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 2, Day 18: Bad Moon Risin’

Inexplicably, the Columbus, Indiana Republic runs an AP article on the Vermont state government’s intelligent approach to climate questions:

MONTPELIER, Vt. — A new report by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources says flooding from Tropical Storm Irene shows the state needs to be better prepared for future flooding.

The state’s “Climate Change Team” says climate change data predicts that Vermont will get more extreme rain events in the future, so “flood resiliency” may be a critical adaptation to climate changes.

The report shows that Vermont’s river communities, which were hit hard by Irene, are vulnerable to intensive flood disasters.

The report begins to count the costs associated with that vulnerability and asks some of the hard questions our state and communities will need to answer in order to build flood resiliency.

As usual, it’s the Republicans who’ve made a mess of everything. Sent February 13:

Even as the federal government remains paralyzed by Republican intransigence in the face of climate change, state and regional agencies are engaged and active. The report from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources is a lesson to other states: don’t swallow the denialist’s assertions without thinking.

For make no mistake, the signs are in the offing. Climatologists predicted a drastic increase in extreme weather events as the greenhouse effect intensified, and the data pouring in from all over the world has shown that the only errors these scientists made were in underestimating the force of the disruption. At this stage of the game, it’s undoubtedly too late to avoid billions of dollars of costly and inconvenient damage to our infrastructure, our agriculture, and our security — but by acting promptly, we may be able to avert the most catastrophic of outcomes. The Green Mountain state is leading by example.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 2, Day 4: Nattering Nitwits of Know-Nothingism

The Daily Advertiser (Lafayette, LA) runs another in a series of rueful analyses from former Republicans who’ve broken with the batshit crazies now running their party:

The abuse directed at climate researchers sheds light on a tragic political truth — a cancer is consuming the soul of American conservatism. Conservatism is taking on many of the hallmarks of a cult — one in which information and doctrine are received, without question, from recognized authority figures or sources, and in which dissent cannot be tolerated. The conservative cult views the political process in apocalyptic terms, and sees its opponents as demonically evil. Sadly, climate denial is a key pillar in this cult’s ideology.

Under these circumstances, conservative scientists like Hayhoe and Emanuel are particularly dangerous. They demonstrate that there isn’t a fundamental incongruity between religious faith, or conservatism, and accepting the science behind AGW. They are heretics, calling to other conservatives from beyond the walls of the cult compound. And that’s a mortal threat to the climate deniers, and perhaps to the very existence of the cult itself.

In the end, the bullying and abuse of scientists is a sign of growing desperation. The cult must be defended, by any means. Dissenters must be intimidated into silence. With everything else against them, conservative climate deniers have only one option left – it’s time to get personal, and pound.

So the GOP’s full of crazy, huh? Gosh! Wouldn’t have expected that. Wonder why? Sent January 29:

Michael Stafford’s analysis of Republican cultishness (with particular reference to climate change denial) is exactly accurate. The exclusive reliance on received knowledge, the glib dismissal of ideologically inconvenient facts, the Manichaean mindset in which subtlety is inconceivable and compromise impossible — behold the public face of American conservatism today!

But how did the GOP turn into an apocalyptic, willfully ignorant mob? Mr. Stafford, a former party official, is readier to deplore his erstwhile compatriots’ behavior than to acknowledge the party’s complicity in its own degradation.

It’s undeniable: conservative politicians have long cultivated a virulent strain of electorally useful anti-intellectualism. Demagogues have been elected all over America by railing against “pointy-headed professors”, and “so-called experts.”

Who’d have thought that fifty years spent attacking intelligence, reason and scientific expertise would build an ignorant, unreasonable, and scientifically incompetent constituency? A few liberal intellectuals, perhaps — but their opinions didn’t count. Buncha damned hippies!

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 28: Mitt And Newt’s Excellent Vacation

The Aiken Standard (PA) runs the same AP article on the environmental disaster presented by America’s Republican Party. Here’s another excerpt:

Michelle Pautz, a political science professor at the University of Dayton who focuses on environmental policy, said the current slate of Republicans may not be giving much reason to applaud their environmental stances, but it may not matter much overall with the economy taking center stage.

