A Letter to President Trump

President Trump, I urge you to read (or have read to you) the consequences of your saying "I dont believe it."

I am assuming that you know what the Greenhouse Effect is and that the average world temperature increases proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The current average daily CO2 concentration is 412.60 ppm on May 14, 2018 (NOAA-ESRL). The last time Earth experienced similar CO2 concentrations was 3 million years ago. Most of the increase has occurred since the industrial age began.

A goal of the Paris Accord goal was to hold global average temperature increase to “well below 2 degree C above preindustrial levels and try to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C."
Let me try to convince you what are the consequences of a "only" a 2 degree C temperature rise.: This would involve world wide mass starvation due to the effect on agriculture of massive droughts and intense heat, leading to mass migrations of people searching for food. Rain forests would be destroyed. The Greenland ice pack would melt as well as parts of the Antarctic ice packs, leading to world wide increases in ocean level and flooding of all coastal cities. Massive migration of people from the flooded coasts will occur, almost certainly leading to wars as the industrial countries attempt to limit the waves of migrations of frantic people. Nuclear exchanges may indeed occur between Pakistan and India, Israel and the Arab states, and the United States, Europe and Russia. It is ironic that the flooding may in fact slow down these wars as the army bases and missle launch sites become covered by water. The flooding will affect the very institutions of modern nation-states - military, business, financial, social, travel, education, communication (including the internet).

In addition, several other "tipping point" phenomena would occur which will exponentially increase the rate of accumulation of greenhouse gases: Melting of the tundra releasing huge amounts of CO2 and also methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane would also be released from melting of the solid methyl hydrides in the deep oceans. “Super hurricanes” would occur due to the energy derived from passage of the hurricanes over the warm ocean. The heat-induced evaporation of ocean water will lead to intense rain storms and flooding. Another serious consequence of increased CO2 is a decrease in ocean pH, which leads to death of shellfish and coral, and perhaps has other less understood effects on fish life. Since seafood provides a large percent of the diet worldwide, this will accentuate starvation-induced migrations.

A recent report by dozens of U.S. federal agencies concluded that if nothing is done, a cataclysmic 4 degrees Celsius of warming is inevitable by the year 2100. By this time the structures of nation states and indeed civilizations will be destroyed and people will revert to a hunter- gatherer life style for food. Finally, as the temperature increases above 4 degrees C, life itself become almost impossible as the earth turns into another Venus with boiling oceans due to a runaway greenhouse effect.

President Trump, please think about this: There will be incredible human suffering (including your children and grandchildren) and finally there will be destruction of the very fabric of modern civilization. This is not a political event. It is the end of our civilization as we know it, and perhaps the end of human life on this earth, in the very near future. Think about this when you say "I dont believe it."

Think about this.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Earth has what’s called a greenhouse atmosphere, with gases like carbon dioxide (CO₂), water vapor (H₂O), methane (CH₄) and others that trap heat that is radiated up from the surface, much like a greenhouse collects light and turns it into heat so plants can thrive. The greenhouse effect makes our planet habitable. When Earth’s surface gets hotter, more evaporation occurs, releasing water vapor into the atmosphere. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and when more of it is in the air, it traps even more heat and radiates it back down to the surface. The extra infrared heat evaporates more water vapor, which traps more heat, then, in turn, evaporates even more water vapor, and so on. It becomes a feedback loop. Scientists believe a similar process may have played a key role in what happened to the planet Venus. A few billion years ago, high levels of carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere may have trapped enough heat to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that boiled away the oceans. Today, the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead.

The 2015 Paris climate accord set an aspirational goal of a 1.5 degree  target. A recent IPCC report ― authored by 91 researchers and editors from 40 countries citing more than 6,000 scientific references ― suggests that to meet that target, the world would need to aggressively phase out fossil fuels to meet net-zero emissions by 2050, and remove carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases out of the atmosphere from then on. More immediately, emissions would have to drop by about 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030.

In any case, the 1.5 degree target would lead to very unpleasant consequences. Summers would suffer extreme heatwaves  similar to the 2003 degree heatwave in Europe that led to 10,000 deaths in France and over 35,000 deaths in Europe as a whole. Based on the 2003 experience, agriculture would be devastated, the flows of the River Po, the Rhine and the Loire would dramatically decrease, and glaciers in the Alps would begin to melt. The incredible, destructive forest fires recently seen in California would be the norm. It would indeed become intolerable to live anywhere in the tropics or even the subtropics, and a mass migration of people moving North or South to escape the heat would occur.

