Worrisome Climate Worries Too Few

            We check weather predictions often. When meteorologists tell us the weather will turn ugly, we prepare.  We follow their advice when they urge us to take shelter because a tornado or hurricane approaches

 That’s what we normally do.

Remarkably, although climate scientists tell us the weather—or climate—is turning ugly big time and warn us to prepare, we don’t. Or won’t.

 We’re not acting normally.                                    

On June 20, The New York Times’ John Broder  reported that President Obama has ordered new rules for limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing electric power plants. They are the facilities that release the most climate-damaging emissions, yet they were not covered in earlier regulations.

As you’d expect, Republican legislators object to Mr. Obama’s plan.  However, they’ll have to scramble to thwart it. Congressional approval isn’t needed.

The President’s welcome action aside, a big question lingers. Why isn’t the public demanding more action to curb the increasing damage from our corrupted climate?

After all, Yale Climate Communications Project pollsters have discovered that 58 percent of Americans believe in global warming-caused climate change. In the April survey, six in ten Americans reported they believe global warming made 2012 the warmest year on record, caused more severe storms, and worsened the Midwest and Great Plains drought. Two out of three contend U.S. weather has been “worse” in recent years.

So why do so few clamor for action?  It helps to consider how Americans react to the climate issue.

In a 2012 study, Yale’s Climate Project pollsters calculated Americans’ climate change beliefs. They found that 16 percent of Americans are “alarmed” by climate change. Twenty-nine 29 percent are “concerned,” and 25 percent “cautious,” meaning they  sort of believes in climate change, but they’re not sure and aren’t worried about it.

Nine percent admit being “disengaged.”  Such folks give little if any thought the climate issue. To them personally, it’s no problem. The disengaged, “tend to have the lowest education and income levels of the six groups,” the report explains.

Next come 13 percent who are “doubtful.” If climate change is happening, the doubters say it’s caused solely by nature doing her thing. They disagree with 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists who say mankind is largely responsible.

Finally we have the “dismissives,” the deniers.

 At eight percent dismissives form the smallest but most vocal group. They insist global warming is a liberals’ myth. Many call it a “hoax” and oppose any action to deal with the phantom threat. Republican Senators James Inhofe (SC), Tom Coburn (OK), and Mitch McConnell (KY) fall in this group along with 36 of their GOP colleagues. All have voted against efforts to curb climate-change.

The determined opposition of deniers may be one reason the 58 percent tend to inaction. The opposition seems too stiff to overcome.

Then too, the climate problem may seem too huge to cope with. After all, how can an individual do anything about it?

It’s clear the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere creates much if not most climate damage. But how many can switch to pollution-lessening hybrid or electric cars and push lawnmowers? How many business travelers will take trains rather than planes--if they could find trains going their way?

It’s easy to feel inadequate and ignore an earth-sized problem. It’s easy to slough off farmers’ laments that droughts have become longer, storms more intense, floods more damaging, and weather more quirky.

 Unless you’re a bargeman, bulk-cargo shipper, fisherman, or environmentalist it’s easy to dismiss concerns that the Great Lakes and Mississippi River have become shallower, that changing fishing grounds cause lower catches, and that 968 fish species plus animals like sponges, jellyfish, and corals have fled their habitats seeking cooler waters. Others are just dying.

But in fact there is no easy way to the future. Even in a world convulsed by wars and terror, we must deal with the climate-change problem. And precisely because individuals can do little to address the problem, they have to take collective action.

Americans en masse must find the will and stamina to pester lawmakers into taking remedial action. Americans en masse must back politicians who have the good sense to back climate-change remedies.

If we don’t, it’s certain that someday there will be an event that galvanizes the pained attention of everyone then alive.

By then it will be too late.

                                                           ----Gus Gribbin

About storms, climate, fools, and ( yes) Senator Inhofe Again

            Abe Lincoln put it this way:

            “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

            How wonderfully Abe’s words apply to that marvel of Senatorial sagacity, James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican

            Surely you remember Mr. Inhofe?

He’s the Senate’s star climate change doubter and oil industry robot who claims climate change is a hoax. He calls climate scientists “conspirators.”

