BEFORE DESCENDING INTO THE SERIOUS — and painful — I thought to share a tiny but delightful blip of humor that I came upon in my forays into an ominous future.
From “Meteorologist’s Brilliant Response to Weather Map Error Goes Viral,” Jan. 29:
“The weather in Arizona is famously warm, sunny and dependable. Meteorologists may at times have some scorching triple-digit temperatures to report, but that’s typically as bad as it gets. Well, not long ago and for what was quite likely the first time in his career, Fox 10 weatherman Cory McCloskey delivered a forecast that was truly apocalyptic. When doing his regular segment the electronic map he was using as a reference went berserk and all sorts of crazy readings started popping up.
“McCloskey very calmly reported that it was 750 degrees in Gila Bend at the moment. That appeared to be one of the lower temperatures in the region. Undaunted, he moved onto Wickenberg which, at 2,385 degrees, he declared a ‘total loss’ and advised that people ‘just get out.’
“In regards to Cave Creek’s nearly 3,000-degree reading, McCloskey said, ‘I think steel boils at about this temperature … there’s probably nothing left there. So don’t even bother looting.’”
Now that I’ve lightened your day for a moment, its time to engage with a reality that clearly does not involve delightful hilarity!
For a bit of recent time I have been hampered in my writing by illness. I am fully aware that there is a considerable body of opinion that either welcomed my periods of absence (!) or assumed that I had simply run out of material for more outrageous assaults upon their reality.
As to the latter, fear not. So long as political, economic and social reality continues to be defined, distorted and widely disseminated by corporate America under the guidance of the Koch brothers, we can be assured that there will be room — and justification — not only for whatever small (tiny?) efforts I can muster, but for those of many, many thousands of writers, folks hopefully engaged in the demanding task of attempting to correct for those remarkable (and profitable) economic distortions so dear to the hearts of the monied. Distortions, I might add, that in recent years have dramatically increased the relative rewards our economy provides those of wealth.
And, painfully and dramatically enough, that economy will provide — no, I should say, is providing — for purchase by the wealthy a very few precious islands of refuge and environmental health, even as they decrease in size and availability in the carbon-based economies of our future.
A bulletin on an intimately related and positive development of considerable importance to our future: In a rapidly growing response to the ominous threat posed by global warming, a group, or rather movement, Citizens Climate Lobby, has formed and is expanding across the nation. I quote from their material:
“The plan being proposed by Citizens Climate Lobby would place gradually increasing fees on the carbon content of fossil fuels at ports of entry, mines and wells, and return that revenue to households in equal monthly per person dividend payments.
“That would cut the United States’s CO2 emissions in half in 20 years, create 2.8 million new jobs and prevent 225,000 thousand deaths from respiratory diseases.
“Sixty-five percent of households would receive more in dividend payments than their increased energy cost.
“Those projections were the findings of a nonpartisan economic study of the ‘Carbon Fee and Dividend’ plan done by Regional Economic Models Inc. and available as a report and video presentation at www.citizensclimatelobby.org.”
About Citizens Climate Lobby, NASA climate scientist James Hansen, who first warned Congress about global warming in 1989, says, “If you want to join the fight to save our planet, to save creation for your grandchildren, there is no more effective step you could take than becoming an active member of this group.”
Some details on the group’s plan and approach:
“This market-based, revenue-neutral approach would create incentives for everyone to conserve energy and make the transition to alternative energy and energy-saving products and create new industries, broad economic growth and millions of new jobs.
“The Fee and Dividend plan could be implemented on a country-by-country basis and would provide the same economic and health benefits to each country.
“Countries without similar carbon pricing would be required to pay tariffs on imports and the tariff revenue would be added to the fee revenue. Companies exporting to countries without comparable carbon pricing would be reimbursed (with the fee revenue funds) to compensate for higher energy costs.
“Do we want to continue causing catastrophic changes to Earth’s atmosphere with increasing emissions while heading blindly toward the tipping point where climate change will be irreversible for thousands of years?
