Thinking vs Believing: Climate Change

Carl Sagan once wrote, "I don't want to believe. I want to know." The first time I read this quote I smiled. It so eloquently described my outlook on life:  Use knowledge, rather than belief, to interpret the world around me.

I've never really grappled with spirituality or religion. I've always been very reasonable, not in the diplomatic sense but in the pondering sense. I use logic, critical thinking and rational thought to come to most of my conclusions. Certainly, I am wrong about a great number of things, not because I blindly "believe" in them, but because either I am uneducated of the facts or unable to rationally process the information before me. There is a huge difference between "I believe" and "I think" when it comes to processing information and knowledge.

This has always been my issue with religion (not spirituality). Even at a very young age, it didn't make sense to me. I felt as if I was stupid, as if I hadn't figured something out that everyone else had. I thought there was evidence everyone else found and processed which continued to elude me. The concept of blind faith made absolutely no sense to me. I have always thought it obvious that all religion is a social construct rather than a divine institution. A means to control thought and communities. That may be a cynical interpretation, but I think it is pretty accurate seeing that most religions do not allow for freedom of thought and demands strict adherence to dogmatic "of-this-earth" hierarchy. This does not mean that religion is evil. In fact, it can be a great normalizer of a community and means to assimilate large populations. It can be used to help people. It can bring people closer together. Unfortunately, throughout history, religion has also been the primary reason for war, genocide and human rights tragedies. When two people "believe" in two different things, it can result in a very bad day for everyone, especially if there is a social construct helping to promote one belief over another.

Some religious people try to point to science (as well as environmentalism) and say it is a religion within itself. I would have to agree that throughout scientific history, those within the discipline have been nearly as dogmatic about their "beliefs" as a religious person. But the difference between a person of science and a person of religion is the concept of fact and how fact can be interpreted as truth. Once a person of science is provided facts and proven wrong, they have a moral and intellectual obligation to evolve their thinking. A religious person does not have this ability, nor luxury. They signed up for a specific explanation of everything, facts and truth be damned.

Many religious people think all scientists are atheists. Any scientist that is an atheist is a pretty bad scientist. Atheism is as much a religion and has proportionally as many zealots as evangelical Christianity. In science, any possibility (however small) must be considered until it is proven either correct or incorrect. How, in good conscious, can any scientist categorically dismiss the existence of something that has not been proven not to exist? Take it one step further, if theoretical physics is to be considered, infinite universes with infinite possibilities would almost demand that any religious thought ever considered is correct somewhere in the multiverse. Does that mean that Jesus was an actual person and the son of god? Maybe and maybe not but you cannot discount it until it is proven one way or the other, which it hasn't. To be fair, most scientists and atheists subscribe to a particular principle of logic . . . all things being equal, the simplest explanation usually proves to be the correct one; through Occam's Razor, the burden of proof is on religion.

This is where climate change is an issue. Many deniers/skeptics (I use both because some are deniers while others are misinformed skeptics) point to climate change scientists and say they are dogmatic about their "belief." Scientists do not believe in human-caused climate change, they think it is happening. They take evidence, study the evidence and provide critically thought-out, rational conclusions. They have studied the issue and the scientific community is nearly certain (97 percent of all peer-reviewed papers support human-caused climate change) it is happening and humans are the primary cause. Is it 100 percent? No, but very damn close. The world has observed ice masses retreating in nearly every corner, from the Americas, Asia, Europe to the poles with 90 percent of all ice masses in retreat. I concede, as do climatologists, climate modeling is an inexact science. Projections versus reality may vary. Sometimes there is educated guessing in science and the climate is an object of nearly infinite complexity which necessitates educated guessing. Do scientists all agree how fast it will happen or what the specific effects may be? No, but they agree that it is happening and, at the very least, human activity (CO2 emissions) is a part of the cause.

