COP 20: Lima, Peru – Page 19 – Global Climate Change Mosaic: COP 20

September 2, 2014September 21, 2014

The Discovery of the Truth: Revised and Expanded Edition

by Elizabeth Plascencia

Courtesy of Balog: Columbia Glacier, Alaska from 2006 to 2012

To divulge the whole story of global warming – what a task. Where to even begin? How would we explain the state of our existence on planet Earth to a foreigner? Human activities in the Anthropocene? The Industrial Revolution? Population growth? Fossil Fuels? I am unsure of the beginning and I sure don’t want to know the ending.

Weart carefully tells the story of global warming through meticulously weaving in and out of science and history in The Discovery of Global Warming: Revised and Expanded Edition. Additionally, to my surprise, Weart actually stated a handful of aggressive verbs, which is often unlikely for climate change activists who try to “speak the party talk”. I was pleasantly surprised. Often climate change speakers are lost in their sea of words when attempting to maintain their position in the middle and not appear too radical. In order to achieve some sort of movement I really respected when Weart presents to model ourselves differently in the name of change. Real change. Not just something that we talk about and agree on at a conference.

Discovering the truth about our state of being is so much more than just the idea. It is taking action and creating momentum in order to catapult change.

September 2, 2014September 21, 2014

ON CLEARANCE (90% off): Doubt

by Elizabeth Plascencia

What does it mean to doubt? Is it the dictionary definition of “a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction” or rather this mindset that has been spoon-fed to us about climate change? How does one so easily doubt the change that is evident right before our very eyes? Easy. It has to do with something in your pocket or on your desk right now – your wallet.

Our wallets expand and contract every so often, rarely, or never. Unfortunately, it is now evident that human beings are fragile enough to be swayed by meaningless dollars signs and devour the doubt in exchange for the green. The climate change skeptics who claim that the science behind the matter is “unsettled” or “to be determined” are particularly of this nature.

I found the book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway of special interest due to the language of presentation. Not only did the authors blatantly spell out the truth but did so in a way that brutally clarified the raw material at the core of this so-called “dispute” over climate change. I soon realized that the raw material was in essence composed of industry and power through the familiar green noted above. Basically, this book enraged me and I had to put it down twice.

It is sickening to me, 19-year old me, to be aware of these outstanding faults in our society and feel slightly powerless. Because what I observe around me is not the tobacco industry crashing but rather the latter – I return home every summer to the strewn cigarette butts that ornament my hometown beach in Santa Monica, California.

Congruently, the quote that stood out most to me was the following:

“How could the industry possibly defend itself when the vast majority of independent experts agreed that tobacco was harmful, and their own documents showed that they knew this? The answer was to continue to market doubt, and to do so by recruiting ever more prominent scientists to help” (p.24)

As symbolic as the cigarette butts are to the tobacco consumer, we must stop the market for doubt right in its tracks. No sale today. No sale tomorrow. The market for doubt has crashed.

September 2, 2014September 21, 2014

Who wants to believe that Lord Voldemort has returned?

• Cigarette smoke causes lung cancer.
• Massive sulfur emissions, primarily released from power plants, are causing acid rain.
• The CFCs we put in aerosol cans, air-conditioners, and refrigerators are depleting the ozone layer.
• Humans are causing global warming.
• Voldemort is back.

What do the phrases have in common? No one wants to hear them. No one wants to hear that their activities are harming themselves or the planet. No one wants to hear that the dark lord of the wizarding world is coming to create a pure blood society.

If you believe these facts (save Voldemort’s return), then you feel guilty until you change what you are doing. If you hear even one little whisper that the fact might not really be a fact at all, then you can cling to that whisper and carry on with your life, guilt-free and change-free.

The Freds (Fred Singer and Fred Seitz) knew about this flaw humans have. Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway tracked their careers and they’ve been working in the industry of doubt for a while. They started when smoking cigarettes was still advertised as “healthy” and tried their best to keep it that way. The truth eventually won out, but the Freds did slow down the progress.

