Year 2, Month 2, Day 22: The Terrible Threat of تغير المناخ

The Newberg Graphic (OR) has a guest editorial with a good strong statement in favor of the EPA’s authority, and a good chastisement of the Republicans’ behavior.

I figured it would be a good idea to provide some additional moral support. This letter’s not as coherent as some; I’m just too damn tired. Sent Feb 13:

The intersection of coal and petroleum money with the electoral process has produced a breed of politicians far more cognizant of the short-term requirements of their cash suppliers than of the long-term well-being of their constituents. While West Virginia’s Jay Rockefeller is a Democratic case in point, the majority of anti-environmental voices in Congress belong to Republicans. Less than two months into the 112th Congress, these GOP stalwarts have rejected decades of scientific evidence and publicly insulted EPA Chief Lisa Jackson. The coming decades of climate chaos will bring enormous disruptions to our agriculture, infrastructure, public health and political stability; when we face a threat far greater than any terrorist organization, we need thoughtful preparation and mitigation, not the GOP’s kindergarten-level squabbling. It’s too bad climate change wasn’t represented by a scary dictator and the possibility of an expensive war; the Republican caucus would have been beside themselves with enthusiasm.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 2, Day 20: I’m Too Young To Marry

The Tulsa Beacon’s publisher is Charles Biggs. He writes a long screed on why global warming is bunk a: because it’s snowing, and b: because scientists aren’t willing to give out certificates of causation. And Al Gore is fat, most likely. He finishes with some unrelated jokes, of which this one was the best:

• There was once a man from the city who was visiting a small farm, and during this visit he saw a farmer feeding pigs in a most extraordinary manner.

The farmer would lift a pig up to a nearby apple tree, and the pig would eat the apples off the tree directly. The farmer would move the pig from one apple to another until the pig was satisfied, then he would start again with another pig.

The city man watched this activity for some time with great astonishment. Finally, he could not resist saying to the farmer, “This is the most inefficient method of feeding pigs that I can imagine. Just think of the time that would be saved if you simply shook the apples off the tree and let the pigs eat them from the ground!”

The farmer looked puzzled and replied, “What’s time to a pig?”

Because Tulsa is part of Oklahoma, I added “James Inhofe” to the tags. Sent February 11:

Dear Mr. Biggs,

May I try?

Let’s start from the beginning. Picture a puddle of water on a hot sunny day. It disappears quickly, doesn’t it? That’s because it evaporated, which means the water turned into water vapor and became part of the air. Air with a lot of water in it is “humid.” Now, what happens when it’s really, really humid? It rains, of course — but only if it’s above freezing. And when it’s below freezing? Well, you know the answer: it would snow. Heavily. You can’t have precipitation without humidity, and you can’t have humidity without evaporation, and you can’t have evaporation without heat.

The term “climate change” is now preferred to “global warming” simply because it is a better description of people’s experience. Ask around; everybody’s talking about the weather (including you!). Big heat waves in Europe, droughts in South America, huge floods and a cyclone in Australia, lots of floods in Pakistan, a massive, paralyzing blizzard in the US. Sure, all of these things have happened before. But never all at once, which is why it might be a good idea to listen to what people who study the climate closely have been predicting about atmospheric CO2 and the greenhouse effect. Since the 1950s, by the way.

Mr. Biggs, you’re wrong about climate change — but I really liked your joke about the pig.

Warren Senders

And a day and a half later, he wrote me back:

Mr. Sanders,
You may be right and I could be wrong. Words have meaning. We just set a record for snowfall AND record low temperatures in Oklahoma. And yet many people (you not included) cling to global warming and that’s what they teach in science classes in high school.
I think you may give mankind too much credit for affecting the weather. A volcanic eruption can affect weather patterns for years and yet we still can’t predict accurately if it will rain Tuesday.
Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.
Charles Biggs

I haven’t responded yet, but I will.

Kudos to anyone who can identify the provenance of the headline.

Year 2, Month 2, Day 18: Taking Advantage of a 250-Word Limit

The Sioux City Journal features a short, ostensibly humorous, piece by one Matthew Ung, trotting out all the standard climate-denial tropes under the guise of satire. Based on the other articles linked on that page, it looks like the paper’s a wingnut outlet, so I suspect I’ll never make it to print. But a fellow can dream, can’t he? And the comments tend to confirm my suspicions.

