“How to Save the Polar Bears” Global Warming Panel from SkepchickCon 2012

Now that I’m back from TAM 2012, I am finally catching up on some blogging.  In this post, I wanted to share a rough transcript I made of another panel I saw the weekend before TAM at Convergence/SkepchickCon 2012 titled “How to Save the Polar Bears” – as the name implies, the subject was on how to address questions of the effects of global warming as well as climate change denialism.  Read on…

How to Save the Polar Bears

with Greg Laden, Shawn Otto, Maggie Koerth-Baker, John Abraham, and Desiree Schell (moderator)

Introductions

Desiree: Let’s all commit now that climate change is indeed a real thing that is occurring. Greg, can you start with telling us the effects of climate change?

Greg: I’ll first talk about the effects of all the CO2 being released. The first effect is that it is warmer. For example, we are now experiencing the warmest year on record (so far). There are also likely to be drastic shifts in the weather patterns due to the amount of heat the atmosphere can hold. It probably means in more areas more rain in short bursts – so more droughts interrupted by heavy rains.

Also, the oceans will become more acidic, so organisms which are affected by high acid water will be hurt.

Finally, see level rise… glaciers melt, water expands, so the ocean level goes up. It could be a big factor in the short term.

Desiree: there are other more tangible effects like on agriculture.

Greg: yes, for example, many trees are getting killed by parasites because those parasites valve moved into regions (due to climate change) they never were before. Also, plants are drying out due to drought and this is leading to a lot of nasty wildfires.

People think that climate change effects is a future thing, but since the 1970s we have seen agricultural failures and desertification which are likely already linked to climate change. It is currently occurring.

Desiree: one thing that might change is disease patterns.

Greg: yes, many disease patterns have changed. Most epidemic diseases we as humans experience are due to things we have changed about our environment.

We have become a bit complacent about diseases, because in the 1930s we developed antibiotics. The problem is with the changes we are making now due to climate change, these disease effects are not so easily fought.

Desiree: Maggie, can you speak to power usage?

Maggie: the biggest energy usage we have now is buildings, more than transportation, and we use most of that energy to perfect our indoor climate (AC) which affects the outdoor climate, and so on. This also affects our power grids, because there is an increase in demand for electricity due to the higher temperatures. And the grid is much more sensitive than people think, and in these extremes you can get blackouts.

Desiree: Shawn, what was the political response to these issues?

Shawn: Nothing. An attempt was made in 2010 to address these issues, but about 500 million dollars was poured into Congress by the energy lobbyists to defeat any kind of climate bill. And the Obama administration had to make a calculated decision to go with healthcare reform instead.

There have been many on the right who have attempted to downplay climate change mitigation. Many people are pushing a “teach the controversy” argument against the teaching of climate change science. They wish to replace political opinion with actual science. There have been political attempts to make sea level rise “illegal” – North Carolina almost passed a bill making it illegal for communities to consider the effect of sea level rise unless the legislation gives prior permission, and if they do the community cannot go with the science
(about 1 meter in a century) but instead about 8 inches.

Virginia recently followed suit, saying we cannot talk about “sea level rise” but “frequent flooding” instead. This kind of throwing up political smokescreens is what is going on now.

In a way, you cannot blame the (public) corporations for this so much because they are required by law to pursue profits for shareholders on quarterly basis. So money drives a lot of it.

Climate Rapid Response Team: Scientists Fight Back Against Misinformation

I was listening recently to a Point of Inquiry podcast, where host Chris Mooney interviews John Abraham & Scott Mandia concerning the a new initiative called the Climate Rapid Response Team. I felt it worth passing along, so here ’tis…

John Abraham and Scott Mandia – Climate Science Strikes Back

November 19, 2010

Host: Chris Mooney

For the community of scientists who study the Earth’s climate, these are bewildering times.

They’ve seen wave upon wave of political attacks. They’re getting accustomed to a public that grows more skeptical of their conclusions even as scientists grow more confident in them.

No wonder there’s much frustration out there in the climate science world—and now, a group of researchers have organized to do something about it. Their initiative is called the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, and it pledges to organize dozens of researchers to help set the record straight. …

 

Climate Science Deniers Copy & Paste Creationist Tactics

I recently received the following alert from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)…