A 2-3 degree increase in temperature would involve world wide mass starvation due to the effect on agriculture of massive droughts and heat, accompanied by mass migrations of people searching for food.  Rain forests would be destroyed. The Greenland ice pack would melt as well as parts of the Antarctic ice packs, leading to world wide increases in ocean level and flooding of coastal cities. Several other tipping point phenomena would occur which would exponentially increase the rate of accumulation of greenhouse  gases: Melting of the tundra, releasing huge amounts of  CO2 and also methane, which is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane would also be released from melting of the methyl hydrides in the deep oceans. “Super hurricanes” would be the norm due to the energy derived from passage over the warm ocean. Massive flooding would occur due to the evaporation of ocean water leading to intense rain storms. Another consequence of increased CO2 is a decrease in ocean pH, which leads to death of shellfish and coral, and perhaps  has other less understood effects on fish life.

A 3-4 degree increase in temperature would involve massive migrations of people from the flooded coasts, almost certainly leading to wars as the industrial countries attempt to decrease the waves of migrations. Nuclear exchanges may indeed occur between Pakistan and India, Israel and the Arab states, the United States, Europe and Russia. The flooding may in fact slow down these wars as the sites of armies and launch sites are covered by water.

And finally a 4-6 degree warming  will be rapidly reached due to the tipping point events. By this time the structures of civilizations will become destroyed and people will revert to a hunter- gatherer life style for food.  Life will become almost  impossible as the earth turns into another Venus due to a runaway greenhouse effect. A recent report by dozens of U.S. federal agencies concluded that if nothing is done, a cataclysmic 4 degrees Celsius (or 7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming is inevitable by the end of the century.

This would probably lead to Venus-like conditions, and there will cease to be life on the planet Earth!

The Ugly
A recent article by Noah Chomsky provides some responsibility for these horrible events. Many of the climate change deniers, including our moronic President, either are too stupid to  understand what the Scientists are saying or they understand it but assume that nothing can be done to avert these disasters, and so they may as well enrich themselves while the earth burns by continuing to pump and sell oil and methane. The energy companies are continuing to search for new oil fields and even the banks are investing in fossil fuel development. Chomsky concludes that “I cant think of anything like this in human history. You  just cant find words to describe it. And at the peak of this monstrosity is in fact the Trump Administration. It’s as if we are like the proverbial lemmings just  happily marching off the cliff, led by leaders who understand very well what they are doing, but are so dedicated to enriching themselves and their friends that it simply does  not matter what happens to the human species. There is nothing like this in all of human history. There have been plenty of  monsters in the past,  but you cant find one who was dedicated with passion to destroying the prospects for organized human life. Hitler was horrible but  not that.”

King Canute Would be Proud

The modern Republican Party and its "President", Donald Trump, have been violently anti-science and have claimed that human-caused climate change is a "hoax", possibly created by the Chinese. This was demonstrated in spades by the Republican North Carolina State Legislature who in 2012 actually passed HB 819, a bill, which legislates state and local agencies that develop coastal policies to ignore scientific models showing an acceleration in the rise of sea levels. The driving force for this, other than the vast stupidity of the Republican Party itself was by NC-20, an nonprofit governmental group stacked with coastal development and real estate interests, and  the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which have ties to the fossil fuel industry. Other idiot - full groups pushing for this legislation include the Friends of Forestry Political Action Committee, the Heartland Institute, an ultraconservative “think tank”, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Koch Industries, who gave money to several North Carolina legislators.

It reminds me of the famous order by King Canute of Denmark that the tides should stop. I wish I could ask these legislators now how that bill is doing with Hurricane Florence and the flooding of the cities.

I copy below a more detailed analysis of this legislation:

From the INDY week newspaper of Raleigh-Durham.

By Lisa Sorg @lisasorg

The agenda behind the sea level rise bill: from the Carolina coast to the Kochs

Who is NC-20?

Our grandkids will curse us. At a Senate committee hearing last week, David Rouzer, a Johnston County Republican, ignored the scientific consensus that by 2100, the sea level could—and most likely will—rise by at least an average of 3 feet on the North Carolina coast.