“Or do we want to end our addiction to fossil fuels and make the transition to clean alternative energy for the sake of our global environment and future generations?”
And now we in Benicia can get involved.
A meeting led by Dr. Peter Joseph to start a Citizens Climate Lobby chapter in Vallejo will be held at the Mira Community Cultural Center at 51 Daniels Ave. on Wednesday at 7 p.m.
Please come to the meeting to learn about climate change and how you can add your voice to calling on our elected representatives to implement the Carbon Fee and Dividend plan that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, save lives, create jobs, boost the economy and make Americans richer.
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Just a counter point ….
http://nypost.com/2014/06/24/global-warming-skeptic-says-government-manipulated-temperature-data/
From Politifact.com: “Fox News host: Climate scientists ‘fabricated’ temperature data”
“The allegations raised by skeptics like the author of The Telegraph item have had no effect on the consensus that the Earth has seen an increase in temperatures over the past 100 years.
This claim has been debunked before. To continue to repeat it moves it into the realm of the ridiculous. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.”
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/13/dana-perino/fox-news-host-climate-scientists-fabricated-temper/
Beyond the climate change denier, anti science crowd—
The above commenter refers the readership to a New York Post article.
Who is Steven Goddard?
Who you gonna trust?
Another viewpoint/counterpoint.
More science information for our citizen-voters, and our appointed and elected officials to seriously consider…
“Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller, according to the Heartland Institute. [2]
Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [3], [4]
http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard
Thank you always, Jerome. Best wishes for improving health. Always good to hear from you. I’m sure this missive from you will keep Benicia’s “science deniers” and me busy for weeks…
Watch out for all spiders under loose rockers on too many porches. As a species, border collies, feral cats, dragonflies over ponds, and wolves in caves may have higher aspirations than our own.
Cheers, PB
I would use the term “debaters”, not “deniers”. Scientific hypothesis are often debated, as they should be. The matter of climate change is a highly debated theory among the science community, thanks to a heavy injection of politics.
Scientific research will continue. Theories will be proposed, debated, and at some point concluded. But any attempts to shut down debate now is poor science and wreaks of politics. Let the science continue, as so should the debate. I appreciate Mr. Page’s articles and I hope rational debate can continue.
Debate serves absolutely no purpose in any pure form of the scientific method. Debate is philosophical and is usually subjective in nature.
Actually not true. There continues to be great debate over many scientific theories based on research and data. Case in point … Years ago there was great debate in the scientific community regarding Einsteins theory of relativity. It took many years before to prove the bending of light and time surrounding distant stars before it could be proven.
I state the same situation exists today with the theory of man made climate change. But it may very we’ll be proven false. Data is being changed to prove points. This is scary.
Debate is all good and fine. But, w/0 supporting your argument with information that has been gone through the scientific method, debate means nothing. Deniers have put themselves in a position that has saddled them with the burden of proof. For instance, coming up with anything even remotely verifiable that supports the claim that climate change is a hoax.
Mr. Petersen,
I have never said man made climate change is a hoax or denied its existence. I have been very clear, it is still unproven.
There are theories. Some are supported, others proven to be false. The debate continues.
I do believe there is a human influence on climate change. Yes, i do believe there is man made climate change occurring! But to what degree? As you read the scientific theories, you will degrees of alarm. Some say the Earth is on immediate peril. Others will state the affect of human activity is micro and poses almost no threat. And everything else in between. A small portion will state there is no affect at all.
This is not an all or nothing debate.
The immediate peril crowd will argue for drastic action such as banning all hydro carbon production.
Others will argue that the Earth has plenty of time and human development of technology will solve the problem and the Earth can recover.
Put me in the latter category.
But to silent debate through name calling, using the term “deniers” or “anti-science” is a weak debate tactic for a truly desirous issue that deserves debate. Debate brings attention to the issue and this will drive more research.
Again … Let the debate continue!
excellent commetn
“I have never said man made climate change is a hoax or denied its existence.” Nor did I say that you did. But, others (deniers) have.