Undeterred that their previous claims on cigarettes had been proven false, they worked their way through the years to cast doubt on disarmament, acid rain, the ozone hole, secondhand smoke, and then global warming. As long as some scientist could deny that these harms were occurring, politicians and mass media could still claim “debate.”

So why did these two physicists make these claims on issues that were outside of their expertise again and again even after they were proven wrong each time? “Our product/ byproduct harms people” is not a great slogan. This means decrease in revenue and increased government restrictions; this change means money. A lot more money than it takes to fund the Freds and their friends to take your side.

So these Freds, they worked on writing their own reports, slandering other scientists, and talking to politicians. Most recently, they worked to keep the “climate change debate” alive and well. F. Seitz is now dead but F. Singer still writes the occasional opinion piece dismissing global warming. Their business has become something much larger; people in power now realize just how valuable doubt is in slowing, even halting, a response to climate change. More than 97% of scientists believe that humans have caused climate change and our earth is warming. Yet, in 2010, WorldPublicOpinion.org surveyed Americans of voting age and found that almost half (45%) of them think most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring.

Corporations are using media outlets to trick us into believing that climate change is something that the scientific community is unsure about. They present the facts like there are two equal sides, when there aren’t. Presenting two opinions makes sense when debating politics, but it doesn’t transfer well to science. In the scientific world, uncertainty about an issue requires more research, not a debate.

John Oliver has a better way of representing this debate in the media; have a televised debate with 3 climate change skeptics and 97 climate scientists who say humans are the cause of climate change.
[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg”]

So what I’m proposing is change in how the media feeds us, and how we swallow their message. We need to demand the unpleasant truth. It’s not fun. We don’t want to cut emissions and spend money and pass new regulations. We don’t want to acknowledge that Voldemort is back because it’s so much nicer to pretend he isn’t.

But no matter how much we pretend, the climate has changed and it’s getting worse. We put too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Now we have to collectively toughen up and deal with climate change head on.

September 2, 2014September 21, 2014

Take the longest road, get lost, and talk to the locals before arriving at Machu Picchu

by Elizabeth Plascencia

It’s actually crazy to me how much technology knows the individual. As swiftly as my fingers tap along the brightly lit keyboard in front of me, Google already recognizes the “Mach…” and automatically fills in the rest – Machu Picchu. Sure – this once mysteriously epic, wild adventure of a lost city right off the Inca Trail is now practically a household name.

As I was saying, technology knows. It listened to me and remembered when just shy of seven months ago I searched Machu Picchu. My initial interest in the ruins began early on as an amateur geologist interested in the towering Andes. This initial spark was of course dimmed by reality and a lack of funds in the bank. My second wave of interest ignited once more when news of the Global Climate Change Mosaic caught my attention on campus. Surely enough this could not be true. Could it?

Fast forward to present day as I sit here at my dorm desk reflecting on the projection of this semester. Fall 2014 of my junior year at Dickinson College could not be more jam packed with adventures, loads of reading, hard work, and ultimately gratitude. I am honored to be a part of a team that will dive deep into the pressing topic of global climate change.

Mark Adams’ richly descriptive recollection of his Peruvian adventures in Turn Right at Machu Picchu truly was a highlight read for me this summer. Adams presents an organic unfolding of what may have been the greatest adventure of his life; and for that, I thank him. Thank you, Mr. Mark Adams – wherever you may be. I thank him for reminding me to be mindful and thoughtful. One should not just desire to visit said place, rather there be an educational curiosity, cultural tie, pure thrill. Something. I am done with this generation that post “selfies” in front of grandiose UNESCO World Heritage Sites. I challenge anyone planning a trip to this sacred landscape to do their reading, watch a fair share of documentaries, perhaps even read this book, or run by this list written by Mark Adams himself.

