United Nations on Climate Change
While maintaining global temperatures within 1.5 ° C of pre-industrial conditions is imperative to halting a runaway train that will destroy our planet’s capacity to support organized civilization, our practical capacity to accomplish this goal is very much a matter of political will.
Those who study the situation know that low-carbon solutions for energy generation and food production are eminently achievable, and, better yet, that the process of converting our 19th- and 20th Century approach to powering our society will gainfully employ huge swaths of our population, driving prosperity for hundreds of millions of people who formerly could have only dreamed of such a thing.
Yet humankind’s capability to pull together and function as a team during a time of crisis is no closer to us than the nearest galaxy.
Whence the conundrum? 
To abbreviate, the (altered) book cover shown above really says it all. Funded largely by the fossil fuel industry and published by the far-right Heartland Group (known for the ad at the right), no fewer than 350,000 U.S. science teachers have found this little gem in their mailboxes.
From this article:
The book contains 110 pages of disproven and debunked arguments that the science on global warming is unresolved, that atmospheric carbon increases in “natural” cycles—and even that global warming isn’t so bad, “because many areas of the world would benefit from or adjust to climate change.” It’s accompanied by a DVD and a letter from a director within the institute, asking science teachers to read the “remarkable” book and consider that there is a “vibrant” debate on climate science.
Why target science teachers? According to the Heartland Institute, it’d be helpful if they could stop teaching so much…science. In a leaked planning memo, the institute proposed funding a curriculum that would attempt to demonstrate:
…that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain—two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.
“This is just the latest unsavory tactic from an organization that is infamous for its rejection of climate science,” says Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
If all this seems innocent and focused on the spirit of healthy scientific debate, ask yourself why the name of the climate denial group is the “NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.” Doesn’t that sound suspiciously akin to the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change, i.e., part of the United Nations with 195 nation members, in which tens of thousands of climate scientists have been participating since 1988)?
Given all the honesty here, I’m sure it’s a coincidence.
Craig,
Let me see if I’ve if I’ve got you correctly? (please feel free correct me if my understanding is inaccurate).
1) You are outraged about the content of a book you have never read, but about which you have read an article from a lobbyist publication in which an unknown author expresses the outrage felt by someone else you have never met ?
2) You are outraged that the subject of climate change, it’s implications, potential impacts, methods of adaptation or resolution, and political/social aspects should be the subject of discussion and debate?
3) You are even more outraged by an organization calling itself the ““NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” as a means of emphasizing a clear difference from an organization named “IPCC International Panel on Climate Change” ?
It’s not clear if your outrage is derived from your feeling the title is in someway disingenuous, or that the organization dares to exist. (perhaps both ? ).
What is clear, is you are outraged that someone, other than an “approved’ source, should attempt to “pollute” the minds of ‘science teachers, by sending them a book!
My goodness, that is indeed something to get outraged about!
Science teachers being exposed to unorthodox thinking or propaganda ? Outrageous! Their weak minds must be protected from such unhealthy influences.
I note you have taken proper precautions and not read the publication yourself, instead safely read what the wise authors of the Union of Concerned Scientists told you it said.
Well done comrade, maintain your outrage!
Hmmm,…..for me,(having actually read the publication), I just can’t get outraged. The book makes some valid points,but as is to be expected the content is mostly biased and it’s logic a bit skewed.
However, the book is no less (or more) extreme or inaccurate as the more rabid claims and observations from the Union of Concerned Scientists, who despite the organizations grand title, do not speak for all scientists just a small percentage.
Craig, my advice is forget all the outrage and politicking. Forget your outrage ! Buy an EV,(or at least an electric lawn mower).
Put your faith in the amazing advances occurring in Clean(er) technology. Open your mind, heart and intellect to absorb the amazing new developments taking place around you. Open your eyes to new technology, instead of “choosing sides”.
Supposing we were on a ship, and our vessel developed a leak below the waterline, what should we do to best solve the problem ?
There are two approaches available;
1)
a) Immediately form a committee to apportion blame for the impending disaster and demand the ship be redesigned.
b) Send a strongly worded message to the ship owners demanding a new design of ship.
C) Hold an investigation into shipping as the best means of crossing oceans.
D) Wait for a new type of ship to be developed.
F) Rearrange existing arrangements on the ship to ensure all passengers drown equally, with no preference for first class.
E) Elect a new Captain and crew from among the passengers as the old crew are obviously “immoral” . Show trials and punitive action against the former Captain, crew and company representatives.
F)Hope the “government’ will solve the problem.
G)Form a strongly worded resolution to ban Ships.(Or leaks)
H) Panic, shout abuse at each other, and take to the life boats.
Or,
2
a) Repair the leak
b) Repair the ships pumps to ensure enough water is pumped out to equalize the leak until the hull can be repaired.
c) Utilize the best talent and knowledge aboard to solve the problem with the minimum disruption and discomfort to all, while ensuring the ship gets safely to port.
