Patch Blog: Turtle on the Stump and a Call to Action on Climate Change

The climate grows warmer, the evidence ever stronger. Is it news that Republicans in Congress consistently vote against immediate and strong precautions to save the planet from the catastrophic impact of climate change?  

Click here to read about the deadly consequences of inaction.

And click here to read about how a growing number of Republicans—47 percent, according to a recent poll—believe there is solid evidence of climate change.

Even so, the GOP seems to assures us, “not to worry—it’s all bogus, a massive hoax,” or that “the jury is still out.”

Science tells us the opposite about climate change: “Yes, be concerned! It is among civilization’s greatest threats. The jury has been in for decades.” 

Who to believe? What if the claim that “climate change is a hoax” is itself a hoax?

And if denial is a hoax, can we hold the Republicans in Congress accountable? Yes. Dante’s Inferno is not nearly hot enough. To deceive us in such a manner is a “stumbling block placed before the blind”—a sin, in the biblical sense.

The current GOP candidates are all nodding their heads at the official dogma. Take New Hampshire, for example.

Every GOP NH Senate candidate is a global warming denier.

You hear the same from the GOP in New Mexico, Alaska, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Arizona as well. Yep, the new GOP has really circled the wagons around this one.

To illustrate the sad level of the political sham, one Republican candidate for Congress claims (the emphasis on the first four words are mine): “After researching the causes of temperature fluctuations on earth, I found the largest factor to be the sun. The earth’s orbit changes. Also the earth’s spin and axis change over time. When areas of the earth are closer to the sun, the temperature is hotter and when they are further away, cooler. The sun also has more activity at times and less at other times. They have been able to map out large changes in the earth’s temperature over time to the sun. Times with no polar ice caps have corresponded to times when we were closer to the sun. Ice ages have corresponded to times when we were further from the sun. We should not punish the people of the United States financially by legislating on pseudo-science that has not been proven.

That's no ordinary Tea partier. That's a candidate for Congress.

And she's not alone.

Really? She did research? 

Well, no, at least not very thoroughly. Or else she would know that this possibility has been thoroughly, meticulously, investigated and is no longer suspect. I would expect more from my high school students. Really. I taught this.

Click here to read about whether or not the sun is causing global warming.

Let’s see, shall I believe her (what was her degree in)? Or should I go with NASA and their legions of research scientists in discussions of the sun's role?

Two Questions: Why do all these politicians fall in line? And why do Republican voters buy into the deceptions, especially when they, too, will be hurt. 

Hurt? Think $5 billion drought in Texas, floods in the Northeast and tornados in the Midwest ($55 billion in all)—statistically pinned to climate change by insurance companies as well as climate scientists.

Why the silence from the American right? Masochism? Party loyalty? Perhaps. Or, do they have better facts, better evidence, better reasons?

A recent article in Scientific American, titled “Popular Opinion on Climate Change Traced to Political Elites,” makes the point that it is politics—not facts, not evidence, not reason—that prompts the naysayers.

So, why do they persist? I think I know the answer to both questions.

A Little Thought Experiment—The Turtle on the Stump

To help us through the morass of claims, here’s a little “thought experiment” from law school to clarify the concept of circumstantial evidence:

Imagine two brothers, Joey and Bill, playing with Joey’s pet turtle, named Molasses, in their backyard. Joey is called in to finish his homework. He tells Bill, “don’t you dare touch Molasses! Leave him where he is.” Bill agrees.

Joey comes back 10 minutes later to find Molasses is on top of an oak stump, four feet off the ground. Joey is furious. Bill vehemently denies ever doing anything with Molasses. But he can’t explain how it got on the stump. “I think he jumped!” says Bill.

My view: Bill did it. Duh. (Although a neighbor could have placed Molasses on the stump, the turtle could have climbed to the top of it, a mighty wind could have swept the animal up, and so on and so forth.)

The voting public—like juries, too—often must make its best guess with imperfect information. Lives may depend on it.

To me, the Republican deniers in the climate debate sound so much like Bill, hoping that you buy the improbable (“climate science is a worldwide liberal conspiracy,” for example, or “those scientists are just eggheads—what do they know?”) despite irrefutable evidence of literally thousands of experiments all over the world leading to an overwhelming consensus for the reality, causes and dangers of climate change.