September 2, 2014September 21, 2014

Climate Change and Rhetoric

The power of words is indescribable. They are: how we communicate with each other, how we express our feelings and how we share our thoughts. How these words are used is up to the beholder, for words can completely alter how one perceives a topic. A topic that demonstrates the effect of the right words by the right people is climate change.

In Merchants of Doubt, authors, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, convey the events that lead to the cloud of uncertainty surrounding global warming. Surprisingly, it all started with three well-respected physicists who were able to orchestrate doubt through the media and politics. Their approach was described as the “Tobacco Strategy”, which was utilizing the “lack of certainty” to it’s advantage to avoid the truth. For example, tobacco companies were able to argue that tobacco was not proven to be detrimental to one’s health because data was “uncertain”. The three scientists applied the power of the word, “uncertainty”, to acid rain, the ozone hole and the cause of climate change.

However, only three scientists would not be able to spread the whole anti-climate change movement, so they hired scientists to add credibility and started the George Marshall Institute. The right words were now coming from the right people, which is when rhetoric is most successful. If a civil war solider, not Abraham Lincoln, gave the Gettysburg Address it would not have even close to the same effect. In addition to the credible sources, they were able to use the media to their advantage and spread their ideas. Below is a talk by a scientist from the George Marshall Institute that exhibits climate change rhetoric.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5wqAaLf4Rk

After reading this book, it is slightly terrifying to think about the power of words and it’s effect on our ideas unconsciously. It makes me wonder how the media’s crafty words have infiltrated my thoughts, ideas and actions. Hopefully, after reading this book I can be more aware of my thought process.

September 1, 2014September 21, 2014

The mistakes of the Industrial Revolution

After reading Spencer R. Wearts book “The Discovery of Climate Change” I realize that the science behind global warming is extremely simple. As early as the 19^th century scientists had already figured out what greenhouse gases were and identified CO2 as a threat. The logic behind it is also extremely simple, without carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the earth would freeze. Not only were greenhouse gases identified but by the time the industrial revolution was in full swing, scientists already knew that human created machines emitted large quantities of carbon dioxide. I immediately thought, what were we [they] thinking? I then began to think about pre-industrial life to a post industrial standard, and I became clear that the idea of machinery and higher standards of living blew environmental preservation right out of the water. It is simply human nature. As humans we seek constantly seek to better our lot in life. As history has shown, long term issues are rarely considered when confronted with short term problems. That sounds pretty bleak and slightly putting down the entire human race. While continuing to read, and kept pondering the same question: “if people knew, why didn’t they try and change then?” Early industrialization led to machinery that could mass produce items as well as agricultural advances. At this point, coal smoke was the primary emission of these early machines. Coal was one of the only viable fuel sources at the time, so of course it was used. Still this doesn’t explain why people didn’t try and rectify it early on. I think it is actually pretty clear, and possibly another by product of human nature. People back then did understand greenhouse gases, but couldn’t begin to comprehend the advances of technology or the true effects of CO2 emissions, in short they couldn’t predict what was to come.

By the early 1900’s some people had begin to predict future issues, which fell largely on deaf ears as the developed world was facing many other more”pressing” issues. Part of me thinks there is blame to be placed on early industry but in reality, there wasn’t many other fuel options. Only in the last part of the 20th century has technology surpassed fossil fuels. Now renewable resources and processes for harnessing them are extremely viable. Maybe there was no other way to industrialize than with fossil fuel, but in todays time, there is certainly enough technology and initiative to rectify those mistakes, and turn from a fossil fuel society to one based on renewables.

August 31, 2014September 21, 2014

Does History Repeat Itself?

In The Discovery of Global Warming, Weart describes a timeline of events and achievements surrounding the study of the Earth’s climate. While the first publication of global warming from human emissions of carbon dioxide was documented in 1896, a century later and it seems as if the global understandings of climate change has been entirely too gradual for the last hundred years. Interestingly, Weart relates the discoveries of global climate change to historic events. Research of climate change was able to advance with technologies from World War II and the Cold War. Scientists learned to track the movements of carbon with radiocarbon dating. The onset of the Cold War also brought a global cooperation and interest in the sciences. The establishment of the United Nations was one method of a forming a global alliance.

