Last night I attended a talk by meteorologist Paul Douglas, at the Eden Prairie High School. The talk was “Weird Weather: Minnesota’s New Normal? Our Changing Climate and What We Can Do About It,” and it was sponsored by Environment Minnesota, Cool Planet, and the Citizens Climate Lobby. I didn’t count the number of people in the audience but it was well attended (over 100, for sure). Extra chairs had to be brought in.
You probably know of Paul Douglas either because of his own fame or because I often link to (or facebook-post) his blogs at Weather Nation or the Star Tribune, and I frequently post his videos. Paul is an Evangelical Christian Republican who insists that we must adhere to the data and the science. He is outspoken on climate change, global warming, and science denialism, and he is sincere, thorough, and forceful in these areas. I consider him to be a very close ally. The contrast between what Republicans seem to think as a cultural group, and what Evangelical Christians seem to think as a cultural group, and what Paul advocates makes him, in his own words, a Human Albino Unicorn.
The talk, as something organized by three environmental activist groups, had the usual suspects in attendance. I recognized several fellow activists from the Twin Cities area, including individuals from 350.org and Obama’s OFA. I had the sense that I was attending a Democratic Farm Labor (that’s what we call Democrats ‘round these parts) convention being run by a Reasonable Republican.
Needless to say, Paul provided an excellent presentation that would have provided any skeptic sitting near the fence a gate to pass through when the moment was right. His talk would have likely convinced any dyed-in-the-wool septic in attendance to at least be quiet about the skepticism and let others take the conversation for a while. Paul tied together several reasons to respect the science and to act on it, touching on diverse perspectives including personal morality, concern for our children and grandchildren, business acumen, responsibility for the Earth’s environment, conservative political thinking, and (briefly, he did not belabor this point) religion.
Since I’m all into climate change and stuff, and give presentations on the topic myself, there wasn’t much new that hit me on the head, though I saw a lot of other heads being whacked with facts and ideas in the room. But there were two things that gave me a double take. They were both brought up in the question and answer period.
One came as part of the answer to the question, why isn’t there more climatology, and in particular, climate change, in with the weather reporting on local TV? I should note right away that this is one of the reasons you should read Paul’s blog. You get the weather AND the climatology. If you are in the Twin Cities area, his Strib Blog is the place to go. If you are elsewhere in the US or beyond, his Weather Nation blog is the place to go. There is a lot of overlap but somewhat different regional coverage. Anyway, Paul’s answer included this: On news TV, global warming is toxic. Meaning, specifically, stating the basic fact that global warming is established science is not really allowed on standard news TV, local or national. The False Balance sells, admitting the facts is boring. More importantly, stating that climate change is real and important will piss off 30% of the audience and the people running the news shows don’t want that. The anchors, including the weather reporters, are to be beloved, not reviled. So “just don’t do that” is the policy in newsrooms.
The other whack on the head was in relation to a question that I thought at first was a bit obnoxious but then I realized it was one of those questions that IS obnoxious but usefully so, and necessary. The question was, in short, “Is there anybody in this room that didn’t already believe in global warming before this talk … was anyone’s mind changed?”
One person raised their hand to indicate a changed mind (everyone cheered) but this apparent fact was left on the table: This talk didn’t do anything but reinforce everyone’s existing position. That was a bit depressing at first.
However, I think the implication and factual basis of that question were wrong. First, there were probably several climate change denialists in that room, but they simply chose not to raise their hands either because they would have been deeply embarrassed or because their mind was not changed. I recognized one person that I’ve encountered before who is a denialist, and he remained silent. I have given talks on climate change attended by people I know are denialists and they’ve stayed silent or asked questions that did not indicate their denialism. So, yes, there are people in the audience who do not “believe in global warming” and I suspect a talk like Paul’s would have an effect on them, eventually.
Also, this: Nobody should “believe in global warming.” That’s where Paul separates his own beliefs (i.e., that there should be Republicans at all 🙂 … or his religious beliefs which are based on faith) and a scientific approach to life, including both business and climate. A different question might have been, “Was there anything in Paul Douglas’s talk that you didn’t know before, about climate change, that you now know? Did you learn anything new either about climate or about how to talk about climate, in this talk?” The answer to that would have been, for almost everyone in the room, “Yes, many things.”
