Higher Education in a Warming World

Last night about 200 people came to Thomas building to hear and see "Changing the Moral Climate on Climate Change."  The Centre Daily Times reports today:

Penn State professors Michael Mann, Donald Brown, Janet Swim and Rick Schuhmann, and graduate student Peter Buckland spoke Monday evening at “Changing the Moral Climate on Climate Change,” a talk that focused on climate change denial. Mann is director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center and part of the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Susannah Barsom, with the university’s Center for Sustainability, moderated the event, which included a question and answer session.  

See images of the event here or our sister publication, Voices of Central Pennsylvania.

The five speakers walked the audience through the dilemmas climate change, climate change disinformation and various kinds of climate change denial create. In particular,  they addressed why and how universities should do better to confront these issues.

Mann Scores a Goal with Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars

In his new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Dr. Michael E. Mann (pic at left from Scientific American) recounts a moment on the Great Wall of China just months before his daughter was born. He wonders about “what sort of world our new child and her generation would inherit.” It will be…No. It already is a world whose land and climate industrial humans have radically changed. The only truly moral response from any father must be to work for a world that mitigates human impacts on the climate so that his daughter and her children and her children’s children can live well and live happily. That means reducing our reliance on fossil fuel and creating new strategies – moral, behavioral, and technological – for living today and living tomorrow.

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars is a combination of personal storytelling, reflection, and science education that grants readers a tour of climate science. More importantly it shows us how our political process has been poisoned by shameless and corrupt interests. Reading Mann’s work is to get a sense of what it means to strive for thorough and important work as a “gee whiz” kid. But then we witness the “gee whiz” kid get schooled in the art of power politics and come out having outsmarted his opponents. For now anyway.

In 2009, I read story after story about hackers who’d stolen emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and then released them. Journalists, eager for the next headline, ripped chunks from the climate change disinformation narrative. Thus was born “Climategate,” a shameful continuation of attacks on climate scientists by ideologues and fossil-fuel-funded institutes. Among the primary targets were "Penn State geosciences professor Dr. Michael Mann, co-winner [with many others] of the Nobel Prize in 2007 for his work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the hockey stick" graph.

Denialism, Hockey Sticks, Climate Wars, and Radicalism

Today I went to Dr. Michael Mann's talk at the Penn State Forum, "Confronting the Climate Change Challenge." It was a talk meant to prelude and outline his forthcoming book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. In it, he laid out the scientific case for climate change, the validity of "the hockey stick" and climate change models since James Hansen's in the 1980s, and the subsequent valid predictions climate scientists have made. Depending on our fossil fuel choices, we will have different futures.

Already we have a world where gardeners, hikers, hunters, anglers, and farmers already see climate change in North America. Species of plants and animals are migrating north for warmer temperatures. Others, ill-adapted for a warmer world including polar bears and walruses, are being selected out. The world is changing and it's getting plainer and plainer to see. It's common sense for attentive people to see.

But common sense is exactly what seems to be lacking, especially by people who claim to be at the front of the The Common Sense Movement, a coal industry front group that bought ads on local radio attacking Mann's credibility and climate science (see here). This group joined dozens of other industry astroturf groups (fake grassroots movement) and public relations moves by the merchants of doubt to scientize politics. It is, as Mann noted today, a way to "wage politics as usual...to use science as a political football," including the climate denialism and sought-after political and professional persecution campaigns of current Republican presidential candidates, Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok), Representative Joe Barton (R-Tx), and the Republican Attorney General of Virginia. Mann, in short, has been the victim of a Republican War on Science. Climate science anyway. (David Frum and Kevin Silber have tried to point out that republicans aren't universally opposed to science.)

And it was interesting to hear Mann respond to questions. A lot about dealing with the "merchants of doubt" as Oreskes has called them and combating climate denialism. He dealt with being a political football. With education. With capitalism. Interestingly, he didn't attack capitalism but instead attacked the way we've structured our economy. Capitalism "has been stacked" he said. Toward what? Fossil fuel economics. In so many words, he was referring to sunk costs.

But what some of you might be most interested in was how he discussed shale gas drilling.

