January 2019 CCL Omaha Chapter Monthly Meeting

Citizens’ Climate Lobby—Omaha Chapter

January Monthly Meeting, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 7:00 p.m., Weitz CEC, room 128

Agenda

Introductions: Names (Bob)
Please sign in

Announcements

We’re forming a Communications Subcommittee that will focus on developing and executing a communications plan to support the chapter’s work. This will include work on social media, the chapter website, media relations with the local press, email communications and more. If you’re interested in volunteering for this subcommittee, please contact Tracy Stanko at tracystanko at gmail dot com.

Statewide CCL conference, one day, Saturday, March 30th, 2019, 9:30 a.m. More info to follow…

Carbon Fee and Dividend (Bob)
Carbon Fee ($15 per ton, $10 more each year),
Carbon Dividend (Money returned to all citizens),
Border Adjustment (to protect US manufacturers and jobs)
Effective, good for people, good for the economy, bipartisan, revenue neutral)

Short Video: Katherine Hayhoe (https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/katharine-hayhoe-on-assessing-climate-change-factually/ )
(More videos by Katherine: http://katharinehayhoe.com/wp2016/ )

Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/

Getting Grass Tops Endorsements (Mark)

Letters to the editor (LTEs)   
Example: https://www.omaha.com/eedition/sunrise/midlands/page-b/page_4d5266ca-a3f1-56c4-bac7-6da412510091.html

Movie of the Month: Before the Flood
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UGsRcxaSAI)

Legislative Contacts

Recording What We Do (Field Reports) 

Other Ways to Get Involved: Write/Call to Congress,
CCL Subcommittee,
Call your representatives:  (http://CCLUSA.org/call)

Dealing With Others About Climate Change

Monthly Video: Amanda Ripley
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKJzd0k1cTQ&feature=youtu.be)

NEXT MEETING
February Monthly Meeting, Tuesday, February 12, 2019, 7:00 p.m., Weitz CEC, room 128

Mr. Rogers January 2 LTE
One: We don’t know what happened before we recorded temperatures
Two: the 1930s being the warmest temperatures in several hundred years
Three: he seems to be saying you can’t use science to prove or disprove climate change
Four: there has been severe weather in the past
Five: volcanoes put out large amounts of carbon
Six: we shouldn’t do anything because other large countries are putting out vast amounts of carbon
Seven: every climate model predicting catastrophes has proven false so far
Another: implies the earth will survive increased carbon

Mr. Rogers January 2 letter to the editor, contrary to his claims, is filled with errors and “facts” that are problematic. His first point argues both ways it seems, that we don’t know what happened over 125 years ago, our period of modern recorded climate. But then he goes on to use tree ring data to talk about a long drought in the 11th or 12th century. Which is it? We can use science or we can’t? His second point centers around the 1930s being the warmest temperatures in several hundred years (again trying to using science to prove his point) but where does his data about the 1930s come from? A quick search of the internet shows the warmest four years to be 2014 through 2017. I believe Mr. Rogers got his data somewhere, but it is not verifiable. Point three is about the scientific method, and he seems to be saying you can’t use science to prove or disprove climate change. Alas, we cannot use science to prove anything. But we do use a preponderance of the evidence to make decisions. Point four indicates that there has been severe weather in the past, something no climate scientist denies. Mr. Rogers seems to be implying (while again using science about the past) that it is not a problem that we are moving towards severe weather. This brings up many questions, but here is only one: Were humans alive and how did the severe weather effect them? Point five is about volcanoes putting out large amounts of carbon, which is true. But where does he get his information about industrial output vs volcanic output? (It would be nice to know specifically, but part of the answer is from scientists.) Point six seems to imply we shouldn’t do anything because other large countries are putting out vast amounts of carbon. I, for one, am not going to change what is good and right because someone tells me my neighbor isn’t doing it right or well. Point seven is “Every climate model predicting catastrophes has proven false so far” and I imagine Mr. Rogers has been told that, but, unfortunately, it is “100%” not true. Some models, I would guess, given the nature of science, have not come true. It is true that the scientific methods used in climate predictions have gotten more and more accurate. And many have come true. Where does he get his “100 percent true” facts? I agree that the earth, without a doubt, will survive increased carbon in the atmosphere, and it has when there have been high amounts in the past. The damage it will cause to humans, however, is a bigger problem every day we don’t do something about it. The will abide, but how well will we do?