Deniers/skeptics will say a number of things: The science isn't settled, there is a climate change cabal running the world of science, this is an UN conspiracy to take over the world, there is no evidence of warming the past 15 years (proven to be untrue and completely taken out of context), in the 1970s the majority of scientists predicted global cooling (again, untrue), it's a natural cycle of the sun . . . and on and on. Most concerning are the vast majority of these one-liners can be debunked with a quick Google search. But that is the problem, human-caused climate change denial has more to do with belief than thought. It also has a lot more to do with fear than hope.

Do I "believe" in human-caused climate change? No, but I sure as hell think it is happening and humans are a big contributor. I find it hard to argue with well educated experts presenting a very well studied and though-out argument. If a climate scientist proves human-caused climate change to be incorrect, I'll be the first one to say the facts change the dynamic of the reality but the probability of that is quite small. Continuing with that thought, I think any credible science that does not support prevailing scientific thought should be reviewed and tested by peers until it is either confirmed or proven incorrect. But the consequences of denying human-caused climate change severely outweigh the consequences of trying to curb carbon output and address humanity's increasing affect on the environment. There is just too much risk in believing the science is wrong when a rational argument has been accepted by most experts in the field. Working toward a carbon neutral world is not a bad thing and I don't understand why anyone (aside from people working for the oil, gas and coal industries) would disagree. I don't think you need to destroy the economy to pursue a more sustainable world but we will need to make very tough choices in the near future. Deniers don't want to face reality, they don't want to take responsibility, they don't want to accept we can't keep doing what we have been doing the past century. It is time to grow up and make the tough decisions. My hope is that we will and listen to the facts and science and pursue appropriate, logical measures to curb the problem. My fear is that we will continue to kick the can to the next generation when it will be too late (if it isn't already).

The Evolved Thinking of an A-hole

In light of yesterday's SCOTUS decision (and the state-by-state equality fight that still wages), I thought it might be timely to write a post about an anecdote I've told in private conversations a number of times . . .

The Summer after my freshman year at NEVADA I was exposed to “gay America” up close and personal for the first time. A group of friends and I went to Red Rock National Conservation Area to do what we did so often in our youth, trade jabs, climb rocks and get a sunburn. Among my friends, I was considered the most “conservative” and outspoken of the group. I had voted for Bush 41 our senior year (one of the few in my class old enough to vote for president) and had defended some relatively conservative perspectives in personal and public conversations (one of which was supporting the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository). Well this day in particular will be burned in my memory for the rest of my life and it wasn't due to happiness, but because of shame.

The entire day a close friend of mine (he who shall not be named but a great person and very accepting and nice guy nonetheless) and I exchanged gay slurs, epithets and the like (much like most straight young men did and still do) for our own entertainment. We were in rare form. It was easily the most aggressive I'd ever been with homophobic rhetoric. We thought we were funny. We thought others thought we were funny. Boy o' boy, were we not funny.

That night, my best friend Holly (an incoming sophomore at Wellesley College at the time),  confronted me about my behavior. In my mind, it was all in good fun but apparently one person, in particular, was more than offended, he was scared. Apparently, everyone but me and my homophobic rhetorical partner in crime knew that our friend Clif had come out of the closet the preceding fall semester while matriculating at MIT. I was mortified. Not because he was gay, but because my brazen, insulting sense of humor had done something I had never intended. It actually offended someone (someone with more courage than I'll ever possess) and it wasn't taken for what it really was, my attempt at lighthearted, albeit terrible, humor.

I replayed the entire Red Rock debacle back and forth in my head within seconds. With each replay, I became increasingly sick to my stomach. Clif was (and still is) one of the nicest guys I've ever met and one of the smartest people I have had the pleasure of knowing. But, in an afternoon, I had completely demeaned an important aspect of who he was purely for my own entertainment. This was not who I thought I was, it was not who I wanted to be.