“Debate brings attention”. Sure it does. However, it plays no role in proving anything. It is merely an opportunity to posture politically. And, it is usually done so by folks that have no business debating the issue Debate does not drive more research. Research (utilizing the scientific method appropriately) and its findings drives further research, it has for a long time and it will continue.
But, don’t quote me.
Then it would be fair to say there is no place for politics in science. Unfortunately, it is the basis (and profit) surrounding this issue.
Matter, unfortunately in many circles the MCGWA have declared the debate to be over and they have won. Contrary facts, falsified data, exposed lies all notwithstanding.
Here is a case in point:
‘there is pretty much understanding across the board in the United States media now that this is real, this is true, it’s happening, [and] we’re responsible. That debate is over.’ For this reason, he concluded, ‘in this day and age, including climate denialists in a story about climate change is generally irrelevant,’” said the study.
Source: Reporters told to stop interviewing ‘irrelevant’ climate change critics
We must have a “debate” between those of us who accept the overwhelming consensus of scientists and experts and those who are wrong. It’s the American way.
Not sure if writer understands the use of the word “theory” in science. It is totally different from our common usage, such as, “I have a theory the 49ers will win the super bowl.” Scientific theory is different: “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world” When a scientist uses Theory of Climate Change, they are not implying that a philosophical or “guessing discussion” is taking place. As can be seen from the above definition, scientific theory is based upon REPEATED empirical tests, which are repeated and peer reviewed before being published. The body of scientific evidence for climate change is huge and growing by the day as more testing is done, more peer reviewing (by a variety of scientists, not just those employed by fossil fuel industries) and more empirical testing is done globally. There are discussions among scientists about the severity and time lines in various regions; how certain chemicals affect different environments, etc., but there is no disagreement among reputable scientists about the reality of climate change. Attempts to debunk it by people who have economic interests in the status quo will be view, by history, just as we view the persecutions of Copernicus and Galileo!
Jfurlong stated:by a variety of scientists, not just those employed by fossil fuel industries
The writer in the third paragraph (after the humorous story), once again mentions the evil Koch Brothers, and in the comment above the theme is reinforced: Anyone who disputes our ‘facts’ is obviously a lackey for big oil (though that may not have been the intent), therefore, your information will not be considered. Hence there is no ‘debate’ or objective analysis of all the facts.
Additionally :there is no disagreement among reputable scientists about the reality of climate change I know of no one personally who would dispute the above statement; climate changes, warm periods to cool periods and back. What is subject to debate is the impact of man on those cyclical changes. This very pertinent point is ignored with the derogatory term: “climate deniers”.
The juvenile term makes the argument more ‘marketable’ and is used as a sword to smite the opposition.
Funny to hear a complaint about “juvenile” terminology from the guy who hates 0bummer so much.
In the case of man made climate change, the theory was base largely on the now provably false “hockey stick” theory that carbon compound saturation would lead to ex potential rise in surface temperatures. This theory has proven to be absurdly false. In fact, most temperature studies have shown no increase in surface temperature during the past 30 years while carbon compound levels have grown steadily.
Climate change is happening. It has always happened since the atmosphere has been in place. To make the final conclusion that human activity is definitively causing accelerated change today, is debatable.
My research via many articles shows between 60% and 70% of the scientific community believes man made climate change is occurring. But most of that community is not settled on the level of human influence. Some believe the situation is severe while others see only minimal influence. There is not even consensus among the believers!
So there is legitimate scientific debate on a theory and the debate is quantitative. No conclusion exists. And without conclusion, actions to correct can be errant.
Beyond contemplating the future —
From the above article:
“The plan being proposed by Citizens Climate Lobby would place gradually increasing fees on the carbon content of fossil fuels at ports of entry, mines and wells, and return that revenue to households in equal monthly per person dividend payments.”
“That would cut the United States’s CO2 emissions in half in 20 years, create 2.8 million new jobs and prevent 225,000 thousand deaths from respiratory diseases.”
This reads more like, the same old ” business as usual” boiler-plate.
