In his 2007 autobiography, Born Standing Up, comedian Steve Martin makes this observation:

Photo: bronzeagebabies.blogspot.com

“There is a belief (in the 1960s to 1980s) that one appearance on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson made you a star.  But here are the facts.  The first time you do the show, nothing.  The second time you do the show, nothing.  The sixth time you do the show, someone might come up to you and say, ‘Hi, I think we met at Harvey’s Christmas Party.’  The tenth time you do the show, you could conceivably be remembered as being seen somewhere on television.  The twelfth time do you the show, you might hear, “Oh, I know you. You’re that guy.”

This is great example that having persistence is the way you become famous or change the world.  From his appearances on The Tonight Show and other TV shows in the late 1960s and early 70s, Steve Martin went on to become one of the most successful stand-up comedians of all time.  There is a good chance you probably do not want to be famous.  If you want to be famous, all you have to see is a 10 second video of the paparazzi chasing movie stars.  This will cure any urge real fast.

Chances are you are not satisfied with the world around you.  Maybe all the pollution bothers you.  Maybe America falling behind in manufacturing to the Chinese bothers you.  Maybe high gas prices bothers you.  Maybe our dependence on foreign oil bothers you.  Maybe increasing utility bills bothers you.  Maybe the continuing the heat wave of 2012 and continuing drought bothers you.  Maybe the recent mild winters bothers you.  Maybe the gridlock in Congress bothers you.  Maybe the tidal surges of Superstorm Sandy bothers you.  Maybe the floods of Hurricane still Katrina bothers you.  Maybe the collective inaction of society and our government on climate change really bothers you.

If any of this is bothers you, then I have good news for you.  This past May, 2012, I discovered a group that can make a huge difference on all these issues: CITIZENS CLIMATE LOBBY.

However, it took many months of pestering by one person to get me to attend at Citizens Climate Lobby meeting.  Her name is Carol Braford.

Just like Steve Martin tenaciously doing the Tonight Show over a dozen times before he started to become famous, Carol Braford invited me to Citizen Climate Lobby meetings multiple times before I finally acted.

Carol Bradford

How did Carol Braford find me?  In November, 2011, Larry Lazar started the Climate Reality Meet Up group in St. Louis.  We had our first meeting at Cafe Ventana on December 11, 2011.  Larry organized the meeting around all of us getting to know each other and our concerns about climate change.  We had about 16 people attend the meeting, including Tom and Carol Braford.

I first met Tom and Carol in January 2011, at the St. Louis University Green Sustainability Conference.  They had a table to promote their green eco village, which is their life’s passion to create.  When you meet Carol and Tom, they had such an inviting sweetness to them.  They are so friendly and welcoming that you almost want to ask them on the spot if they will adopt you as parents or grand parents.

Soon after you are taken in by their genuine charm, you meet Carol’s PERSISTENCE.  She has such a  welcoming persistence that you want to say YES! to any social function that she invites you to attend.  She had me sign up my contact info to learn more about the Eco Village.  Soon afterward, I received e-mails from Carol pertaining to functions promoting the eco village.

However, I soon forgot about the eco village as I got involved with Toastmasters and working at the temporary Climate Change exhibit at the St. Louis Science.  Even more, I returned to Crater Lake from June to September, 2011. October 2011, I attended the National Park Service & NASA: Earth to Sky Communicating Climate Change Conference in Shepardstown, West Virginia.  Around that time, I traveled to see friends in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.

Carol & Tom Braford

By the time Larry Lazar and I launched our kick off Climate Reality St. Louis Meet Up meeting, I  completely forgott Carol and Tom Braford.  Larry did a great job making our initial Meet Up meeting a success.  After the meeting, I will never forget Carol personally inviting me to attend a Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) conference call meeting.

She had an enticing way to describe the group.   She mentioned conference calls on the first Saturday of each month listening to national experts on climate change. Then the group plans actions to lobby Congress to pass effective laws to protect us from climate change.  I was interested.  One big problem: I just took a job a the St. Louis Science Center where I agreed I would be working weekends.  Thus, it would be really hard for me to attend these meetings.

Over last winter, Larry Lazar and I kept leading our Climate Reality Meet Up meeting on the third Sunday of each month.  Up to 20 people were attending our meetings, including Tom & Carol Braford.  Carol kept mentioning CCL.  I felt in a bind because attending their meetings intrigued me, but my job schedule made it really hard.

Finally, the timing was right when my winter seasonal job ended at the Science Center at the end of April.  I had a free Saturday, May 5th.  I arrived at Tom & Carol’s house around 11:30 am.  She had a lot of delicious and healthy snacks for us to eat, especially wonderful cheese, crackers, fruit, and amazing homemade bread.  There was 5 of us in attendance.  Then Carol connected us to the the conference call and I was blown away.

All these groups from North America were calling into the conference call: Atlanta, New York, Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Toronto, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Albuquerque, Madison, Seattle, and new groups in Portland and Eugene, Oregon.  STOP RIGHT THERE!  I immediately thought: Why isn’t southern Oregon represented?  There are so many environmental activists in Ashland, Oregon and the surrounding Rogue Valley.  At the close of the meeting, I boldly told Carol that I was going to establish a CCL group in southern Oregon.

Major General Anthony Jackson Photo from www.citizensclimatelobby.org

Even more, the main speaker on the conference call really impressed me.  Retired Major Gen. Anthony L. Jackson of the US Marine Corp talked about the Defense Department initiatives to use more energy from clean, renewable sources and less from fossil fuels.  I was deeply amazed by all that the Defense Department actions and plans to reduce their carbon footprint and be fossil free within the coming decades.  If our military is doing all it can to combat climate change, surely I can do more, especially if I can work with CCL.

When I returned to Crater Lake National Park, Oregon, in mid May, I persistently started networking to see who I could find in southern Oregon who could help me create a local CCL group.  I mentioned this goal to a local friend in Ashland and she sent me a list of all her Facebook friends.  I kept sending out messages on Facebook.  After 50 messages, I lost track of how many I sent.

Finally, in late June, I discovered three people who seemed intrigued by Citizens Climate Lobby and they e-mailed back to me.  It felt like a breakthrough when I was exchanging messages with local sourthern Oregon residents Jim McGinnis, Alan Journet, and Susan Bizeau.

All four of us met at Susan’s house for the September Citizens Climate Lobby phone call.  All of them seemed somewhat interested in starting an ongoing relationship with CCL.  They wanted me to lead the group because of their hectic schedules and commitments.  Unfortunately, my season was over at Crater Lake in October.  I was already committed to returning to St. Louis for the winter.

Just like overlooking Carol Braford the previous year because of work and returning to Crater Lake, I forgot about my contacts in Southern Oregon because of my busy winter schedule in St. Louis.  My plate for the past few months has been full with working at the St. Louis Science Center, my involvement with Toastmasters, teaching a class on climate change with St. Louis Community College, NASA invited me to speak in Hampton, Virginia in November at the National Interpreter Association Convention, speaking opportunities in St. Louis, etc.

Brian Ettling and Amy Hoyt Bennett, Public Affairs Liaison for Citizens Climate Lobby

Then, in December I received an e-mail from Amy Hoyt Bennett, Director of Operations for  Citizens Climate Lobby.  Amy and I met last August in San Francisco while we were attending the Climate Reality Project Training lead by Al Gore.  She wrote: “I wanted you to know we are headed to a CCL group start workshop in Medford, Oregon on Jan 14 !  I am planning this with Susan Bizeau and Alan Journet. YAY!  Thanks for all your help.”

