I don't feel powerless. I try to do my personal best every day to reduce my environmental footprint. Americans, as a rule, leave a bigger footprint than citizens of other countries. If more of us took the initiative to take personal action, we could make a big difference.

It's just not that hard. Walk or bike for shorter local trips. Reduce, recycle, reuse at every opportunity. It took a little organization to gear up. I planted my gardens differently, equipped my bike differently to carry things, made changes to my irrigation and plumbing systems,taught my kids to be diligent about flipping off electrical switches, we buy things with less packaging, organized our waste disposal system for easier sorting and composting. Over time, as we have had to replace mechanical systems, windows, roofing, and appliances in our home we have opted for energy efficient improvements.

Once we got organized, the rest was easy. Set aside time to plan and organize the simple changes that will help maintain of sustainable living habits every day. it's worth the effort.

No excuses. Our children and grandchildren have to live with the world we leave behind. They learn to feel empowered by watching our example.

Climate change? What is the issue...the climate is always changing? This must be about global warming, which was the original alarm, before there could no longer be demonstrated increased global warming (even though CO2 levels continued to rise).

Given all the irrational alarms of the Warmies, they should make a list of each alarm (melting polar ice, Greenland melting down, drowning polar bears, computer models predicting doom, etc.)...then list the reality in each situation. Then examine the oft-stated charge that "the science is settled" (it isn't).

This effort is propaganda through psycho-babble. Palo Alto, especially its leadership, should be more mature than this.

[Post removed.]

What exactly is this woman's scientific background, and her proven contributions to the field--that justifies her claiming that the people of Palo Alto should do what she tells them to do?

[Portion removed.]

It never fails -- them moment that the term "climate change" gets mentioned here, our resident denier trolls show up.

Never mind, of course, that they have no ACTUAL proof for their denier propaganda. Then again, empty barrels make the loudest noises...

"In 'The Green Boat,' psychologist Pipher turns her attention to the depression many people feel when looking at the issue of climate change."

if you are worried about depression and mental health, stop telling our kids the planet is doomed. Stop telling them they won't have a job because robots will take them all. Stop telling them they will never be able to afford to live in Palo Alto. Kids get these messages from an early age in school, and in a lot of homes.

@Slow Down -- So you would rather have people denying what is going on around them?

Do you have THAT much of a problem dealing with the truth?

@Craig Laughton, "Warmies." I suppose then you would would have no problem being called a Dumbie?

I wish someone would tell me what CLIMATE CHANGE is.

-1- Is it the fact that the climate has always changed.
-2- Is it the set of some models that say the climate is getting warmer?
-3- Is it the set of some models that say the climate is getting warmer because of increased human use of fossil fuels?
-4- Is the set of models that the climate is getting warmer due to human carbon use, and that this use must be significantly cut back to prevent increased warmer temperatures in the future?
-5- Is the set of models that the climate is getting warmer due to human carbon use, and that this use must be significantly cut back, and the only way to do this is to radically re-organize the world's economy?
-6- Is it #5, but with a religious fervor, i.e., proselytizing adherents and browbeating skeptics?

Let it go, fellow Warmies. As in all paradigm shifts throughout history, the new paradigm never convinces the old guard, it merely outlives them.

Best way to help the climate is have fewer children. The world population is out of control and needs to be decreased. Need to encourage birth control to women and men, decrease the welfare/food stamp/housing, etc. benefits for increased number of children.
For the US, decreasing the number of illegal aliens by securing our southern borders, enforcing US immigration laws (especially by the current administration), stopping Jerry Brown from giving CA benefits to illegal alines, and enforcing deportation of illegal aliens. Last year 30,000 criminals- murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. were released into the US population because "their home countries did not want them" is unacceptable.
This nonsense of solar arrays and windmills make no difference when the US and world population is exploding.

[Post removed.]

@Craig Laughton: Are you saying that if "the science isn't settled," then people shouldn't talk about it, or work to advance the science? The tricky thing about science is that very few things are ever truly settled. Biology is your field, I think; how much of what biologists think they know is settled?

@SlowDown: The point is that what others say can't be controlled. As a psychologist, Pipher is suggesting ways, other than burying one's head in the sand, to cope with the flood of troublesome information.

@Marvin Combs: I think it's "7 - That climate has changed in alarming ways recently (rapid glacial retreat, for example), and some people are truly alarmed, whether you think they should be or not."

@jerry: You may be right, but you're way off topic.