The unified Republican political machine offers us a brick wall of indifference, deception and denial. They even seem proud of it.  

They ask us to “wait and see” when waiting (and for what?!) may well be “game over” for much of the life on our planet. This sorry gaggle of Neville Chamberlains tells us to “don’t worry, just relax.” Only these characters are worse than poor, naïve Neville! At least Chamberlain was sincere and didn't make a bundle from his useless assurances.

If it were just their own destiny, I wouldn’t care so much. This denial, unlike the denial of cigarette smokers, for example, threatens not just themselves and their family, but also the life of all our children and grandchildren—and the world’s—who may be unable to stop the avalanche of consequences. Even without “tipping points,” or the domino effects. And with them?  Really scary. We really don't know where the edge of the precipice is.

I would argue that consequences—already serious—would be orders of magnitude more dangerous (and expensive) than terrorism, the national debt, genetically altered foods, a nuclear Iran, war, you name it—with millions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake for the next generation or two, generations that will have to deal with a much hotter world.

One small, local example: Eagle Rock feeling like Van Nuys; Van Nuys feeling like Death Valley; our available water cut by 50-70 percent because of shrinking snowpack in the Sierras. This will occur in our children’s lifetime, with business as usual, even if we don’t go past the truly terrifying “tipping points”.

Scientists, who understand statistics and probability far better than you or I, give this scenario as a “best guess” if we proceed with “business as usual.”

Who is wise? He—or she—who predicts the consequences

Is this merely silly hysteria? Amusing, but really a waste of time? Or, is it reality? Look at the predictions of the recent past. The scientific community’s predictions of carbon-dioxide levels, rising and acidified oceans, rising temperatures, melting ice, extreme weather, changing biological patterns, and their consequences etc. have so far even exceeded estimates in both extent and time! These are far better predictions than those of the deniers, and are due to good theory, not wishful or profit motivated thinking.

We can see it every day with recent reports of millions of acres of newly dead trees in Alaska, the release of methane from the tundra, and the increased acidity of the oceans along with the decimation of corals and their fish populations. 

There are thousands of such reports. I read new ones every day. A new report, just the other day, for example, states that, in upstate New York, brook trout “redd” (nest) construction has dropped 65 percent because of the 1 degree C increase in summer temperatures. An anomaly? It is only if you ignore the mounting concurrence of evidence.

Yet the deniers quibble about science predictions being off a few percent here and there, or they distort the findings, throwing up (vomiting up?) plausible objections that sound good but are half-truths that have been debunked again and again. “There are only three bullets in the chamber—not four,” they exult, as we are invited to a game of Russian Roulette.

Here is a list of the 174-plus “skeptic” objections, and the replies of climate scientists.

Of course, the cynical politicians aren’t listening to these replies. When noise and confusion puts money in their pockets, yes, they will make noise and sow confusion, and act like heroes in the process. And, there are millions of dollars given to do just that.

Maybe they will listen to the voters!

In 2003, the World Health Organization estimated more than 160,000 deaths from climate change, identifying problems that occur only with rising temperatures. Carbon-dioxide is higher now. We must act. Those dragging their feet share some responsibility

And those politicians cannot magically reverse these and later facts with their glib verbal shell games. Like the captain of the Titanic refusing to heed iceberg warnings, they forge ahead. Except that these sorry characters won’t go down with the ship.  They will buy new homes in the North. And do you expect them to support American citizens in times of future disaster? “Bucks for FEMA? Can’t afford it. You’re on your own, buddy. It builds character!”

I confidently assert scientists’ warnings are real, and not hysteria. Why? Because, their predictions are very good, far beyond coincidence. The evidence is strong. I will give credit where credit is due.

BTW: An example of hysteria?

How about the claims that Obama would take away our guns, or that Osama bin Laden would be dancing in the streets if Obama were to be elected? Hysteria.

Exxon CEOs and their stockholders are the ones dancing.

Why the Denial?

For the Republican politician, there’s gold in “them thar ills.” Fossils fuel their re-elections and, perhaps, their future as lobbyists.

I think misinformation will get even worse. A Saudi prince, who likes oil a lot, just purchased 7 percent of Fox News, usually hostile to the science anyway. (Before you listen, consider the source.)

But there are other philosophical reasons that separate the two political parties. 