It was sublime to read this.  It was one of the few times in my life where I felt like I had genuinely made an impact on the world.  Here was a group of people meeting to possibly form a CCL group thousands of miles away from me because I was the first person to suggest this idea to them.

I immediately forwarded this e-mail to Carol Braford, with a note: “thanks to you persistently inviting me to CCL meetings last winter, a CCL group is going to happen in Southern Oregon.  After coming to your house last May and experiencing a CCL monthly conference call, I left thinking southern Oregon needs to have a CCL chapter also.  I made it my mission last summer at Crater Lake.  Now, Amy Bennett just e-mailed me to say she is headed to Medford, Oregon in January, 14th for a group start workshop.  I was so excited to hear this.  I really felt like I had made a small impact on the world when I read this e-mail.  However, the real credit goes to you for inspiring me to get involved with CCL.”

Brian Ettling and Carol Braford

Needless to say, Carol was very happy to read this.  Carol’s persistence with me reminded me of Steve Martin’s story.   He showed such determination and persistence to appear on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson over a dozen times to make it big show business.  Carol’s persistence and determination over many months to get me to attend a CCL meeting did paid off.  I now really love being involved with CCL.  I look forward to the monthly conference calls and participating in the group action plans.

In sum, want to change the world and reduce the threat climate change? Then keep persistently inviting your friends to join you over and over again.  Never give up.  Carol Braford never did with me.

Thank you Carol!

As a side note…

Brian Ettling, Carol & Tom Brafor, Steve Valk, & Lucas Sabalka

It has been a thrill to be involved with the St. Louis CCL group when they made a huge accomplishment this winter.  Steve Valk, Director of Communications of CCL Regional Manager Southeastern U.S in Atlanta, came to visit our group in early December.  While he was here, Carol Braford managed for our group to have a meeting with Kevin Horrigan, the Managing Editor of the St. Louis Post Dispatch newspaper.

St. Louis Post Dispatch

We were able to persuade Kevin for the Post to write a supportive editorial about the danger of climate change. Even more, the Post strongly affirmed need for Congress to pass a carbon fee and dividend, which is the priority of Citizens Climate Lobby.  The Post published the editorial on December 27, 2012.  This editorial excited and impressed climate activists all across the country.  It was another example of Carol Braford and CCL showing me what can be accomplished on climate change when one is determined to make a difference.

Thanks again, Steve Valk, Carol & Tom Braford, and Lucas Salbalka for allowing me to “tag along” in the very productive meeting with the Post Dispatch.

All of you are inspiring me to do more for our planet.

Steve Valk, Communications Director for Citizens Climate Lobby and  Brian Ettling.

      For more information on Citizens Climate Lobby and to find a group near you, go to
www.citizensclimatelobby.org.

Below is the text of my speech presented at the January 30, 2013 St. Louis South County Toastmasters meeting.

Johnny Nash

Anyone remember this 1972 song by American pop singer, Johnny Nash, I Can See Clearly Now ?
  
Here the beginning lyrics:
I can see clearly now the rain is gone
you can see all obstacles in your way.

Tonight,  I want to help you to see clearly.  Like the Johnny Nash song, I want to help you see clearly past a big obstacle that is in your way.

The obstacle is this: many people are confused about the difference between climate vs. weather.  Who here is confused about the difference between weather vs. climate?  My friends, you are going to learn the difference right now:

According to NASA:

Weather is the atmospheric conditions at a certain place at a certain point in time.  Weather is short term.  It is observed in minutes, hours, days, or weeks.  Weather is determining if it is going to be raining tomorrow when you drive to work in St. Louis.

Climate is the average conditions expected at a specific place at a given time.  Climate is long term.  It is determined over months, years, decades, or longer.  Climate is more than likely it is going to be snowing if you visit Mt. Rainer between the months of September to June.

Think of weather vs. climate like this: “Climate is percentage of long underwear vs. shorts in your closest. Weather is deciding to wear long underwear or shorts today.”

Or, “You pick your vacation destination based on the climate but pack your suitcase based on the weather.”

As Mark Twain once said, “Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.”

Understanding the difference between weather vs. climate is vital because so many people are confused.  Unlike, Johnny Nash, they cannot see clearly now.  They have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Too many people make the mistake of saying this time of year, “It is snowing today, therefore climate change cannot be real.”

I heard this crazy statement too frequently when I worked at the temporary Climate Change exhibit at the St. Louis Science Center.  One day in March, I was stationed just outside the exhibit to invite people inside.  It was snowing by the window, so people kept teasing me saying, “Here’s climate change!”  I was very polite, but I wanted to yell back, “No, it’s the weather!”

I even heard my fellow Toastmasters say, “How can scientists predict climate change when they cannot even predict the weather.”

Here is the answer, my friends.  Think of weather as the roll of the dice.  Is it going to be sunny, snowing or raining tomorrow?  Climate is determining which casino gives you the best chance to win when you play with their dice.

Weather is determined by real-time measurements of temperature, wind speed and direction, humidity, rain fall amount, could cover, etc.
Climate is determined by compiled weather statistics over a 30 year period.

The weather today has nothing to do climate change.  Or does it?

Over 97% of climate scientists, the Weather Channel, the American Meteorological Society, and the National Weather service clearly think climate change is impacting our weather right now.  Even more, every major scientific institution in the world affirms that climate change is real, caused by humans, and it’s impacting or weather right NOW.

When we start our cars or turn on our lights, we are burning oil, gas, and coal.  When we burn these fuels, we are releasing carbon dioxide, which is stinking up our planet.  Currently, carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 36.7 billion, with a B, metric tons a year or 90 million metric tons a day.

Carbon dioxide traps the earth’s heat like a blanket.  Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by over 30%.  As a result, since 1880 the average temperature of the planet has gone up about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit or .8 degrees Celsius.

A global increase 1.5 Fahrenheit over the past 130 years sounds laughable when the temperatures in St. Louis can vary over 20 degrees in one day.  However, 1.5 degree rise in body temperature from 98.6 degrees to 100 degrees, you would feel very sick.

When casinos or individual gamblers tamper with dice so it will favor certain numbers, it is called ‘loading the dice.’  With climate change, scientists think we are ‘loading the climate dice.’  By adding lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we are causing the climate to favor certain weather patterns.

Here are some pie charts illustrating this.  What it shows is that our record low and high temperatures in the 1950s were equal.  However, there has been a shift that by 2009, record high temperatures were outnumbered record low temperatures 56% to 44%.  In 2010, the ratio was 70% record highs, 30% record lows.  2011, 73% record highs to 27% record lows.  2012, the worst yet: 90% record highs to 10% record lows.

Dr. James Hansen, climate scientist from NASA, explains it with these climate dice.  In a normal climate, if you were rolling the weather dice, you could expect two sides to produce colder than normal weather, two sides to produce normal weather, and two sides to produce hotter than normal weather.  What we have done with climate change is to ‘load the dice’ so that now we have just one side with cooler than normal weather and one side with normal weather.  Alarmingly, we now have three sides with warmer than normal and one side that is extremely hot.

Yes, it will still snow with climate change, but the evidence is that we are seeing less cold weather with climate change.  As comedian Bill Maher would say, saying it is snowing, therefore climate change is not real, as about as silly as saying, ‘It got dark last night, therefore the sun is not real.’

Or as a friend of mine, Tom Smerling joked, “I hate flu shots.  Therefore, the flu cannot be real.”

Hopefully, I helped you see more clearly today. First, you now know difference between weather and climate.  Weather is what is happening right now.  Climate is the average weather over a period of at least 30 years.  Climate is where you pick your vacation (Florida vs. Colorado).  Second, if it is snowing outside that is the weather not climate change.  Finally, climate change is actually making it less likely to cold and snow today.