Throughout the discovery of global warming, there have been similar patterns of a lack of funding for research efforts and a very nonchalant approach to a problem that seemed so distant. While this book does not cover the most recent years of the twenty-first century, I like to stay optimistic. In more recent years it seems there has been a more committed effort towards being green; plastic bags have been banned in various cities, organic agriculture is on the rise, and there have been more energy efficient cars and products on the market. I think my generation is more committed to conserving our natural resources and reversing climate change than previous.

I’ve lived in the New York/New Jersey area my entire life and even I have noticed peculiar weather instances. The damage caused by Hurricane Sandy devastated the areas surrounding my hometown. My community usually does not have to prepare for strong storms. The rising sea level and increase in surface temperatures can be to blame for the intensity of the storm. Due to climate change and shifting weather patterns, different areas are becoming susceptible to more forceful storms. If this is not a wake up call, then it should be used as a model.

August 31, 2014September 21, 2014

Disinformation at its finest

Merchants of Doubt paints a bleak picture of the state of affairs, from climate change to general rampant miss information. In regards to climate change it almost seems that Climate Change has never had a time to shine. In 1965 Roger Revelle made a prediction that by the year 2000, we would see physical changes in temperature due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Lyndon Johnson took the report to congress where it was essentially swept under the rug. Oreskes and conway explain that it was because of timing, there were more pressing concerns. It is clear that until very recent years there has been a generally downward spiral in the state of the world climate. In fact environmental issues as a whole always seem to fall low on the “pressing” scale. It would seem that because many environmental issues are “it will get bad in the future” kind of issues that they rarely seem to be dealt with “now”. Governmental policies, historically have not seemed to address and project what unchecked issues could potentially have in the future. Only recently when the current state of the environment has become blatantly apparent have there been more active movements towards preventing future issues.

Apart from the obvious issues presented in Merchants of Doubt, there seems to be one issues that contributes to the others. The issue of the modern age of communication. As expressed in the conclusion the right to freedom of the press is a double-edged sword. As they say everyone has an opinion, and with the advent of the internet, now you can share yours with everyone: “Opinions sometimes express ill-informed beliefs, not reliable knowledge.” Whats worse is that scientific fact has become harder for people to believe. By its nature the scientific process is designed to be proven wrong, and change. experiments are done, data is recorded and a consensus is met, yet with additional research that consensus can change easily and dramatically. Internet opinion, is organic in that it also changes constantly. I believe that people have been conditioned to not believe things that change often, that appear “wishy washy”. Because of this, scientific reasoning appears similar to internet information, and people are less likely to believe. In the example of climate change science, the addition of nay sayers only reinforces peoples belief that it can not be true.

With the ability of the internet, the words of Alexis de Tocqueville become very prevalent:

“A confused clamor rises on every side, and a thousand voices are heard at once”

August 31, 2014September 21, 2014

When Objective Journalism Breaks Down

Two of the most important features of a liberalized nation are the right to free speech and freedom of the press. Freedom of speech gives all citizens of a nation the right to voice an opinion or idea using their body or property. Freedom of the press allows the freedom of communication and expression of ideas through various media without state intervention. These two rights enable people to obtain information from a diversity of sources, make decisions, and communicate those decisions to the government, which in turn contributes to progress within a nation and in the world at large.

These two rights are probably the two cornerstones of a liberal society, but nonetheless, these freedoms can still be abused. Take the cases discussed in Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway’s book Merchants of Doubt for example, about a loose-knit group of scientists and scientific advisors who worked to mislead the public on various issues, such as the effects of tobacco smoke on the lungs, the effects of CFCs and the effect humans and technology have on global warming.

