Year 3, Month 3, Day 30: Give You Everything I’ve Got For A Little Peace Of Mind…

In the Savannah Morning News, Barbara Kelly speaks to our condition:

2010 was the wettest year on record, and tied with 2005 as the hottest year since records have been kept. We have more extreme weather, and more freak weather as a result of climate change.

According to Amy Goodman (the host of democracynow.org), as she spoke from the U.N. Conference on Climate Change in Durban, Africa, recently, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are the only two countries who voted against the Green Climate Fund. This is especially strange because this fund was proposed by Hillary Clinton in 2010. My guess is that it is pretty obvious that such a proposal would never be able to make it through the current Congress. The corporate control by oil and gas would never let that happen.

Very busy today, so I just ground out a generic media-sucks-short-attention-spans-will-kill-us-all type letter and sent it off — March 24:

While the first amendment of the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, our present state of media-driven inattention and ignorance is surely not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote of a “well-informed citizenry.” The helter-skelter 24-hour news cycle virtually guarantees inadequate coverage of any issues requiring analysis or prior background; if it can’t be summarized in a sound bite, you won’t find it on network news.

Nowhere is this more potentially damaging than in the profoundly troubling area of global heating. The multi-decade lag between human action and climatic reaction means that quick fixes are unavailable — but enduring fixes are too slow to merit prime-time slots.
At a time when we desperately need wisdom, our national discussion is dominated by foolish bluster. By framing environmental policy in purely political terms, our media abdicates its responsibility to the long-term health and prosperity of our nation and the world.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 3, Day 29: A Bitter Cup

The Logan Herald-Journal (UT) notes a slight change in people’s thinking:

The public debate over global climate change in Cache Valley could be shifting.

Local institutions are clearing up confusion by adopting clear positions on the topic, even making them easily accessible for the public to see. A recent move by Utah State University’s Department of Geology, for instance, shows how global and local organizations are taking a formal stance on the issue. A link on the department’s homepage takes viewers to an official position on global warming.

“There were a lot of inquiries from students, particularly in the large, introductory classes,” says Dave Liddell, geology department head. “The faculty thought it would be useful to highlight our position on the topic.”

Liddell says he and his team of academics strongly support the scientific consensus that climate change is happening.

“The Department of Geology supports the Geological Society of America position paper on Global Warming,” the site reads. “We agree that the Earth’s climate is indeed changing and the changes are due, at least in part, to human activities. This is a critical environmental challenge that will require active study and long-term planning and mitigation.”

The department is not alone in its decision to air its position. The Bridgerland Audubon Society board shared its view. It says rapid physical changes will affect biological systems that will compromise habitat and disrupt wildlife populations that cannot adapt fast enough.

Sent March 23:

While it’s encouraging that institutions are working to “clarify their positions” on climate change, the fact remains that in a halfway sane world, such a concept would be recognized as an absurdity. One might as well require institutions to “clarify” their positions on the three Laws of Thermodynamics. But because our national cup of crazy is more full than empty, the factuality of global warming is now the basis of a “controversy.”

How did that happen?

The world’s climate scientists overwhelmingly agree on the basic facts: the greenhouse effect exists; it is exacerbated by human CO2 emissions; the impact of this on Earthly life and human civilization is going to be significant. The so-called “controversy” is the production of people and organizations heavily in the thrall of big oil and coal companies which anticipate reduced profits should our country move to an energy economy based on sustainability.

At a time when we should be working both to prepare for the problems of the climate crisis and to mitigate its worst effects, time wasted is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 3, Day 25: Voices In The (Vanishing) Wilderness

The Seattle Times runs a dynamite column by William Geer on whether environmental policy should be dictated by polls and media bullshit:

SHOULD elected officials and policymakers let public-opinion polls decide our nation’s future response to climate change? Indisputably, no.

The roller-coaster path of public acceptance on climate change charted by political polls is frustrating to the pragmatists among us. With nearly 98 percent of the world’s climate scientists saying climate change already is affecting the natural world, effective action requires the knowledge we gain from focused investigations and sound science — not political polls.

We should solicit the views of those not subject to political debates — fish and wildlife.

Biologists do that through field investigations on the distribution and abundance of species in habitats that meet their life-cycle requirements. If one habitat no longer will support a species, the species must move to another habitat that does. It cannot debate habitability in the public square and it votes by adapting, migrating or dying.

Read the comments on the article if you wanna get seriously depressed. Sent March 19:

Before we can begin to tackle the interdependent crises presented by global climate change, there’s a question that needs a response.

“What’s in it for me?”

