Why does antiscience sentiment gain such traction in America? Conservatives deserve some blame, but so does the scientific community.
As generations of coaches have delighted in pointing out, defense wins games. But we’re very far behind in the global warming game.
Earlier this year, the Century published a piece by an environmental scientist on just how radical the current shift in CO2 levels are—from the perspective of 50 million years. As I was working with that scientist, Lee Vierling, on the piece, we struggled to find a language that he and I and readers of the Century could share. He wanted something that was fluid and scientifically absolutely accurate. He also wanted to be certain that he was not using scare tactics.
The presidential campaign has been an exhausting marathon. Yet it's hardly touched on some major issues facing the nation.
Long ago, another atmospheric shift took place. It shows how different the earth's environments have been—and how different they may become.
"Chemical trespass and climate change are often dealt with by two separate groups of environmentalists. I am interested in bringing these two together."
The use of clean energy sources is growing, but unless those sources become cheaper and more efficient, they won't put a dent in the rise in carbon emissions.
The lectionary reading from Matthew's Gospel is the story of Jesus walking on the Sea of Galilee in the midst of a storm. In a couple of decades, anyone will be able to cross the Sea of Galilee on foot because of climate change.
Global warming is dry science, an entirely rational question that should be addressed by experts working on our behalf and with our thanks. But it's not happening.