And this is a very important reason why “preaching to the converted” is important. Anti-climate science industrial interests spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on public engagement to develop and shore up their political position. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year buys a lot of rhetoric, but it does not buy one drop of truth. But truth by itself is not enough. Grassroots organizing and the power of citizenry, when armed with the truth, is enough to effect major change if it is sustained long enough over a sufficient range of the population (and done well). Last night’s talk was a highlight moment for local and regional activism in support of the planet we live on. Those who attended will keep Paul’s talk with them for decades, and it will supply them with tools and ideas, and perhaps most importantly, inspiration and hope, regardless of their personal staring point.
So, yeah, it was a great talk.
12 thoughts on “Paul Douglas on Climate Change”
Thanks Greg – very good article. This bit
“…stating that climate change is real and important will piss off 30% of the audience and the people running the news shows don’t want that.”
is worth keeping in mind. I think you’re right that short-term business reasons keeps this issue out of the media. There’s a larger reason as well, which is that it’s almost too big for people to get a handle on. It’s a difficult story to get across in a clear, direct way because many people are simply unable to grasp the scope of the problem. And (generally) if they do, their first reaction is fear, followed by denial. As you imply above, this represents a real challenge for the MSM, because straight reporting on this story works against their business model, in spite of their claims about responsibility to the public.
Here in Canada, where our media is not as polarized (yet), I’m continually amazed by how little reporting is done around the ongoing effects of climate change.
Even our federal government is afraid to touch this subject. I’m sure they’re not stupid, but they really seem to believe that if they ignore the issue it will go away. Not that they want to believe – they’re mostly ideologically opposed to the idea of climate change anyway – but their public pronouncements are increasingly at odds with both the observed facts, and their commitment to “responsible” government.
I agree. Paul actually does a good job of shoehorning the discussion in there between fear and denial, but of course it was an hour long talk.
GregH – The current Canadian government has a track record of avoiding knowing about things it thinks might contradict its dogma – its policy on dealing with crime ignores most expert opinion, it’s closed down research on lakes, has minimal data collection in the Arctic and around the tar sands, cut back the census to make it difficult to collect meaningful data on poverty, etc. To me, the prime minister is coming across as increasingly cowardly and unwilling to accept any kind of responsibility.
Regarding climate change – the major news outlets seem to accept that it is taking place, but rarely associate economic matters with environmental concerns, it is as though they inhabit two distinct worlds.
Richard, that’s my impression as well. More and more they appear to be wildly incompetent on a number of levels, and their reaction to climate issues is simply fear, as you point out. All that expensive party propaganda to the contrary…
This recent article provides clear evidence that they’re engaging in willful avoidance, if not actual negligence:
Canada’s Arctic ice caps melting rapidly since 2005, according to documents.
stating that climate change is real and important will piss off 30% of the audience and the people running the news shows don’t want that
Do the people running the news shows reasonably believe that the 30% of their audience that would allegedly disappear would cost the station significantly in advertising revenue? If yes, then I can understand (although not approve of) their position. If no, then they have nothing to lose (and perhaps much to gain) by telling the truth.
I understand that Fox News gets a disproportionate fraction of their audience from the elderly (70 and older), who are not the most lucrative audience. If the viewers who would be upset by having global climate change called real is drawn mostly from the regional Fox News audience, then the station might be able to afford letting them go. If a substantial minority are in the prized 45-54 age group, then their reluctance is understandable.
Thirty percent also sounds suspiciously close to the well-known 27% crazification factor (that being the fraction of the vote Alan Keyes got in his senate race against Barack Obama in 2004).
I don’t think they believe that they will disappear. Just get pissed off, which may be part of the larger issue of happiness among your viewers.
But yes, I say, “piss them off” and move on. There is a larger responsibility here. They can’t call it journalism if it is really a popularity contest (a phrase also uttered by Paul during his talk, IIRC).
always blame the media for your FAILs.
even left centered magazines like the washington post publish articles like “The myth of settled science” . http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html
Since you seem to be interested in the truth, you might want to take a look at
[LINK TO CREATIONIST AND ANTI SCIENCE SITE REMOVED AS PER THIS BLOG POLICY DON’T DO THIS AGAIN YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED]
It presents a different viewpoint that would provide an interesting basis for a debate among Christians.