As Johnny Nash once sang, you can now see more clearly now, when the snow is falling around.  Hopefully, you can see all obstacles in your way.  Gone are the dark clouds that had you blind.  Because 
It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day.

Love to learn about wild animals?  Then you should visit the Wildlife Rescue Special Exhibit at the St. Louis Science Center.  It is a temporary traveling exhibit that will be there until March 3, 2013.

I have worked at this exhibit since October 24, 2012, a few weeks after it debuted at the St. Louis Science Center.  This exhibit is designed to be fun, hands-on and educational all at the same time.  It is geared for all age groups, so please bring your kids to see this.

As you enter and leave the exhibit, you are greeted with a video of renowned wildlife advocate and one of my heroes, Dr. Jane Goodall.  She welcomes you with this message of hope and optimism:

“Today we here so many stories of doom and gloom, how animals are becoming extinct and how environments are becoming uninhabitable, and how the diversity of life is diminishing.  And, so it’s really important to understand that we can rescue wild animals.  We can restore their habitats and that we can work together to protect biodiversity.  That the amazing diversity of species that makes up life on planet Earth that makes up an ecosystem.  As you go through this exhibit, you will learn some amazing stories of animals being rescued from the brink of extinction, habitats restored, and the amazing people who have dedicated their lives to making this happen.”

The exhibit focuses on the success stories 30 animals, such as the Giant Panda, California Condor, Lake Sturgeon, Whooping Cranes, American Whooping Cranes, Panamanian Golden Frog, Black-Footed-Ferret, etc.

Kids and their parents love the hands on interaction of the exhibit, such as using an arcade game puppet to try to feed a mechanical California Condor chick, a device comparing your grip with an orangutan, a scale that compares your weight with a giant panda, etc.    Even more, you will enjoy the interactive quizzes testing your knowledge of elephant behavior and saving wildlife from oil spills, forest fires, and floods.

To learn about the rescue of whooping cranes, there is a full scale model of a “trike airplane” with a large screen in front it.  Trikes are ultra light planes that look and fly like hand gliders.  You sit inside the plane and feel like you are flying to teach immature Whooping Cranes how to migrate from Maryland to Florida in the autumn.   This video is narrated by Joe Duff, the lead pilot and co-founder of Operation Migration.  The pilot and the plane are disguised to look like a mammoth Whooping Crane in order to entice the juveniles to learn the eastern migration route.  I frequently watch the video with envy wanting to fly a trike, while teaching the majestic Whooping Cranes to migrate long distances.

The exhibit provides amazing statistics on the recovery of animals that came within a whisker of going extinct.  For instance, Whooping Cranes had only 15 individuals left in 1940.  Thanks to the efforts such as volunteers like Joe Duff, conservation groups, the Endangered Species Act, and the Fish & Wildlife Service, around 600 Whooping Cranes now exist.  Even more remarkable, The Chatham Island Black Robin had only one breeding female left named, Old Blue in 1980.  To save this species, the New Zealand government began to breed Old Blue with a male robin, Old Yellow.  This pair produced 11 chicks; more than 250 of their descendants now live in the New Zealand wild.

Photo by Brian Ettling. Two adult California Condors perched underneath the support struts of the Navajo Bridge, located in Glen Canyon, Arizona. They were sitting 470 feet about the Colorado River.

An exhibit animal that I have seen personally in the wild: The California Condor.  This species had only 25 birds left in the 1980s.  Fortunately, the last remaining birds were captured, raised in captivity, and now many released back into the wild.  Because of those efforts, around 350 birds can be seen in the wild.

I was fortunate to see California Condors when I traveled to the Grand Canyon in 2009 and 2010.  They are huge with their 10 wing span.  As a matter of fact, they have the largest wing span of any bird in North America.  They were easily to spot with the large identification research numbers clipped on their wings.  You can also readily see them by their massive size and the large white patches on the underside of their wings that are seen when they are in flight.

When I lived in Florida for 16 years, I also saw Whooping Cranes and Burrowing Owls, both of which have displays in the exhibit.

When you visit this exhibit, don’t skip the seven minute inspiring video, “Return to the Wild,” shown on a large screen theater inside the exhibit.  It talks about the fight for survival of the Orangutans of the rain forests of Borneo and the elephants of the African savannas.  Elephants struggle to survive with the poaching of their ivory tusks and humans encroaching into their habitat.  Clearing rain forests to create palm oil plantations are threatening the survival of orangutans.

Dr. Biruté Galdikas Photo: alkas.lt

Fortunately, both species have human champions who are fighting for their survival.  On the island of Borneo, Indonesia, Dr. Birute Galdikas runs The Orangutan International Care Center, which cares for around 330 orphaned orangutans.  Dame Daphne Sheldrick runs The David Sheldrick Elephant Orphanage at the edge of Nairobi, Kenya, which cares for dozens of orphaned elephants.

The video shares failures and success stories of raising these orphaned and often traumatized animals in captivity and releasing them back into the wild.

What really struck me was the ending statements of both of these heroes for our planet.

Dr. Biruté Galdikas:  “I hope people really carry away the understanding how funny, benign and great orangutans are, but, also the realization that they need to be saved from extinction and only we can do it.”

Dame Daphne Sheldrick Photo: friendsofafricaaz.org

Dame Daphne Sheldrick: “I think everyone really should be aware of the natural world and do everything they can to protect it.   You understand it is not just you in the world.  You are part of a much bigger thing.  It goes round and round and every single species contributes to the well being of the whole.  It is the only place we have and we have got to take care of it.”

Gandhi once said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

I have often heard that when we talk about saving the planet from climate change and pollution, we are really talking about saving us, humans.  I disagree.  If we just save us and not our fellow endangered wildlife, future generations will never forgive us.  Our fellow animals are so unique, sacred, fun, and awe inspiring that to not save them will leave future generations deeply impoverished and sad.  Yes, saving the planet also means saving the precious species that share the planet with us.

Even more, this exhibit shows you can have success bringing animals back from the edge of extinction.  It provides us hope and inspiration while challenging us to listen to our better angels.

Often visitors leaving the exhibit will rush past and ignore the final video by the exit.  They are eager to get to the Omnimax movie, Planetarium, or head home.   Resist this urge and stop to watch the video.  It contains one final video message from iconic Dr. Jane Goodall.  She states:

“Now that you have been through this exhibit, you’ve learned the importance of rescuing animals, restoring habitats, and protecting biodiversity.   I can’t overemphasize enough importance of each and every one of us getting involved to protect life on earth.  It’s just so important that we get together to do this now. ”

Photo: fws.gov

Yes, this is the mission for the rest of our lives.  Each and every one of us is called to save the planet from climate change, pollution, and habitat loss.  If we accomplish this mission (and we can!), the elephants, orangutans, Whooping Cranes, California Condors, black footed ferrets and so many other endangered animals will thank us.  Not with words, but their presence on this planet will continue to touch our hearts.

Two years ago, October 5, 2011, I had a lunch meeting that changed my life.  It was at the Indian Ocean, a small Indian Restaurant in northwestern Washington DC.  At the end of the meeting, my new friend and I both uttered these words:

I CANNOT THINK OF ANY BIGGER PRIORITY FOR MY LIFE THAN TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.“

At the time, I was in DC visiting a friend and sightseeing after I just attended the National Park Service & NASA Earth-to-Sky Communicating Climate Change conference in Shepardstown, West Virginia.

I left the NASA conference very jazzed about wanting to communicate more about climate change, but I was unsure what to do for the winter or my life.  I knew I was headed back to St. Louis, but I did not know where I would be working or what I do be doing.  

