I joined my local chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby a couple months ago. This group is amazing on many fronts, but perhaps most prominently (for me) because I am made to feel exuberantly young, strikingly vibrant, and best, super tech-savvy (yes, me). You see, the mean age of the CCL Denver chapter’s member is about 60 – folks who are well into retirement! Clearly for me this offers a rather favorable comparison ;-) But all jokes aside, my short time in teaming up with this organization – these people – has easily provided me with more than I have given in return, perhaps more than I ever could. These are some of the coolest, kindest, intelligent, non-judgmental listeners and doers when it comes to engaging our community and our political leaders to act on climate change. They are teaching me subtle – and sometimes not-so-subtle – lessons on how to work with our political system (a ‘system’ to which I more commonly refer to as a ‘game’). They also know how locate the ‘wins’ from our efforts – no matter how far or few in between. These are wins that often pop up amongst a series of pitfalls, pushbacks and being blatantly ignored or overshadowed by big money and even bigger oil. One of these small wins was a recent op-ed written (and published) by one of our own. By the way, if you’re not familiar with this process, when it comes to pieces that are ‘Opposite the Editorial Page’ or ‘Letters to the Editor’, the writing process is its very own beast. You see, there’s math involved. And the math goes a bit like this: for every couple hundred well-written pieces, maybe a small handful will generate a response from the publication’s editing point of contact (that is, if you’re smart, shrewd, hyper-aware of current issues, and ready to appeal to the exact tastes of the particular publication’s editor in chief and the targeted distribution). Then, for every couple dozen of those pieces that generate a response, you’re lucky if one of the submissions is actually published. Thus, 200 > 12 > 1 (and that’s if you’re lucky!) So, I read the lucky article. Found it well-written. Factual. Brief. The author has a clear bias towards the positives of the revenue-neutral tax, but was not at all ‘sales-ey’. But the details of the piece are of less importance when it comes to writing this blog; it’s what ensued that matters. And here is where my lesson begins. This girl – or perhaps the inner, secret masochist version of this girl – decided to read on. Read beyond the letter. And read on she did. Without passing go and without collected $200, she entered… the Comments Section. Call this action a bit naïve. But, in my defense, guys, I write blogs. I am thrilled and beyond-words-excited when I get comments on my own writing!! So, well, I guess when I saw that there were nearly 50 comments (today over 100) to this single op-ed, I figured, wow, there’s got to be some good stuff in there! Or at least some healthy debate? Right?! Yeah?!?! Yeaaaaaaah no. Those who know me, know that I try to live my life and treat my fellow man with respect, fairness, honestly, and above all, I try to be kind. Left/right, conservative/liberal, republican/democrat, tree-hugger/oil-rigger… all of that aside, what I read in those comments made me sad. Sad for humanity. And face-punched with the proliferate amount of ignorance and cruelty. You’re all baited now. And what kind of twenty-first century millennial would I be if I did not give you at least a small fish of reality TV (er… reality blogging)? So without further adieu, below are some screen shots. Actual comments. From actual people, starting with an oh-so-pleasant fella named “Buzz Leapyear2”… [Apparently the first Buzz Leapyear was already taken] I don’t have much to say about this, mostly because my mouth is so gapingly aghast that words cannot be formed. But the fear that enters my heart shivers down my spine. For, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” ~ Martin Luther King Jr. Take a look at the next comment whose author is, miraculously, able to recall the temperatures from quite a few years ago – 800-1400 AD to be exact! Wow! How does he do it? So, I had never heard such a statement before. Me: A gal who’s worked pretty dang hard to educate herself with facts and data regarding the environment and climate. But, hey! I thought, maybe this somehow got missed during all my studies. So I did some research. And you know what? The Medieval Warm Period did happen! It’s true! But… (of course, there would be a ‘but’) like most things in life, it’s complicated. I’ve looked at publications from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and from New Scientist to Skeptical Scientist. The layman’s conclusion from these organizations (from the heavily data-driven to the historical and contextual perspectives) is this: Yes, parts of the world were warmer than what we’re experiencing today. However there were other parts of the world that were cooler than average, leading to a global average temperature that was still significantly below the increases we have seen in the last couple hundred years. Ah complication. So hard to understand, and so easy to ignore. “Living is Easy with Eyes Closed” – John Lennon And then we have Bruce. Increased. Solar. Activity! [Must. Restrain. Against. Using. Sarcasm. Hold back, Vanessa. Restrain!!] Hmph…….. I worked so hard already with the explanation for Mr. Miller’s blunder. Must I do it again? Perhaps, instead, I’ll let Mister Ratiocination handle it this time. For, in general, he seems to remain intellectually calm and respectively on-point (and the others really seem to enjoy engaging him). But unfortunately, Bruce is too busy to pay proper regard to