             Mr. Inhofe’s latest stunner came following the tragic tornado in Moore, a suburban town in the Senator’s home state.

             Because the Senator had orated against spending $50 billion in emergency funding for victims of Hurricane sandy, reporters asked if he would back such funding for Oklahoma’s victims. He said he would because:

 “That [Sandy relief spending] was totally different…. Everybody was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place.  That won’t happen in Oklahoma.”

            In other words, Oklahomans are more virtuous than New Yorkers, New Jerseyites, and other East Coast victims.

            That aside, Inhofe at least condescended to help the victims. The other Oklahoma Senator, Republican Tom Coburn, opposed emergency relief unless the expenditure was offset by cuts in other federal spending.

            There seems to be total denial among climate change deniers that emergency funding is likely to become even more common than it is. Not because of rip offs—though rip offs there may be—but because the rise in global temperatures warms the seas and generates more vicious storms.

            Of course, regardless of scientific studies and observable facts, Senator Inhofe and his ilk will remain unconvinced. As Benjamin Franklin observed, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

            Even so, there is more and more reason to be convinced.  Reporting on a recent report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA Today’s Doyle Rice wrote:

            “Global warming has already doubled the chance of storms like Katrina, according to the study, which was led by climate scientist Aslak Grinstsed of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.”

            The cheering news is that the number of climate change disbelievers has dwindled. The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication reports that between 2010 and 2012 the number of doubters dropped from 16 percent of the American population to 8 percent. At the same time the number of Americans ”alarmed” by climate change has climbed ten percent.

            Overall 63 percent of Americans believe in climate change and its effects, and the Yalies report that those who believe in global warming, “are more certain of their convictions than those who do not.”

            It’s not clear that Senator Inhofe was counted among those less certain “deniers.” Probably not. And given his coziness with Big Oil, he’s unlikely to waver especially since, as Yale studies indicate:

             “Half or more [of climate change believers] favor the elimination of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and oppose the elimination of subsidies to renewable energy companies.”

            As many see it, only a fool would oppose subsidizing renewable energy companies given the facts about the rise of carbon dioxide caused by fossil fuel and the damage it causes.

But as you may already know, Senator Inhofe has championed opposition  to renewable energy company subsidies while fighting for continues subsidies to oil companies.

                                                                                    ----Gus Gribbin

>         Doyle Rice’s USA Today article appeared on March 18, 2013.

Visit America's Past--Be Shocked and Amazed

            On a recent spring day, chattering youngsters ran helter-skelter over ground Captain John Smith trod some 400 years ago. The kids were likely having more fun than Smith and his fellow colonists ever did.

            The children frolicked at what’s now called “Historic Jamestown” where—on May 13, 1607—104 men and boys established a fort and planted the first viable English colony in the New World.

Some 400 newcomers soon joined that cluster of pioneers. They experienced dreadful hardship. Crops failed, Indians attacked, and the colonists began starving. They grew so desperate that some dug up and ate their dead neighbors’ bodies. Between 1609 and 1610 all but 60 died.

Startling, alarming Jamestown is one of three pivotal historical sites on Virginia’s coast. The other two are Williamsburg and Yorktown.

For those who might not recall and those who have not visited those sites even once, a brief explanation:

 Yorktown Battlefield is where colonial troops forced the surrender of England’s supposedly invincible forces in the Revolutionary War.  The American victory dealt the blow that finally forced caused England to grant the colonies their independence.

Colonial Williamsburg is the famous and popular restored eighteenth century city where, along with others, America’s first and third U.S. presidents plotted rebellion against England. Actors stage mini dramas in the old town’s sandy streets. The place exudes eighteenth century colonial culture.

Jamestown is actually two distinct sites in the same park-like setting: “Historic Jamestown” and “Jamestown Settlement.”

Like Williamsburg, “Jamestown Settlement,” provides “living history” exhibits, costumed guides, and craft shows.  Each site offers entertaining films, recorded narratives and dioramas showing how events there fit into America’s story.

