Kalamazoo's Backlash Against Climate Change

Here is an example of what we are up against when we try to promote sustainability.

The Kalamazoo community reacted strongly to an article in the Gazette regarding climate change.  Here is the author's response to the responses.

Please note that climate change is on the Koch brothers docket of resistance to what they claim are "liberal causes" for unnecessary change.  Jane Mayer "outed" them in the August 30, 2010, issue of The New Yorker. 

Pictured on the right is David H. Koch in 1996. He and his brother Charles are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes.

Also recognize that the naysayers of climate change are among the "trolls" who surf the net looking for what they regard as "liberal causes" and then trash them.  They do this on the local level, which is what I believe we are seeing in the Gazette responses.  Thus, they confuse the public.  We are not just dealing with ignorance.  We are dealing with downright nastiness and stupidity.

Here Alex Nixon's March 11 response to the responses on the story.

A story I wrote this week on climate change sparked an overwhelming response from MLive.com users who argue that climate change is not real, or it isn't being caused by human activity, or both.

The story, Evidence is strong that humans are causing climate change, Michigan scientists say in urging EPA limits on carbon emissions, reported that more than 150 university scientists and other researchers in Michigan signed a letter asking the state's congressional delegation to not block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants and oil refineries.

There are numerous credible sources saying that the science behind climate change is strong and that human activity is causing global temperature to rise.

Some of those sources include:

The journal Science, which in May 2010 published a letter that stated, in part:

"There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence."

And the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, which in April 2010 published a the results of a study showing very little disagreement among scientists on climate change. The study's authors state:

"We use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change, or human-caused climate change] ..."

Despite these facts, many commenters on my story berated me for not including dissenting opinions and for simply accepting that climate change is real without doing any research for myself.

For example, scouters says:

"Typical Gazette headline, they quote but do not substaniate............ 'The evidence is absolutely incontrovertible,' said David Karowe, a professor of biological sciences at Western Michigan University

"What is the evidence? The best analysis I've seen says we do not know the exact cause of changes in the earths atmosphere"

Or jogger50, who remains unconvinced:

"'The evidence is absolutely incontrovertible,' where is this evidence. Has this evidence the WMU prof is relying on been published in a reputable scientific journal, would like to have had this information in this article so this global warming skeptic can check it out on my own. Sorry but I'm not convinced yet!"

Then there's nozamboni who criticizes me for not including an opposing view:

"By the way Mr. Nixon, from your refusal to credit absolutely any dissenting voice re: global warming and Rep. Upton, I think your "reporting" has left the realm of journalism and is entering that of propaganda. The Gazette's business model seems to assume that you are still gatekeepers regarding what is considered news and how it's presented. The Emperor has no clothes."

It may be too much to ask, but it would be nice to see the discussion focus on how, when or to what extent we try to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide.

There were a few comments that hit on this area of the discussion, including one from whynot, who gets at the problem of living on a planet with many different counties:

"Even if humanity could cause the Earth to adopt a new atmospheric matrix; the carbon footprint for Americans is less than one per cent. How do these "scientists" think we should control the people of the rest of the world?? I am sure that they would say that it is America's fault that other people of the world do not use "clean energy". Therefore, we must sacrifice even more, consume less and give them even more money that we do not have. I think that these "scientists" and people who agree with them should walk their talk. They should give up their homes, cars, electrical devices and live off the land in their backyards. I am sure the rest of the people of the world will follow their example."

That's where the discussion should be -- on how we get other countries involved and how much of a sacrifice we should have to make -- not on whether the science is legitimate.

If you're interested in reading more, USAToday provides a list of resources on climate change.