For five years now, I have been on a journey to be a climate change communicator.  August 24, 2011, I had put a message on Facebook about wanting to go to grad school to study climate change communications.  I was looking for advice for studying for the GRE.  

Two days later, my friend, Sundae Horn, sent me this message:

“Brian, I saw your post about going back to school, and although I don’t have any advice about the GRE, I want to pass on the website of our friend. His name is Tom Smerling — somehow I think we told you about him, or vice versa, but anyway, he’s a great guy and loves to talk climate change.”

I worked Sundae and her husband, Rob, in the Everglades for many years. They are very kind people.  If Sundae was recommending Tom, then he must be a great guy also.  I was very intrigued also when she mentioned he loves to talk about climate change.

www.climatebites.org

I immediately e-mailed Tom and we exchanged messages, promising to chat more at some point.  I looked at his website also, Climatebites.org.  The style and message of the website really amazed me.  The focus of the website is to provide metaphors, soundbites, quotes, humor, and stories for people who want to talk about climate change and wants their message to stick.  I immediately recommended the website to friends deeply interested in climate change.

I noticed Tom lived in the DC area.  I knew I would be visiting there in October.  When I arrived in DC, we exchanged e-mails and he suggested meeting for lunch at the Indian Ocean.

Tom Smerling & Brian Ettling

Upon meeting Tom, I immediately felt like I had made a friend for life.  It felt like I had met a kindred spirit.  We exchanged so many ideas about climate change.  We both agreed that humor is vital when communicating about climate change.  I showed him my website, Climatechangecomedian.com and my climate change evening program.  He showed me the humor section of Climatebites, which has a video link of his favorite stand-up economist, Yoram Bauman and comedian David Crowe’s hilarious Gasoholics Anonymous.  

He challenged me on the spot to contribute writings to Climatebites.  Gulp.  I had very limited experience with writing.  However, it did seem like it could be fun.

I will never forget the end of the meeting, we both said, “I CANNOT THINK OF ANY BIGGER PRIORITY FOR MY LIFE THAN TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.”

It took me a couple weeks, but I did post my first bite on Climatebites on October 14, 2011, Would you argue with your doctor over a heart condition?  I have steadily written bites ever since then.  I am now closing in on 90 bites.  Some of my Climatebites have now been re-posted on other websites, such as boomerwarrior.com, climatemama.com, and elephantjournal.com.  

Yale Form on Climate Change & the Media

Tom encouraged me to write my own blog again.  I created my blog on February 1, 2011, and I quickly wrote a second entry the next day.  However, my blog sat idle for nine months 10 months before Tom challenged me to write my own blog again.  My own blog led me to have an article published in the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media on April 26, 2012.  One of my blog posts was also re-posted on Harriet Shugarman’s Climatemama.com website.  This posting you are currently reading is now my 32nd blog entry.

Tom challenged me to attend the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Conference in San Francisco, California last December.  He enticed me to attend by promising I would meet so many of the top climate scientists and communicators.  Man, his sales pitch turned out to be an understatement.  At AGU, I got to meet climatesight.org author Kate Alexander, Scott Mandia, Michael Mann, Richard Alley, James Hansen, Naomi Oreskes, Richard Somerville, Ben Santer, Ed Maibach, Susan Hassol, John Cook, Peter Sinclair, Gavin Schmidt, Science comedian Brian Malow, and so many others.

Al Gore at the Climate Reality Training in San Francisco

While attending AGU, I was invited to attend a Union of Concerned Scientists cocktail party where I met Dr. +Peter Joseph.  I mentioned my interest in climate change to him and we struck up a good friendship.  Peter lobbied hard on my behalf with Al Gore’s organization, The Climate Reality Project, so I could attend the Climate Reality Training in San Francisco in August, 2012.  As a trained Climate Reality presenter, I presented along with local St. Louis Climate Reality Presenters, Larry Lazar and Lucas Sabalka, at the Ethical Society of St. Louis on December 6, 2012.

I am not sure what adventure 2013 has in store for me.  I know I will be speaking at the Piasa Palisades Sierra Club meeting in Alton, Illinois on February 11, 2013 about climate change.  I will be giving a Toastmasters speech on climate change on Wednesday, January 30th.  I will be teaching a continuing adult education class on Climate Change Communications for St. Louis Community College on February 23, 2013.  I am also now deeply involved with organizing for the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) with the St. Louis group.  I also started a CCL group in southern Oregon while I was working at Crater Lake National Park last summer.  

I also hope to return to Crater Lake, Oregon for the summer.  I work there as a naturalist ranger narrating the boat tours, trolley tours, guided hikes, geology talks, etc.  My evening campfire program for the past two summers has been on the impact of climate change on Crater Lake.

Beyond that, it is a mystery how I will be following my passion with climate change in 2013 and upcoming years.  However, I will still never forget all the encouragement and advice from Tom Smerling.  

Our mutual mantra from when we ended our lunch meeting at the Indian Ocean Restaurant in Washington, DC on October 5, 2011 is always bouncing around in my head.

I CANNOT THINK OF ANY BIGGER PRIORITY FOR MY LIFE THAN TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.”

Thank you Tom Smerling!  

Even more, Thank you Sundae Horn for introducing me to Tom Smerling.                    

For the sake of our children, us, our neighborhood, our country, and our planet, NOW is the time to take action to reduce the threat of climate change.

3. Nurture OptimismThis actually spells out the acronym: OWN.  Yes, it is time to take personal OWNnership to take action NOW to something about climate change.  This blog will focus on ideas that I took to help me organize with others to help collectively take action to resolve climate change.

Part II and III of this blog will be written next two weeks.

1. Organize NOW: Locally and Nationally

a. Locally: It is vital to find like-minded people in your community that can spur you to take action on climate change and vice versa.

One year ago, Larry Lazar and I started the Climate Reality St. Louis Meet Up Group.  We formed this group with the goal of getting local St. Louis area residents who are concerned about climate change to get together for monthly meetings.

At these meetings, we learned about the basic science of climate change, and we shared techniques to communicate about climate change effectively with your friends, family, co-workers and neighbors.  The biggest success was having internationally renowned climate scientists and communicators speak at our meetings via Skype, such as Scott Mandia, Dr. Michael Mann, and John Cook.  Over the past year, we held 8 meetings, with close to 20 people attending each meeting.  At the June meeting with Dr. Mann, over 50 St. Louis area residents attended this meeting.

Another success from our meetings was to network with local community environmental leaders attending our meetings.   We had individuals, such as Ed Smith, Safe Energy Director for Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Jill Miller who was the Regional Organizer for Renew Missouri.  Tom & Carol Braford also attended our meetings.  The Brafords are organizing the Culver Way Ecovillage.   It is the first cohousing ecovillage community for St. Louis.  As also noted in the next section, Tom & Carol are also the local leaders of the Citizens Climate Lobby.  From Ed, Jill, Tom and Carol attending our Climate Reality Meetup gatherings, our members got involved with their groups, which I know strengthened our green community.

Our next meeting will celebrate our one year anniversary.  It will be on Thursday, December 6th at the Ethical Society of St Louis, which is locate 9001 Clayton Rd, St Louis, MO.  Larry Lazar, Dr. Lucas Sabalka, and me will be speaking on the problem and solutions of climate change.  All three of us were trained as Al Gore Climate Reality speakers in San Francisco last August.

b. Nationally

Last winter, local community sustainability activists, Carol & Tom Braford, kept encouraging me to attend their meetings for Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL).  In May, I listened in on the international CCL conference call at Tom & Carol’s house, and I immediately became hooked on Citizens Climate Lobby.