As long as we remain selfishly focused exclusively on our momentary desires, we will fail in our responsibilities to our descendants, and all the life that shares our common DNA. Some are selfish through love of Mammon; their lust for continued profits blinds them to the destruction their exploitation leaves behind. Some are selfish through religion; craving immortality, they rank their own souls above the well-being of the web of Earthly life. For some, it’s political power; for others, the chance at transient fame. Perhaps saddest of all are those whose selfishness is born of apathy; having abandoned any hope of influencing the process, they drift along, watching unhappily as their world is gutted by malefactors of great wealth.

We’re not going to make progress against the epiphenomena of a runaway greenhouse effect until we can start asking, “What’s in it for us?”

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 3, Day 23: Good News For The Albuterol Lobby

The Chicago Tribune reprints a story from US News and World Report on (hack! cough! sneeze!) the respiratory impacts of climate change:

A group of lung doctors warned Thursday that climate change will likely lead to an increase in the rate and severity of a variety of respiratory diseases.

“We felt as though the medical community was not understanding how climate change might impact patients and their health,” says Kent Pinkerton, director of the Center for Health & the Environment at the University of California-Davis. Pinkerton says the warning came out of a meeting of top climate change scientists and lung doctors that discussed the potential impacts of global warming on patient health.

“It was an eye opener for us as we began to talk to climatologists and other individuals to find out how climate change can have far-reaching effects,” he says. It’s not just pollution’s impact on air quality that’s causing an increasing number of cases of asthma, allergies and chronic pulmonary diseases, according to the document.

I know a lot of people with asthma. It’s no joke. Neither is this. Sent March 17:

While an uptick in respiratory diseases is already bad news (given that Americans lose millions of work hours and experience more than enough asthma-related misery already), the public health consequences of climate change are only beginning to be understood, and the genuinely scary stuff still isn’t attracting media attention.

It’s not just increased pollen counts ravaging our lungs. It’s disease-carrying insects traveling northward as warmer conditions spread. It’s disruption of monocropped agriculture from extreme weather events; it’s trees no longer protected by winter freezes from destructive beetle pests; it’s droughts and wildfires; it’s the ongoing loss of biodiversity in our planetary environment. Each of these factors is grim enough when considered in isolation — but the complex jigsaw puzzle that is planetary climate chaos has yet to be assembled in the public imagination. Will we put all the pieces together before our civilization is rent asunder?

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 3, Day 20: Dry Ice! We’ll Sprinkle Dry Ice All Around, And It’ll Freeze Everything Up Again!

The Boston Herald apparently had an empty spot on one of their pages, so they ran an article about climate change and ice melt:

LOS ANGELES — The Greenland ice sheet has a lower melting point than previously thought, with scientists saying not only that it could melt completely at a lower temperature than once believed, but also that the melting process could soon become irreversible.

“Once the process of melting the ice begins, it is very hard for it to change course even if we can lower temperatures in the future,” Alex Robertson, lead author of a new study, said in an interview by email with the Los Angeles Times on Monday.

“So even though melting the whole ice sheet could take a really long time, we will essentially decide the fate of Greenland within the next century.”

The study was published Sunday in Nature Climate Change.

How to criticize them without hurting their fee-fees? Sent March 14:

In a culture dominated by scandals du jour and the rapid-fire programming of a 24-hour news cycle, it’s no surprise that our nation seems to have a severe case of Attention Deficit Disorder.  When electoral politics is carried out in sound bites and bumper-sticker slogans, our civilization’s long-term future is invariably trivialized.

Nowhere is this more problematic than in the intersection of scientific research and public policy.  By its nature, science requires rigor, attentiveness, and patience — three qualities notably lacking in our political and media environments.  The most recent study on the likely fate of the Greenland ice sheet is the result of many years of concentrated study and inquiry — and its findings likewise require more than superficial attention.  Politicians and pundits, however, will do their best to ignore its implications for our nation and our planet; it’s far, far easier just to mock what you don’t understand.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 3, Day 6: Still I Look To Find A Reason…

According to a number of news reports, more Americans have stopped whacking the snooze button, as witness this, from the San Diego Union-Tribune:

The percentage of Americans who believe in global warming has rebounded to the highest level since the fall of 2009, according to a University of Michigan survey released Tuesday.

When the initial poll was done in the 2008, 72 percent of Americans said they believed there was solid evidence that average temperatures on Earth have been getting warmer over the past four decades.

The number fell to 65 percent in the fall of 2009 and tumbled to 58 percent a year later. But the most recent survey shows that in the fall of 2011, the number of climate-change believers rebounded to 62 percent.

A day earlier, the San Diego Regional Climate Education Partnership issued its own countywide survey on the same topic. It showed that the majority of San Diegans believe that:

• Gasoline engines and electricity generation emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (68 percent).

• Rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a major cause of increased temperatures (54 percent).

• Worldwide annual temperatures between 1990 and 2010 have been the warmest in recorded history (55 percent).

The highest degree of specific concern (71 percent) was expressed for “future generations,” followed by “children” (69 percent) and “humanity” in general (65 percent) — what survey sponsors said indicated a strong connection between climate change impacts and people.

Good. I was getting bored with bashing Heartland Institute. Sent February 29:

Scientifically literate citizens are delighted to hear that more Americans are beginning to accept the ominous reality of global climate change. After all, you can’t fix a problem until you recognize that it exists. So a survey showing that almost two-thirds of Americans “believe in global warming” is good news — of a sort.

But before we break out the champagne, we should recognize that the greenhouse effect isn’t a philosophy, a theology, a credo, or a moral code; it’s as real as gravity — confirmed by experiment, observation and measurement — not something we can choose to “believe in” or not, but a fact. Extra CO2 in our atmosphere causes the greenhouse effect, which causes global warming, which in turn causes climate change. When politicians, pundits, and pollsters claim that science, like religion, is a matter of “belief,” it’s no surprise that public discussion of climate change has been so muddled and confused.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 2, Day 26: Won’t Somebody Please Have Pity?

The Kansas City Star reprints the LA Times editorial on Climate Denial In The Classroom.

Fortunately, if we’re about to enter a battle over classroom instruction on climate change, it won’t go on for decades, because the impacts of global warming are already patently obvious. Seven of the 10 warmest years since global record-keeping began in 1880 have occurred in the 21st century. Despite an intense campaign to discredit his work, Pennsylvania State University professor Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, which shows that temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century soared to their highest level in 1,000 years, has been validated repeatedly. Last year set a record for the most climate-related disasters in the United States costing more than $1 billion in damage each – drought-fueled wildfires in Texas, Hurricane Irene, and Mississippi River flooding were among the 14 cases.

These are facts, not philosophical or religious dogma. Another fact: Sophisticated climate models show that things are going to get a lot worse. It’s bad enough that we’re gambling our children’s futures by doing so little to fight this problem; let’s not ask their teachers to lie to them about it too.

Now that Peter Gleick has emerged as the whistleblower in the Heartland case, let’s watch the poor bastard get pilloried, shall we? Sent February 21:

When the Heartland Institute claims the mantle of victimhood in the “denialgate” scandal, they are continuing a pattern of cynical manipulation of the media and public opinion. There is no doubt that Heartland’s role in muddying the debate on climate change is a crucial one; the organization has been active in promoting conservative causes across the policy spectrum, and has long done so through the dissemination of half-truths, strategic omissions, and (when necessary) outright lying. Their faux-outrage at finally being caught with their mendacious pants down as laughable as their attempts to undercut necessary action on climate change are deplorable.

Dr. Peter Gleick’s act of courage in blowing the whistle on these heavily-funded hoodlums will, of course, not go unpunished. We can anticipate hearing the morality of his actions debated endlessly in the media, while Heartland Institute’s mendacity and duplicity are ignored and minimized. While the world grows steadily hotter.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 2, Day 24: Narcissistic Nihilist Edition

USA Today covers the varied sources of influence on climate change opinion, with a special emphasis on the role of a certain drug-addled gasbag:

“I’ve come up with a list of at least ten different reasons that people are confused about climate science. It’s different for each person,” says Texas Tech University climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe, author of A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions, written with her husband, an evangelical pastor, Andrew Farley.

Hayhoe has learned a lot about politicians and climate in the last two months. In December, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich told an Iowa voter, alarmed by something the voter heard mentioned by radio personality and climate science naysayer Rush Limbaugh, that he was dropping a chapter that Hayhoe had written for a book he planned on environmental topics . Alakazam, no more distracting climate science.

The vanishing act for her chapter by Gingrich came as news to Hayhoe. “I’ve never spoken to him and he has never spoken to me,” she said, this week. (The Gingrich campaign did not respond to a request for comment from USA TODAY.)

What came next out of the rabbit’s hat was an even bigger surprise. Hate mail. Threats against her and her child. So much that she told the Toronto Globe and Mail that she had lost count of all the angry messages aimed at her, a mother who happened to be a scientist telling people what all the evidence suggests is the truth about their world.

“There’s a pattern of attacking people who speak out on climate change, by figures in the political elite such as Rush Limbaugh, that is almost rehearsed,” Brulle says. “That’s how it works,” he says. “That’s how public opinion on climate is shaped in our country.”