Let’s examine Matthew Ung’s attempt at humor about climate change, beginning with this gem: “Thanks to Al Gore, we know that our actions directly affect the planet…” First, while Gore brought the subject to popular attention, climatologists like James Hansen and Charles Keeling exposed the link between greenhouse emissions and climate change; second, our actions don’t “directly affect the planet.” Rather, the planet is affected indirectly; the multi-decade time lag between stimulus and response makes this a hard problem to solve.

He subsequently states that “Global warming activists attempt to link the immediate season and snowfall records as an indication of how well we are doing to curb emissions that exact year.” No, they don’t. I have never heard of any environmentalist making such a connection.  Source, please?

Scientists have predicted for over a century that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will heat it, with “stochastic” effects: predictable in the aggregate, not in the particular. That is, as the climate changes, the weather will get weirder — less consistent, more extreme.

About that snowfall? Science FAIL. A hotter atmosphere means more water evaporates, so the humidity goes up, which means more rain when it’s hot, more snow when it’s cold. Climatologists have been predicting that for decades, too.

Mr. Ung, like many denialists, fails to grasp the distinction between “weather” and “climate.” Weather is to climate as anecdote is to history. One is short-term and local, the other is long-term and global.

Ignorance, alas, is rising along with the temperature.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 2, Day 17: Dumber-er-er-er

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel notes a newly released study on climate change’s projected impact on Wisconsin: 6-7 degrees of warming by 2050. Sounds fairly dire, no? Now just look at the comments.

Mailed Feb. 8. This is the letter that prompted the obscene phone call of this past Monday.

The failure of our country’s educational system is nowhere more abject than in the areas of science and mathematics — a statement easily verified by glancing through the online comments on the recent study from scientists at the University of Wisconsin dealing with the projected impact of climate change on the state. If our science education had been of higher quality, there would be far fewer people confusing “weather” with “climate.” If our mathematics classes had done their job, we wouldn’t see endless confusions of terms like “average” and “mean,” or such consistent misunderstanding of the statistics of probability. A scientifically-grounded, research-based study projecting a six to seven degree rise in temperature should cause at least a little alarm, even among people who aren’t paying attention. Instead, the alarms are in the minds of the paranoids who suspect a nefarious global conspiracy of climatologists, (led by Al Gore, of course).

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 2, Day 16: Dingleberries

The Wall Street Journal reports on Fred Upton’s (R-MI) change of position on climate, and notes his eagerness to kill the EPA. Unlike many WSJ pieces, this one allows a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council to have the last word:

Mr. Upton’s draft proposal to block the EPA regulation has drawn criticism from environmentalists, some of whom have accused him of backtracking on past statements in which he described climate change as “a serious problem” and that the U.S. has a responsibility to reduce its emissions.

“The market is tilted in favor of the dirty energy sources, and we’re paying for it with our health,” said David Doniger, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, “Somehow you have to level the playing field so that public health and natural resources are protected from the pollution.”

This was sent on Tuesday, February 8.

Fred Upton’s reversal on the issue of climate change reveals the truth about this congressional power broker: he is, like the rest of his caucus, motivated entirely by political exigencies — which in the case of Republican legislators, translates as “fear of the Tea Party.” This group of anti-science, anti-reality agitators has so intimidated the entire GOP that even the most straightforward factual statements are no longer allowable in their public discourse. To set the record straight, Mr. Upton’s newly-fledged belief that climate change is “not necessarily man-made” is patently delusional. If ever there was a contemporary issue on which scientific consensus is overwhelming, it’s that of global warming. Mr. Upton’s support for crippling the Environmental Protection Agency is likewise a position based entirely on cynical, short-term political calculations; given the ludicrous dysfunctionality of the current Congress, EPA regulation of greenhouse gases is essential to bringing climate change under control.

Warren Senders

Happy Valentine’s Day: An Obscene Phone Call From A WIngnut

As part of my ongoing daily-letter-to-the-editor-on-climate-change resolution (now over 400 letters without missing a day!), I sent something recently to the Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal. It was printed this morning and can be read here .

This evening I arrived home after spending much of the afternoon in a snowball fight with my daughter and one of her friends.

And the telephone rang.

And without further ado, the caller at the other end exploded into an obscenity-filled rant about “you Mother****ing liberals,” threatened to kick my ass, and continued in a single run-on sentence (that included a few words about how “it’s ‘weather,’ not ‘climate,’ you liberal P**ce of S**t” before hanging up.

*69 yielded a telephone number, and I did a reverse lookup on the number. Google is your friend.