I have listened in on their monthly conference calls every since, which happen on the first Saturday of each month at 1 pm eastern time.  While I was working as a park ranger at Crater Lake National Park, Oregon last summer, I was even able to organize a group of local Ashland, Oregon citizens in August to start listening in on the CCL monthly conference calls.

This group’s focus is to organize ordinary people to effectively ask their members of Congress to pass a carbon fee and dividend act.  A huge step in resolving climate change is to tax carbon based fuels and invest in renewal energy.  Unfortunately, our country will not place a high priority to switch to cleaner, renewal energy until we adequately tax fossil fuels.  CCL strives to have its members personally engage their Congressional Representatives in a friendly, non-threatening manner that persuades Congress to pass a carbon fee and dividend.

CCL is closing in on 50 local chapters/lobby teams located throughout the United States and Canada.  I bet there is a chapter not far from you.  Their next meeting is Saturday, December 1st.  Guest speaker: Dr. Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, will be the speaker on the conference call.  He will be speaking about Hurricane Sandy’s connection to climate change.

C. Educate your Community
Where you can, I encourage you to speak out in your community about climate change.  This is what I have been doing in my hometown, St. Louis, Missouri:

On November 10th, I taught a continuing adult education class for St. Louis Community College on Climate Change Communications.  The focus of the class was how to effectively engage your family, friends, neighbors and co-workers about climate change.  Eight people attended this class.

As I mentioned above, last August, I was was trained by Al Gore and his organization, The Climate Reality Project, to be a volunteer presenter.  Thus, I am available in St. Louis and elsewhere to speak to various community groups about climate change.  However, even before I was a Climate Reality Presenter, I gave climate change presentations during the past during the past three years to nearby schools and the Crestwood/Sunset Hills Rotary Club.

For close two years now, I am an active member of St. Louis County Toastmasters.  I have presented seven speeches to Toastmasters.  All of my speeches focused on climate change in some manner.  Three of these speeches, I was voted as Best Speaker by the other Toastmaster members.

Yes, the headlines are screaming that we have so much work to do to resolve climate change.  However, I believe if you can organize: locally and nationally, while educating folks in your community, you can make a difference NOW to resolve climate change.

Best of success to you in this journey!

Next week, we will talk about how weatherizing your home and nurturing optimism will also help reduce the threat of climate change.

 

Science.lotsoflessons.com

Still in the process of educating myself: ‘What is science?’ so I can better understand the science of climate change.

For several years now, I have been very interested in climate change.  In the spring of 2010, I even came up with my own powerpoint to educate and inspire friends about climate change, called Let’s Have Fun Getting Serious about Resolving Climate Change.  I showed this presentation to a fellow ranger at Crater Lake and science professor at Ohio State University, Carole Holomuzki.  She had lots of positive comments about my presentation.  On the other hand, it was obvious to her and me that my knowledge of science was weak.  As a result, she generously shared her powerpoint presentation that she uses to teach her Introduction Biology 101 class about science.  This turned out to be one of the best gifts Carole could give a friend.  Carole’s basic definitions of science came from sources such as Eugenie Scott books such as Creation vs. Evolution.

seaver.pepperdine.edu

Surprisingly, I did get to hear Eugenie Scott present an evening lecture at the Southern Oregon University in Ashland, Oregon in November, 2009.  Over the past several years now, I have taken advantages of opportunities to learn what I can what is science as I want to educate others about climate change and inspire them to take action.  In my last blog, I mentioned attending the 2011 NASA & National Park Service: Earth to Sky V: Communicating Climate Change Conference.  In December 2011, I attended the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco to meet and hear presentations from so many top climate scientists.  This past February, I heard Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the US Academy of Sciences, speak on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis, about climate science.  During my summer job at Crater Lake National Park, I have had access to chat with local scientists on staff also.

From my self education, here is a recap from my last blog of

12 basic lessons I have learned so far:

1. Science is very brief described as “Truth without certainty.”
2. Science never proves. Science explains.
3. Proof requires 100% certainty, which science really never provides.
4. However, science can disprove things.
5. Science always leaves room for some other explanation.
6. The scientific definition of a theory is ‘A comprehensive explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is supported by a vast body of evidence.’
7. This is completely different than the common definition of theory, which is a ‘best guess,’ ‘hunch’ or idea.
8. Multiple lines of evidence point to the existence of human caused climate change, which makes climate change a very strong scientific theory. Climate change is not some hunch or best guess.
9. No level of scientific certainty is higher than Theory.
10. The goal of science is to build THEORIES.
11. Uncertainty in science is not a weakness, but a strength. Uncertainty, allows room for stronger and more useful explanations to emerge that can save lives.
12. Scientists are extremely competitive. Try as they might, scientists have not been able to disprove that human are causing climate change.

After I posted my last blog, I realized there are also three vital lessons I learned that I was not able to include:

1. Science focuses on acceptance, not belief.

2. Scientific consensus is a vital component of how science furthers our understanding of the world.
3. New scientific knowledge is not considered valid until it withstands the peer review process.

Science Lesson #13:

People often ask ‘Do you believe in evolution or climate change?’

Amazingly, science is not based on belief.  It is based on evidence.  According to the National Academy of Sciences, the definition of science is “The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.”

walrus.wr.usgs.gov

To say I believe in evolution or climate change would be silly.  It would be as bizarre as saying, “I believe in gravity.”  Based on overwhelming evidence, I accept gravity.  The same is true for evolution and climate change.  I do not believe in evolution or climate change.  However, based upon multiple lines of evidence from numerous sources of inquiry, I strongly accept theory of climate and evolution.

I chatted with my friend Carole about this a month ago.  Science can only acquire evidence based on what we can measure or collect data.  Science can only obtain evidence or data based upon what we experience with our five senses (see, hear, taste, touch, or smell) or what instruments can measure.  For example, we cannot see infrared or ultraviolet light.  Therefore, it did not exist for scientists a few hundred years ago.  However, with modern scientific instruments detecting and indicating evidence of their existence, we can accept the existence of infrared and ultraviolet light.

Similar to infrared and ultraviolet light, we may not see evidence of climate change is our daily lives.  According to NASA, there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to the existence of human caused climate change, such as sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, declining sea ice, glacial retreat, increase in extreme weather events, and ocean acidification.

Science Lesson #14

Scientific consensus a vital component of science.

So if evidence, not belief, is so vital in science, then how do we know which evidence is important for explaining and understanding the natural world and processes?  Which evidence can be rejected, dismissed or deemed not as vital for understanding the world?  The key to understanding a scientific explanation of the world is with scientific consensus.

news.stanford.edu

An excellent source for the importance of scientific consensus is the epilogue of the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, a University of California, San Diego professor and science historian.  On page 268, she states, science “does not provide proof.  It only provides the consensus of experts, based on the organized accumulation and scrutiny of evidence.”


Dr. Oreskes then gives the example of the theory of plate of continental drift, which was hotly debated in the 1940s.   At the time, Harvard professor Marlin Billings taught his students 19 different explanations for the drift theory.  However, by the 1970s, research had produced enough evidence to settle the question of continental drift into the established theory of plate tectonics.   She explained that “After that point, there are no ‘sides.’  There is simply accepted scientific knowledge.”  Yes, unanswered questions may remain for scientists to focus for explanations.  However, “There is simply the consensus for expert opinion of that particular matter.  That is what scientific knowledge is.”