Historic Jamestown, though, is the history buff’s and archeologist’s delight. Visitors can see archeologists and their volunteers at work.

Rugged palisades show where the colonists’ initial fort stood. Crosses mark graves, and a lodge made of poles depicts the first colonists’ dormitory.

Historic Jamestown hammers home the reality and challenges facing the pioneer colonists. It also reveals to the unsuspecting the barbarity those Englishmen imported.

There is evidence, for instance, that at least one lawbreaker had been drawn and quartered, meaning he was tied to a horse and dragged to the execution site. He was then hanged until almost dead, and, while alive, cut open so the executioner could pull out his internal organs. Finally, horses were tied to each limp and the victim’s body was pulled apart.

Unlike the pious Pilgrims who settled Massachusetts to escape religious persecution, the Jamestown settlers were part of a business venture. They invaded the Indians’ domain and ultimately reaped vengeance.

Historic Jamestown presents a complex, often surprising but realistic tale of perseverance and greed that eventually mutated into the hard but genteel southern civilization neighboring Williamsburg exhibits.

The place shows that, whatever else you might say, America’s start was dramatic—and amazing.

                                                                        ----Gus Gribbin

 

.

For Pope Francis--A Smile; a Frown

       Pope Francis made a number of bishops happy and a number of nuns sad recently.

            The bishops could rejoice in the news that the Pope appointed a panel of eight bishops from around the world to overhaul the secretive and some say scheming Vatican Curia.

            America’s nuns and their many Catholic and non-Catholic admirers and followers are saddened because the Pope reaffirmed his predecessor’s reprimand of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

 The Conference, an umbrella group, represents 80 percent of the nation’s 57,000 nuns—including the popular “Nuns on the Bus,” who toured the nation in June 2012. The small group of nuns stopped at food pantries, schools, homeless shelters, and health care facilities run by nuns to highlight the work they do. In effect they were protesting the Vatican’s criticism of them.

The protest apparently has had little effect. By Papal edict the Leadership Conference, will be subjected to a “program of reform,” a scary-sounding phrase with echoes of the Inquisition or the old Soviet Union.

            But about the bishops:

It has been widely reported that bishops over the globe have complained of the curia’s intransigence and controversial decisions and for blocking access to the Pope. The curia, a powerful clique of clerical bureaucrats, has for decades—even centuries—run the affairs of the church.  It was thought that the entrenched bureaucracy was too powerful to change.

 Until now.

The new task force that will consult with Pope Francis includes Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston and archbishops from Chile, India, Germany, Congo, Australia, and Honduras.  There is one holdover from the Curia, Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, the Vatican city-state’s administrative president.  The panel will hold its first meeting in October.

Reports in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the National Catholic Reporter state that the idea of such a taskforce was raised during the days before the election of the new Pope. But it apparently originated in the course of the Second Vatican Council that Pope John XXIII called for in 1959. The Council sessions ran from 1962 to 1965.

To the delight of Catholic “liberals” who applauded the changes encouraged by the Council, Pope Francis seems to agree with them.

 In a National Catholic Reporter story dated April 16, Thomas C. Fox wrote that Pope Francis recently called the Council “a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit.” In a homily, the Pope admonished those who “…don’t want to change,” adding,” what’s more, there are those who wish to turn the clock back.” He called such people “stubborn.”

It is difficult to reconcile the spirit of understanding and kindness Pope Francis has so far projected with his stand regarding the nuns.

Repression of the nuns, whose writings, speeches, and decisions regarding conference speakers will be scrutinized and censored, clashes with the openness and free speech cherished by U.S. citizens.

The nuns have been scolded for their “feminism.” This apparently refers to their reported tolerance for the notion that the Church should consider the ordination of women.

 Moreover in the most bizarre charge, the nuns were accused of focusing on caring for the sick, depraved, despised, and needy among us rather than challenging those who countenance abortion rights and gay marriage.

It’s hard to see those who do such good punished so harshly.

                                                                         ---Gus Gribbin

 

Who’s Afraid of North Korea’s Bad, Belligerent Kim Jong-un?

