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.