Bruce Ross

While we're at it, why don't we debate whether or not Trump won the election?

Ralph Shapira

WOW Dick Hobby, that is a trifecta of nonsense. 

Daniel Miller

I'm sorry that Mr. Hobby's feelings have been hurt, but whining about it is a standard debate tactic when you have nothing to back up your position, divert attention to your feelings.  As he has shown, he has nothing because all he does is refer to "thousands of scientists" without identifying any of them or any of the evidence they have presented.  All he does is make statements with no foundation.  Indeed his statements are contradicted by the evidence.

There is a syndrome where people who believe in one conspiracy are prone to believe in others.  We have a good example here of someone who not only doesn't believe that GHG cause global warming, but he also doesn't believe in vaccinations, AIDS caused by HIV, and it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't believe in evolution, the moon landing, or the attacks on 9/11.  

One reason it is important to answer the conspiracists whenever they show up is illustrated by the evolution problems caused by the creationists.  Scientists allowed them to spew their BS into the pubic forum with no pushback.  Now we have a large percentage of the population totally unaware of the evidence for evolution and thus so much push against teaching science in high schools.  We can't let the same thing happen with global warming.  The fate of too many people is it risk.

Ralph Shapira

Lest the climate denier in our midst suck up all the air in our forum, I have my own crazy idea I’d like to run past this august group for reaction:  I think it’s a bad idea to recycle plastic.

Plastics are made from crude oil and natural gas.  Ninety percent of oil and gas is burned, releasing to the atmosphere the carbon dioxide that causes global warming.  But nearly 10% of crude oil and gas is used to make plastic.  At the end of its useful life those plastics are discarded, at which point they can go in one of two directions:  buried in landfills or recycled.  

If they are buried, i.e., NOT recycled, the oil and gas that made them is in effect returned to whence it came, and the carbon the plastics contain is NOT released to the atmosphere.  On the other hand, if the plastics are recycled, the hydrocarbon feedstock which recycling creates lessens the demand to make new plastic from oil and gas, and frees up more of it for burning.  

So simply put, it seems to me that recycling plastic causes more oil and gas to be burned.  That negative effect is exacerbated when one considers the energy the recycling process itself consumes.   

I'm not a scientist, and would be very interested in any thoughts you all may have about this.

Dick Hobby

Bruce Ross, Ralph Shapiro, and of course Daniel Miller, resort to condescension, derision, insult, bullying, smear in their attempt thereby to maintain the dominance of those currently in power.  

People who use such tactics only shine a spotlight on their own moral bankruptcy and call into question the scientific claims they make.

Compare and contrast this with the manner in which Paul Safyan engaged with me on these issues.  He expressed his disagreement with me but in an open and courteous way.  

Political Science 101:  Aristotle pointed out the fallacy of appeal to authority.  This is all that Miller et all are doing. But they only appeal to the "authorities" that are on the side they believe in.  They do not read in depth LIndzen or Duesberg or Kennedy and many others on the other side of these issues.  Instead they smear and ridicule such men.

Science is not determined by making claims of "vast majorities of scientists agree".  It is decided by evidence only.  Miller et al read only one side.  So how would they know whose evidence is more compelling?

So in summary:

1   appeal to authority is a fallacy and has nothing to do with good science

2    smear and condescension and insult and ridicule and bullying are the tactics of gangsters and those who engage in this are giving us gangster science.  Such people are not worthy of engaging in discussion

      It is therefore a waste of time for me or anyone to try to have a civilized conversation with them.

      Such tactics only emphasize how arrogant and petty and nasty they are.

      As my mother told me long ago:  "When Peter describes Paul you learn more about Peter than you do Paul."

      And so going forward I will not respond to anything Miller and his ilk say.

      I am however happy to engage in friendly conversation with Paul Safyan and Robert Dickinson and others who maintain civilized standards---whether they agree with me or not---because they are gentlemen not gangsters.

Dick Hobby

Paul Safyan

I'm sorry that like many discussions today in our diviided body politic, we have gone from what was a debate about the science to one that has become personal in attacking Dick Hobby and his sources.  While I disagree with Dick, I see that he has adopted sources of information contrary to the maority of scientists and seen that those sources line up with his beliefs and values.  I call everyone's attention to Don Salisbury's post which cites the current preponderance of evidence that is in opposition to many of Dick's sources and his assertions.  Again, I urge folks to stick with the sources of their knowledge and not to insult others personally.  I believe that kind of debate can still take place and that we are better for it when we don't drive one another into our respective corners by impugning their motives or their intelligence.  Still to your evidence without bullying.  It serves us all better as a community.  It is a defense and an engagment in democracy.

