It’s hard to believe that I began writing Healing Earth a year ago! It started innocently enough. I had the simple aspiration to inform others, in simple terms, about the science underlying “climate change”. So, back in May 2021, I launched with the statement:
If this rag finds an audience, it can trace its origins to the COVID-19 pandemic and the widespread failure of leaders worldwide to contain it. Historians will write, “If only they’d followed the science…” but Science isn’t a religion that has followers and infidels.
Science is a sport that wrestles truth from conjecture.
Stretching this metaphor somewhat, I believe that everyone should understand the game well enough to play as an amateur and appreciate it when played professionally. If our leaders had such an appreciation during the pandemic, then they could have dramatically reduced COVID’s impact. And if we can develop a broader appreciation in the future, perhaps we can avoid the catastrophic outcomes of global warming.
I continue to believe in this philosophy, but I’ve learned a lot over the year. Following the inimitable Feynman (who I covered in the opening quote to #61):
“You know, I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it [Fermi-Dirac statistics] to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it.” [Richard P. Feynman, as quoted in David L. Goodstein, “Richard P. Feynman, Teacher”, from Physics Today 42(2), 70-75 (1989)]
Frankly, I don’t think I really understood the Science underlying “climate change” (now rebranded “the climate crisis”) until I had to communicate it to a general audience. Thank you, dear readers! I hope you’ve enjoyed it as much as I have.
While this “rag” has indeed found an audience, I’ll admit that it isn’t as large as I’d hoped. My readership is respectable and growing, sure, but not close to the level of an “influencer.”2 Despite a few spirited discussions (on Facebook primarily), it’s tended toward a monologue, surprising given the allegedly controversial nature of the topic. I’ve enjoyed writing it nonetheless. Still, in the next year, I plan to focus less on teaching science to a general audience and more on hammering home the essential conclusion:
Low-cost desalination of seawater is our last, best hope to achieve net-zero.
The medium (Substack in particular, but a newsletter in general) is not suited for that message. This channel will morph into a genuine newsletter, more topical, political, and driven by the news headlines. We’ll see if I have the time to continue with the promised “one data fact per issue,” but I promise to dig to the bedrock facts that underlie any conclusion before hitting “Publish”. Sad to say, this change will also mean that I’ll have to tweet more and post more on Facebook, even though I find those activities viscerally unsatisfying.
Why change now? To paraphrase various pundits, I need to “play the game that I’m in, not the one that I know.” To that end, I politely ask you to follow me on social media (even if that’s not your thing) and get into the habit of liking and forwarding what I post. It may not seem like much, but I sincerely appreciate your clicks! My occasional foil, Elon Musk, is allegedly “discovering”3 that the number of human “followers” is both economically valuable and incredibly corrupted by self-serving “user” counts by tech companies. Real followers are what count.
Here are a few links to make it easy:
Now, let me try to summarize a little bit of what I’ve learned over the past 12 months:
Worrying about the troll patrol is counterproductive.4 Welcome disagreement, but ignore ad hominem attacks and anecdotal evidence, and you’ll learn something. Try it!
The Science behind global warming is fully settled. It has been settled for more than a century. The only change is in the precision, resolution, and quantity of the data. No amount of religious fervor will ever change that.5 But, it is essential to draw a bright line between global warming and climate change, just as you would with any cause-effect relationship.
Global temperature is a factor in everything weather-related on the planet. Consequently, a partial attribution of every natural disaster to “global warming” and “climate change” is accurate but useless. Instead, it’s bait for brainless reporters on a deadline.
However, scientifically-based computer forecasting models reached their practical limits a decade or more ago. So don’t ask scientists to tell us, “How far is too far?” or “How much is too much?”—They don’t know for sure. That’s futurism, but it’s being falsely marketed as Science.
Public understanding of the problem remains the only antidote to “greenwashing” (which I define as “intentionally disseminating false information intended to mislead to present an environmentally responsible public image.”)
Those who sell “solutions” mostly rely on fear. But there are almost always alternatives if you look hard enough. So ask yourself, “What is the alternative?” before signing on to any action plan.
Acknowledging the problem is just the first milestone on the road to a solution. But, among those who recognize the problem, most have underestimated the scale and urgency of the problem at hand.
Governments and billionaires think (correctly) that innovation is vital, but instead of acting in concert, they throw money competitively at novel ideas selected for their cleverness rather than effectiveness. If history is any guide, cleverness won’t scale quickly enough. Cleverness ≠ innovation.
On the other hand, well-intentioned individuals conduct ineffectual rituals. It’s the modern equivalent of a Native American “rain dance”, an activity-based more on religion than Science. Moreover, the adherents tend toward a counterproductive self-righteous attitude that renounces individualism and stifles disagreement. It’s a turnoff.
You may think it’s anathema, but the “environmental movement” in politics has outlived its usefulness:
Deniers from the Right are ridiculous, but Luddites on the Left are more dangerous. Technology is both the problem and the solution, but Science doesn’t “take sides”. While “environmental” technologies certainly exist, there’s no such thing as a “greener” electron or a “greener” CO2 molecule. That’s anti-Science, from first principles.
As in many human endeavors, partisanship itself is a severe obstacle. We’re not “at war” with “an enemy”. Humanity must act together or be subject to the vagaries of Nature.
Romantic notions of returning to a more idyllic past aren’t going to save the planet. On the contrary, we have already changed Earth irreversibly and have no choice but to move forward.
The IPCC should be dissolved. Enough reports already!
If you accept that “We have a problem,” it’s only natural to want solutions. I’m with you! But if you’re presented with a “solution” that involves modest donations, save your money. [Well, except if it’s to renew your paid subscription here! :-)] Also, if you’re presented with a “solution” that insists on global unanimity, ask yourself whether you want to sacrifice individuality on the altar of environmentalism. I don’t! Human nature isn’t changing, and humans are self-interested by nature. By and large, the choice between “save the planet for others” and “save my tribe before others” has already been made.
You can always reply to this email for personal (if slow) responses.
Thank you for reading Healing the Earth with Technology. This post is public, so feel free to share it.
See https://digitalmarketinginstitute.com/blog/9-of-the-biggest-social-media-influencers-on-instagram. To get into that level, we’re talking six figures at least.
One knowledgeable reader told me privately that my first installment, entitled “Is Global Warming Real?” would bring the troll patrol in full force. It didn’t.
For an interesting historical perspective of how humans royally screwed things up when Science and Religion butt heads, see When Galileo Stood Trial for Defending Science: The Italian astronomer argued that Earth and other planets revolve around the sun. Then he paid a price.