“The bottom line is both with the GOP primary and looking to Obama and the general election, the green vote is a non-issue,” Pautz said. “There are too many other issues crowding out the environmental ones.”

But Tony Cani, the national political director for the Sierra Club, said taking what he calls “extreme” views on the environment won’t play well come Nov. 6.

“They’re going to be hurt with young voters, women, families, Latino voters,” Cani said.

Jim DiPeso, of Republicans for Environmental Protection, said he hopes to see a shift as Election Day draws closer, but that the state of politics right now has made ecological issues untouchable.

“A lot of the more pragmatic mainstream Republicans just are trying to steer clear of the issue because it’s become so politically fraught,” he said.

I wrote this after reading a liveblog on DK of the Monday night debate. It was fun. Sent January 23:

In a year where Newt Gingrich poses as an exemplar of political integrity and Mitt Romney has more positions than a porn star, it’s irrelevant whether the candidates “believe” in the science of climate change. Both have previously stated that they think global warming is happening — only to backtrack rapidly once it became clear that their party’s multi-decade anti-intellectual strategy has created a constituency for whom any sort of science is anathema. It is to them that candidates must appeal; the question is not whether Gingrich, Romney or any other political aspirant accepts the reality of an overwhelming scientific consensus on atmospheric CO2 and the greenhouse effect, but what GOP primary voters are willing to accept from their anointed representatives.

The Republican front-runners’ will profess their adherence to whatever their base believes, whether they themselves believe it or not. That’s bad for democracy — and bad for the planet.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 27: Actually, It’s Just More Hippie-Punching

The Salt Lake Tribune (UT) runs an AP article on the anti-environmental stance of the GOP presidential field:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. • Four years after the GOP’s rallying cry became “drill, baby, drill,” environmental issues have barely registered a blip in this Republican presidential primary.

That’s likely to change as the race turns to Florida.

The candidates’ positions on environmental regulation, global warming as well as clean air and water are all but certain to get attention ahead of the Jan. 31 primary in a state where the twin issues of offshore oil drilling and Everglades restoration are considered mandatory topics for discussion.

“It’s almost like eating fried cheese in Iowa,” said Jerry Karnas of the Everglades Foundation. Drilling has long been banned off Florida’s coasts because of fears that a spill would foul its beaches, wrecking the tourism industry, while the federal and state governments are spending billions to clean the Everglades.

Though most expect the candidates to express support for Everglades restoration — as Mitt Romney did in his 2008 campaign — environmentalists are noting a further rightward shift overall among the GOP field. The candidates have called for fewer environmental regulations, questioned whether global warming is a hoax and criticized the agency that implements and enforces clean air and water regulations.

This article is all over the place, so I’m going to build a few more letters on it over the next 36 hours. Sent January 23:

Since the early fifties, when a McCarthy-era Red Scare purged “China hands” from State Department (with predictably dismal consequences for US policy in Southeast Asia over the next twenty years), conservatives have built a electoral and media strategy by exploiting and nurturing a long-standing strain of anti-intellectualism in American life.

Climate scientists make a terrific target. For accurately reporting their findings and suggesting ways to respond to a genuine threat, they’ve been rewarded with mockery, hate mail, and death threats — while their legitimate concerns are derided by politicians whose electoral aspirations make it impossible for them to acknowledge genuine expertise. The candidates’ inability to address the scientific reality of global climate change is a symptom of their party’s lengthy effort to reduce intellectual influence on the crafting of policy. When the only experts the GOP respects are their political strategists, it’s no wonder their presidential field lacks intellectual heft, and it’s no wonder environmentalists are worried.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 26: They Only Call It Controversial When They’re The Ones Stirring Up The Controversy

The Santa Fe New Mexican notes that not everybody is embracing the strategy of delay:

The debate over the causes of climate change continues to rage, but federal, state and tribal agencies aren’t waiting around for the argument to be settled. They believe climate change is here, and they’re working on ways to help wildlife, land and communities adapt.

Two federal agencies and a state wildlife department have developed a broad plan for helping ecosystems become more resilient as the climate changes.