There is a deeply held conviction and desire for less regulation, lower taxes, and smaller government. And so, Conservatives may feel that admitting that the danger exists will be expensive, require more government and threaten our very liberty (in addition to being downright depressing and frightening). And, of course there is “false pride” that whispers, “Never admit you’re wrong.”

I share many of these issues as well. I am wrong a lot. I, too, vehemently oppose unnecessary government interference and the waste or abuse of my hard-earned tax dollars.

But I also welcome traffic laws, which, though limiting my driving habits, maximize my freedom not to be struck by a speeding driver. 

So, some government “oversight” and protection is obviously good, even at the federal level. The FDA, the FAA, NOAA, NASA, the EPA really do protect us, as a nation. Cut the waste but not the protection.

Example: I remember L.A.’s acrid, burning air of 50 years ago, courtesy of the automobile. My eyes stung, and it was painful—even to breathe. In this case, Detroit’s auto industry did not save us. “We the people” together saved ourselves—in creating the EPA (with, paradoxically, President Nixon at the helm). 

Another: NOAA has contributed to pretty accurate storm warnings, using satellite-based predictions that have saved many lives.

“We the people” have made wise choices joining together as a nation. So, well done, America!

Of course Republicans, like the Democrats, usually back their own party.  I understand party loyalty. I really do. But, should we circle our wagons around the common good or corporate profits for some? When our children's future is at stake? It’s your party. Votes matter.

So, what should we ask our politicians to do? And how soon should they do it?

“To avoid dangerous climate change, a reduction of the concentration of carbon dioxide of 3.5 percent per year needs to be achieved for the foreseeable future. This can be contrasted to the 2.2-percent average yearly boost of the concentration increase in the last 33 years.”

That's about a 6-percent swing. Most, if not all, scientists say that is a recipe for catastrophe if it continues—on the level that I described.

It will take a major commitment of energy and resources, approaching the scope and pace at which we built thousands of tanks, planes, armies and ships once we were pulled into World War II. We mounted a truly massive buildup in a very short time. We can do this, but will we? What is lacking is not resources but basic sanity—and the guts to free ourselves from the addiction. In time.

How to spend those resources? It’s a big topic, one for later, perhaps.

In a nutshell, though, non-partisan economists are almost unanimous:

1. Put a price on carbon that reflects its true cost. This is far less expensive than the damage otherwise. In fact, rather than “too expensive,” it would actually save us a large amount of money in the long run.

2. Shift more subsidies away from polluting fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Both would go a long way to reducing gasses to safer levels. It’s not rocket science, but we have only a few years before things really unravel.

The current crop of Republicans simply do not have the guts for it. Find people who do and who still support your other issues. If any politician is just “gonna let it happen” (Dem or Rep) give him or her the boot. Who needs them?

Conservatives (with a wise tradition of conserving what is best and avoiding excessive risk) can and should reform their party—and soon. It goes far beyond just holding prices down.

I believe in the two-party system. The Democrats need to take back their party, as do the Republicans. So, we need to tell the current bunch: “You’ve had your say. That’s not what we think.” We’ll find someone ready to get real.

The Republican voter must demand far more from their candidates. Don’t let them seduce you with their snake oil talk. Demand the dignity of a true Conservative. After all, a Conservative is one that prudently overestimates risk so as not to get burned. S/he doesn’t underestimate or dismiss it. And, a true Conservative conserves what is precious, such as air and water, and brook trout.

Finally …

Ruth McClung, (REP) running for Congress in District 7 of Arizona, the politician quoted earlier, was guilty of misleading us in offering her two half truths. One: Both orbit differences and changes in the angle of the earth’s axis do change and affect climate (ice ages, for example) but occur on vastly longer time scales (tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years), not the 50 years in which we have observed current climate change and in which we have increased carbon-dioxide concentration by 30 percent (according to the Australian Meteorological Society).

And two: The changes in distance to the sun do not cause seasons. It is the tilt of the earth that causes summer and winter, with the resulting difference in the angle of the sun’s rays. Otherwise, there would be summer in both Northern and Southern Hemispheres at the same time. As I said, this angle changes significantly but over many thousands of years, not enough in 50 years to make much difference.

Orbits, tilts and distance from the sun are out, as an explanation! Carbon-dioxide is in. Doesn’t she know any better?

So, once again, the Denier Arithmetic: ½ Truth + ½ Truth = One Lie.