The individual scientist vs. science.
So many people, including me, had the wrong picture of what science is.  We picture an individual scientist holding a glass beaker with a smoky chemical drifting out.  However, that is not how scientist historians, science teachers, or scientists themselves perceive science.  Again Dr. Oreskes in Merchants of Doubt:

en.wikipedia.org

“For many of us, the word “science” does not actually conjure visions of science; it conjures visions of scientists.  We think of the great men of science–Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein–and imagine them as heroic individuals, often misunderstood, who had to fight against conventional wisdom or institutions to gain appreciation for their radical views.  To be sure, brilliant individuals are an important part of the history of science; men like Newton and Darwin deserve the place in history they hold.  But if you ask a historian of science, When did modern science begin? She would not cite the birth of Galileo or Copernicus.  Most likely, she would discuss the origins of scientific institutions.”  


This is a radical thought for me, and it may be for you also.  It is scientific institutions much more than individuals that makes science a helpful and valid way of explaining aspects of the natural world.  Dr. Oreskes goes on to write: “From its earliest days, science has been associated with institutions–the Accademia dei Lincei, founded in 1609, the Royal Society in Britain, founded in 1660, the Academie des Sciences in France, founded in 1666–because scolars (savants and natural philosophers as they were variously called before the 19th century invention of the word “scientist”) understood that to create new knowledge they needed a meansto test each other’s claims.”

It’s Scientific Consensus that shows Galileo was right and wrong

Albert Einstein referred to Galileo as, “The Father of Modern Science.”  Dr. Stephen Hawking thinks  Galileo is probably more responsible than anyone else for the birth of modern science.  Galileo is remembered for science he got right, championing the idea Earth revolves around the sun. However, he was proven wrong for his evidence why the revolves around the sun.


Interesting, famous dissentors of climate change, such as Texas Governor Rick Perry, like to dissmss the overwhelming scientific agreement on climate change stating that “even Galileo got outvoted for a spell.”

In 1633, the Catholic Church unfairly convicted Galileo of heresy for his statements supporting heliocentrism, the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, which contradicted the church’s teaching that the earth was the center of the universe. Today, Galileo is considered to be a hero, especially among climate contrarians for prompting that idea in the face of strong fight from the Catholic church.

geology.byu.edu

Oddly, according to Dr. Barry Bickmore, Professor of Geologic sciences at Brigham Young University, on his lecture on You Tube, “How to Avoid the Truth about Climate Change,” Galileo had a weak primary argument to support his theory.  He was afraid his astronomy observations were not very strong.  Therefore, he proposed ocean tides were the strongest evidence to support his theory.

Galileo was convinced the earth revolved around the sun because the tides showed the ocean water sloshed back and forth. Galieo was convinced there was one tide going in and another tide going out to establish his theory. In reality, ocean tides go in and out twice a day everywhere. He knew this was true for the Mediterrean. However, he figured the tides were once a day for the Atlantic. This did not prove to be true. As more people told Galileo he as wrong, the more he dug in his heels. He never rejected his argument.

The point, according to Dr. Bickmore, is that even great scientists can behave dogmatically. Therefore, scientific consensus is crucial. “People who say science is not about consensus, they do not understand science.”

Dr. Bickmore went on to say that “We have always had (scientific) loners out there. The brilliant loners would come up with some great idea. The problem is that they are often not perfect ideas. It did not pick up any legs because it did not have what the modern scientific community has, which is the community itself. Whenever a scientist presents an idea that is not perfect, there is going to be dozens of other scientists beating the crap out of it for an extended period. They do this to work out all the kinks to make it better than before. That is the difference the Greek philosophers and modern science: consensus.”

Science Lesson #15:
In science, ‘A Jury of your Peers,’ accepts or reject your findings.
To reach scientific consensus, your tested hypothesis is not considered to be science until it is judged by a jury of your scientific peers, the peer review process.  As Carole Holomuzki teaches her students and shared with me,  “Until a tested hypothesis is published in a peer-reviewed journal, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A SCIENTIFIC FINDING!!!” (her emphasis).

In Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes explains peer review this way:
“Since the 1600s, the basic idea has remained the same: scientific ideas must be supported by evidence, and subject to acceptance or rejected…Whatever the body of evidence is, both the idea and the evidence used to support it must be judged by a jury on one’s scientific peers.  Until a claim passes that judgement–that peer review–it is only that, just a claim.  What counts as knowledge are the ideas that are accepted by the fellowship of experts.”

Climate change contrarian scientists are ‘sore losers.’
It may seem very harsh to hear, Dr. Naomi Oreskes does not mince words here.  When an individual scientist rejects scientific consensus or the peer review process, especially the science of climate change, they are not advancing scientific knowledge or understanding.  It really is no different than a sports athlete who lost a game fair and square and by a huge score, but still refuses to accept the results.


“Conversely, if a claim is rejected, the honest scientist is expected to accept the judgement, and move on to other things.  In science, you don’t get to keep harping on a subject until your opponents just give up in exhaustion.”


Unfortunately, in the mindset modern journalism, we think it is fair to give people who dissent and disagree    

full consideration.  Dr. Oreskes states though, “What we do not understand is that in many cases, that person was given due consideration in the halls of science.”  For the past 30 years, Oreskes contends, climate change contrarian scientists “took their claims to the halls of public opinion, rather than the halls of science, they were stepping outside the institutional protocols that for 400 years have tested the veracity of scientific claims…

 

ccllbaseball.com

This is where Oreskes really calls the climate contrarians to task, on page 270 of Merchants of Doubt:
“Many of the claims of our contrarians had already been vetted in the halls of science and failed to pass the test of peer review.  At that point, their claims could not really be considered scientific, and our protagonists should have moved on to other things.  In a sense, they were poor losers.  The umpires had made their call but our contrarians refused to accept it.” (my emphasis)

Skepticism must be productive skepticism

science.gsfc.nasa.gov

Amazingly, despite all the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real, caused by humans, and over 95% of scientific consensus, some people still want to argue they are skeptical that climate change is real.  NASA scientist Bob Cahalan had an interesting response when a group of us chatting with him at a NASA and National Park Service Earth To Sky: Communicating Climate Change Conference in September, 2011.  When we engage hard core climate skeptics, we should “encourage them to be skeptical, and go beyond it to propose a theory.”  Then challenge them with, “How are you going to test that theory.”


Then people I admire, such as Carole Holomuzki, Eugenie Scott, Naomi Oreskes, Barry Bickmore, and Bob Cahalan, would encourage them to find evidence to support their theory.  Then after they have gathered their evidence, take that evidence to a group of respected and credible scientists.  Then let the scientists test it for themselves, or peer review it, so they can accept or reject the theory.

If you build an accepted theory on why climate science should be rejected, you will be rich and famous!  As I mentioned in my previous blog, US Academy of Science President Ralph Cicerone, has tried in his mind late at night for past 35 years to disprove climate change, but he has had not success.  If one of the top scientific minds in America cannot disprove climate change, what makes you think you can?

Science and Religion both matter
Towards the beginning of the blog, I reflected on the difference between belief and acceptance.
I want to end this blog posting my favorite all time quote about religion and science from my hero, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:

nobelprize.org

Science investigates; religion interprets.
Science gives man knowledge which is power;
Religion gives man wisdom which is control.
Science deals mainly with facts;
religion deals mainly with values.


The two are not rivals.  They are complementary.


Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism.  Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.” 

  

Sometimes you really do have to start at a beginning level of science to truly understand the big picture of climate change.  This may not seem like a big deal either, but it is.

What is Science?

Image: science-tube.com

So many Americans are confused about what is science, especially when it comes to climate change.  A broad disconnect exists between scientists nearly accepting climate change at over 95% and the polarized view of Americas on this subject.  As a child, I did not do well at science in school.  I found the concepts to be hard.  If you would have told me as a child that I would be speaking about science now as a park ranger and a climate change communicator, I would not have believed you.