I asked Holly why Clif hadn't come out to me before that day. She said he had assumed one of our other friends had delivered the news and he felt I was so conservative that I'd never accept him. Real, gut wrenching mortification set in . . . apparently my words and actions that day confirmed his fear. As loose as I was (am) with my insults, I never intend them to hurt anyone. I used stupid insulting humor because I felt everyone needed to laugh at themselves. In turn, I readily invited ridicule about who/what I represented . . . I wanted give/take participation. Most my friends saw through my bullshit for what it was but this was different. This wasn't passing fun. This was hurtful. It was more than juvenile, it was socially criminal. Time to grow up.

I quickly gathered my thoughts and gave him a call that very moment with Holly sitting by my side. I explained I had no idea he had come out. I explained his sexuality had nothing to do with my commentary. I explained that his friendship could never be severed because of his sexuality. I apologized profusely for my words, behavior, insensitivity. I was hoping there was some way he would recognize I was not a person of hate but an idiot with a bad sense of humor. He seemed okay but I still felt pangs of guilt for the ferocity of my actions earlier that day. . . I was getting off too easy. I offered to pick him up for a pool party the next day and said I'd like to talk in person, one-on-one. He agreed.

I picked him up at his house. As he exited the front door, I noticed he was wearing a gay pride shirt . . . "Now THAT is how you react to a person like me!" I smiled. We talked. It was a good talk, an honest talk. I was self deprecating. He was nervous. It was surprisingly easy. I think he recognized I wasn't a bigot, I was just an asshole that needed serious sensitivity training. I had always been an asshole that needed serious sensitivity training, still am.

I tell this story because I think everyone deserves the opportunity to evolve their thinking (including Paula Deen). Realize words (albeit unintended) can hurt. Words and actions are powerful and should reflect who you are and what you think not be a stupid tool for hurtful humor even if it is intended to be anything but hurtful.

I was lucky, I got off easy . . . far too easy for my offense.

Since that time, I renounced my affiliation with the Republican party (resigning from the Clark County Central Committee over the issue of defining legal marriage as being between a man and a woman) as well as media trained the local Human Rights Campaign chapter. Would I have become a straight ally (I really don't like that term, by the way) if I hadn't been such a jerk in my youth? I'd like to think so but you never know. It takes moments of self reflection to shape a life and as ashamed as I am about that one day in the Summer of 1994, I am glad it happened. Hopefully my friend Clif can forgive me for my ignorance and insensitivity (if he hasn't already). If he can or has, the prolonged shame was worth it. 

This moment in time will stay with me till I die. It is a reminder that we each need to work harder to become better, more accepting people. More informed and educated people. It helped define what I think is supremely American: the ability to adapt and evolve one's thinking, continually striving to create a "more perfect union." I can't imagine a more perfect union than two consenting adults demonstrating their love for each other through marriage, no matter their gender, race or preference. 

At risk of sounding trite and corny, the world needs more acceptance and love not confrontation and hate. I struggle each day to understand, live and emulate that realization.

"Revelation" and Snowden

This past week's "revelation" that normal, everyday citizens of the United States are being spied on by the US intelligence community, and the outrage that has followed, I find a bit amusing. Anyone that has had the time, or fortitude, to read the Patriot Act, as well as understand the snooping possibilities of the Internet and communications world, was not at all shocked to "learn" the government is aggressively pursuing information showing where you are, what you are interested in and what you are doing. Law enforcement has ALWAYS tried to track people (legally and illegally). They are suspicious of everyone and everyone is guilty until proven innocent in their eyes (just observe a cop when you are pulled over, he holds on to that gun until he's convinced you are not a threat or a criminal). The FBI used(s) illegal wiretaps all the time to get dirt on people. What is scary is that ability is now legal and it isn't targeted just at interesting people and suspected criminals (think Hoover) . . . technology has made it possible to track EVERYONE. A law enforcement official's dream. That dream was realized when the Patriot Act passed all those years ago under the veil of so much warranted and unwarranted fear. Of all the legislation that has passed the past 20 years two actions could be considered a clear and present danger to the American public: The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the passage of the Patriot Act.