The National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy was released Friday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the New York Division of Fish and Wildlife and Marine Resources. The public has until March 5 to comment on the plan.

“Climate change is already here,” according to the coalition’s website. “It is clear from current trends and future projections that we are now committed to a certain amount of changes and impacts, making climate adaptation planning a critical part of responding to this complex challenge.”

Glad to know that there are some people who don’t rely on FOX for their policy implementation. Written and composed on an airplane soaring above flyover country on my way back from California, to be mailed on landing in Boston — January 22:

There is no argument over the causes of climate change that needs to be “settled.”  There’s no dispute on this issue among climate scientists, who all agree that a runaway greenhouse effect caused by human CO2 emissions is essentially inevitable at this point.  Any “argument” is a fabrication of conservative political strategists and their corporate partners who fear that efforts to mitigate the damaging consequences of planetary warming will negatively impact their profit margins.  By manufacturing a controversy where there is none, these malefactors of great wealth (to apply Theodore Roosevelt’s term) have diluted the force of public opinion on the subject and abetted a strategy of delay. When ninety-seven percent of climatologists (who are after all the experts on the subject) agree on the essentials of an existential threat to our species and our planet, our government needs to heed their advice, without considering problematic political consequences.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 23: Who’s Shrill?

The Washington Post’s Michael Gerson:

The attempt by Newt Gingrich to cover his tracks on climate change has been one of the shabbier little episodes of the 2012 presidential campaign. His forthcoming sequel to “A Contract with the Earth” was to feature a chapter by Katharine Hayhoe, a young professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas Tech University. Hayhoe is a scientist, an evangelical Christian and a moderate voice warning of climate disruption.

Then conservative media got wind. Rush Limbaugh dismissed Hayhoe as a “climate babe.” An Iowa voter pressed Gingrich on the topic. “That’s not going to be in the book,” he responded. “We told them to kill it.” Hayhoe learned this news just as she was passing under the bus.

A theory about the role of carbon dioxide in climate patterns has joined abortion and gay marriage as a culture war controversy. Climate scientists are attacked as greenshirts and watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside). Skeptics are derided as flat-earthers. Reputations are assaulted and the e-mails of scientists hacked.

Heh. Indeed. Also. Sent January 18:

Conservative politicization of science has borne bitter fruit in the intensifying battle over climate change. It’s worth recognizing that the GOP has been at the center of countless attempts to marginalize expertise for more than fifty years, starting with the McCarthy-era purges of China specialists from the State Department — a electorally expedient move, but one which created a policy vacuum with disastrous repercussions for our later experience in Vietnam. The only experts Republican politicians appear to respect are their political strategists, whose advice on winning elections is often extremely sound.

The problem with climate change is that the laws of physics and chemistry have no ideology; mounting atmospheric CO2 levels and increasing worldwide temperatures won’t vanish when presidential aspirants deny their existence, or ascribe the troublesome measurements to political bias among scientists. A hint to Republicans: if you stop denying scientific reality, scientists may eventually take you seriously again.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 18: Life Is Hard, But….

The State Journal (“West Virginia’s Only Business Newspaper”) notes some relatively simple things we can do to help out:

While working through the expensive problem of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to slow climate change, why not go ahead and tackle emissions of methane and soot — two easier problems that will pay for themselves and then some?

The suggestion, from an international team of 13 researchers lead by a NASA scientist, comes this week in “Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security” in the journal Science.

The researchers identified 14 measures they say could reduce warming by 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050. It’s a significant part of the 3.6 degrees’ warming that climate negotiators meeting in Copenhagen in 2009 targeted as a goal to stay below.

Measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions seem mainly to be expensive and controversial up front and to yield climate benefits only in the very long run.

But the measures proposed by these researchers for reducing methane and soot cost little and yield a range of substantial benefits in a shorter time frame.

The problem? Aw, hell. You and I both know what the problem is. People with no brains can’t recognize “no-brainers,” can they? Sent January 13:

The menu of things that can be done easily to address the burgeoning climate crisis is actually pretty substantial. Reducing atmospheric methane and soot should be a no-brainer, since such an approach not only makes sense as a strategy for reducing global warming, but offers both economic and public health benefits to the country as a whole.