Without the proper safeguards, such an increase could be catastrophic.

Instead, Rouzer and his fellow Republicans passed House Bill 819, which restricts the ability of state agencies to accurately forecast and prepare for sea level rise. As a result, developers can continue to profit from building in vulnerable, low-lying coastal areas free of additional regulations that would apply if the state accounted for higher seas.

"We have to include not only the science," Rouzer said, "but to consider the reality that if you're going to use the science but can't validate it, there could be a negative impact on coastal economies."

However, the science of sea level rise and climate change is valid and sound. By dismissing the scientific consensus, bill proponents jeopardize the public health and safety of coastal communities, said Doug Rader, chief oceans scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund. "It is forcing the state to use junk science and puts the future of North Carolina's economy and ecosystems at risk," he said.

This version of the bill made it to the committee after NC-20, a nonprofit governmental group stacked with coastal development and real estate interests (see "Who is NC-20?" below), successfully persuaded a science panel of the Coastal Resources Commission to significantly change its policy proposal. Those amendments included restricting state and local governments to using only select historical data to predict sea level rise. Under those conditions, the forecast is not 3 feet, but 8 inches. On Tuesday, the full Senate passed the bill, 35-12. It now goes to the House.

"We were really pleased," said NC-20 Chairman Tom Thompson of Sen. Rouzer, the bill sponsor. "God bless him. He acted like one of us."

Rouzer's talking points—that the science of climate change and sea level rise is debatable—mirrored those not only of NC-20, but also of the rhetoric spouted by right-wing, anti-regulation, climate-change deniers. Not coincidentally, many of these organizations, including the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, have ties to the fossil fuel industry,

Thompson was quick to distance NC-20 from those groups. "We're not guilty by association," he said.

But those associations are real, and they pass through NC-20's science adviser, John Droz Jr., a former real estate developer with a master's degree in solid state science (see chart below). A senior fellow at the American Tradition Institute, which counts among its experts and fellows many fossil fuel proponents, Droz masterminded a confidential nationwide strategy to undermine public support for wind power, according to an article in The Guardian published last month.

"[Droz] advises us," Thompson said. "He doesn't speak for our whole organization." Droz could not be reached by Indy seeking comment.

Yet Droz isn't the only member of NC-20 who has championed the work of climate-change deniers. Larry Baldwin, NC-20's VP of regulatory affairs, lauded the Heartland Institute on the NC-20 blog, stating he found it to be "pretty reliable as to factual information." NC-20 has also posted papers by the late Michael Crichton, a science fiction author and climate-change denier, who testified before a U.S. Senate committee that global warming is a hoax.

Nor is North Carolina alone in basing its environmental policy on political rather than scientific grounds. The Virginia legislature recently commissioned a $50,000 study to examine the effect of sea level rise on its coast. According to Think Progress, Republican State Delegate Chris Stolle cut "sea level rise" from the draft, calling it a "left-wing term."

Controlling the language—and thus the message—is a strategy by the right to divert the conversation from their political agenda. Instead they try to debunk science using "experts" and scientists whose theories largely have not withstood scientific rigor. It's reminiscent of intelligent design proponents who, in attempting to insert their theology into science textbooks, erroneously contend there is a scientific debate over evolution.

"It's already clear from the data that sea level is accelerating," said Duke University Professor of Global Environmental Change Rob Jackson, who spoke before the senate committee. He asked that it put a monthlong hold on the bill to solicit scientific comment. The committee opted not to postpone its decision.

"There is no scientific schism [about climate change and sea level rise] at all," Rader said. "This issue is being driven by non-scientists."

NC-20 has no scientists on its board. But Thompson is quick to quote "science" to justify its position: It could cost coastal counties millions of dollars, Thompson said, to prepare for what he believes will not happen. "It will be a miracle if the sea level rise reaches 39 inches," Thompson said. "If we wait and see, then it costs nothing. If they're right, then fine."

But coastal residents won't be fine. In addition to the economic losses in tourism and fishing, the cost to the state to rescue people, rebuild roads and clean up contaminated drinking water would total in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

"There's a liability question," Rader said. "What happens when the state prevents the use of the best available science in making public policy? If I had bought a home as a result of state policy and North Carolina told me it was safe to build in these places, I'm seeking relief, possibly through the courts. All for the advantage of a few speculators."