Look, some people benefit from the kinds of events described in the article. They get clearer understanding of issues, they hear differing points of view, they meet like-minded people, and they engage in a thoughtful problem-solving process. You guys should go -- you'd probably learn something.

@Deniers among us - the truth is even if there is several degrees of warming, it isn't a big deal, so don't lose sleep over it. It will better than several degrees of cooling. Kids, especially, don't need to worry about it.

Slow Down -- "[T]he truth is even if there is several degrees of warming, it isn't a big deal..."

I think you need to brush up on why those "several degrees of warming" are such a dangerous development. Hint: You won't find the explanation on denier websites.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) say global warming is for real. So did Pres. G. W. Bush (R-TX). What more proof could we want?

@jerry sounds on-topic to me. Continued population growth is bound to end badly, whether through climate change, depletion of resources, or simply crowding out every other species.

@Deniers among us - I got a letter from the EPA warning that the ski season could be shortened. But I prefer the beach anyway.

[Post removed.]

Seems to me a re-reading of Orwell's 1984 maybe be recommended reading for some of us out here.

Our Scientists have nearly 150 years of data to support the theory of global warming.

Luckily, this data must be measured against an unmeasured pool of data of 6 billion years.

So, by all means, we SHOULD be driving less... but not to the point of scaring the kids.

But, as Orwell told us- "fear sells".

[Portion removed.]

>@Craig Laughton: Are you saying that if "the science isn't settled," then people shouldn't talk about it, or work to advance the science? The tricky thing about science is that very few things are ever truly settled. Biology is your field, I think; how much of what biologists think they know is settled?

Mike, I think everyone should be skeptical about scientific 'conclusions', but especially if these conclusions are the result of political science. Current alarmism about global warming is highly political (paid for by government grants). This is not a harmless debate, because so much depends on the governmental edicts that are promulgated.

The current screech about scarcity and demands that people should suffer, because of alarmism about global warming, will result in a much worse condition for humanity (which might be something for the local librarian to get truly depressed about). Exponential technology not only, but WILL, save us from ourselves. Our discussions should be focused on the exponential growth of abundance, not scare tactic about scarcity.

One closing thought: Can we all agree that the alarmism is about global warming (as it originally was), not global climate change? That was a political Texas Two Step dance to avoid the inconvenient fact that the globe was not facing accelerating warming.

@Craig. I agree that skepticism is an important tool, but not the only tool. I disagree that having received research funding from the government invalidates one's work, or that the source of one's funding determines the conclusions of one's research.

I believe the increase in long-lived atmospheric "greenhouse gases," such as CO2, is at least in part due to human activity. I believe that the consequences of global warming, especially warming sea surface temperature, may eventually present us all with severe challenges that are difficult to solve. I believe that it's correct for society to try to anticipate those consequences, using all tools available.

"Exponential technology" may or may not save us from ourselves. When Vivek Wadhwa says, "In this and the next decade, we will begin to make energy and food abundant, inexpensively purify and sanitize water from any source, cure disease, and educate the world’s masses," (Web Link I believe he might be right, but I believe he's probably wrong about most of it.

Finally, no, we can't all agree on your last statement.

Please remember that the "Mini Ice Age" which started in the 14th Century did not end until the late 19th Century. Therefore, everything since then has been global warming. The question is: is this a man-made or natural phenomenon, since the re-warming of the globe began at the same time as the use of petroleum products.

> I disagree that having received research funding from the government invalidates one's work, or that the source of one's funding determines the conclusions of one's research.

Mike, that's a fair statement, in a generic context, however global warming alarmism is a special beast. Margaret Thatcher is the godmother of the modern global warming movement. She wanted nuclear power to develop in order to overcome a coal miners' strike, and she paid for some research to develop some scare tactics (fear of global warming)...and then some political types took off with it, realizing the political power that could come out of it (as it certainly did!). The governmental granting process is dominated by alarmists...it is nearly impossible for a climate scientist to receive a grant, if he/she is a skeptic. Simple thought experiment: Pass legislation that dictates that only global warming skeptics receive government grants over the next 20 years...then you will find that 97% of scientists are skeptics. Note: This is my way of saying that political science is bad science.

>I believe that it's correct for society to try to anticipate those consequences, using all tools available

Really, Mike? Do you believe that we should ban all fossil fuels? Force cities to demand high density housing near transportation centers (i.e. forced urbanization in the suburbs and small towns)? Hire 'sustainability' officers to police our conduct? Immediately approve new nuclear power plants? Etc.