However I want to understand basic science definitions, so I do have a proper understanding when I do engage people on the subject of climate change, especially the contrarians.  This is where my friend, Carole Holomuzki, came to my rescue.  Since 2010, she has been a ranger colleague at Crater Lake National Park during the summers.  For the rest of the year, Carole teaches science classes at Ohio State University at the Mansfield campus.  When I met her in June, 2010, Carole had a way of explaining science to me in a crystal clear way I had never grasped before then.  She informed me that “science never proves.  Science explains.”


This was a big aha moment for me.  Before then, I incorrectly spoke phrases such as “scientists proving climate change.”  In a sense,  it liberated me to hear this because I struggled to “prove” to doubters that climate change exists.  I would get thrown off my game of explaining climate change when doubters would say to me, “Where is the proof of climate change?”.  Literally, I felt like I had my shackles removed because it was clear from this seasoned science teacher and friend that “The Goal of science is NOT to prove but to EXPLAIN some aspect of the natural world.”


Why doesn’t science prove?

Professor Carole Holomuski Image: mansfield.osu.edu

In 2010, Carole also generously shared her powerpoint that she uses to teach her Introductory Biology 101 class about science.  What jumped out at me was the quote Carole uses from the Eugenie Scott book, Creation vs. Evolution, “Science is ‘Truth without certainty.'”  Unsure what this quote meant, I e-mailed Carole about this yesterday.  Her response:

“Although we try to make sure that the data is at least 95% likely not to be due to chance, we always leave room for some other explanation to be the reason for what we are observing. Sometimes we know it’s so unlikely that we would find another explanation that we would think someone a fool for hesitating to accept our explanation (for instance, that the world is not flat, or that germs cause disease) but we NEVER PROVE.”

Even though science cannot prove, it can disprove.  NASA scientist Dr. Lin Chambers told me directly at a NASA & National Park Service Earth to Sky V: Communicating Climate Change Conference in Shepardstown, West Virginia last September that “My job as a scientist is to prove you are wrong.”  Prove or disprove, I was confused.  I e-mailed Dr. Chambers yesterday about my confusion.  Her response: While it is true that science pretty much never “proves” anything, it is definitely true that science can disprove things! Proof requires 100% CERTAINTY, which science really never provides. Disproof in some ways has a much lower bar.”


Dr. Chambers wanted me to add these examples of how it is easier to disprove than prove.  In very complex science like earth science, she wrote, “It can be relatively easy to show at the 95% confidence level that something is NOT true (I.e., the Sun’s variations do not account for the recent warming); it is harder to show at the same level of confidence that something IS true. For example, CO2 certainly has an effect on warming, but so do many feedbacks dependent on CO2, as well as volcanoes, aerosols, the Sun (in a small way), etc.”  A colleague of hers calls it, “Unscrambling the egg.”  Chambers stated is a big challenge for scientists to give a high certainty to each factor.


So Brian, what does this have to do with climate change?
Besides the public and my previous misconception about “science proves,”  there are so many other misconceptions about science.   When I chat with people who are dismissive of climate change, one of their biggest misconceptions is their understanding of the word THEORY.

The key to Science, especially climate science, is understanding what is a THEORY.
Critics of climate change, such as Newt Gingrich, refer to climate change as “just a theory.”  As if a theory is a flimsy item that is easily dismissed.  However scientists define the word theory different than the common street definition. As Carole explained to me, the common use of the word theory is a ‘best guess’ or idea.

However the scientific definition of a theory is ‘A comprehensive explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is supported by a vast body of evidence.’ (National Academey of Science)

Image:empireonline.com

You may have a theory (a guess or belief) that big foot exists. However, unless it is supported by a large body of evidence (live animals, DNA samples, etc), scientists will not support a scientific theory that bigfoot exists.

According to NASA, there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to the existence of human caused climate change, such as sea leve rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, declining sea ice, glacial retreat, increase in extreme weather events, and ocean acidifciation.

Carole also informed me that “scientists have a more detailed understanding of climate change than the physics of gravity.” Climate change is a very strongly supported theory of science. Unlike bigfoot or Newt Gingich’s understanding, it is not a belief, speculation or an just an idea.

Even more, as Carole tells her students, “The goal of science is to build THEORIES.”   This is a huge and vital statement because I recently had a critic of climate change confront me about this.  He was critical of climate science because the scientists, “borrow from each other’s work.  I am not hearing anything original.”  Scientists building on each other’s work is not a weakness of science, it is a strength.  This is how science progresses and keeps improving upon its ability to explain our world.  Furthermore, if a theory cannot generate new hypotheses (a possible explanation for a set of observations) and provide basis for new research, than it is generally not considered to be a good theory.  Theories are the building blocks of science, just as bricks are a vital material for someone building a house.

Public vs. Scientists perception of Facts vs. Theories
What is even more amazing from what I saw from Carole’s powerpoint is that I and the general public have an upsidedown view of the Hierarchy of Scientific Explanation.
Somehow, the public has the notion that in science:
Most Important: Fact
Law
Theory
Least Important: Hypothesis

However, scientists see the Hiearchy of Scientific Explanation completely different:
According to scientists:
Most Important:  Theory
Hypothesis
Law
Least Important:   Fact

What really surprised me from Carole’s teachings about science is “there is no level of scientific certainty higher than that of Theory!!!”  This is because theories are “supported by a large body of evidence and many observations.”  As mentioned in the previous section, this makes human caused climate change change an incredibly strong theory because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence and many observations to support it.   

However, people love to hear facts.  From Carole’s power point, science defines facts as “a confirmed observation or measurement.”  Facts are significant to scientists.  After all, facts “provide important conclusions to scientists.”  However, they not nearly as vital to scientists as theories and hypothesis.  The problem with facts, as Carole teaches her students, is that “facts do not explain.”  Again the goal of science is to “to EXPLAIN some aspect of the natural world.”


Science also makes discoveries that enables us to live better lives.
As I have become more interested in communicating about climate change with the public, it has troubled me to hear people bash science when they do not accept climate change.  They scoff at scientific uncertainty that scientists still debate the future consequences of climate change.  One of the biggest dissenters of climate change, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe focused on the uncertainties in a speech to the US Senate on April 8, 2005.  As evidence, he twisted the quotes from the National Academy of Sciences 2001 report, citing such phrases as “considerable uncertainty in current understanding,” “estimates should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments,” “because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability,” “uncertainties in the time histories of various forcing agents,” and “cannot be unequivocally established.”

Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis Image: en.wikipedia.org

Uncertainty in science is not a weakness of science, but it is a strength.  The theories, hypothesis, laws, and facts are not set in stone.  As theories are tested independently by other scientists and new evidence emerges, theories can be rejected, modified or accepted.  A great example why science should not be set in stone is the story of Hungarian Doctor Ignaz Semmelweis in the 1850s.  Dr. Semmelweis noticed too many mothers and children dying in his medical clinic.  His hypothesis was these deaths could be reduced by the medical staff washing their hands before handling patients, especially if medical staff came immediately from handling bodies at the adjacent morgue.  He ordered the staff to wash their hands.  The result was an immediate reduction of fatal puerperal fever from up over 10% of patients to 1 to 2%.  However, the scientific community responded with hostility because the accepted thought was an imbalance of “humors” within the body caused disease.  Dr. Semmelweis was shunned by other doctors, and he lost his job at the hospital where he worked and he soon died afterwards in insane asylum.  However, Semmelweis was vindicated after his death when Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease which provided a theoretical explanation for Semmelweis’ findings.