AAAS PolicyAlert — June 4, 2010

Climate Change Education Challenged. A petition has been submitted to the Mesa County (Colorado) School Board to prohibit “the teaching of man-made climate change theory as scientific fact in the students’ curriculum.” The petition, which has 700 signatures, was circulated by a movement called Balanced Education for All (http://www.members- aaas.org/ l.jsp?d=4954. 550777.654. 2aatBFCrt9Q. A), a group denying the reality of and human role in climate change, which also submitted a petition to “create and enforce a policy that prohibits teachers from applying their political views to the teaching and grading of students.” School Board members accepted the petition but took no action. The petition is part of a larger campaign by the Independent Women’s Forum, a non-profit based in Washington, DC, “challenging public schools to provide balanced education on the issue of global warming.” The group is promoting a documentary (http://www.members- aaas.org/ l.jsp?d=4954. 550776.654. 2aatBFCrt9Q. A), Not Evil, Just Wrong, that claims to “confront erroneous claims of environmental extremists,” and offers an allegedly “compelling and scientifically accurate film about the true relationship between humans and the environment. “

Here we see that climate science deniers are employing the same pseudoscientific & intellectually dishonest tactics often used in the past by creationists as they misrepresented evolutionary science: the “teach the controversy” and “teach all views” canards.  Of course, these slogans imply that there actually is a supposed controversy about climate science within the scientific community – that is, the notion of human-influenced global warming is somehow “controversial” among scientists, when in fact it isn’t.  The whole point of these kinds of arguments is to sow doubt & suspicion about climate science in particular and, among some extreme anti-science ideologues, about all of science in general.

In addition, note the language in the petition which implies that when teachers try to teach actual, substantiated science that they are actually pushing a political agenda.  This kind of argument is intended to poison the well and explicitly politicize the issue of climate change science so that anyone who, likely for ideological reasons, doesn’t like the science can just dismiss it as part of a conspiracy.

Don’t fall for it.  Fortunately, we’ve seen all these tactics before from creationists & various other pseudoscientific woo-woos, so hopefully we can recognize & fight this junk when those with an anti-scientific agenda push it.  When confronted by those who would distort & misrepresent climate science, or someone who is legitimately confused, a great way to fight back is to download the free app for the iPhone or iPod Touch called Skeptical Science!

Okay Fine… Happy Groundhog Day

What’s a skeptic to do? With all the crazy pseudoscientific woo in the world to deal with, every now and then I just have to give in and go along with it. No, don’t worry, I’m not talking about becoming a fan of uber-douchebag Kevin Trudeau or believer in crystal energy & other New Age weirdness. Rather, I’m referring to some nutty, and kind of fun, traditions that U.S. society follows. I’m talking about Groundhog Day.

The story goes like so… since 1886, every February 2nd, a groundhog named Punxsutawney Phil (not always the same one since the critters aren’t immortal) comes out of his burrow in Punxsutawney, PA and is expected to react to whether or not he sees his shadow. The legend has it that if he doesn’t see his shadow due to cloudy weather then it means winter is close to an end; however, if ol’ Phil does see his shadow in the sunny weather and, as the story is supposed to go, retreats back into his burrow then winter is to last for about six more weeks.

Now, how a little rodent getting, or not getting, spooked by its shadow is supposed to accurately predict the weather for the next month-and-a-half is beyond me. I recall learning the story as a kid, and I thought to myself “How’s that supposed to work?” I guess I figured that as time went on some responsible adult would tell me how ol’ Phil had such amazing powers of precognition.

Alas, after a few years I, like most children I suppose, figured it out for myself that there wasn’t really anything to it. Of course, despite the silliness of seriously considering that a groundhog can predict the weather, there does seem to be quite a party atmosphere around the event in Punxsutawney, PA every February 2nd. And, as people who know me can tell you, I can appreciate a good party 🙂

But, believe it or not, there actually do seem to be some people who believe the groundhogs know their stuff – no really, I’m not kidding. According to Wikipedia, the GDPs (Groundhog Day Proponents – “believers” sounds just a little too creepy) maintain that the groundhogs get the prediction right somewhere from 75% to 90% of the time! Of course, when stacked up next to climate data from the National Climate Data Center, the real accuracy of the predictions is closer to 39%.

So why does this myth persist? For that matter, why do most myths in our society persist – from Groundhog Day to Santa Claus to the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy? I suppose part of it is because today’s adults were told these stories as children, and – here’s a big part of it – there was a considerable amount of celebration & fun associated with these myths. It is assumed that many, hopefully all, kids will eventually figure out there is nothing to the myth – it’s kind of like a right-of-passage.

There is a lesson here for skeptical parents with children: you can use events like Groundhog Day and such to teach kids about where the line between reality and fantasy lies. Take the opportunity to teach your kids to employ their critical thinking skills at a young age when dealing with such myths. Of course, I’m not suggesting that you take the fun out of the event – enjoy the egg hunt at Easter with your kids, but help them understand that it’s all in fun and that the Easter Bunny isn’t real.

If more parents would teach their kids at a younger age that employing a healthy skepticism & flexing those critical thinking skills is a good thing (how many times did you hear as a kid “Don’t ask questions like that”?), then I think in the long run we’d all be better off for it.

Happy Groundhog Day, everyone!