>"Exponential technology" may or may not save us from ourselves. When Vivek Wadhwa says, "In this and the next decade, we will begin to make energy and food abundant, inexpensively purify and sanitize water from any source, cure disease, and educate the world's masses," (Web Link) I believe he might be right, but I believe he's probably wrong about most of it.

You, of course, are free to believe whatever you want to believe. However, the actual realities are very hard to deny, unless you are a denier. Moore's Law is still working, despite all the deniers back in the days. Exponential technologies are real things, not imaginary, Mike...but you must implicitly realize this, because you are using a computer....

Craig Laughton: "Simple thought experiment: Pass legislation that dictates that only global warming skeptics receive government grants over the next 20 years...then you will find that 97% of scientists are skeptics. Note: This is my way of saying that political science is bad science."

You REALLY don't know what you're talking about, do you? Have you spent so much as a single minute in a research laboratory, at any point in your life?

Stick to rooting for Joc Petersen.

>You REALLY don't know what you're talking about, do you? Have you spent so much as a single minute in a research laboratory, at any point in your life?

Actually, only about 23 years. Several publications, reviewed a number of submitted paper for peer review, etc.

This doesn't make me an expert on anything current, however I got a pretty understanding of the scientific method, as well as an understanding of the politics involved in some science endeavors.

Craig Laughton -- "This doesn't make me an expert on anything current, however I got a pretty understanding of the scientific method, as well as an understanding of the politics involved in some science endeavors."

Sorry, not convinced. The overall tenor of your posts, on this thread and others on Palo Alto Online, convince me that your so-called "expertise" is sorely lacking on many subjects, this being one of them.

>Sorry, not convinced. The overall tenor of your posts, on this thread and others on Palo Alto Online, convince me that your so-called "expertise" is sorely lacking on many subjects, this being one of them.

Denier: It is difficult to convince true believers, like yourself, about anything, even if it is about science. I prefer to stick with the facts, currently known, instead of scare tactics by the alarmists. You might do well to make a list of all the global warming alarmist claims over the years...then compare those claims with the actual facts.

Craig Laughton -- "I prefer to stick with the facts, currently known, instead of scare tactics by the alarmists. You might do well to make a list of all the global warming alarmist claims over the years...then compare those claims with the actual facts."

I have. And you are still in the wrong.

And if there is a true believer in this discussion, is is not me. I choose to believe in the *actual* scientific method -- not the right-wing version you seem to subscribe to.

>I have. And you are still in the wrong.(referring to your list)

OK, Denier, please publish your list of your global warming alarmist claims over the years (here on this blog)...then we can all get a good look at it, and make our own decisions about their scientific validity. Sunlight is a good way to go, I think.

Craig Laughton -- "OK, Denier, please publish your list of your global warming alarmist claims..."

Sorry, chum, but with rhetoric like that, I have NO reason to take you seriously. Period. End of story.

Cheers.

Deniers,

I think Craig makes a good point. Since you seem to have the list, why not just post it here? I would study it.

I used to spend lots of time bringing much-needed knowledge to forums whenever well-meaning but ignorant people thought they were doing everyone (and the planet) a favor by brow-beating anyone who argued against the validity of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

In case some Palo Altans never got the memo, the majority of intelligent humans have realized this was always nothing more than a religion, which is to say a vain, ignorant attempt by humans to know the unknowable, and a movement that while perhaps well-meaning, caused as much harm as good during its lifecycle. Data faked by scientists and scientific bodies in whom we trusted were no less comical than South Park's Mormon episode. Labels and aspersions cast at deniers often felt like socioeconomic racism. Political, strategic and social profiteering by the supposed enlightened few were rampant.

This is Silicon Valley, not Washington DC. We know that technology and its unstoppable march has already shown itself to be both the creator and reducer of our collective impact on the planet. Is the IPCC, the UN or the EPA going to clean the atmosphere by top-down decree, or has Silicon Valley's air gotten WAY, WAY cleaner since the 1960s because of technology and the free market's inexorable advance? The same is and will continue to happen across the globe, all the moreso if we stay humble and do what Tim Cook suggested at the recent commencement address he gave at G.W. University; realize that doing well and doing good are not mutually exclusive, that technology imagined by humans with a profit motive can do more good than anyone could ever imagine.

Chris Zaharias -- "Is the IPCC, the UN or the EPA going to clean the atmosphere by top-down decree, or has Silicon Valley's air gotten WAY, WAY cleaner since the 1960s because of technology and the free market's inexorable advance?"

