Just thinking

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Gaslighting

Earth and climate scientists generally agree that humans are contributing to global warming, but there are naysayers.

Apart from the science, the public discussion is informative but not necessarily objective.

"CO2 traps heat -- more CO2 means a warmer climate. That is basic physics, borne out by the history of climate. Denying these well-established facts is about as smart as claiming the Earth is flat, and best left to cranks, ideologues and fossil fuel lobbyists." ~ Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of ocean physics at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. That's one side of the debate, of course.

I hope Trump listens to his daughter Ivanka on climate change, Mike ... CNBC-1 hour ago - The former New York mayor says he wants President Trump to change his mind about pulling out of the Paris agreement. "We are two-thirds of ...

(CNN) Until last Friday night, the eve of the People's Climate March on Washington, the US government website EPA.gov explained how humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and why that is important for us and for future generations. Now the page carries an Orwellian message: "This page is being updated."

"Thank you for your interest in this topic," the message continues. "We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA's priorities under the leadership of President Trump and [EPA] Administrator Pruitt."

It's been clear for some time what Donald Trump and his appointees prefer to think of climate change. At worst, they call it a hoax. At best, they say it's overblown -- no big deal. We need more science, they insist, while stripping government science agencies of funding.

Based on research spanning more than half a century, scientists understand that human contribution is the single critical change factor. Regular reviews of actively publishing climate scientists (Ref) reveal that the majority agree: climate-warming trends over the past century are most likely due to human activities. Many scientific organizations worldwide have independently issued public statements endorsing this position. That said, there are a minority who disagree and who should be heard objectively. Beyond the science, biased contrarians suggest global warming ended about 19 years ago (despite the 10 warmest years on record occurring in that period) and that any further warming is unlikely to be a critical concern. (Ref) The disagreement is much politicised, unfortunately, rather than debated reasonably.

Statement from eighteen scientific associations - "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009) (Ref)

The administration's position is troubling, and not only because their policies may contribute to human-induced global warming with perhaps worsening droughts and rising seas. It is troubling because Trump and this administration are apparently "gaslighting" the public on the science to date.

With the same playbook the tobacco industry used, Trump and other political deniers inject uncertainty and confusion into climate policy discussions. Without addressing the science, they discount it as inconsequential. You can do that when you're powerful; you can insert your preferred truth without factual backing.

Gaslighting. Why might anyone do that? Why might a group of power players do that?

Here's one reason to consider ... Exxon knew about fossil fuel and climate change 40 years ago. They did their own research, then covered the results with a multi-million dollar obfuscation campaign, much like the tobacco industry's strategy.

Is there relevant opinion on both sides of the issue, and is the corporate/political arena the appropriate venue? In science, what is relevant is independently reproducible results.
________________________________________________________
Scientific Organizations Affirming That Climate Change Has Been Largely Enabled by Human Action

OTHER RESOURCES

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)
ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)
Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)
Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)
Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)
APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)
GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)
Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2014)
And for a look at the contrarian view - WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMINg (NOV 2015)
And a list of organizations which deny climate change and human impact

Sunday, April 30, 2017

The Kindness of Strangers

Abolitionists were the first people to create a national and global movement to defend the rights of those they did not know. Until that time, no group had filed a grievance except on behalf of itself.

The founders of this movement were largely unknown - Granville Clark, Thomas Clarkson, Josiah Wedgwood - and their goal was ridiculous on the face of it. At that time three out of four people in the world were enslaved. Enslaving each other was what human beings had done for ages. And the abolitionist movement was greeted with incredulity.

Conservative spokesmen ridiculed the abolitionists as liberals, progressives, do-gooders, meddlers, and activists. They were told they would ruin the economy and drive England into poverty. But for the first time in history a group of people organized themselves to help people they would never know, from whom they would never receive direct or indirect benefit.

And today tens of millions of people do this every day. It is called the world of non-profits, civil society, schools, social entrepreneurship, non-governmental organizations, and companies who place social and environmental justice at the top of their strategic goals.

The scope and scale of this effort is unparalleled in history.

~ From the commencement address by Paul Hawken (author, business founder, lecturer, corporate and government advisor on economic development, industrial ecology, and environmental policy) to the University of Portland Class of '09.

___________________________________________________

See The Modern Abolitionist, or perhaps Change Makers and Help Bringers

Friday, April 28, 2017

Ox and Grain

You don't muzzle the ox while it threshes the grain, right?

It's perhaps like a contract between the ox and the farmer. The ox agrees to a day's work for, say, a bucket of grain, and the farmer agrees. Reasonable.

Then the farmer discovers this other ox that will do the work for a smaller bucket of grain. He's not concerned that the ox will be underfed and will eventually die. There's plenty more oxen where that one came from. There will always be one that is desperate enough that it will take less than a living wage. As the only shareholder, the farmer will make a killing.

The farmer's narrowly capitalistic view, that workers are a resource to be used and discarded, is the current business model for most large corporations. The cost of workers is managed accordingly.

Government regulations intrude. There are laws about workplace safety, and laws about max hours and minimum wage. Such regulations are a burden on burgeoning enterprise and are a continual point of contention between businesses and workers.

In the absence of such regulations, there would of course be many more employees working, but it would be for whatever their employer thought was good enough. The fact that they would not be able to survive or have a meaningful life is not considered in that equation.

There has always been a push-back by the elite against the rising commoner. Slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, abusive employment practices, all of them have been defended by the wealthy. All such defense comes from one single motive. Single. I choose to prosper at the expense of another. That's neither free enterprise nor fair trade.

If I agree that laws are needed to keep businesses from putting children on the factory floor (like they used to do), should I also agree to a living wage? Should I oppose discrimination? Wage theft? Financial fraud? Marketplace manipulation? Predatory finance? All such behavior stems from that same single motive.

Capitalism is neither moral nor immoral, of course. As has been said, it works well in an ethical environment founded on sound principles. There seems to be a dearth of ethical capitalists these days, unfortunately, and the lower economic segment pays a high price.

Some responses from defenders of unconstrained capitalism regarding the poor might include:
- if they tried harder and made better decisions
- if they worked hard in school like I did
- if they didn't resort to crime
- if they were smart like me
- if they had a work ethic

They perhaps believe such things preferentially rather than evidentiarily. They perhaps know of a welfare queen or drugged dad they consider the example of all in poverty. Those are real but a miniscule minority.

In the real world,
- The poor along with their children work harder and longer than the rich.
- The poor commonly have more life, relationship, and survival skills than the rich.
- The poor possess equal intellectual and developmental potential with the rest of humanity.
Beyond that, the poor are generally more generous, less selfish, and more hospitable than the rich.

As the GAP widens, those at the top are further disconnected from the real world and their impact on others. Those in the wealthier segment are generally unaware and personally unconcerned with the daily lives of the least wealthy 80% of humanity.

The question then: at what point do wage practices become unconscionable abuse?
________________________________________________

Pages