Key question: Do we really have the time to wait another 20 years?
The post below provides more climate change news the community, Mr. Page, and our appointed and elected representatives can use…
“Within this century, global warming will bring about disruptive, decades-long droughts in the U.S. southwest and Great Plains, exceeding even the driest periods of the last millennium, according to new research released this month.”
In fact, it projects that some time between 2050 and 2100, extended drought conditions across the U.S. will become more severe than the mega-droughts of the 12th and 13th centuries. Such arid conditions would affect millions of people, placing stress on agricultural crops and increasing the likelihood and frequency of water shortages in urban areas.
“The coming drought age—caused by higher temperatures under climate change—will make it nearly impossible to carry on with current life-as-normal conditions across a vast swath of the country,” the Guardian warned.
With all due respect, Mr. Page, our future in California has already arrived.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/12/climate-change-sets-stage-droughts-unprecedented-proportions
Beyond the climate change denier, anti-science crowd—-
Who you gonna trust?
From the above commenter:
“In the case of man made climate change, the theory was base largely on the now provably false “hockey stick” theory that carbon compound saturation would lead to ex potential rise in surface temperatures. This theory has proven to be absurdly false. In fact, most temperature studies have shown no increase in surface temperature during the past 30 years while carbon compound levels have grown steadily.”
From the post below: more science information i.e. surface air temperatures for our citizenry, and our appointed and elected leaders to seriously consider…
“Two degrees of warming closer than you may think”
“It’s taken a hundred years of human-caused greenhouse emissions to push the global temperature up almost one degree Celsius (1C°), so another degree is still some time away. Right? And there seems to have been a “pause” in warming over the last two decades, so getting to 2C° is going to take a good while, and we may have more time that we thought. Yes?”
“Wrong on both counts.”
“The world could be 2C° warmer in as little as two decades, according to the leading US climate scientist and “hockey stick” author, Dr Michael E. Mann. Writing in Scientific American in March 2014 (with the maths explained here), Mann says that new calculations “indicate that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise to 2C° by 2036” and to avoid that threshold “nations will have to keep carbon dioxide levels below 405 parts per million”, a level we have just about reached already. Mann says the notion of a warming “pause” is false.”
“There is no “pause” in warming”
“In releasing the data on 2014’s record warmth, NASA charted warming since 1970 and demonstrated that there has been no “pause” or slowing in warming, contrary to the million-times-repeated claims of the climate warming denial industry.”
“Joe Romm of Climate Progress says this chart (below) shows that: “The human-caused rise in surface air temperatures never paused, never even slowed significantly. And that means we are likely headed toward a period of rapid surface temperature warming.” ”
http://www.climatecodered.org/2015/02/two-degrees-of-warming-closer-than-you.html
Supernaturalism vs. Science —- or the Sky God vs. Peer Reviewed Science—-
I have often wondered why people are climate change deniers or anti-science when the facts from reputable and reliable sources indicate otherwise. The has been an ongoing battle on this site every time Mr. Page or others writes a well researched column–i.e. ” Contemplating the future” about the topic of global warming/climate change and the impacts it is presently having on our planet.
The thought provoking article posted below may give the concerned citizens, Mr. Page and our appointed and elected representatives more valuable insights into this kind of thinking….
“Global Warming, God, and American Complacency”
“Belief in God in this sense is exemplified by many of our political leaders in Washington.”
“For example, in a book called The Greatest Hoax, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma explained why people should not be worried about climate change by citing Genesis 8:22 – “As long as the earth remains there will be seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” Saying that this passage shows that God promised long ago that “cold and heat should not cease,” Inhofe said: “This is what a lot of alarmists forget. God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons.” It is arrogant, said Inhofe, to “think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate.”
“Likewise, Republican Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois, using the same verse from Genesis, said: “I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for his creation. . . . The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over.”