—————————————————————–
It strikes me that this analogy applies to climate change.
There are those who would seize upon the repercussions of climate change to advantage themselves politically and seek a social/political revolution.
Opposing those ambitions, is a more pragmatic group who see the solution in practical terms. This group has no overriding political/social agenda, instead merely seeks to remedy the problem by utilizing the most effective technology available, while maintaining an economy capable of paying for adaptation.
If solving pollutant emissions and building a better environment is the goal, then in my opinion it will be far more likely to be achieved by the second group.
Naturally, if what you really want is a political/social/ ideological revolution, then by all means ally yourself with the first group.
But please, just be honest about what you really want.
Hi Craig,
I realize it’s a little off topic, but I sometimes read articles by John Stossel in Reason magazine. I don’t always agree with Stossel but his articles can be thought provoking.
I found his recent article [https://reason.com/archives/2019/03/06/political-correctness-is-ruining-academi ] interesting.
Stossel complains peer reviewed academic journals have become havens of political correctness. When combined with the growing concern of internet chicanery influencing the opinions of journals, Stossel argues the problem amount to widespread corruption academics.
It’s a serious claim, but Stossel poits to the growing concern by which college professors,(especially American) obtain funding, salary increases, grants, tenure or other academic accolades and honours from getting papers published in “academic journals.”
A number of disgruntled academics recently offered intentionally ridiculous “research” to prominent journals of women studies, gender studies, race studies, sexuality studies, obesity studies, etc.
Prominent among the hoaxers, is Mathematician Dr James Lindsay and some of his colleagues who reported rewriting a section of Mein Kampf as “intersectional feminism” and getting it published in ‘Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work’.
Affilia, a well respected publication, greeted the work with praise and the article received many approving peer responses.
The hoaxers continued by constucting another paper in which they claimed to have “closely” examined genitals of 10,000 dogs in dog parks to learn about “rape culture and queer performativity.”
The paper was constructed in such a manner to be so obviously nonsensical as to be ludicrous.
Astonishingly, the highly reputable journal ‘ Gender, Place & Culture’ not only published the hoax, but called the paper “excellent scholarship.”
Not only were these reputable Journals fooled, but many others besides. Worse still, references and parts of these absurd papers were copied, cited or incorporated by unconnected authors and researchers, then published as papers, articles etc often as justification for “studies”, by tens, even hundreds of other “academics” who assumed the original “papers” were genuine”.
The Hoaxers had a serious purpose. By cleverly disguising absurd assertions and assumptions in “politically correct” terminology, they found the most absurd conclusions could be accepted for publication as “genuine” research.
To the hoaxers dismay, they discovered even more absurd papers accepted were published by serious acedemics without challenge!
Dr. Peter Boghossian of Portland State University argues,:
“The scholarship in these disciplines is utterly corrupted, they have placed an agenda before the truth.”
Dr.Boghossian provided the following example;
“A study, lavishly funded by the National Science Foundation, purported to have studied “feminist glaciology. The study concluded glacier science to be sexist.”
The paper’s main premise claimed “The majority of glaciological knowledge that we have today stems from knowledge created by men about men within existing masculinist stories. Therefore it can’t be considered valid and therefore the science must be revised from a gender free perspective” !
Yet no one among the audience hearing this nonsense at Berkley guffawed or protested, instead it was met with politically correct applause.
A number of academics, writers, and even Californian legislators have suggested the solution to “sexism in glacier science” can be found by publicly funding “feminist paintings of glaciers and feminist art projects”.
One such art project was funding ” hooking up a phone line to a glacier so you could call the glacier on the phone and listen to it.”
There is even a move to “compensate” females working in the field of glacier science for the outrage of being forced to unknowingly be exposed to male dominated concepts.
The problem of academic fraud, hoaxes, and plain insanity, has been enormously compounded in recent decades by the explosion of on line connectivity.
“Peer review” manipulation is now commonplace. Abuses are extremely difficult to detect and expose. Even when detected the damage is already done, with so many false or absurd “facts” and conclusions being endlessly quote and re-quoted, finally becoming immutable accepted facts.
Organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and other lobby groups are more likely to be recipients and disseminators of such disinformation as they eagerly seek and accept without checking, information which agrees with their agenda or belief structure.
IMHO, the problem stems from a desire to hear only that which you want to hear, and not enough honest critical analysis of papers, studies, or the methodology and conclusions from people and organizations you respect or agree.
Dr Lindsay’s claim, “What appears beyond dispute is that making absurd and horrible ideas sufficiently politically fashionable can get them validated at the highest levels of academic grievance studies” , should be taken seriously.
“Politically correct outrage” is no substitute for rational objectivity.
Sadly, abusive rhetoric seems to be winning in public discourse and academia is no longer untainted by such influences.