In case you don't know (apparently, you don't), the technology to clean up the atmosphere would NOT be in place WITHOUT legislation that would mandate such technology be manufactured. The free enterprise system, after all, is not COMPLETELY free -- it relies upon government regulation in order to function properly (otherwise, no one would enter into contracts, since no one would trust the other to engage in a fair deal, and find redress for breach of contract/fraudulent transactions).

The deniers are so amusing in their own way...

Deniers, why don't you just post your list? That way, we can decide for ourselves. [Portion removed.]

I've been visiting the local baylands since the late fifties and haven't noticed any rise in sea level. I wish someone had planted a solid measuring stick somewhere out there exposed to open water, where we could see the effects of climate change with our very own eyes.

The current "settled science" swears that 4 inches of rise has occurred since 1960. Of course that would be lost amidst the 10 foot tidal range, but still I'd think a trend of higher lows and higher highs might reveal 4 inches.

Science guarantees us 3 to 6 feet of further rise by year 2100. Today's kids certainly should be able to see a change by the time they become grandparents. In the name of educational excellence, perhaps we could pry loose some of our dear "public art" funds to install a modest tastefully durable monument, with suitable engraved markings, at a viewable distance from our soon-to-be-renovated boardwalk at the Baylands Nature Center, which has itself seen 45 years of climate change (or lack thereof).

Then those future generations can argue whether the sea is rising or the land is subsiding.

Pretty cool concept, musical, at least as a public interest attraction. However, as you suggest, it would not distinguish between ocean rise or land subsidence. The only reliable data is by satellite, and that data only exists since 1993. As you probably know, sea levels are influenced by two main things: Thermal expansion and loss of water due to precipitation over cold land masses, especially Antarctica and Greenland (and some glaciers). As the sea warms, there is more evaporation, thus more loss of water to land based ice. Whatever the various factors, the only real way to know if the sea is rising of falling is by satellite, not tide gages.

Still, I like your idea, though...imagine all those six grade teachers leading field trips out to the Baylands to proclaim that the ocean is rising, and us coastal people are doomed!

@ Craig Laughton: I believe that if world climate is changing in a significant way, there's not much that people can do to stop it. In the same way, I believe that if the Pacific Plate is moving northwest at 4 cm/year, we have no say in it. But that doesn't stop geologists from researching plate tectonics and earthquake science, and it doesn't stop people from making big investments in infrastructure and education that would be helpful when the next Big One comes.

Let's remember that plate tectonics is recent science, hobbled together from myriad bits of basic science, funded almost entirely by the federal government. The same is true of most elements of so-called "exponential technology."

So, what do I think people should do about global warming? I'd say nothing, but the glaciers are melting faster than ever, so "nothing" seems inadequate. I think people should prepare for what climate science says are the likely consequences of warming. The trouble is, unlike with earthquakes, which are more immediate and predictable, there's very little agreement about what the consequences are likely to be. So how do we prepare? First, fund climate science. Second, generously fund basic research in all disciplines. Third, keep talking, openly, about what the research reveals. After that, I don't know, and wouldn't presume to say.

Mike,

I agree with basic science, and think we should fund it, both publicly and privately. However, since the science is NOT settled, with regards to global warming, we should not apply destructive policies (like opposing fossil fuels). The existing satellite systems (and improvements) will provide solid data...a real winner for space systems.

I think national security (both military and economic) demands that we support fracking AND nuclear power electric generation. I also support solar (to a lessor extent, wind).

Our future is bright, given the exponential technologies in front of us...as long as we choose to pursue them. If the greenies force us to reject them, in favor of scarcity, we face a bleak future.

Simple question for you, Mike: Do you support newer versions of nuclear energy?

Uh, we should all be skeptical of science.
I would not disagree with that.
If it is functioning right science has built in skepticism.
What makes science not function right is money and political power.
That money and political power is 100% on the side of climate change denial.

My feeling is that we all, human race, should know and have learned
at something about the long term effects of our industry and population.
It has never been a good idea to build up garbage, toxic garbage and
flood the planet with it. WHETHER IT CHANGES CLIMATE OR NOT.

Fouling their own nest is not something an intelligent positive
species does ... unless it has to for survival, and we are all so busy
competing and warring with each for survival it is like we are fighting
in a burning house.

