In just the last three weeks, while preparing for this weekend’s training, I’ve read several opposing views on the reality of climate change.
First, it was an op-ed in the St. Cloud Times from the Chairman of the Benton County Republican Party saying that the “science on climate change is not settled” and how he was skeptical. Much of that was based on research he did using experts that say they “don’t know enough” to determine humans are responsible for the warming climate. I read the links he shared, trying to understand the skepticism.
Much was simply based on the presumption that not knowing enough, is enough to doubt the science.
My first reaction was, of course we don’t know enough. This has the potential to be planet altering, changing the face of humankind forever, and we’re really only 20-30 serious years into studying it with any depth. We may never know enough.
There’s another side to that though. Because we don’t know enough yet, should we do nothing? Play the waiting game? That seems a bit off to me.
Then I read an article in Minneapolis-St. Paul Magazine about how climate change has and will continue to affect Minnesota. Much of that is speculation of course. We can see what has happened, and make reasonable deductions as to why it happened. Caribou left Minnesota because human intervention created landscapes unsuitable to them. The environment they required to live was no longer available. Logging, roads, wildfires, etc. eliminated their habitats.
While predicting the future is still tricky business, there is a lot of evidence to rely on when making these educated guesses, as you can read in the MSP Magazine feature.
Another example. There is a strong level of confidence that cold water fish (such as the cisco) will struggle to survive in Minnesota lakes according to the Star Tribune. And there’s solid science behind that hypotheses. Warmer temperatures in the water, increases in algae, mean lower oxygen levels in deep water. That spells trouble for the cisco.
It’s hard to argue with some of it, as the evidence points us in a certain direction. If Minnesota lakes continue to warm, will Loons leave the state? Yes, they will. If temperatures in the Arrowhead continue to go up, will Moose migrate further north? Yep. That will happen too. I guess, according to MSP Mag, they start to “pant” at 68 degrees. I didn’t know moose pant, but if it’s at 68 degrees, they’re doing a lot of panting. Even in far northern Minnesota where they’re still found.
I don’t want to sit on a pontoon at my father-in-law’s house near Battle Lake, and not see Loons while we’re out fishing. It’s part of the experience that makes Minnesota…. well, Minnesota. That’s a part of what I enjoy. We are heading in that direction however. And this is just one example of how we could change.
That same article includes an interview with Minnesota State Climatologist Mark Seeley. This is a person who knows more about the historical nature of our state’s weather than anyone. He sees clear signs that we are not just warmer but dangerously warmer and wetter than we have been historically. And that it will continue, and it will change our environment. This is a view supported by: Paul Douglas, Sven Sungaard, and Mike Augustyniak to name-drop just a few local Meteorologists who haven’t been shy about sharing their views on our changing climate. The people that study weather all seem to agree on this.
If there’s a better than 50-50 chance that this is real, and that seems more than fair, just given what our local scientists are saying, don’t we have to accept this as fact in order to save things we as Minnesotans live for? Does a reasonable person actually think we should just “sit back and see what happens”?
Most recently, I read an article in Mother Jones about the burden of being a climate scientist.
There is a portion about Kim Cobb, a professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, that struck me. She was on Christmas Island in the South Pacific collecting coral skeletons to produce estimates of past ocean temperatures (you know, science). She’s been taking trips like this for two decades. She’s seen 85 percent of that island’s reef system perish due to rising ocean temperatures (more science).
“I was diving with tears in my eyes,” she said. She has since entered what she describes as “an acute mental health crisis”.
The people who study climate change for a living are burdened to the point of having mental issues because of what they see. Cobb said, “I’m tired of processing this incredible and immense decline—and I’m a contributor to the problem. I have to walk away from the papers and don’t want to face myself in the mirror. I feel profound sadness and loss. I feel very angry.”
Our scientists are having trouble coping with what they see, and have seen for decades. Beyond that, it is also becoming difficult for some to do their job when it requires travel. Which leads to more of the CO2 pollution they’re saying is harming the environment. It’s a catch-22. Peter Kalmus does ecological forecasting based on satellite data, and he told Mother Jones he is constantly thinking about climate change and the burden that comes with it. “Whenever friends talk about flying off to vacation, I feel compelled to point out the large carbon cost to flying. I’d like to take a vacation from thinking about it. I’m not sure that is psychologically possible.”
I ask myself this question: How can someone who does this for a living, and is fighting with themselves to the point of having mental problems, be making it all up? Who would torture themselves, and to what end, just for a “hoax”?
If you’re going to tell me “it’s for money”, I’m going to tell you there are a LOT better ways to make money. Show me a climate scientist getting rich, and I’ll show you a lot more oil executives getting much, much richer. In fact, an Earth Scientist can actually make a lot more money by working for an oil company, than they will working for a university. That’s not a knock on the oil or gas industry, it’s just fact. There are profits galore there. Not so much when you’re working for grant money.
“The government is paying them to demonstrate carbon dioxide is the culprit”, right?
Yes, those claims are abundant. It’s just not based in any fact. Government grants don’t go into the pockets of the scientists. Don’t believe me? Read this Facebook post from a climate scientist who breaks down where a grant really goes. It’s enlightening. These are people who do a job for passion, not money.
As you read things like these couple I mentioned and look through the comments on any website where climate change is mentioned, (including WCCO, Star Tribune, City Pages, any local TV Station, etc.) the comments can be shockingly divergent.
One thing I keep running into is that there are opinions, and then there are actual scientific opinions based on a provable fact. How those facts can be interpreted might differ from scientist to scientist, but it’s clear that most (yes the vast majority, but not all) truly scientific opinions say climate change is real, and humans do affect climate through CO2 emissions, waste, and ocean and air pollution.
The gravity of those effects are hard to resolve. How much do human CO2 emissions contribute? Where do we reach a tipping point? During Tuesday night's Democratic Debate, climate change was a main topic. Unfortunately, there's not enough education on it among those running for office, and all credibility goes out the window when one of them claims "we have 12 years to fix this", and another one says "there are only 10 years to get this right".
It's not true. We don't know how long we have. Science has never agreed on a tipping point. What they've agreed on is this: "Start now, and do not wait."
There are not simple answers to fixing it of course. It’s a wholly overwhelming topic as you see from how it overwhelms the people studying it. What can we possibly do?
I think this is a big reason that keeps people from fully accepting climate change, and from really accepting human involvement: “There is nothing we can do to stop it”. It’s overwhelming. Where do we begin?
And for me, that’s one of the driving forces that got me to sign up for this weekend’s Climate Reality Project’s training.
Instead of burying our heads in the sand and just accepting this as our fate, there are very smart people doing things right now that could help. Even in Minnesota. Instead of toeing the party line, let’s explore what we can do, and in many cases are already doing. Why do we want to stop progress? I’ll be sharing some of those stories as I attend and I hope you’ll pick up a few things along the way with me.
For now, take just a minute, and look at the graphic on top of this NASA page on climate change. And how do we say with a straight face that humans have had nothing to do with what’s happening with our climate?