________________________________________

Who is NC-20?

"If you want to preserve the beauty of the coastal counties while ensuring that we use our God-given assets to increase the quantity and quality of jobs, preserve and increase our tax base, and leave our children a legacy of prosperity, join NC-20."

That's the sales pitch for the group that successfully lobbied for a significant change in state environmental policy—one that could harm future generations of coastal residents.

The board of directors includes 10 county managers and 10 people with development, real estate, insurance and forestry interests. (See chart below.)

NC-20 Chairman Tom Thompson reports that the group's annual budget is about $27,000. However, it's difficult to gauge the NC-20's financial status. According to the group's federal tax returns, it received $13,241 in memberships and dues in 2009. That amount jumped to $54,644 in the July 2010–June 2011 fiscal year. However, Thompson said the figure is incorrect because NC-20 bills all the coastal counties but half of them don't pay. (New Hanover and Brunswick counties, for example, are not members.)

"It's a hope that they'll join," he added. Yet since these counties were invoiced, the potential revenue must be accounted for.

Annual membership dues range from $100 for individuals to $5,000 for businesses (includes a board seat) and up to $10,000 for counties.

NC-20 is an all-volunteer staff. Expenditures include speaker and lobbyist fees. Thompson said NC-20 paid Fred Bone, ranked as one of the state's most effective lobbyists (see chart below), $12,000 over eight months. He reported to the group on committee hearings, Thompson said, "but he didn't try to influence the legislation. We don't have that kind of money to pay him for that."

Turning back the tide

Realtor Missy Baskerville was "intimately involved" in convincing the Coastal Resources Commission to revamp its policy proposal on sea level rise, according to the NC-20 website.

The Friends of Forestry political action committee has the same address, 1600 Glenwood Ave., Raleigh, as the N.C. Forestry Association. Its executive director is Bob Slocum, forestry consultant for NC-20. The Friends of Forestry gave $1,500 to Republican Sen. David Rouzer, a proponent of HB 819 (the "sea level rise" bill), and co-chair of the Senate Agriculture/ Environment/ Natural Resources Committee, which passed the measure last week. From 2012–2012, the PAC also contributed $2,000 to Republican Sen. Brent Jackson, committee co-chair and $2,000 each to fellow Democratic committee members, Sens. Clark Jenkins and Michael Walters.

Fred Bone was named one of the Top 10 Most Effective Lobbyists in 2009–2010 by the N.C. Center for Public Policy Research. Bone represents not only NC-20, but also tobacco and propane gas interests and the consumer finance industry.

After receiving his degree in solid state science 37 years ago, John Droz Jr. became a real estate developer in upstate New York. He is a senior fellow at the ultra-conservative American Tradition Institute and a vehement opponent of wind energy. According to a May 8, 2012, story in the Guardian, Droz masterminded a confidential nationwide strategy to undermine public support for wind power. The Guardian reported that Droz confirmed he had "enlisted support for telephone campaigns from Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks," which have received funding from the Koch Brothers. Droz also appeared at an anti-wind forum sponsored by the John Locke Foundation in North Carolina last December. Droz has not published any peer-reviewed scientific articles. On his resume, he says he is a member of Mensa.

Other fellows and experts at the American Tradition Institute include executive director Tom Tanton, who also was a senior fellow and vice president of the Institute for Energy Research, a pro-fossil fuels think tank. Chris Horner, director of litigation for ATI's Environmental Law Center, is a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (see entry below). Jenna Ashley Robinson, an ATI research fellow, is outreach coordinator at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, largely funded by the Pope Foundation, led by North Carolina conservative multi-millionaire Art Pope. She graduated from the Koch Associates Program sponsored by the Charles G. Koch Foundation. She was a fellowship assistant at the John Locke Foundation, also funded by the Pope Foundation.

The Institute for Energy Research has ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council. It has received $175,000 from Koch Industries, according to Greenpeace. According to Think Progress, one of IER's directors, Steven Hayward, was exposed two years ago for offering to pay scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change $10,000 for written critiques of the IPCC's newest findings. See also Tom Tanton.

In addition to its advocacy for the tobacco industry, The Competitive Enterprise Institute opposes environmental regulation and disputes the scientific facts about climate change. It opposed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which called for the reduction of greenhouse gases. CEI is partially funded by various Koch Foundations and for seven years received a total of $2 million from ExxonMobil. See also Chris Horner.