            North Korea, that cruel, destitute,sword-rattling nation, ranks along with such nations as Berkina Fasco, Tuvalu, and Comorous as nations Americans rarely, if ever, think about. Until, that is, North Korea declares it’s goings to bomb Austin Texas and A-bomb South Korea.

            Obviously North Korea and its chub-chub dictator with the shaved sideburns and bowl-shaped haircut don’t like obscurity.

            But the way the country’s leadership goes about seeking attention is odd. No insane.

The country issues warnings that it is about to invade its neighbor. It broadcasts videos of troops in live-fire exercises, and images of its fat dictator studying military maps with ranks of Army officers at his back. And there are photos of armed women soldiers marching—one trooper wearing high heels.

It’s really not common these days for nations to give advance notice they’re going to invade or attack a neighbor or enemy.  Remember Pearl Harbor?

Sure, North Korea owns A-bombs and it may be able to mount one on a ballistic missile. But while North Korea has fewer than 10 bombs with an unknown number “active” (or effective as a bomb) the United States has 7,700 with 2,150 active. And the world knows that if South Korea is attacked, the United States is pledged to defend her. And the U.S. defense is capable of delivering devastation.l

So North Korea’s actions are farcical. We’re witnessing slap-stick comedy.

 North Korea is like a Chihuahua barking and snarling at a Doberman Pinscher. If the tiny dog attacked it would lose its head in one bite.

Indeed tiny dogs bark at bigger dogs because they are fearful and show bravado to assure the big guys won’t bother them. And big dogs mostly just ignore their little K9 cousins.

In fact, even though some news accounts refer to the “North Korea crisis,” most of the world seems more confused than seriously worried about the North’s threats. Still, government and military officials must prepare for the utterly remote chance that either by accident or intent North Korea creates a violent incident.

There is a mildly amusing aspect to the situation North Korea has caused. That’s because media pundits, foreign affairs scholars, and think-tank fellows fall all over themselves on news shows trying to explain North Korea’s unexplainable actions. All eventually concede no one knows what’s in the mind of the Pyongyang dictator or his handlers. All theories seem to defy the test of logic, as some “experts” admit.

However Andrei Lankov, a history professor at Kookmin University in Seongbuk-gu, a city near Seoul in South Korea, has a suggestion. In a New York Times Op-Ed Page article, he writes:

“…It does not make sense to credulously take their [North Korea’s] fake belligerence at face value and give them the attention they want now. It would be better if people in Washington and New York took a lesson from the people of Seoul.” In Seoul, he notes, it’s business as usual.

A final thought though:

If after this blog is posted and read and North Korea actually makes good on any of his taunts and threats--well, let’s just pretend the blog were never written.

                                                                                    ---Gus Gribbin

 

 

 

Will the Surprising New Pope Fulfill Our Hopes?

Pope Francis has been making wonderful surprise gestures. Hopeful signs.

 He has shown concern for people:

 Ignoring security, he leaves his armored car to mingle with the St. Peter’s Square crowd. He urges humility and care for the poor in his homilies.  And in the week this is written, he is conducting Holy Week services at a juvenile detention center rather than at St. Peter’s Basilica.  

What’s more, Pope Francis has opted not to live in the elegant and isolating Vatican papal apartment. He will lodge permanently in the pedestrian hotel when he stayed prior to his election. He wants to be with people—ordinary priests and others doing business with the Vatican.

The changes are inspiring.

For many Americans, though, hope in Pope Francis will be fulfilled if and when he acts to heal the wounds and scandal caused by pedophile priests and callus bishops and when—and if--he leashes the Vatican hounds yapping at our American nuns.

It may be unreasonable to think the Pope was advised of two St. Patrick’s Day broadcasts on American television. Had learned about them, he would have gotten a good idea how U.S. Catholics and others currently feel about the institution he heads.

Meet the Press proved especially revealing.

David Gregory, the NBC program’s host, conversed with four public figures known to be Catholics: Chris Matthews, NBC political commentator and host of his own show; Ana Navarro, GOP political strategist; Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, author and former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, and Frank Keating, politician and former GOP Governor of California.  All expressed the hope that Pope Francis would at last change the Church’s trajectory. They indicated why.

