Flooding in South Florida. Fires in California and Canada. Melting glaciers. Refugees fleeing the coasts of Southeast Asia. Every day it seems, another headline that says “Unprecedented Weather____”. All of this is happening around the globe, including in our own backyard.
The “reasons” continue to be divisive, debated and political. Is it climate change? Is it just the natural cycles of the planet? Is it caused, or contributed to, by humans? And perhaps even more controversial, can we DO anything about it?
In the coming weeks, I intend to learn more, and share what I’m learning on those topics plus many others. I’ll be attending the Climate Reality Project’s training in Minneapolis, August 2nd-4th at the Convention Center.
Yes, this is the mission of former Vice President Al Gore, he of the “Inconvenient Truth” (and “Sequel”) fame.
Full disclosure, and I want everyone reading this to understand my part in this training: I am not going because of Al Gore. I didn’t vote for Al Gore in 2000 (if you’re wondering, and I don’t mind sharing in this context). And the truth is, he hasn't been actively involved in running for office in almost two decades. There are aspects to the left, and to the right, that I align with. I’m probably not unusual there. To me, none of that matters.
The elephant in the room, any time you discuss climate change is politics. That is not the case for me. I think climate change being a political issue is downright silly. Why this is the left vs. the right I have no idea, although the right has moved more to embrace climate change as real, and human caused (as a recent example, Senator Lindsey Graham encouraging the president to accept it as "real").
Fear of change, I suppose. There are economic ramifications to accepting this as an issue. There are massive amounts of money at stake for the energy sector, lobbyists in Washington trying to influence policy, politicians using it as campaign slogans, and on and on. It’s extraordinarily complicated for the average person trying to decipher mixed messages (global warming or climate change for example).
Are those two documentaries I mentioned one-sided? Of course they are. They’re intended to be. To make a strong point, and to encourage change. They are two high-profile examples of hundreds or perhaps thousands of documentaries, books, articles, studies doing the same thing. Since the debut of Gore’s documentary in 2006, opponents of climate change have tried to poke holes in what was presented, even including taking the filmmakers to court to dispute what was presented as “fact”.
For me, this is not about movies, Nobel Peace Prizes (which Gore received in 2007), Washington “think tanks” trying to discredit Gore, politically motivated posturing, who I’m voting for, or our current Presidential Administration’s stance on the issue.
I am going because I feel this is a topic worthy of exploration, and to better educate myself as we continue to deal with “news” on climate change. Yes, news...deniers can say "fake news" all they want. It won't change what we determine to be facts. Whether we want to believe in climate change, or a climate crisis, these changes are happening. Wind, Solar, electric cars, less fossil fuels – all of this IS happening and isn’t going anywhere. Solar and wind tech are the fastest growing jobs in the U.S.
What I want to know more than anything is this: What does it mean for Minnesota? And I intend to share what I hear. From there, you can make your own decisions. I may decide to believe things you may not, and that’s fine. You can disagree with me, or what is presented as science. I encourage you to actually learn for yourselves and not just believe what you hear, whether it’s here or somewhere else.
For some of you, it will fall on deaf ears (or eyes if you're reading this). Some of you reading this will tell me how stupid I am for believing it's real. That's fine. There is nothing I can say to change your mind that it’s a hoax. Or you prefer to ignore it. For others, perhaps it will be enlightening, or confirm things you have heard/read/seen/etc. Hopefully, anyone who reads what I’ll share will at least approach it with an open mind. What I share will be but one piece to a very complex puzzle that, yes, we do need to solve.
From a journalist/media perspective, I’ve been exposed to the topic for two decades. I’ve had conversations with Meteorologists who swear things are changing. I’ve had conversations with politicians and others that are 100% convinced there’s no climate issue whatsoever. We’ve done in-depth shows and news stories about it many times.
But this is different. It’s a chance to immerse myself in it for three days, with people who have dedicated themselves to the issue since 2006 (or in many cases much longer). I want to know what they’re teaching people who attend this training. I hope you’re as curious as me.
Now, if you want to find 100 internet articles claiming climate change is a hoax, I can find you 10,000 that say it’s not. None of that proves that I’m right and you’re wrong. Or vice-versa. It means there is a lot of noise out there.
What should you believe? Or just as important, what should you not believe?
Too often, in our world of websites, blogs, and “fake news”, we gravitate towards those that pander to our predetermined opinions. Fans of FOX News like to hear that ‘they’re right’, same as fans of CNN want to hear exactly what they think too. Our opinions seek validation. It’s human nature.
The search for actual truth takes more work, and most often lies somewhere in the middle. How it relates to climate change is no different. If you want to find a website that claims there is science that supports that climate change is a hoax, it won’t take you long. That does not make it correct.
Lastly, I realize that for some this project of mine is one more example of the “liberal media”. That I’m just another “snowflake” that’s been brainwashed by the left (and I expect, and accept those allegations as part of our job these days). That it is once again the media perpetuating the myth.
As I explained above, I have no political agenda, merely a want for knowledge and a platform to share what I learn. I may give a few opinions, as I’ve done here. Those are mine and mine alone, not WCCO’s. If it makes you feel better to label me or the station a certain way, that’s fine. We can take it.
Next week, I'll share more about the differing opinions on climate change, especially those who come to the conversation with skepticism.
Follow me on Twitter @lpeterson830.