Author Paul Hawken Image: changingworld.com

Speaking of uncertainty in science as a strength,  I like what author Paul Hawken said about this in an e-mail to me:


“If (doubters of climate change) say the science is uncertain, you tell them that if the want certainty, it is called mathematics. science is uncertain, it never knows the final answer. that is its gift, that is why we keep making new discoveries, discoveries that have probably saved many lives in any room. we still do not fully understand the physics of gravity—much uncertainty there—but that doesn’t mean we jump out of skyscrapers.






The competitive nature of science has only strengthened the theory of climate change.

In the previous story about Dr. Semmelweis, you may wonder if the situation reverse today.  Could the entire scientific community be wrong and the few scientists who reject climate change be correct?  Fair question.  Dr. Chambers gave me great response to this in her e-mail:

NASA Scientist Dr. Lin Chambers

“Scientists are a competitive, nerdy bunch. We like to understand things, and we like to understand them better than the next guy. The idea that all scientists would blindly accept a “party line” on climate science is pretty ludicrous to anyone who is familiar with scientists. If someone really could prove that the idea is wrong they would have lasting fame. The basic modus operandi of a scientist is two-fold: 1) to observe and try to understand; 2) to poke at other scientists’ theories and try to see whether they hold up. Broadly speaking, climate science holds up. At this point, arguments are about details around the edges.”

Even the top scientists in America are still competitive about looking to find some way disprove climate change.  However, the vast amount of evidence climate science has made it impossible so far.

Dr. Ralph Cicerone. Image: atmos.washington.edu

Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the US Academy of Science, is one of the brightest and top scientific minds in the country. His research focused on atmospheric chemistry, the radiative forcing of climate change due to trace gases, and the sources of atmospheric methane, nitrous oxide and methyl halide gases.

He ended his lecture at the St. Louis Science Center on January 31, 2011, stating:

“I continue to think is there anything wrong with this picture (of climate change science) because scientists become rich and famous not by agreeing with everyone else. They become recognized by doing something different by showing that everyone else is wrong and doing something new, so I think about this all the time.

For 35 years, I have not been able to crack this thing (find ways to prove it as wrong). A lot of people who are smarter than me are always looking for new explanations. However, the consensus has come down stronger than ever that what we are seeing is due to the human enhanced greenhouse effect.”

In his 35 years as a scientist, if Dr. Ralph Cicerone found nothing wrong with the picture of the science of climate change, what makes you think you or Senator James Inhofe can easily dismiss it?

Here are 12 basic lessons I have learned so far:1. Science is very brief described as “Truth without certainty.”
2. Science never proves.  Science explains.
3. Proof requires 100% certainty, which science really never provides.

4. However, science can disprove things.
5. Science always leaves room for some other explanation.
6. The scientific definition of a theory is ‘A comprehensive explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is supported by a vast body of evidence.’
7. This is completely different than the common definition of theory, which is a ‘best guess,’ ‘hunch’ or idea.
8. Multiple lines of evidence point to the existence of human caused climate change, which makes climate change a very strong scientific theory.  Climate change is not some hunch or best guess.
9. No level of scientific certainty is higher than Theory.
10. The goal of science is to build THEORIES.
11. Uncertainty in science is not a weakness, but a strength.  Uncertainty, allows room for stronger and more useful explanations to emerge that can save lives.
12. Scientists are extremely competitive.  Try as they might, scientists have not been able to disprove that human are causing climate change.

 

Image: cdc.gov

My hope is that I will have a better grasp of science as I communicate to the public about climate change.  It seems like when scientists hand over their complex findings and conclusions about climate change to communicators like me, it can be as frightening for them as a father handing over the keys of his prized Porsche to his 16 year old child so they can hang out with their friends.  I have total respect of scientists’ dedicated and detailed work to provide the public the best explanation of what is happening to our global climate.  To me, it seems like the best way to honor their work is to convey science as accurately as I can.

 

 

I

The Arctic or North Pole fascinated me for years since this region is on the front line of climate change warming.  According to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the average annual temperature of the Arctic increased almost twice as much as the average annual global temperature over the past 100 years.  Even more, according to NOAA, the summer Arctic sea ice has declined by 40% since 1979.  For several years now, the polar bear has become the ‘poster child’ for climate change since it hunts for seals on solid Arctic ice that is now rapidly sinking.  With their bright white color, living at one of the harshest climates on earth, and their propensity to hunt people if given a chance, polar bears have always fascinated me.

Thus, I was thrilled to hear this winter that an IMAX movie focusing on polar bears, To The Arctic,was coming to the St. Louis Science Center.  Since I worked at Science Center this winter, I recently got to watch To The Arctic.  With my interest in climate change, I was even more thrilled to read the film’s synopsis on the Science Center’s website that “To The Arctic tells the story of one mother polar bear’s determination to keep her cubs alive in the face of natural predators and a rapidly changing climate.”  I found this movie to be very inspirational with very beautiful shots of the frozen north.

Besides, the movie was narrated by Meryl Streep, one of my top favorite actors.  The music was by Paul McCartney, one of my all time favorite musicians.  They both provide solid and fun contributions to the film.
The film was also produced and directed by Greg MacGillivay, who also made a IMAX movie that I really loved back in 2000, Dolphins.  This looked like an All-Star team to motivate me to see a film about polar bears and the Arctic.

I was also spellbound by the opening helicopter shots of the roaring waterfalls at the at the edges of the cliffs of ice.  Sadly, the film eludes to the greater flow of these waterfalls probably due to climate change.  As the film continued to show incredible Arctic footage, the film also stated that summer now in the Arctic now lasts a month longer than what it did just decades ago.  As the film showed sea life, it mentioned ‘greenhouse gases releases from thousands of miles away is making the ocean more acidic and tougher for the plants and sea stars to survive.’

The real stars of the movie though were the polar bears.  I loved the shots of the adults gracefully swimming in the water.  Who knew such a bulky land animal could swim so fluidly.  Of course, the shots of the polar bear cubs playing were so adorable.  The image that stuck with me though was the mother turning around to confront a male who was stalking her and her cubs.  She successfully convinced the male with a stern glare and stand not to mess with her offspring this time.  Unfortunately, the film informs us that often males are eating cubs more often, even if they prefer seals.  The mother’s steel determination to protect her young made me even more impressed with polar bears.

The central message of the movie about polar bears having a hard time adjusting to climate change seemed to be very effectively delivered.  It did not seem to me to be too preachy or depressing.  It just laid out the unvarnished truth about climate change in the Arctic.  The daunting threat to the long term survival of polar bears is the shrinking Arctic sea ice, now melting faster than ever.  Polar bears depend upon floating sea ice to catch their favorite meal, the ringed seal.  Unfortunately, the film shows that the distance between the sea ice is growing.  The warming is leaving bears ‘on thin ice.’  If the distance between sea ice is too wide, it becomes a deadly swim for the bears, especially the cubs.

By 2050, the Arctic ice cap will be reduced to just a small fringe on the coast of Canada and Greenland.  Few climate and Arctic scientists would dispute this fact stated in the film.  Some scientists are more cautious and say the Arctic will be ice free in the summer by 2080, others are looking at the trends in sea ice loss and projecting 2013.  Either way, this spells bad news for the majestic and awe-inspiring polar bears.

With the images and stark message, this is where the film challenges us to do what we can individually and collectively to reduce the threat of climate change.  For the film says, ‘Just as mother polar bear fiercely protects her young, perhaps it can inspire all of us to protect the Arctic habitat.’  I am not a parent, but the film certainly inspired me to do more.  Hopefully, this message of parental care will connect with mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, mentors, and teachers seeing this film.

For I love the written quote at the beginning of the film by renowned ocean scientist, Dr. Sylvia Earle:
“As mothers, the greatest gift we can pass along to our children is a healthy planet.”