He talked about its lower carbon footprint as a burned fuel. It is "cleaner burning" with roughly one half the carbon footprint of coal per btu. However, and I think this might have stunned the powers that be, he cited a study released in the last week that showing that fugitive emissions from shale gas drilling might nullify the carbon benefits of burning natural gas. With 105 times the climate forcing potential over a 20-year span, methane leaked at 4% from shale gas operations demolishes the climate bridge fuel argument. As he seems to like to do, and many academics do for good reasons, he encouraged us to have discussions with evidence before us.

From a more radical sustainability view, some people would find Mann's talk a little disappointing. The personal steps he has taken (or at least the stated ones) were technological household fixes like changing lightbulbs and using lower-energy appliances. Don't get me wrong by any means, do it. But given our guest last week Richard Kahn, it seems that deeper and deeper transformations are needed. Mann certainly confronts the status quo of the big fossil fuel industry, but there was no call for a radical restructuring of all society right now. But...and it's a big BUT...he recognizes that climate change is a civilization-challenging issue.

Alarm? Yes. Alarmist? Maybe. Radical? Not really. I'd actually call him pretty calm.

Calm or not. You have to get a picture with a Nobel-Prize sharer.

Attacking the messenger is the coal lobby's favorite tactic

In case you haven't been following, Dr. Michael Mann is under attack by the merchants of doubt. Again. As if the manufactured extreme doubt of the odiously named "Climategate" scandal two years ago weren't enough, the climate ostriches have restarted a fullscale character assassination and attempts at blacklisting campaign.

Mann created one of climate sciences most enduring images, "the hockey stick." The image shows the unequivocal correlation between rising annual temperatures and rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's the best visual out there showing us that humans burning fossil fuels causes climate change. Burning coal, oil, and natural gas releases CO2 into the atmosphere. It's very simple. But the ostriches and the industry-financed doubt mongerers who laughably call themselves skeptics are throwing their money behind propaganda campaigns to silence voices of reason.

One local radio station WBUS has been airing an ad asking listeners to ask Penn State to cancel an upcoming talk by Mann. Who's behind it?

The Common Sense Movement, a coal industry front group with a PAC called Secure Energy for America Political Action Committee (SEAPAC). They have a stock letter-writing campaign that sews doubt where there is a great deal of certainty on climate impacts.

On February 9th, the Penn State Forum Speaker’s Series is featuring
Professor Michael Mann in a speech regarding global warming. This is the same
professor who is at the center of the ‘Climategate’ controversy for
allegedly manipulating scientific data to align with his extreme political
views on global warming. Join us in calling on the administrators of Penn State
to end its support of Michael Mann and his radical agenda.

It attacks Mann's credibility, calling him "disgraced." Mann was cleared of all alleged scientific wrongdoing by Penn State and National Academy of Sciences and other investigations. So if by disgraced they mean one of the most decorated climate scientists at Penn State today and one of the most distinguished scientists in the world, I guess that's accurate. Somehow, I suspect they mean something else.

No doubt the laughably named Common Sense Movement is upset because Mann has a new book coming out called The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars that takes the denial machine to task and explains very clearly that climate science shows us we are in a very bad place regarding climate stability. The summary reads:

The Hockey Stick became a central icon in the “climate wars,” and
well-funded science deniers immediately attacked the chart and the scientists
responsible for it. Yet the controversy has had little to do with the depicted
temperature rise and much more with the perceived threat the graph posed to
those who oppose governmental regulation and other restraints to protect our
environment and planet. Michael E. Mann, lead author of the original paper in
which the Hockey Stick first appeared, shares the real story of the science and
politics behind this controversy. He introduces key figures in the oil and
energy industries, and the media front groups who do their bidding in sometimes
slick, bare-knuckled ways to cast doubt on the science. Mann concludes with an
account of the “Climategate” scandal, the 2009 hacking of climate scientists’
emails. Throughout, Mann reveals the role of science deniers, abetted by an
uninformed media, in once again diverting attention away from one of the central
scientific and policy issues of our time.

The worst of the worst are the polluting fossil fuel industries are hellbent on maintaining their grip on government, policy, regulation, and the market. If they leash the other powers that be, then renewables will be delayed and the CEOs of the corporate kleptocracy can keep us leashed.