Almost rehearsed, huh? Sheesh. Sent February 19:

It is a peculiar irony that Newt Gingrich, a self-described “historian,” should find his rhetoric on climate change so completely controlled by the right wing’s loudest and least reflective spokesman. Since Rush Limbaugh’s sense of history barely extends to the beginning of the current day’s radio appearance, it’s no wonder that he derides scientists who are thinking in hundred- or thousand-year time spans.

For Mr. Gingrich to excise Katherine Hayhoe’s chapter on climate change from his book is a pathetic capitulation to political exigency. This bow to the power of a proudly ignorant buffoon is one of the most ignominious moments in a career already jam-packed with low points, but as we face what is possibly the single gravest threat human civilization has yet encountered, it’s not just a personal humiliation. Newt Gingrich’s reversal on climate change ensures that the former speaker is truly “on the wrong side of history.”

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 2, Day 20: That’s Not Epistemology, That’s Fouling The Wellspring Of Knowledge

The Christian Science Monitor notes the rare rays of sunlight that recently penetrated into the inner recesses of the climate-denial machinery:

Leaked documents from the free-market conservative organization The Heartland Institute reveal a plan to create school educational materials that contradict the established science on climate change.

The documents, leaked by an anonymous donor and released on DeSmogBlog, include the organization’s 2012 fundraising plan. It lists Heartland Institute donors, from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (established by Koch Industries billionaire Charles G. Koch), to Philip Morris parent company Altria, to software giant Microsoft and pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly.

The climate change education project is funded so far by an anonymous donor who has given $13 million to the Institute over the past five years. Proposed by policy analyst David Wojick, who holds a doctorate in epistemology and has worked for coal and electricity generation companies, the project would create education “modules” written to meet curriculum guidelines for every grade level.

A doctorate in epistemology, huh? That’s like a guy with a doctorate in epidemiology who spends his off-hours shitting in the water supply. Glad this got a bit of sunlight. I’ve been writing to the CSM for years and they haven’t published me yet. Here goes nuttin’! Sent Feb 15:

Between evangelical rejections of Darwinian evolution and petroleum-funded rejections of climatology, it’s amazing that any biology, physics or chemistry gets taught at all anymore. The exposure of the Heartland Institute’s massive investment in fostering climate-change denial in our schools pulls the covers off the continuing conservative effort to undermine our country’s system of science education. David Wojick, Heartland’s paid mouthpiece, has a degree in epistemology, the branch of philosophy which addresses the nature of knowledge. He may not know any climate science, but he’s a virtuoso at clouding the distinction between true and false. Coupled with a complaisant media establishment that has abdicated its responsibility to the Jeffersonian ideal of a “well-educated citizenry,” climate-change denialists have relegated an overwhelming scientific consensus to irrelevancy in the minds of much of the American public. This would be immaterial if the issue did not concern a civilizational threat of unprecedented magnitude and urgency.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 2, Day 14: What Are You Going To Believe? Me — Or Your Own Lying Eyes?

The Christian Science Monitor reports sorta kinda not really very good news:

U.S. scientists using satellite data have established a more accurate figure of the amount of annual sea level rise from melting glaciers and ice caps which should aid studies on how quickly coastal areas may flood as global warming gathers pace.

John Wahr of the University of Colorado in Boulder and colleagues, in a study published on Thursday, found that thinning glaciers and icecaps were pushing up sea levels by 1.5 millmetres (0.06 inches) a year, in line with a 1.2 to 1.8 mm range from other studies, some of which forecast sea levels could rise as much as 2 metres (2.2 yards) by 2100.

Sea levels have already risen on average about 18 centimetres since 1900 and rapid global warming will accelerate the pace of the increase, scientists say, threatening coastlines from Vietnam to Florida and forcing low-lying megacities to build costly sea defences.

Have another beer. Sent February 9:

The climate prognosis is bleak; while glaciers aren’t melting quite as fast as predicted, our planet’s polar regions are severely weakened.  It’s unlikely that they will recover in our lifetimes or those of our children, for the damage they’ve sustained from the burgeoning greenhouse effect is very severe.

Unfortunately, it’s very likely that the talking heads populating our airwaves and news outlets will seize on this news, brandishing a decontextualized nugget of information (“The glaciers are going to be fine!”), extrapolating incorrectly from it (“All the doom-sayers were wrong!”), confusing the discussion (“You can’t trust scientists — they’re often mistaken!”) and advocating for inaction (“Don’t worry, be happy — and keep buying gas!”).

The news that her tumors are metastasizing more slowly than expected is good news for a lung cancer patient, but it does not change the severity of the diagnosis — or provide an excuse to resume smoking.

Warren Senders