Said Mr. Matthews:

“…A lot of us that go to church talk about it. It really doesn’t sound right on television. But there’s always been a real suspicion…about the way the church handled sexual abuse of altar boys…it was never dealt with quick enough.

“…The slowness made a lot of us suspicious they were covering up more than just this…. every Catholic that goes to church thinks like this. They don’t like talking about it; maybe I shouldn’t have…but the church wasn’t on top of this thing. And people say, ‘Wait a minute, what side are they on, the priests’ or the altar boys?’ They should be on the side of the altar boys.”

 “I don’t think you should be feeling any Catholic guild about talking about this,” Ms. Navarro declared. “We must air it out. And I think this pope needs to understand…. I can tell you, I’m a Catholic who’s grown very distant from the church, and it has been over this sexual scandal.

“I just can’t get over the cover-up. I can’t get over putting the institution above the people. This [election of Pope Francis] is something that I hope he brings me back. And I think there’s a lot of American Catholics who feel the same way. We want that hope. We want the hope from the new pope, and hope that he brings it back. ”

Ms. Townsend has aired her feelings in her book, Failing America’s Faithful: How Today’s Churches Are Mixing God and Politics and Losing Their Way. On Meet the Press, though, she noted that for decades American Church leaders have focused almost exclusively on sexual matters and downplayed the Church’s social agenda.

“That and the scandals leave you suspicious,” she said. “The Church always has a range of issues, and what are they focused on? Unfortunately, in the last 20 years, I would say they focused mostly on sex. And I hope that with this pope, they’ll focus more on something that brings us together rather than individually saying, ‘You’re bad on sex.’ It’s just the church of sex.”

Of course the Church has been more than a church concerned about sex. It has been a church of fear also—the hierarchy’s fear of opinions that challenge current Vatican rules.

Church leaders especially fear outspoken U.S. nuns who declare for the equality of women in the Church.  The nuns have been called “insubordinate,” “radical feminists” who have created a “crisis” and are “undermining the Church.” A censor has been appointed to scrutinize all the nuns’ writings and the words of speakers at their meetings.

 In a nation where free expression of ideas is a prized, insisted-on right, the Vatican’s action against the nuns seems harsh, even churlish.

The CBS program 60 Minutes depicted the standoff between America’s nuns and the Vatican. The program aired interviews with Sister Pat Farrell, head of the Leadership Conference of Nuns, and with J. Peter Sartain, Seattle’s archbishop. The archbishop has been appointed watchdog over the Conference, which represents 80 percent of the nation’s 57,000 U.S. Catholic nuns.

Importantly, 60 Minutes’ videos showed the nuns doing basic good works, doing what many of us call ”God’s will”—feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and dispossessed, counseling addicts, teaching poor children and comforting society’s rejects. Among the nuns there are nurses and lawyers dedicating their talents and their lives to help the needy.

Yet the Vatican chastised the nuns for doing such work to the exclusion of campaigning against same sex marriage and abortion. Many Catholics and non-Catholics were appalled.

If what the nuns do is insubordinate, let’s have more nunish insubordination. I f these educated highly articulate and completely loyal ladies of the Church think they should have equality in Church affairs, well, they have earned it.

And it’s practically certain that  a talented and devoted women running a diocese would have been on the side of the altar boys, as Chris Matthews put it, and not prone to shield monster rapist priests.

                                                                                ----Gus Gribbin

Can Absolute Faith Be Bad? “Absolutely,” a Philosopher Says

“Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.”

               Eric Hoffer, the “longshoreman philosopher,” said that.

 His insight raises a timely question during the Lenten season and when there is so much news about the Catholic faith and faith in general. But is Hoffer correct?

                First—for those who might not remember Eric Hoffer:

 He is the Bronx-born thinker whose ten critically acclaimed books and pithy aphorisms earned him a substantial readership and critical acclaim during the mid-20^th century. In February 1983 President Ronald Reagan awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

 Hoffer was born in 1902 and died in May 1983—three months after receiving the medal. He lived a hard-scrabble life doing odd jobs, working as a crop picker, spending time homeless, and working for years on San Francisco’s docks.