Paul Chesser of Raleigh is a senior fellow at ATI, a special correspondent at the Heartland Institute and the director of Climate Strategies Watch. CSW "assesses development of global warming policies in the states," according to his bio at the John Locke Foundation's Carolina Journal.

The NC-20 website includes papers and presentations by Nicola Scafetta, an assistant adjunct professor in the Duke University physics department. He contends that not human activity, but solar and other astronomical phenomenon cause climate change. Although climate change deniers have seized on his series of papers defending this theory, it has been roundly criticized by the scientific community. The New Scientist reported in 2009 that Scafetta refused to disclose the computer code he used to reach his conclusions, thus preventing other scientists from attempting to reproduce his results. He spoke at the sixth annual Heartland Institute conference on climate change. His work has also appeared in a book published by the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute, an ultraconservative think tank, has long led the charge to debunk the science of climate change. Although it largely keeps its donor list secret, Heartland has received at least $675,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, $35,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars from other right-wing groups. The Heartland Institute is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council and has published and promoted ALEC's model legislation. Major supporters of Heartland recently distanced themselves from the group after it sponsored a billboard featuring a photo of the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, with the words, "I still believe in global warming. Do you?"

Corporate executives, including those from Koch Industries, and about 1,500 conservative state legislators belong to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which designs "model bills" for like-minded lawmakers to import into their states. These bills, which were obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy, showed ALEC's work to overturn environmental protections, including regulations on greenhouse gases. ALEC's position papers question the impact of humans on climate change. Sen. David Rouzer attended an ALEC conference last year, according to his campaign finance reports. He was one of more than 40 N.C. lawmakers who went to the conference; 24 of them sit on one of ALEC's task forces. Reps. Ric Killian and Ruth Samuelson are on the Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force, along with representatives from the Institute for Energy Research and the Heartland Institute.

Makes it All Worthwhile

When I first came to UCLA as a bushy-tailed Assistant Prof., I was assigned to teach the Freshman Biology Course to an uncountable number of students. This "total immersion" was a real shock to my system and my young ego since I rapidly realized that I did not like doing this, probably because I was not very good at it. 

As the years went by I moved on to teaching Cell Biology and enjoyed it a little more and had fewer students. But then a few years ago I decided to teach to upper division undergrads what I really liked - my own field of research, molecular biology of parasites. To be more precise, molecular biology  of parasitic protozoa, and to be even more precise, molecular biology of trypanosomes. I discovered that I really liked this and so did the students. My teaching skills progressed until I was actually pleasing more students than I displeased. 

And finally, in the last few years, I came to the realization that teaching was not really about the  transmitting of facts but the stimulation of excitement in the subject matter. Students could always learn the facts on their own but only if they were excited enough to do doing so. To accomplish this, I decided to humanize the material and introduce the history of how research in parasitology actually progressed to show that science is a very human endeavor performed by very human people. When I introduced a parasite I went back to the discovery of the disease and the parasite that caused this disease and how this came about. I showed them the false trails, the flawed arguments, and finally the brilliance of the discovery. I also did not neglect the occasional fraud, deceit, the jealousy due to competition with other researchers and the tedium of real research which are present in any human endeavour. But I lingered on the excitement of the "chase" and  flashes of genius. This was combined with a discussion of the clinical  and Public Health problems of these diseases and even the effects of these diseases on historical events. Then I  moved to a detailed look at the knowledge gained by the use of modern cell and molecular biology techniques and how this might lead towards developing therapies against these diseases. I always tried to use these discussions to illuminate the general concepts of what are hypothetical "models" and operational "facts" in science. And how that,  in the study of parasites, one should always be alert for genetic or biochemical pathways unique to the parasites and not present in the human host which present potential targets for chemotherapies against the diseases.  

Student Evaluations (I have no Shame!)

Being in the twilight of my career, I show no shame in  bragging of my successes in teaching by actually posting some recent student evaluations from my courses for the last few years that make me feel like it was all worthwhile. (Full disclosure: Of course I have not included the few evaluations which suggested I was disorganized and gave bad exams and was therefore the scum of the earth,  but that is also part of the human side of academics! I also neglected to include the one that said "Dr. Simpson was like the grandfather I never had".)