The telephone number showed up on a bunch of those “who’s behind the unwanted call” websites (invariably delivering obscene screeds in response to something in the paper):

March 5, 2008:

called and left harassing vmail over letter to editor in milw journal

October 30, 2008:
Received a nasty four-letter studded screed from a male at this number after my opinion letter appeared in today’s Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel. Glad to know I’m in good company.

December 15, 2008:

Guy left a message in response to my wife’s editorial in Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel. He was excessively obscene, and he used derogatory sexual language when referring to my wife. Then he starts calling Obama the N-word, which was strange because the article had nothing to do with Obama. It was also not particularly political in content. The guy has issues.

June 25, 2010:

My wife picked up our home phone and inquired as to who was calling after finding a voice mail for myself. When she called back,a man with a very rough voice he started screaming at her, shouting epithets and profanities about my views expressedin a recent letter to the editor of the Milwaukee Journal.
I have reported this to the Village police department, visited the Distrct attorney’s office and after doinig a special google search, received a cell phone # and name. I urge anyone abused by this possible lunatic to immediately notify the phone cppmany and local law enforcement officers. Based on CCAP, a person with the same name was the subject of a violation of a domestic abuse injunction.domestic abuse injunction and could be dangerous.I will be sharing evidence of this with the Village police this afternoon.
If you value your rights of free speech, I urge you to do everything in your power to punish this political ticking time bomb for your own safety and the safety of our communities

Wow.

I looked further. Lo and behold, there was a real-estate listing for a house for sale by owner, with that number listed.

This 3100 square foot single family home has 4 bedrooms and 3.0 bathrooms. It is located at 6****** Ln N*********, Wisconsin.

Entering that address brought me a name, and the name was connected to a rant in a Wisconsin blog. Check this out :

Soglin you are a cut and run liberal piece of shit, from the 60’s to your mayorship of the peoples Republic of Madison in the 80’s and 90’s. Bush HAS never lied the 46 billon need for our valient war in Iraq is TOTALLY neccessary, and unlike your socialist mind would never be spent on socialized medicine, welfare programs etc, even if there were no war. That is the true disconnect of your clueless arguments. The only nightmare is that you continue to be a coward. The world is already in WW111 you cluesless idiots, we are in the beginning stages of a 100 years war on our fight on terrorism. We can not appease, listen, understand, feel there pain etc, terrorist must be hunted down, destroyed by whatever means possible, and Bush and patriotic Americans have a blank check to do it. Soglin, your like Neville chamberlain at the 1938 Munich Conference when Hitler was appeased, in the name of “peace” cowards like chaimberlain and your ilk were responsible for 10 of millons of murders, the holocust etc, because the world did not start WW11 in 1938, rather than September of 1939. Soglin, you and your liberal ilk are guiltu of treason.
T******** K********
(address redacted)

New Berlin, city the supported Bush in 2004 by a 74-26% margin

This is definitely my guy. And tomorrow I’m going to the police in my town with all this information, and I’m filing a complaint against Mr. K*******.

Hope your Valentine’s Day was less eventful than mine!

Year 2, Month 2, Day 13: I Lit Out From Reno, I Was Trailed By Twenty Hounds…

In the Reno Gazette-Journal, a columnist named Cory Farley discusses the inability of denialists to look a fact in the face.

It’s a good piece, and therefore makes not an iota of impact on the commentariat. Sheesh.

While Cory Farley does a good job of skewering the mindset of climate-change deniers, it’s probably not going to change any minds. At this point, the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is so overwhelming that no further proof is needed for anyone who’s actually paying attention; on the other hand, the evidence against it is so fragmented, internally contradictory, and riddled with conflicts of interest that acceptance requires a huge suspension of critical thinking. How many times must a right-wing talking point be debunked before it stops appearing? For example, one favorite line is “scientists predicted global cooling in the 1970s. Now they’re predicting warming. Therefore scientists can’t be trusted.” Actually, scientific opinion on climate forty years ago was totally different from today’s. A few scientists published articles speculating on possible consequences of atmospheric changes; a few of them raised the possibility of cooling (including one paper suggesting cooling trends over the next twenty-thousand years). The popular press exaggerated the importance of these papers, and now it’s denialist gospel that “everybody” predicted an ice age. No; not “everybody,” not even a majority of climatologists — and certainly nothing like today’s overwhelming consensus. But facts no longer matter to deniers. Alas.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 2, Day 11: What The Hell’s The Matter With Kansas?