Unfortunately, as long as one half of our government is controlled by people who reject science when it conflicts with either their electoral prospects or their profit margins, even such a straightforward proposal will be hindered and hamstrung by unnecessary political posturing. What was once a rational voice for business interests in American government has now become an ideologically fixated bloc incapable of adopting even the most obviously sensible policy initiatives. When GOP climate-change denialists pander to extremist elements within their own constituencies, they wind up damaging the communities they purport to serve.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 12, Day 23: The Menace From Earth

The Miami Herald notes a new report from NASA detailing ecosystem transformation in the wake of climate change:

Global warming could bring a major transformation for Earth’s plants and animals over the next century, a NASA study says, driving nearly half the planet’s forests, grasslands and other vegetation toward conversion into radically different ecosystems.

The ecological stress could give a boost to invasive species, but at the expense of natives, reducing the diversity of plants and animals overall.

And humans are likely, almost literally, to cut them off at the pass: When plants and animals attempt to survive by shifting their geographical ranges, as they have in past episodes of climate change, they’ll be blocked by farms and cities.

“If half the world is driven to change its vegetation cover, and meanwhile, we’ve fragmented the surface of the Earth by putting in parking lots and monoculture agricultural zones and all these other impediments to natural migration, then there could be problems,” said lead author Jon Bergengren, a global ecologist who was a postdoctoral researcher at Caltech when he did the study.

“When, suddenly, plants and animals aren’t living in habitats to which they’re adapted, then you start to get an unhealthy planet,” he said.

The comments on the article are a mass of stupid. Plus ca change…

Sent December 19:

Conservative politicians routinely ramp up their anti-immigrant rhetoric for the benefit of their xenophobic constituents. Curiously, however, they dismiss the extralegals most likely to cross America’s borders in a post-climate-change future.

Let’s leave aside the obvious fact that climate-driven resource wars and geopolitical instability are likely to lead to vastly increased numbers of refugees in the coming decades. Rather, let’s focus on the immigrant populations which will do the most damage to America: invasive species. Migrating from their customary ecological niches in response to rapid climatic shifts, these visitors will be part of a traumatic environmental transformation over the next century, rendering vast parts of the United States unrecognizable.

While disease-bearing insects, non-native plants and other such unwelcome visitors will have far greater economic impact on our nation than any undocumented human immigrants, you won’t hear any candidates for election mention them at all. I wonder why?

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 12, Day 21: One Good Letter Deserves Another

The Malaysia Star runs an opinion piece by Guenter Gruber, the German Ambassador:

Changes in the climate destroy the basis on which human life subsists; drought, for instance, leads to shortages in food and water. Rising sea levels are already threatening the territories of small island states and vast stretches of coastland.

Weather patterns are changing. In Thailand, we have just seen severe flooding. Last year, the south of Malaysia was unusually dry. Now, 40% more rainfall than usual is expected.

Climate change is the definitive challenge of the 21st century. However, the international community has to admit that it has not, as things stand, stepped up to this challenge.

Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions went up again in 2010, global temperatures are already 0.8°C higher than before industrialisation, and sea levels rose twice as fast between 1993 and 2003 as they did in the preceding decade; icebergs and glaciers are melting at record speeds.

It’s a generic piece, and it gets a generic letter. Sent December 17:

There is no doubt: the climate crisis is not only the gravest threat our species has yet faced, but one which our existing political and economic systems cannot address competently. Just look at the parlous state of American politics, in which oil industry influence permeates the system to such an extent that one of the country’s two dominant political parties is reaping electoral rewards for a complete denial of scientific reality. Similarly, Canada ignores the danger posed to its own Arctic territories by pulling out of the Kyoto treaty and fostering climate-change denial in its own government.

Ultimately, of course, the laws of physics and chemistry will win; they always do, since they are unaffected by public opinion. The responsibility for preventing a runaway greenhouse effect necessarily rests with the world’s industrialized nations, for they are the ones whose CO2 emissions have pushed the planet to the brink of catastrophe.

Warren Senders