Edward McKelvey

I enter this exchange with some trepidation given the tone that has developed, so I'll say my piece and then step back into the shadows.

As I think is implicit in Bob Dickinson's comment, there are two distinct issues: (1) Have CO2 emissions played a significant role in climate change? (2) Is divestment from fossil-based energy producers an appropriate or effective response (presuming your answer to point 1 is "yes")?

I do not have anything to add to the debate on point 1 except to say that the existence of climate change is pretty obvious to those of us who live in the West, where weather patterns are clearly more extreme, a two-decade drought is the worst in 1,200 years, and record-breaking fires seem to be a monthly event.  How much of this is due to CO2 emissions and how much to other factors, whether (wo)man-made or natural, I cannot say based on personal knowledge.  Like most citizens I read what I can and attach considerable value to scientific consensus, knowing that this consensus is itself based on a more thorough (and usually) balanced assessment of the scientific validity of research through the peer review process.

I do have some thoughts on point 2.  I start from the premise that divestment by the Oberlin endowment would not have a meaningful effect on either the stock prices or the underlying profit fundamentals of the companies in question.  Obviously a more coordinated divestment by many investors could have an effect, but it seems to me that is an extremely high bar to clear.  And, if you did think you could affect the stock prices via divestment you would enhance returns to remaining stockholders to the extent your withdrawal from that market did not have a commensurate effect on profit fundamentals.

So here are a couple of alternative thoughts.  If the college is invested in these companies then those managing the portfolio must believe that they offer superior returns.  If not, then divestment becomes simply a matter of sensible portfolio management.  If so, why not allocate at least that portion of returns thought to be excess relative to the market to environmentally friendly purposes, such as scholarships for students who major in environmental studies or capital projects that help reduce the carbon footprint of the college?  And, if you maintain the belief that divestment can have a significant effect on stock prices and/or profit fundamentals then does it not follow that maintaining the investment gives you enough voting power within the company to lobby effectively for actions that are more environmentally sustainable, while still reaping the (presumably excess) returns?

Don't get me wrong...I don't believe this last proposition.  I merely point out that it is implicit in the expectation that divestment will have a significant impact on the futures of these companies.  For those who just don't want to earn dirty money, my first idea--extended to cover all returns from fossil-based investments--offers an alternative that I think is more beneficial to the college and its various stakeholders.

Paul Safyan

To respond briefly to Bob Dickinson's question, Bob you and I would disagree on the level of investment in renewables vs. the danger of continued oil, gas, and coal exploration in which the power and energy companies engage.  I have no doubt that you are better informed about the financials here than I, but I "listen" to the information I receive on this matter that leads to my viewpoint.

The purpose of the divestment "CALL" as we are terming it is to get Oberlin to be consistent in its goal of reducing carbon emissions in its infrastructure and in its investment portfolio.  You and I might disagree on the advisability of what Oberlin has determined to do about carbon emissions on campus with its new HVAC/Geothermal system.  But the letter to the board is aimed to say, "If you guys truly want to reduce carbon, then go public and say that you are also doing this in where your investment dollars are going."  Does that make sense from an internal logic sense, even though you may not agree with the premise of constraining the companies. And no, I don't think we are going to drive the companies out of business.  I think they ARE going to get on board in the new energy environment.

Edward McKelvey

Think of it as environmental money laundering.

Dick Hobby

     Thank you, Paul, for stepping in to discourage uncivilized behavior here.

      Perhaps it caused Edward McKelvey to give us his perspective.  He certainly has done it in a thoughtful way.  Thank you, Edward.  I disagree with you, Edward, but it is a pleasure hearing you and engaging with you.

Dick Hobby

Ted Morgan

To Bob Dickinson, here's my take on the "logic of divestment" in the fossil fuel industry:

First of all, divestment, along with economic sanctions (in part politically prompted by the divestment campaign) were hugely responsible for the fall of South Africa's apartheid system.  Along with growing unrest in South Africa, thanks to the ANC campaign, the divestment campaign was a factor in several corporations withdrawing their investments in SA.  So divestment undertaken via a collective campaign can have a powerful political impact on both political and economic actors.

The fossil-fuel divestment campaign has been growing on many campuses.  I guess the question might be, should Oberlin play a progressive role, or lag behind until it seems safer to act?

