@ClimateBen This is incredibly irresponsible and harmful. Tacking “BREAKING” onto an unattributed statement is bad enough, but you’re also misrepresenting Gavin—he never said that. You need to delete this. What you’re doing is wrong, Ben, and I think you know better.
@ClimateBen To support your first tweet, you link to two papers about impacts to support your statement, and you misrepresent and exaggerate the findings of both (neither of which Gavin was involved in). Most people won’t actually read the articles, let alone the papers you posted.
@ClimateBen The climate crisis needs no exaggeration to drive action. But threads like this make it harder and harder for scientists to debunk doomist narratives, and as a result, we’re getting attacked by people citing our own work on climate change, who accuse us of downplaying the crisis.
@ClimateBen Buried in a link thread, you later admit there’s never a point past which we shouldn’t act, but most people won’t read past “BREAKING: NASA says we’re doomed!” Every time someone like you does this, my inbox is filled with messages from anxious youth, asking if there’s any point.
@ClimateBen I don’t know if this is how you process your own anxiety, or if you’re trying to leverage others’ anxiety to build your platform, or if you genuinely think you’re helping. But many experts have tried to explain to you how harmful this is. Please, I’m begging you: listen to us.
@ClimateBen People know there’s a crisis. Inaction on climate change isn’t due to people not being anxious or sacrificing enough. It’s because of powerful efforts by the fossil fuel industry, which you somehow only mention ONCE in here, in reference to air pollution minimizing warming (!).
@ClimateBen And then, despite linking to a number of popular press articles and other publicly available resources from scientific agencies, you argue that we have to be our own experts, which further undermines the actual experts whose work doomers cite but somehow also denigrate.
This was such a fun conversation, not only because we got to have Eric back on the show (as the founder of Warm Regards). Eric took a break from the podcast to work on The Future Earth, and it was really nice to be able to close the loop with a conversation about his book.
I also got to talk with one of my favorite authors about one of my favorite moments in one of my favorite books, and that's just not something one gets to do very often, if ever.
We hope you enjoy this first episode in our two-part finale, and we'd love to hear what you think.
I’m on the board of a non-profit, and we hired anti-racism consultants to do an assessment of our culture and practices. One thing that came up is this notion of how whiteness, as an identity, is constructed. You can’t “fix” racist structures without doing the “heart work” too.
Meaning, if you pit structural solutions (eg, “hire more Black people”), against a racist culture, the culture will always win out, and you will likely fail in your goals. The heart work — unlearning the deep programming of white supremacy—is not optional.
The kicker is, part of white identity construction involves emphasizing technical (acute) over adaptive (systemic) change. Meaning, how we are trained to approach problems in white culture? Often just exacerbates those problems. And that’s a problem if you actually want change.
Hey, while I have you here, I wanted to share two of my lab's papers that came out right around the election when everyone was a bit distracted.
The first is by my former PhD student, @DulcineaGroff. She found that the establishment of seabird colonies in the Falklands 5000 years ago triggered a big ecosystem change on land. She was able to pick up this shift thanks to (you guessed it) poop! advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/43/e…
Seabirds eat in the ocean, and nest on land, so they're a kind of sentinel of global change. Long-term records like Dr. Groff's can help us protect these birds (and their habitats) as the climate warms in the Southern Ocean.
I keep thinking about something Dr. Sacoby Wilson (@ceejhlab) sad during this episode. He talked about Ernest Boyer's five dimensions of science: discovery, teaching, integration, engagement, application. “If you’re not doing all five dimensions, you’re doing science science.”
"I’m not curious about anything I work on when it comes to environmental justice. Because it’s macabre. “I’m curious about being poisoned,” basically, that is inhumane. Unethical..." 2/n
"So when we do science that only observes an issue or science that extracts from people’s experiences and doesn’t give back, that’s (in my opinion) bad science." 3/n
Please don't use body fat as a climate change metaphor. First, it's a bad metaphor (fat is farm more complex than calories in - calories out). Plus, this basically equates eating food with fossil fuel burning, and reinforces fatness as something to be combatted or ashamed of.
When I say "bad metaphor" I mean it. Most of what you hear about body fat is woefully anti-scientific, as body fat scientists will tell you (and yes, this includes what you hear from doctors): highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/ev…
This also goes for journalists or climate communicators jumping on the opportunity to include obesity as a moral imperative for fighting climate change ("Ride bikes! Go vegan! Fight climate change and the obesity crisis!"). Greenwashing fat-phobia doesn't make it suddenly okay.