Raciocination…. [Must. Refrain. From. Correcting. Grammar. Blunder. Ahhhhhhhh!] “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” ~ Charles Darwin SIGH So. What is this?? What does one do with this information?? Maybe we just burn some leaves... or buy a big diesel truck… or empty an old can of CFC hairspray…? Nope. That’s not going to work for me. So, here’s what I did. Via email, I sought guidance from my older, wiser cohorts of the CCL Denver Chapter. “Goodness gracious,” I wrote, “Has anyone else read some of the comments to the Bloomberg View OP Ed? It's almost scary how unkind and immature some are...” [You can almost hear the Minnesotan in there, right? Yep. That’s me.] Mere moments had passed before I quickly received three unique responses… Nelson: Personal policy: DON’T read comments. Betsey: Yes, it IS scary! And it can get very personal when the comments are in response to a letter to the editor. I learned not to read the comments after the responses to my first letter to the editor. Makes you realize some of the ignorance and hot-headedness we are up against! Dick: It's why I don't watch or listen to commercial news as well Venessa (cute! Look how he spelled my name!) So, I guess my decision to read the comments was naïve. It clearly did more harm than good for a person like me. But…….. if we don’t read, then what??? We just take these misunderstandings and false assumptions to be… okay? Just chalk them up to… what? An ongoing phenomenon? An idealism, perhaps? That’s what some people are doing. And they’re calling it Climate Denialism. [Spell check is very unhappy with me, by the way, for ignoring its squiggly red warnings about “denialism” being a non-word/made-up word/perhaps-soon-to-be-hot-button-part-of-a-phrase) . The claim: Climate denialism is an ideology. i·de·ol·o·gy ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē noun A system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. Hmm. Politics. Interesting. Climate change has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Period. It’s science. It’s facts and data that can be dug up and understood, oftentimes, to explain a lot of things in our natural world that just don’t seem the same as they used to. It affects all life on Earth. It has nothing – I repeat nothing – to do with the way we humans have organized our leadership and governance systems. Nothing. So why politics? According to a recent article in Ney York Times, the majority of these attacks are being proposed by extreme libertarians or conservatives who are afraid of their ways of life being ripped apart by the policies proposed to fight universal global warming (e.g., Clean Air Act). Instead of working with the system, however, to renegotiate or even engage the major decision makers about the proposed policies, climate change deniers’ tactic is to create myths onto which similar-minded, equally fearful folks can glom. myth miTH noun A widely held but false belief or idea. One of the most prominent cases of climate denialism is the story that the NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT of scientists AROUND THE WORLD – who have dedicated their education and their careers to SCIENCE – are actually engaged in some extraordinarily secretive, Pinky and the Brain-esque hoax to take over the world!! I’ll admit, that would be quite the astonishing feat! But… I’m not sure I’m ready to give scientists that much credit ;-) I mean, we’re talking geeks in lab coats, right? Not keen-eyed, savvy, gangster, underground street fighters!
“So, Vanessa”, you’re all wondering, “What’s your conclusion and when is it coming?” I really don’t know. I believe in the goodness of humankind. Yes, of course, there will be the very rare exception – perhaps a serial killer sociopath that makes all the news. But the majority of us are good. We want good. So this is why I masochistically read comments that pang my heart. But I don’t know that I can ever stop. For they are comments that come from humans. And it is my duty to treat all with respect and dignity, and to engage them with the utmost humility. By the way, they say ignorance is bliss. And maybe this is just my own perception, but those comments were pretty negative. Not happy. Far from blissful. I leave you with one final quote. This quote is also a challenge. And I challenge YOU to take it. Good night my readers. --- “It's a fact--everyone is ignorant in some way or another. Ignorance is our deepest secret. And it is one of the scariest things out there, because those of us who are most ignorant are also the ones who often don't know it or don't want to admit it. Here is a quick test: If you have never changed your mind about some fundamental tenet of your belief, if you have never questioned the basics, and if you have no wish to do so, then you are likely ignorant. Before it is too late, go out there and find someone who, in your opinion, believes, assumes, or considers certain things very strongly and very differently from you, and just have a basic honest conversation. It will do both of you good.” - Vera Nazarian, The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration
3 Comments
|
AuthorVanessa Ann, a writer and environmentalist. She possesses a Master of Applied Science in Environmental Policy & Management from the University of Denver. Her writing, at times, can be... a little sarcastic with just a dash of snarky. Archives
June 2019
CategoriesWant more?
Vanessa is also a long-time contributing author (and former President) for the Sustainability Alliance of the University of Denver. Check out her published newsletters here: Some Say the Debate is Over. Yet the Heat Won’t Seem to Go Away, November 2016 Corn. It’s In Everything & It’s No Bueno for the Environment, February 2016 The Pursuit of Sustainability, August 2015 |
Proudly powered by Weebly