November 26, 2018--National Climate Assessment

I for one want to thank the Trump administration for the sensitivity they showed by not publishing the latest "National Climate Assessment" until the day after Thanksgiving. 

By then at least half the turkey and stuffing I consumed had been digested and reading the report on only a half-full stomach kept me from you-know-what.

The work of 13 governmental entities, now Trump-led science and environmental entities, it is about as pessimistic and depressing as anything on the subject that I have encountered.

There is nothing to feel good about, almost nothing hopeful, and with Trump president for at least another two years, since, catering to his base, he will not agree to do anything that can slow down the doomsday climate clock, truly scary.

Half joking, when there has been a dire UN report or others by groups of concerned scientists, learning more about the unrelenting cataclysmic consequences of climate change, I have quipped, "Well, at least I'm old enough to be dead by then." 

In fact I will be, but now saying this is no longer just a quip.

Evidence of the potential political power of last Friday's release of the National Assessment is the fact that Trump attempted to bury it by having it published on the quietest news day of the year. When everyone is sleeping late, fighting off gastritis, watching football, or shopping  So there was nothing "sensitive" about circulating the report right after Thanksgiving. 

The administration's hope was that by today when things get ginned up again, along with Ivanka's emails, the results of the midterm elections, and Trump's spat with Chief Justice Roberts, it will already be old news. Which to Trump is almost as useful as labelling something threatening as fake news.

But the report about the climate got Rona and me talking more broadly about science. Particularly wondering why so many Americans, including pandering conservative political leaders, do not, as the press puts it, believe in science. "Believe" as if science is something theological. By this it is meant that these people, among other things, do not believe, as opposed to mobilizing actual facts, in evolution, cosmology, or any imputation that humans are contributing to global warming and the resulting storms and massive forest fires.

Some of this lack of belief is in fact theological. Many who do not believe in science believe that we are moving rapidly to Armageddon. A time when the world and all humans will come to the End. 

A striking number do not see these cataclysms to be undesirable but in fact, via highly-selective and distorted interpretations of the Bible, they welcome the eventual Second Coming of Christ and the ultimate Last Judgement when these folks expect they will be ushered into Heaven. 

Thus, the last thing they want is any interference in this divine plan. Particularly by governments or the "deep state," which to many is the work of the Antichrist.

Then there are others who reject science because of their lack of science literacy. They feel excluded from its methods and lessons because, sadly, they know almost nothing about science. Baffled and frustrated by relativity and quantum mechanics, which is understandable, they are even essentially untutored when it comes to knowing anything about Newton's more approachable universe.

Science, then, also contributes to the great educational and cultural divide that separates Americans by educational attainment, culture, and socioeconomics. To passionately reject science is one response by those who have been labeled deplorables or, in fear and ignorance, some claim, cling to guns and God.

And then, ever suspicious of liberals' alleged push to have big government intrude more and more in people's lives, limiting their freedom, many conservative extremists see environmental science as conspiring to tell Americans how to live. From what kind of cars to drive to forcing people to give up incandescent light bulbs. It gets that specific.

And so here we are with many of us feeling fortunate that we will have passed on well before an actual, non-millennialist End. 

But what then about our children and grandchildren? 

Put pushing back against these anti-science forces at the top of your political to-do list. I know it's a long list but . . .

October 24, 2014--Midcoast: Just Talk

After a complicated breakfast with Jim, during which a nuanced and balanced conversation about affirmative action and same-sex relationships descended into indiscriminate Obama bashing (Jim whispered conspiratorially as we were leaving, after I confessed disappointment in Barack Obama's presidency, "Don't you agree that he's working to bring down America?") over anniversary dinner later in the evening with other friends, we got to talking about how in small towns such as this one, where people depend upon, even need each other to get through life's perils, we generally find ways to disagree and often those with whom we have the sharpest disputes are the very ones we call on when things are most urgent; and, if we are honest about that and, more important about ourselves, we discover that our differences almost always amount to just words.

They amount to just words because, in truth, most of us are not actively or directly engaged in working to bring about social or political change (no matter its ideological direction or content) and are not that active in fraternal or civic organizations. Rather we talk. Talk passionately about things we believe in while remaining relatively unengaged.

Is this too cynical a view?

In some ways yes. In other cases maybe not. Like so much here this too can be complicated.

It is not cynical when it comes to holding accountable many of my fellow liberals (me as well) who are especially adept at the talking while this cynical view is unfair for many of those of more conservative persuasion who tend to be more actively and directly involved in the life of the community.

They are more likely to be volunteer firemen or, as a member of the EMS squad, are the ones likely to come in the middle of a stormy night to race us to the local ER. Or active on the Town Board. Or lead discussions about why source separation of trash is important--not necessary as liberals would have it to preserve the environment but because the Town can make money selling recyclables and thereby lower taxes.