The fossil fuel industry includes enormously powerful political actors, and, especially in the case of Exxon, they hid their own awareness of their negative impact on climate for years, maybe decades,  Yes, some of these corporations are investing more in sustainable energies.  The point of divestment is well known to them: phase out of fossil fuels and invest more in sustainable energy.

That all seems logical to me.

Richard Zitrin

A brief comment designed to not add fuel to the fire. But ... ya never know....

I agree about one thing Dick Hobby has said in recent posts: That Paul Safyan was "thoughtful, courteous, and open." He always is.

I don't think Dick's critics have a monopoly on condescension or some other long nouns. He's pretty good at it himself.

Finally, I agree with Ralph Shapira about recyling plastics. While I'm no scientist, I do read stuff. And what I've read causes me to conclude, sadly, that the public has again had the wool pulled over its eyes while the plastics industry gets away with what is largely a faux-environmental idea.

rich

Bernie Mayer

As with several you, I am entering into this discussion with some trepidation, mostly because I want to challenge a norm that seems to be underlying many of the comments and I am not feeling very polite.

 I think the call for civility and politeness is a cop out.  That is the defense that people of privilege have always used to put down the passion and anger of the oppressed or those fighting for progressive social change.

Grading how polite, even-handed, and respectful someone is in the face of nonsense about climate change, vaccines, HIV, and no doubt guns and more, is pretty much like worrying about the deck chair arrangement on the Titanic.  We are facing a catastrophe of epic proportions, and we are worrying about how polite we are being?

Take a look at this excellent op ed piece by Roxane Gay from the NY Times of May 25 for an important perspective on this. ( Or for that matter, take a look at this book I co-authored that came out earlier this year about what social change requires—sorry to self-promote but it is what I have been thinking, writing, and speaking about for quite a while.)

I am thankful for the careful, thoughtful and knowledgeable responses of Daniel Miller, Don Salisbury, and others about the science involved in climate change.  I also appreciate the clarity, directness and poignance of Ralph Shapira, Rich Zitrin, Ted Morgan and others.  I think Paul’s efforts to encourage a frank exchange about our differences is valuable.  And I am more than happy to hear the opinions of people I disagree with and to share mine.  But don’t expect me or others to respond to dangerous nonsense in a polite or dispassionate way,  We will not address our most fundamental problems by polite and respectful discourse but by engaging in movements for change. These movements (and I agree with Ted's analysis of this) require passion and as John Lewis put it ‘getting into good trouble, necessary trouble.”

I am all for keeping a multi-voiced dialogue going, but please let’s speak to what is really important and not hide behind “rational discourse” (the favorite phrase of President Robert Carr when he was trying to shut down anti-war protests at Oberlin when we were students).

Daniel Miller

We have the ice caps at both poles losing ice faster than it is being formed along with loss of glaciers everywhere.  And the rate at which they are losing ice is increasing over time.

We have warming in the Arctic region faster than the rest of the world so that the jet stream is losing force and wandering all over the place allowing Arctic weather to descend as far as the southern US.

Each decade in the last 40 years has been hotter than the previous one.

We have a drought covering most of the western US so bad that the last one was approximately 1200 years ago and destroyed the Anasazi civilization.  Reservoirs are way below any of their former levels.

We have minidroughts in the areas which have more rainfall than before so that during the two to three weeks with no rainfall because of the increaed heat the evapotranspiration rate has been great enough to affect plant growth.

We have arthropod vectors (ticks, mosquitoes, flies) moving north to areas where previously it was too cold to survive so now we have diseases (Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever, Zika and Dengue, blue tongue) moving into areas where they never existed.

We have birds and fish native to the Mediterranean area showing up in Great Britain.

Spring is starting weeks earlier and winter is starting weeks later than previously.  Ask the Wisconsin ice fishermen and snowmobilers.  Because of that the price of olive oil is going through the roof because a pest of olives now has four generations rather than three a summer.

We have sea level rise to the point that now shore cities have streets flooded during high tide and the forests that grew in the Keys are dying from salt infiltration.

Back in 1865 a woman scientist showed that CO2 was a GHG.

We have measured the output of GHG caused by human behavior and have shown that it is responsible for global warming.

We have warming in the Atlantic and particularly the Gulf causing increased strength of hurricanes and more level 3 - 5 hurricanes than in recorded history.  

Each UN report by the people who are actually studying the phenomenon is worse than the previous report.  But we are assured with no evidence whatsoever that thousands of scientists are engaged in some sort of a conspiracy to fabricate evidence  

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452

And yet we have people quoting a contrarian (Lindzen) without explaining the logic as if they were some sort of authority sent by God denying that this is happening.