Personally, I believe that everything we are or will ever be has
come from nature. Everything we know or learn, the patterns we
come to understand, all springs from looking at and understanding
nature. Given the choice between having nature into the future or
having a few less gadgets, it's an easy choice for me.

I don't imagine that me walking somewhere or recycling a bottle
is going to help, at all. Changes like this need to be made on a
massive level or they don't work. When some nice altruistic person
doesn't flush their toilet for a week, there is another nasty self-
centered jerk that sits around flushing it for fun out of spite.

Changes need to solid, backed up by science, targetted and
understood as well as institutionalized If we need use the carrot
and the stick we need to be very careful not just go ballistic
because in the past someone made a mistake. There is a lot of
progress that has come from regulation and a lot of problems
from the free market. Pragmatism, and debate. Leave the
nasty talk and emotion out of it.

When you see someone jump in with bile and smoke, they are
probably just trying to derail any real discussion because they
know they are wrong.

>> I think people should prepare for what climate science says are the likely consequences of warming.

The problem is that a 1000 years ago, nature could move and migrate to adjust. Today man's imprint on the environment makes it brittle and susceptible to destruction, just like we do when we for example build up a whole planet of monoculture bananas and a fungus develops to attack that one species.

Nature had many factors that dynamically supports itself. That is not true today. Because of our footprint most animals are extinct today. That is an unspeakable crime to me, and so unnecessary. Alway perpetrated by loud people saying there is not problem with anything they do, and no one can prove it. When someone does prove it, they complain it's not scientific enough, or they hire scientists to say it for them.

The problems we are seeing are real. Changes in the acidity of the ocean, atmospheric dynamics. Sure, can you use technology to save ourselves. Yeah, probably most of us, but not most of nature. Every time we hollow out nature a little more it springs back slower with less diversity.

The arguments the climate change deniers muster are basically irrelevant to the discussion, but that's understandable because the whole subject has been twisted around from global cooling, to global warming, to climate change, or whether its man-made, to whether we can do anything about it, to whether we should and what?

All some people have to do is make and appearance and all the nuance evaporates and people get angry and pissed off.

> There is a lot of progress that has come from regulation and a lot of problems from the free market.

That has to be one of most bizarre comments I have seen, in this context. Let's see, maybe if man had not discovered how to exploit fire, and simply looked at his opposable thumb (instead of using it to make tools), we would have a great natural world. My view is that I don't want to live in a stone age, and I truly appreciate the riches that the free market has brought to humanity. The free market will continue to offer improvements to the condition of mankind, and in an exponential way. Regulations should be used, but with substantial caution...there could be horrible consequences from their overuse.

>> Let's see, maybe if man had not discovered how to exploit fire, and simply looked at his opposable thumb

Cherry picking your simple arguments again Craig? You need to up your game man!

Also, not cool to make fake arguments and assign them to me. I never told you I wanted you to live in the stone age, but it does make a certain amount of sense for a neanderthal to live in the stone age! ;-)

I am staying neutral on this discussion but I do have a question that maybe one of you can answer for me. Think of our planet as a convertible car. Many years ago, there was much discussion about the hole in the ozone layer and unless we closed it up by banning CFC's, we would all suffer the consequences. (We were driving around with the car top down and were told that we would get sunburned unless we put the top back up.) CFC's were banned and the ozone layer dropped from the headlines.

Okay, so now the car has the top up but it's starting to warm up inside the car. (The headlines now read global warming/climate change).

So my question is, is the closing of the hole in the ozone layer a natural occurrence and had nothing to do with CFC's and was a coincidence, and if so, isn't this pattern of warming (and cooling) a result of the fluctuation of the opening in the ozone layer?

I am looking forward to your comments.

>> Think of our planet as a convertible car.

Sorry, no. ;-)

>> unless we closed it up by banning CFC's, we would all suffer the consequences.

The consequences of the depletion of the ozone layer was a large increase in UV
radiation as I recall, not a significant driver of climate change.

>> is the closing of the hole in the ozone layer a natural occurrence and had nothing
>> to do with CFC's

Never read anything to that effect, so no, I don't think so.

>> and if so, isn't this pattern of warming (and cooling) a result of the fluctuation
>> of the opening in the ozone layer?

If not, then not.

My understanding is that the ozone layer and CO2 are two separate issues
that may interact but not significantly. I'm not sure about that, but I do
think thought experiments based on thinking of the Earth as a convertible
are not going to help solve this here and now.

Since you said you were staying neutral on the discussion, why is it you ask?