 At first glimpse Mr. Hoffer’s observation about faith sounds heretical. It wars with the prodding of clerics who cajole followers to believe “with all their heart, mind, and soul” in the power of God, in the words of the Bible or Koran, in the dogmas and rites of their religions, and, among other things, in the power of prayer, “which can move mountains.”

After all, didn’t Jesus mildly rebuke the apostle Thomas—“Doubting Thomas”—for his skepticism? Perhaps you’ll remember the scriptural account:

                After Jesus’ death and resurrection, he appeared to a few followers. Thomas wasn’t among them. When told of the apparition, Thomas declared he would believe that tale only if he could meet Jesus personally and see the nail marks in his hands and feel the spear wound in his side.

Jesus returned when Thomas was around. He invited Thomas to examine his hands and to finger the wound in his side. Thomas did and was convinced.

  Jesus said “You believe because you have seen me. Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe.”  (In some translations the term “happy” is stated as “blessed.”)

In any event, Jesus seems to allow little room for skepticism.

                Hoffer, on the other hand, likely would give Doubting Thomas high marks. 

Why? Consider the meaning of faith.

Faith is the “confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.” It is “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” So states the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (Italics and boldface mine.)

Faith has power because believers yield it to the idea, person, or object they vest belief in. Faith is a choice. The believer chooses to accept the validity and trustworthiness of a religion, a political theory, a medical procedure, an invention, a friend--and themselves. Believers reject all arguments or proofs against their choice.

 Faith then is a sort of self-induced blindness. It allows or causes us to block consideration of challenging statements and sometimes even thoughts.

It’s easy to see how power corrupts. Think of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and any other dictator who committed horrible crimes, yet maintained a fervent following.

And there are bewildering examples of the power of those who inspire faith.

 The Rev Sun Myung Moon, for instance, an electrical engineer from Korea, founded the Unification Church. He called himself “The Messiah,” and said Jesus had failed in his mission, but that he, the Rev. Moon, would fulfill it.

Skeptics might question his qualifications for the job. He divorced one wife, had a child out of wedlock, and remarried a third woman. He was convicted in the United States of tax evasion and conspiracy. He seemed not to live a saintly life. Yet numbers of his disciples—“the Moonies”—begged and sold trinkets on streets and in airports. The Rev. Moon parlayed the funds collected from around the world into successful businesses. He profited hugely and lived lavishly from his followers’ work and donations.

 The Rev. Moon’s power was such that tens of thousands of his followers allowed him and his wife to choose spouses for them and to marry them in mass weddings.

Jim Jones didn’t claim to be the Messiah. He was a Marxist and admitted atheist who believed he could sway people to follow his social principles by creating a religion. So he founded the Peoples’ Temple. Eventually he convinced many of his devoted followers to help him create a utopia in Jonestown, Guyana.

 The Jonestown story and its unraveling is remarkable, but best remembered because of its ending. As Alan Riding wrote in the New York Times, the tale, “…is a gripping account of how decent people can be taken in by a charismatic and crazed tyrant.”

                On November 18, 1978, when reporters and others were demanding an investigation of the Jonestown community and of Jones’ suspected abuses, he took action. He convinced 918 followers to murder their children and commit suicide. He had them drink fruit-flavored cyanide then shot himself. The event shocked the world. It was one of the largest mass suicides in history.

                From 1981 to 2006, in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka some 1,200 persons detonated themselves, murdering 14,599 people. Although a mix of reasons caused the bombers to sacrifice themselves, religion played a prominent part. But whatever the immediate cause, there was fundamental faith that the self- immolation was appropriate. The bombers let themselves believe it.

                I suspect Hoffer might say he had no quarrel with belief. He would caution, though, that they shouldn’t let themselves be buffaloed.

 Which is just common sense.

                                                                                ----Gus Gribbin

Ø  Mr. Riding‘s observation appeared in his October 7, 2011 review of A Thousand Lives: The Untold Story of Hope, Deception, and Survival at Jonestown by Julia Scheeres.