This group of scientists worked with large industries to oppose new research that damaged the public perception of said industries. Journalists, in their constant drive for true objectivity, portrayed both sides as being two equal, legitimate arguments. This is seemingly what the idea of free press is about; an argument is formed around an issue, and the media gives equal and neutral coverage to both sides. But the problem with this was that the scientists on the side of large industries were not doing science, but instead merely drawing attention to various uncertainties in the true research on the other side. The two arguments were not equal; while one side was doing truthful, legitimate and objective research, the other was merely finding uncertainties in this science and drawing attention to them, hence creating doubt in the public.

This brings to light an interesting question: Where do we draw the line between objective research and disinformation?

In the age of the Internet, anyone with access to a computer has a way to disseminate his or her opinion to the public. In a sense, this is a big step forward for the freedom of speech, because the discussion of local, national and international issues is opened to more people, ensuring that no one is censored. But on the other hand, this means that the opinions expressed might hold no truth, as is the case with the group of scientists discussed in Merchants of Doubt.

There are a lot of ideas out there that one might not necessarily agree with, but this does not mean they are disinformation. They still deserve to be covered with the same journalistic integrity as the ideas that one does agree with, but the line between objectively researched information and disinformation seems to be very thin. Where do we draw the line between the two without censoring any arguments? How should a journalist decide what to and what not to cover? To be honest, I have no solution to these questions. It seems to me that both journalists and consumers of journalism need to take a better look at the credibility of the information that they are reading. I predict, as widespread Internet use continues to grow, this is a problem that will more and more become an important political issue.

August 31, 2014September 21, 2014

The Impact of Human’s Hamartia on Climate Change: Procrastination at it’s Finest

In a discussion about climate change with my father, I mentioned the dire circumstance of Earth’s future and the necessity for change on a global scale. He smiled at me and said with a shrug “Heather, they were saying that stuff when I was at school. And look, nothing happened, we are still fine and we will continue to be fine”. I hate to admit it, but my father is a climate-change-denier.

Denial is a trait that we all share and exhibit to varying degrees, which can ultimately lead to procrastination. When a hard-to-grasp or difficult situation arises, it’s easy to ignore the major issue and focus on the smaller ones. In regard’s to climate change, human’s hamartia (fatal flaw) is denying that climate change is an issue, leading to the worldwide procrastination of changing our high-energy consuming lifestyles. Fencer R. Weart discusses this dilemma through the historical analysis of scientist’s climate change discoveries in his book “The Discovery of Global Warming”.

Surprisingly enough, as far back at 1896, scientists already understood that global warming was occurring and human activities were responsible for contributing to atmosphere’s imbalance. Meaning that the academic world has been aware of climate change for 118 years and there has only been an increase in fossil fuel emissions. It seems that as a race we are in severe denial about what is going on with our planet and the implications we are causing for ourselves for two major reasons. One reason is that climate change is a long-term issue that so far has not required immediate attention. At least in American society, it seems that people would rather concentrate on the internal issues, such as gun laws and health care. These issues are important, but are more short term rather than long term. Even though, the effects of global warming have not drastically affected our daily lives, there will be consequence for future generations around the world due to longevity of the feedback cycle.

The other reason is due to the orchestration of science is based on theory and uncertainties. People value certainty for when something is unsure it allows for people to believe there is another possible outcome or that action is not required because it COULD not happen. For example, if the weather report predicts 100% chance of rain, then one will most likely wear a rain jacket; but if the report predicts for 50% chance of rain, one will most likely ignore the report. A problem that requires immediate attention will often receive action because it’s easier to act upon something that is more concrete. Throughout human history, the uncertainties have affected the credibility of climate change. Even though, that’s how science works, people were able to foster in the unknown and say that even the professionals don’t know what is occurring.

When an issue is not set in stone and is at a global scale that requires an immense change in lifestyle, it is understandable why dealing with climate change has been pushed to the back- burner for over a hundred years. However, if we continue this extensive error in judgment about global warming, it could lead to our ultimate downfall.