About that, Rona wondered out loud if our environmentalist-minded friend, Peggy (to pick on her), back in New York City recycles as much or as assiduously as Jim in Bristol, Maine.

"No way," I said, agitated by my awareness of Peggy's hypocrisy as well as mine.

Jim, who is 81, is active on the local school board even though his youngest is in her thirties. "I have grandchildren, you know," he shrugs as if that explains it all.

And though he's not so sure about including a lot about climate change in Earth Science or referring too much to Evolution in Biology, he's out there in the middle of winter determined not to miss even one meeting while I talk, talk, talk about how we can't ignore the lessons of science, not only if we want to try to repair our planet but also to prepare our youngsters to be competitive in the global world of the 21st century. And though the signboard by the school I drive by at least twice a day says "All Are Welcome" to board meetings I haven't made it to one yet though every year I intend to make them all.

When I confess this to him, to help alleviate my guilt, he reminds me that I was an educator for more than 40 years and I do write and publish my views on schooling. That I've "paid my dues," and--

"But," I say before he can finish making excuses for me, "Yes, but still . . . I know. . . Maybe next . . .

He smiles to let me off the hook but . . .

Bottom line--a lot of things seem to work better here because at the most fundamental level we all know it is our relating and caring for each other that counts more than the talk, which in spite of various forms of inflation, is still cheap.

September 10, 2014--Gibbous Moon

Yesterday the moon was full. Through our bedroom window, about 4:00 AM, I watched it set over South Bristol. A path of moonlight across Johns Bay led to where I was trying to resume my interrupted sleep. Of course, I thought, one can't expect to have a restful night when the moon is full.

Tonight, happily, it begins to wane. Maybe I'll get some sleep.

Out of curiosity, I looked on line to learn a bit more about phases of the moon. I knew enough to know it goes through phases from New to Full but not much more about the less dramatic ones. Though the Crescent moon is dramatic, made more so because it is an important element in the flags of many Islamic countries from the former Ottoman Empire to today's Libya, Turkey, Tunisia, and Pakistan among others.

But what is the Gibbous moon, a phase I stumbled upon that was unfamiliar to me? First a little etymology, I thought.

From the Latin gibbus it is derived, meaning "hunchbacked."

But when does the moon seem hunchbacked? Well, soon, in a day or two, I read, when slices are daily taken from the illuminated face as the phases slip back toward the time when the moon will have lost all its reflected light--when it reaches its New phase and then, as has been true forever, begins to grow once more toward Full.

It is gibbous when the perfect Full-phase sphere begins to wane and looks ellipsoid or when it waxes, swelling from Crescent. "Swollen," another of gibbous' etymological meanings.

How wonderful, it occurred to me, that we have added to our language rarely-uttered words such as gibbous, originally meaning hunched and applied it first to those thus afflicted, and then, through an act of metaphoric alchemy, in turn used it to help us see beyond the moon mythology or the science, the astrology or the astronomy, as a way to make the otherwise unfathomable, the immense, and impersonal understood in more tactile human terms.

May 14, 2014--Marco Rubio in 2016

According to a string of recent reports in the New York Times about climate change--

A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun to fall apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported. . . . If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries. 

These latest findings by NASA and other earth scientists appeared in Science magazine and Geophysical Research Letters.

When confronted with this evidence, Senator Marco Rubio, an almost-announced candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, said he does not "believe" this to be true, that he disagrees with the science, and most important to his political aspirations, does not "believe" that humans are responsible for climate change. To him and most other conservatives, climate is always changing. Thus, there is nothing new happening or to be concerned about.

This from a senator who represents Florida, half of which will disappear under water in coming decades.

I put "believe" in quotes not only because that is the word Rubio used repeatedly during a series of TV interviews on Sunday, but because it represents the heart of the political part of the problem--progressives cite scientific evidence when they argue that humans are in fact contributing to global warming while conservatives base their case on belief.

Rubio over and over again claimed that the science is either flawed or ideologically based. And just as often said he didn't "believe" it.

In his words--

I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. And I do not believe that the laws that they propose will do anything about it.

He did not cite any evidence that what we are seeing is a totally natural phenomenon and, irresponsibly, was not challenged by any of his interviewers to do so. He was simply allowed to get away with critiquing the scientific evidence without citing any contrary scientific evidence.

He did not cite even one study when making his case. I suppose if he knew enough to do so his anti-science Tea Party supporters would feel he had somehow gone over to the other side by citing even flawed science. Any science at all. They don't believe in science.

Nor was he asked, "What if you're wrong? How will you be able to look your grandchildren in the eye when later in the century their houses in south Florida will be literally underwater? When they ask you what you were doing when there was still time to do something?"

I suppose Senator Rubio, or Vice President Rubio, will say he still doesn't believe its happening.