In the same vein, talk-show host Rush Limbaugh took issue with Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement that climate change is “a challenge to our responsibilities as the guardians . . . of God’s creation.” Limbaugh replied: “If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming.” To worry about human-caused global warming, Limbaugh said, is to imply that “we are so . . . omnipotent that we can . . . destroy the climate.”5
“To believe in God, according to these three men, is to believe that the world is under the complete control of an omnipotent deity. The traditional doctrine of divine omnipotence is the idea that God can unilaterally bring about anything (except perhaps for logical impossibilities – God cannot create round squares). Nothing can come about, therefore, unless God causes or at least permits it.”
“However, this view is contradicted by the scientific (or “critical”) study of the Bible, which began in earnest in the 17th century. Beginning with simply pointing out hundreds of false assertions in the Old and New Testaments, the scholars then pointed out that the various books of the Bible expressed very different beliefs, showing that it could not have simply been written by a single author (God), or even fact-checked by an omniscient proof-reader.”
“Climate complacency has been encouraged by several features of supernaturalistic Christian theism, including infallible scriptures, miraculous interventions, anti-evolutionary Young Earth beliefs, end-times beliefs, and the idea that the world’s creator can be both omnipotent and perfectly good. Because Evangelicals largely endorse these ideas, it is no wonder that self-identified Evangelicals are less likely than Americans in general to be very concerned about global warming. And given the high percentage of Americans who are self-identified Evangelicals, this form of theism goes far to explain why Americans are “less worried about climate change than almost anyone else.” But just as the government and the media generally do not allow anti-rational beliefs to shape public policy, they should not allow anti-scientific religious beliefs to play a role in shaping policies.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41033.htm
The 10 hottest years globally in recorded history, according to the National Climatic Data Center…..
1. 2014
2. 2010
3. 2005
4. 1998
5. 2013
6. 2003
7. 2002
8. 2006
9. 2009
10. 2007
So 10 of the hottest years on record are in the past 17 years, with this past year being the hottest ever globally. Yet we’re not supposed to believe in climate change?
Skeptics in 2006 will note that the globe was cooler than it was in 2005, and that statement would be true. But that logic doesn’t see the forest for the trees.
Anyone who doesn’t believe climate change has dramatic effects should talk to farmers, who deal with climate change annually.
And I guess we’re supposed to ignore the numerous examples in nature (i.e. migration patterns) that suggest climate change is real. I suppose if animals were Republicans or worked for the oil and gas industry, they’d argue against climate change as well. But they don’t care about petty arguments. They’re already trying to adapt to reality.
Let’s say the above data is true.
Simple questions:
1). Is it man caused? Or is it a natural sun cycle?
2). During much of the Miocene Era, age of the dinosaurs, the Earth was much hotter and there were no polar caps, was that man made global warming?
3). The records you site go back maybe 100 years. This is a statistical pinpoint and not long enough to form a trend that is worth action. How do you conclude that a warming trend in man made?
4). What is the amplitude of the warming. Is it among statistical norms?
I think you fall into the trap that any trend is man made. There is warming therefore it must be man made.
This logic would blame the dinosaurs for global warming 200 million years ago.
It was the dinosaurs fault – all that poop generating methane and those large bodies exhaling all that CO2. Thank god we had an asteroid hit the earth and wipe the slate clean!
No one ever mentions that we have much more accurate thermometers and other measuring devices available today than we did even 50 years ago.
Is climate change real – Yes. Influenced by man’s activity – yeah, most likely – but I still argue that it’s not in mans nature to change until a catastrophic event forces that change. The climate will have to change such that there is world wide crop failures and mass starvation. The world population will correct to the point where the climate can recover to the mean. A large Icelandic volcanic eruption would do the trick short term as well.
Think globally and act locally will not affect climate change until the world population is impacted.
just my $0.02
Benicia Dave said: No one ever mentions that we have much more accurate thermometers and other measuring devices available today than we did even 50 years ago.
Good point! So how much warmer was it?
From CNN: 2014 was the Earth’s warmest year on record, a U.S. weather agency announced Friday, with average temperatures 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit above the previous high.
That is correct: 7 one hundredths of a degree., That also is not mentioned as often as “hottest year ever!”