This is a perfect example of Don Brown's arguments about ethics in climate change messaging. These include:

Lying Or Reckless Disregard For the Truth
Focusing On Unknowns While Ignoring The Knowns.
Specious Claims Of "Bad" Science
Creation of Front Groups
Manufacturing Bogus Climate Science
Think Tank Campaigns
Misleading PR Campaigns
Creation of Astroturf Groups
Cyber-bullying Scientists and Journalists

Lying, specious claims, and cyber-bullying accounted for. Definitely a front group using a misleading PR campaign. It's hogwash from beginning to end. Unethical is the nice way to refer to this kind of bile. I prefer to call it toxic "bullshit" meaning it is both lying and nonsense.

Interestingly, people have been taking the Common Sense Movement to task. They've attempted to hijack the letter-writing campaign. They've gone to the group's Facebook page (which has apparently stopped fans from leaving comments). They've urged WBUS to yank the commercial. Others are calling Penn State President Rodney Erickson and telling them they support Mann.

The blogosphere is up in arms about it too. Andy Revkin and Joe Romm have pieces up.

What is a university if not a place for challenging ideas and practices? By the Common Sense Movement's actions it's a place for corporately controlled speech and the unfettered pollution and bought speech.

Not at my university.

Michael Mann's name cleared by Penn State investigation

This in from Climate Science Watch, the New York Times, and DotEarth: Michael Mann, a climate scientist and professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences has been exonerated of the charges that he had violated accepted scientific practice. This is only the end of this part of the climate denialism movement though.

Watch an interview conducted with him yesterday on his exoneration.



We dealt with this topic earlier this year when we hosted Ed Perry of the National Wildlife Federation who called so-called "Climategate" a sham. Listen here.

Michael Mann on the climate dust-up

Michael Mann is a peer of Richard Alley from last week's show. They both study climate and have come to the conclusion that industrial humans have induced climate change. Mann has been on the receiving end of some pretty horrendous accusations in the past months, accusations we have dealt with on Sustainability Now with students, with Ed Perry of the National Wildlife Federation, and the ethical implications of which we have tackled with Don Brown.

For various reasons, we haven't been able to get Dr. Mann on the show (though we will still pursue it). In our stead, we provide you with an excellent link to his conversation with Chris Mooney at Point of Inquiry. Mooney is the author of the excellent books The Republican War on Science and blogger at The Intersection. Enjoy.

What do scientists think about stolen emails?

Today, when we talk with Ed Perry, Outreach Coordinator of the Global Warming Campaign of the National Wildlife Federation, we will be discussing the witch hunt by members of the Young Americans for Freedom, the 9.12 Project, and the Commonwealth Foundation who have used stolen emails as one more pretext for attacking climate science in general as well as particular climate scientists. Mr. Perry has told local news, "What we see here is a character assassination of [Michael Mann] who has submitted articles in peer reviewed scientific journals that have been vetted by other scientists and his character's being assassinated.” Co-host of this show, Peter Buckland, told another local news outlet, "This going after Michael Mann is really just kind of this way of manufacturing a controversy which is meant to fuel denial of climate change."

Mann has been exonerated of 3 of 4 charges by an investigative team at Penn State. One more charge is being taken up by another panel with more expertise on the particular charge. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has stated that it supports these investigations and finds them appropriate.

Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasized that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists. The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations.

These seem reasonable measures to many. Some say that YAF, the 9.12 Project, and the Commonwealth Foundation and their corporate and think tank backers think that climate science is guilty until found innocent which they think is impossible because it's guilty. As one science teacher recently told me, "They won't let go until they get the answer they want."

What do scientists think of these shenanigans?

Two letters were recently submitted from prominent scientists and organizations asserting that climate change is real, thoroughly supported through the scientific enterprise, and that we must act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (like CO2) immediately. On December 4th, 2009 (updated December 7th), 29 scientists wrote "An Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails" that states:

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.

We would like to set the record straight.

The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.

The signatories on that letter come from environmental, biological, physical, chemical, and atmospheric scientists from the United States' most prestigious and elite universities and organizations including the Union of Concerned Scientists, Harvard, MIT, Rutgers, Ohio State, Rice, UC San Diego, and Stanford.

The letter above reaffirms an October 21, 2009 letter, itself a reaffirmation of a 2006 statement, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Statistical Association, and 13 other scientific organizations. They write:

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver...

If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.