Aside 1: In addition, these people claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV citing another "authority" who has been rejected by the evidence, and again, no evidence for the pronouncement is offered.  

Everyone with AIDS is also infected with HIV.  No one not infected with HIV has ever developed AIDS.  Infecting a person with HIV is likely to result in AIDS (Koch's postulates).  

When you treat an AIDS person with drugs that prevent HIV from reproducing, the sick people recover and their level of HIV drops to low to undetectable levels.  A few people who are in constant risk of being infected with HIV (prostitutes in East Africa) never develop AIDS or HIV infection.  Closer examination show that they have a mutation of the receptor site that prevents HIV from attaching to their cells.  

Aside 2: Citing another authority (Robert Kennedy, a politician), some people maintain that vaccinations are more dangerous than the disease they prevent without presenting any evidence whatsoever.  You will notice that the people who know Kennedy best, his family, say he is off his rocker and needs to be ignored.  But, of course, they are part of the conspiracy.

Edward McKelvey

Once again we need to distinguish between two things: divestment and sanctions.  Both were at work with South Africa, so it's hard to say which dealt the ultimate blow.  We do see a number of other situations, including presently with Russia and Iran, where sanctions operate with considerable effect and overt efforts at divestment are not much in evidence.  Correct me if I'm wrong on this.  By the same token, efforts to divest from fossil-based energy companies and other bad actors have been around for many years, with no discernible effect as far as I can tell.

I agree with Ted that coordinated actions on a large enough scale could conceivably work, but I firmly believe that the prospects for success would be much better from the domestic equivalent of sanctions, namely changes in behavior on energy use itself.  Stated in financial terms this would be a direct attack on the revenues and profits of energy companies, which in turn are the underlying fundamentals of their stock prices.  If enough people and companies took this route we would not even talk about divestment because the stocks would not be attractive on basic return considerations.  Governments could help both by altering their own behavior and by taxing fossil fuels much more heavily than they now do.  (I have to laugh when Americans get all torqued up at $5/gallon gasoline when the cost in Europe is roughly double that.  Large increases in gas taxes would have to be coupled with other measures, like making the tax code more progressive, to offset the adverse effects on lower income households.)

In contrast to sanctions, I think coordinated divestment runs into the problem I mentioned in my earlier post.  Absent a change in the fundamentals you sell your stock to another investor, whose expected return increases to the extent you sell at a reduced price.  Given the depth of the US capital markets and the availability of many institutional investors who see their job -- rightly in most people's minds -- as trying to maximize returns for their clients (and also for themselves), I think the bar for effective divestment is extraordinarily high.  Put differently, divestment -- even by many actors in the markets -- is more likely to enhance the returns to investors who are disinclined to play ball.  Under these circumstances why not collect those returns instead and direct them to environmentally sustainable purposes?  Or, if newly public companies in the renewable energy space offer more attractive returns at acceptable risk, then shift funds to them -- but this is simply sound portfolio management, nothing more.

Paula Gordon

Well, Gentlemen (and I see a glaring absence  here of women, gentle or otherwise) you have just been spared my perhaps over-long and undeniably elegant response to the responses.  The system and I managed that together.

Suffice it to say, I was *honored* to be among those initiating (thank you Paul Safyan for inviting ALL of us to do so) the excellent letter to the Board of Trustees, strongly urging to PUBLICly act to align the campus environmental efforts with our fiscal ones.

To summarize my loving words to you all, I turn first to My Congressman of 30+ years, speaking from the wisdom tradition of West Africa:"When you pray, move your feet!" 

Closer to home, Bayard Rustin's articulation -- in the American Friends Service Committee 1955's pamphlet of the same name -- provides the clarion call which guides my own life: "Speak Truth To Power"*.

I have been privileged to be enlightened by both.

Let The (Sovereign) People say... Amen, AWOMEN!

P.S.  PLASTIC??   KEEP [ALL fossil fuels] IN THE GROUND triumphs over any way-shape-form treatment of petrochemical's evil spawn.

*https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/american-friends-service-committee/

Paul Safyan

Thanks to Bernie Mayer for calling attention both to the place of passion and to Ralph Shapira's calling out a petroeum-industry-related problem:  the waste residual of single use plastics.  My comments weren't intended just to encourage civility which I think helps to keep the dialog going.  That's democracy we don't have much today.  I also support the scientist and economists who  stick to the data, not the citing of particular sourcess as "superior".  Most of us see evidence of climate change; most of us believe fervently from what we read and hear that there is a finance-based human underlying cause for this. Those that don't cite "evidence" of alternaives, but there seems to be less of that.  As a matter of policy, if most scientists think these human causes are significant, it's time we apply our knowledge to do something about it. That "experiment" is the one we need to conduct.