I'm not sure what I think of Snowden . . . my "mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" self loves what he did and, on its face, seems like a selfless brave act. My "why have rules if no one follows them" self hates that someone so insignificant (sorry!) working for a private company not only had access but the ability to leak/whistle-blow what seems to be very detailed, serious and classified information. I have a hard time thinking it's treason seeing that the Patriot Act gave a lot of powers to the state and anyone paying attention knew full well that EVERYTHING was being or was going to be monitored. What concerns me most is private industry being more than willing to provide the government access to their information. According to SCOTUS, corporations are people too . . . I thought they'd stand up to protect their civil rights . . . oh well. 


In the end, it kinda' makes you want to walk away from your life, scream at the top of your lungs, unplug and dropout . . . much like a certain hero/traitor sitting in Hong Kong. At least Snowden isn't Ted Kaczynski, he used a much different method to get attention for his concern of technology, government and the future of the human condition.

BTW -  The irony is not lost on me: I give these companies and the government information on me daily, willingly through Facebook and this blog - I'm sure this post is being filed in a FBI/CIA/NSA database keeping track of my "questionable" ramblings.

A Heck of a son

I generally make it a point not to pick on kids, teenagers or young adults. Even with my beloved NEVADA football team, I rarely blame the players (kids) for what is happening on the field, but rather focus on coaches and officials. With that said, I have to say something about Joey Heck, son of U.S. Representative Joe Heck (R-NV). His twitter feed might be one of the most racist, homophobic, misogynistic and mean spirited I've seen in a while and it is the feed of a sitting congressman's 16 year old son.

Buzzfeed reported the story yesterday. The feed is still active (as of 1:16 pm 6/14/13) with all the posts still present, none of which, from what I can tell, have been deleted. Read through it, it will give you a pretty interesting look into the mind of Joey (last post in early May which must have been when the crap began to hit the fan). How the hell is it still up?  Where are Rep. Heck's communications people? Crazy.

I also don't generally pick on parents for what their teenage son or daughter does due to the fact I don't have one (yet), and once the child has a mind of their own there is very little you can do to micromanage their lives. I also have thought the children and family of politicians are to be off limits as it is not fair to bring them into the muck of politics when it was not their choice in the first place. With that said, the regular homosexual slurs, racist epithets, and degrading remarks about women in such a public forum gives a pretty interesting look at what I have to believe are the family values of the Heck household. I say this because I have a 6 year old son and he doesn't see race or gender which leads me to assume racism, sexism and bullying are learned traits. I could be wrong, but that is my experience. Add to that the statement sent out but Rep. Heck on the issue:

“I am extremely disappointed in my son’s use of the offensive and inappropriate language on twitter: that type of language has never been permitted in our home.

“I apologize to everyone he may have offended. My son also apologizes for his insensitive behavior. My wife and I have addressed this family matter directly with him and he has learned from it.” 

Note it wasn't the subject matter or intentions he apologizes for but the language used and if you were offended . . . makes you wonder what Congressman Heck thinks behind closed doors. Insensitive behavior? Insensitive behavior is speaking ill of a friend's dead grandmother, not calling women "sluts," calling the president the "N" word or using gay slurs in a very public forum . . . He may have gotten this from his friends but the child is the product of a very public figure. That should be a concern of those able to vote for Rep. Heck.

Lastly, I ask what has the child "learned," as the statement so deliberately mentions? I suspect he has learned that his congressman dad will ignore him up until he becomes an embarrassment. That it is okay to have these thoughts and ideas in your head, just as long as you don't say them in public.

To be fair, maybe the response was written in haste. Maybe the family has placed him in sensitivity therapy, anger management classes or some other ideological deprogramming situation, but I suspect that is not the case. For his sake, I hope Joey does learn from this and grows up to be a good, productive person, but he has a LONG way to go.