The Kansas City Star:

WASHINGTON — Legislation that would limit the regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding greenhouse gases has been introduced by Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, R-Kan.

The legislation, also sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., would require the EPA to seek congressional approval before regulating greenhouse gas emissions for the sole purpose of addressing climate change.

Called the Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act, the legislation seeks to pre-empt existing rules and prohibit future federal restrictions on greenhouse gases in the absence of congressional authorization.

The Obama Administration vows a veto. Good. But these people are not going to quit. Climate Zombies. I used to think the term was metaphorical. Now I know better.

Mailed on February 4:

The blinkered condition of Republican climate denialists notwithstanding, the facts on global climate change have been in for a long time, and the scientific consensus on the human causes of global warming is universal (absent only the dissenting voices of petroleum-funded professional contrarians). Senators Murray, Moran and Barrasso, in attempting to prevent the EPA from doing its job, are motivated by a dangerous combination of electoral exigency, fiscal avarice and scientific ignorance. The recent snowfalls that have immobilized much of the country are an early manifestation of the kind of weather chaos we can expect to experience over the coming years, as the gradually warming atmosphere becomes ever more disruptive to our ways of life. Greenhouse gases need to be regulated right away; our dysfunctional Congress certainly won’t do it. Before the Senators drastically weaken the EPA, let them find a better way to protect Americans from environmental dangers.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 2, Day 10: Just Stop It. Stop It. Right Now.

Under a snarky and dismissive headline (“Al Gore’s Snow Job”), Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun talks about Al Gore’s futile attempt to educate Bill “the tide goes in, the tide goes out” O’Reilly and his audience about how global warming is linked to all this f***ing snow. As snarky and dismissive pieces go, it’s not that bad, pointing out that all Gore’s claims are correct and all of O’Reilly’s statements are stupid…but it nevertheless treats the 2000 popular vote winner as a vaguely comic figure. Our media is so, so, so, so damned lazy.

Sent on February 3:

Lorrie Goldstein notes that Al Gore’s name now triggers reflexive skepticism among people who are anxious to dismiss the very real threat of global climate change as somehow chimerical. But her column inadequately addresses the reasons for this. The former vice-president and Nobel laureate has done his homework; his prescience on the issue of global warming is, or should be, a foregone conclusion by now. Instead, many media outlets dismiss his hard-won expertise, either through a simplistic Bill O’Reilly-style confusion of weather and climate, or through the marginally more sophisticated tactic of false equivalency, in which a statement by a genuinely worried climatologist (or a former VP) is “balanced” by pronunciamenti from petroleum industry mouthpieces. Yes, it’s true that the climate debate has become politically polarized — but environmentalists haven’t been doing the politicizing. That responsibility belongs to the Republican party and its sponsors, Big Oil and Big Coal.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 2, Day 7: (facepalm)

Paul LePage, the new governor of Maine, is an asshole of the first order:

“I believe in real, strong environmental laws,” Gov. Paul LePage announced to a room full of environmentally-minded Mainers a little more than a week ago. “I would never challenge a strong environmental law that’s based in science.”

Four days later, LePage launched a broadside against Maine’s environmental protections, targeting for elimination virtually every state environmental law and regulation in existence, regardless of their scientific merit, importance to Maine’s economy and citizen health, or even their bipartisan support.

The changes he proposed to the regulatory reform committee would rezone 3 million acres of wilderness for development, allow toxic chemicals back into children’s toys and baby bottles, lower air and water pollution standards, reduce fines for polluters, eliminate the Board of Environmental Protection and shift the burden for recycling electronic waste away from manufacturers and onto the people of Maine.

Actually that’s probably an insult to assholes everywhere. My letter to the Sentinel:

Paul LePage’s proposed changes in Maine environmental protections are examples of the kind of nihilism that should have no place in politics. The Tea-Party governor apparently feels beholden only to his ideological allies, rather than to the long-term good of the state. Furthermore, the anti-government zealots who voted for him are themselves being manipulated by cynical and destructive big-business forces whose best interests are nowhere aligned with Maine’s. Unfortunately, ruined natural resources cannot be instantly remedied in the next election cycle; LePage is proposing to spend the state’s environmental capital for the benefit of his corporate sponsors rather than steward it wisely. One suspects that some part of the governor’s anti-nature crusade is simply gleeful “hippie-punching” — political maneuvers taken for no other reason than to offend people who actually give a damn about some of the most beautiful places in the country and the world.

Warren Senders