Steve Kravitz

The late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan must have had someone like Dick Hobby in mind when he said 

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

Dick Hobby

My closing remarks:

1   There is no point to trying have a conversation with people who think that insult, smear, condescension, and intimidation are legitimate and then when this is pointed out the response is:  oh stop whining.

2    Robert Kennedy Jr---like his father before him---is a national hero.  He points out that the vaccines cause death and serious injury.  People on this forum think that because his relatives smear him then somehow they are great for doing this and his ideas---in his talks, his articles, and his book The Real Anthony Fauci---are somehow wrong.

3    A serious scientific inquiry requires both sides to be heard---as if in a court:  witness for the prosecution, cross examination, redirect, witness for the defense, cross examination, redirect, back and forth, witness after witness, again and again and again.  This allows the judge/jury to have the best chance of determining the truth or falsehood of the allegation/hypothesis.   Just repeating what experts from just one side say is an echo chamber that will inevitably lead to the obvious self-congratulatory conclusion.

4    Anything other than this approach is about power and winning is the object---not a genuine search for the truth.  It becomes political.

5    Treating people with respect and looking at both sides openly is essential.   Otherwise things quickly become boring and a complete waste of time.

Dick Hobby

Dick Hobby

 
PS:   Having used this approach---listening to BOTH sides openly and carefully---I repeat my conclusions:

1   Lindzen is right:  CO2 is a harmless trace gas and global warming is not a problem

2   Duesberg is right:  AIDS is not caused by HIV

3   Kennedy is right:   the vaccines are very dangerous---they cause death and serious injury

Dick Hobby

Robert Wolfe

A lot of good ideas and a lot of information flowing here! All inspired by the work of a few who invested their time to draft a petition to the board. Few! = For Everyone's Welfare! Thank you to the Few!

I have a reaction to Ed's support for the well-established idea of a carbon tax. The idea is appropriate, fair, and necessary. However, the word "Tax" is wrong for many reasons. The fossil fuel industry has been getting away with massive theft by not paying for the damages that it causes. How much of our defense budget is to protect the fossil fuel industry relationships in the Middle East and elsewhere? How much of the cost of floods, forest fires, drought, crop failures, famine, and pollution clean-up is to clean up the messes that the fossil fuel industry gets away with? I posit that the percentage caused by burning fossil fuels is well over 10% of each of these. Maybe closer to 30%. We could add up these costs each year, divide by an appropriate measure of carbon fuel consumed that year, and charge the suppliers of carbon fuel for last year's cost with a fee which is applied to consumption the subsequent year. This would be a direct fee for costs incurred.

So, let's call it what it is. Rather than a Carbon Tax, I propose a PHEW! fee on fossil fuels. PHEW! is an acronym for Pollution, Health, Environment, and Weather! PHEW!

OK, so I am not a very good poet.

Richard Zitrin

I LOVE Robert's idea of not calling it a "tax." Labeling can be more important than substance, sad to say, particularly in the hyper-social-media era. Just look at "Defund the Police" instead of "Reform the Police." The left seems to have a monopoly on lousy branding. "Black Lives Matter Too" instead of "Black Lives Matter" would have eliminated "White Lives Matter Too." (Bad) labels and branding: HATE 'em.

Rich

Ralph Shapira

Good points about branding, Rich.  Enjoy your contributions!

Paul Safyan

Citizens' Climate Lobby has struggled with this terminology for over 10 years in their efforts to get "carrot and stick" incentives for carbon usage and production.  Their plan rebates the carbon fee to consumers during early stages of implementation.  I'm not fully behind the idea, but it's been there awhile.

Robert Wolfe

Paul, 
What concerns do you have about a fee? Whether it is a tax or a fee, the cost of fossil fuels will be passed on to the consumer. Unfortunately, the cost will fall disproportionally on lower income people. But the indirect costs of fossil fuels are real and should be reflected in the price paid for fossil fuels.  Rather than providing financial subidies for the failed fossil fuel industry through redirecting assets to that sector, perhaps we should direct assets to income redistribution (guaranteed income?) and then let the people speak through their spending patterns about whether they want to buy expensive fossil fuels. I apologize for asking a question and then giving a projected response before hearing your answer, but feel free to ignnore my prospective comments.