Scientists had good reason to believe that this was occurring almost fifty years ago and the evidence today is incontrovertible. As the AAAS has stated elsewhere, “the pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.” The scientists in relevant fields think these emails are a distracting political ploys. Manufactured controversies.

So why the misdirection? What are the motives behind the climate denialist movement? What can you do about it? Listen today, Friday February 26th from 4-5 pm and get the scoop from Ed Perry.

Taking the gate off of Climategate: Ed Perry talks climate change's reality

On this week's show we will be tackling one of the most contentious battles on the sustainability scene - climate change denialism. Rush Limbaugh summed up the position like this on December 11, 2009: "When I talk to people who believe in this global warming crap… it's fake science. They may have educations and degrees that say they are scientists, but they're not. They're political hacks and leftists."

The climate denialists have waged a war against sound science for the last decade. They have circulated petitions that ask prominent academics to agree to statements that read, "Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." Much of this misinformation is spread by media figures like Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck worked in concert with powerful politicians like former President George W. Bush and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) and mega-corporations and their front groups like ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Coal Council to block sound science and place prominent scientists in virtual kangaroo courts. All because their power is threatened. But they have prevented meaningful action domestically and at the international level.

Our guest this week is something of an expert on these matters. Ed Perry (on the left in picture taken from targetglobalwarming.net) is the Pennsylvania Outreach Coordinator for the Global Warming Campaign of the National Wildlife Federation. The NWF says that "Global warming is the biggest threat to wildlife." Why? What is to be done about it?

Mr. Perry will be joining us to discuss the science behind our understanding of climate change and the unique threats it presents, the history of climate change denialism and the denialist movement's activities. We will also discuss the dust-up over so-called "Climategate" at Penn State is about, something Mr. Perry has said is a piece of "character assassination" of Michael Mann, one of Penn State's most respected climate scientists. Finally, we will discuss what everyday people can and should be doing about climate change, both politically and personally.

---

For an excellent video on the issue of climate denialism, Mr. Perry strongly suggests watching this piece "The American Denial of Global Warming" from University of California Television. President Lyndon B. Johnson even knew that we were tinkering with the atmosphere: "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through… a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”

Students are the heart of the sustainability movement

Mike and Peter are back this spring 2010 with Sustainability Now radio on The Lion 90.7. Every Friday from 4-5 pm we will be bringing you the latest on sustainability at Penn State, the Centre Region, Pennsylvania, and beyond. There is no shortage of great practices from people here working together to make our world a better place to live. Not just to live, but to flourish.

From the slow and steady work in local soil by gardeners, farmers, and children to large-scale agricultural work, understanding the climate, and working for justice on global climate change, we will be talking with and reporting on some big issues. Look for us to be around campus and the Centre region to talk to you on the street too. We want to meet you and hear what you have to say about bringing us to live abundant lives that we can sustain in a more healthy relationship with other organisms.

The sustainability movement would be nothing without college students. When the environmental movement began almost forty years ago, students were its greatest advocates. Awakened by the environmental work of Rachel Carson and Aldo Leopold and the social justice movements of Martin Luther King, Jr, Malcolm X, and the women's liberation movment, students began to see non-human nature as needing human advocates. The voiceless needed a voice.

And today, we are will be talking with students from two of Penn State's environmental groups. Jared Blumer is an officer in Penn State's 3E-COE [*], a group of current and future teachers working on getting sustainability into schools. Over the last year, they have been fighting to get Penn State to ban the sale of Aquafina. Why? Even more, what do they think should be happening in schools? Kevin May and Kelley Cresswell are in Penn State's EcoAction, the longest running student environmental group at Penn State. We'll talk about their action on the Kleercut campaign and the future of environmentalism. Where are we going?

Both groups recently joined a counter-protest against one staged by Penn State's Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) and the 9.12 Project who have been calling for an independent investigation on Michael Mann regarding the so-called "Climategate" issue. Why did they come out? You can watch local news or read an article on the protest, read YAF president Sam Settle's letter to the editor on an investigation, and read Michael Mann's recent Voices article on climate change (pdf). We want to hear what this means for environmental work here at Penn State.

Call in 814-865-WKPS (9577) or AIM us: TheLION907.

[*] Peter Buckland is the president of 3E-COE.