one learns of the species and says, 'You bred raptors.' The phrase has been popular enough to become the name of a rock band.

Those ominous three words also work as a metaphor for what our country has done to itself. This, friends, is the point where this post stops being so much fun.

The United States of America has elected a President who will do severe damage to our economy, our environment and for basic human rights. The last time we elected an incompetent ideologue, we went from a nation at peace - a prosperous one that had a budget surplus, to a country fighting two wars, a huge budget deficit, high unemployment and an economy on the precipice of a depression. It has taken seven and a half years to slowly climb out of that hole. Now we have ended the two wars, unemployment is down, and the budget deficit is shrunk to below where it was in 2007/8. The economy has grown, albeit slowly, for each of these seven years, a run is truly remarkable. Unfortunately, President Donald Trump will be even more incompetent than President George W. Bush, and all of these things and more, will become much worse. The raptors are now in charge.

The focus of this blog is the environment, so we will limit the remainder of the discussion to that realm. The outlook for the ecology of the United States as well as that of the entire world is dark. It had been bleak before, even when someone with good intentions was in charge. The new sheriff (or, if you prefer, raptor) is promising to do away with what progress we've been able to make towards putting a stop to climate change. Let's get more specific.

Trump has named a noted climate change denier to lead his EPA transition team. Myron Ebell was named in a Scientific American article as heralding big, divisive changes to to the EPA. In fact, Ebell is a well-known and polarizing figure in all matter regarding energy and the environment. "His participation in the EPA transition signals that the Trump team is looking to drastically reshape the climate policies the agency has pursued under the Obama administration. Ebell’s role is likely to infuriate environmentalists and Democrats but buoy critics of Obama’s climate rules."

Ebell is even in favor of doing away with the agency, which is our only line of defense toward anyone doing harm to our planet's environment. He described Newt Gingrich's suggestion to abolish the EPA as "Bold and Visionary".

Republicans in both houses of Congress may not like Mr. Trump, but they will certainly agree with his reactionary push back toward the burning of fossil fuels. The greatest oxymoron of all time, "clean coal", is part of the party platform.

There are dark days ahead, friends. The raptors are in charge.

What Did You Do in the War, Daddy?

The title of a 1966 movie, What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? has me thinking. What will we tell our kids? Our grandkids? Because surely the conversation, real or hypothetical, will happen. Until recently, I thought of this talk occurring perhaps 20 or 30 years in the future, when the effect of humanity’s greed, pollution and waste has made the planet’s environment a dangerously changing place for all of us. But I need to think again.

The consequences of climate change are here now. The near-death of Earth’s Oceans is here now. So many other effects of our waste and pollution, too numerous to even mention, are here now. Thus the conversation about what we all did about it, may as well occur now too. The most troubling part of all this is that these challenges are only beginning. Our discussion can certainly be an on-going one.

What did you do? What are you doing? What can you do? What should you do? It doesn’t matter so much when you are asked these questions; now or 30 years from now. It boils down to this: are you part of the problem, or part of the solution?

Never thought about it? It’s never too late to start. There are plenty of things that you can do right now, just to begin with.

Not the least of these, and one of the simplest, is to vote for people who will do the right thing. Doing what is right for the planet amounts to doing what's right for one's constituents. Those who do that will invariably also do the right things in other policy matters as well. The choices, especially the one for President, couldn’t be more stark.

And the war part? It most definitely is a war. If you’re on the wrong side, history, and even your ancestors, will judge you harshly.

Please don't vote against Trump

Yes, I'm being serious here. This will be one of my final five to ten pleas for sanity before the election finally occurs. Please don't vote against Donald Trump because the man is a




Misogynist
Con-man/Swindler
Bigot
Pawn of Putin
Cheat
Racist
Unstable (for someone with access to nuclear codes)


Don't vote against Donald Trump because he represents the Republican platform and the Republican party. This is the party that put him into his present position. He represents it, and he represents the people who voted for him in the primaries. It's not a good reason to vote against him.


Here is why you should vote against Donald Trump: he would destroy the environment. This man who called climate change a Chinese Hoax, would stop at nothing to exploit our planet's resources in favor of his interests, and those of his rich friends; and to the detriment of the remainder of mankind. In fact, Trump denies not only the science of climate change, but Science itself. And unfortunately, although he differs from the rest of his party on some issues, they agree completely on this one.


Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, does grasp the enormity and the undeniable importance of the issue. The differences between the two candidates are more stark here than almost anywhere.


That is why you should vote against Donald Trump. To take it one step further, you should vote for Hillary Clinton... for the planet's sake.

Make the Switch to Renewable Energy for Your Electric Supply

We should all put our money where our mouth is. I don't think it will taste very good, but that's another story. In other posts, I've been urging readers to vote as if our planet depended on it. This makes the choice very easy. Of course there are other things that we can do as well: reduce, reuse, recycle. Walk. Drive a fuel efficient car. Lower your thermostat in the winter, raise it in the summer. That kind of stuff.

There's another thing you can do as well: demand renewable energy. It's actually quite easy (even I was able to do it) and it may very well actually save you money. The way to do it is to change your electric energy supplier to a renewable source. I learned something about this from the Sierra Club Portage Trail Group's President's corner for September and October.  Therein, Colleen Orsburn states, "if you switch to one of these plans, your transmission utility does not change; for most of us, that is Ohio Edison, a FirstEnergy company.  And switching does not actually change the source of your electricity.  All generators feed power into the regional grid, and you get what you get.  What you are doing by switching to a renewable energy provider is offsetting your energy use with the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits, which in turn support renewable energy generation projects."   So it's mostly just going to have the effect of increasing the demand for green energy.

The directions are there, and they may well work for you if you live in Northeast Ohio. But they didn't quite work for me, because my current supplier is NOPEC-First Energy Solutions. NOPEC would charge a $75 early termination fee to switch to a Green Energy supplier listed at the First Energy website. I didn't want to pay that.

But never fear. NOPEC itself has a renewable energy option that I was able to switch to without incurring the termination fee. And the fixed rate is cheaper than the one I had by about ten percent!

I urge you to make the switch as well. It's just a small thing, but if a enough of us do it, it could be huge.