Sunday, November 4, 2012

Pushing On Bergs- The Berg Moves...

One of the things about pushing on icebergs- when an iceberg you've been pushing on, hard, actually moves - and in the right direction- you're still never sure if your pushing is what moved it.

But.  Physics being what it is- it's entirely possible that without your push, it would still be sitting there.

A Berg just moved, and in the right direction.  It was a Bloomberg this time, not an iceberg- but the resemblance is actually considerable, and the Bloomberg had, in fact, been sitting immobile and unmovable for quite some time.

The basic story; the Mayor of New York City came out and endorsed Obama for re-election - because:

“Our climate is changing,” he wrote. “And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it may be — given the devastation it is wreaking — should be enough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”

So; am I saying Bloomberg endorsed Obama - and climate change- because of my pushing?

I'd like to hope I'm not delusional, at least not more than other folks; (humor) but here's the thing; I WAS pushing- in exactly the right place and time- for my pushes to have added just that last bit.

Do you suppose the Mayor of New York City reads The New York Times?  To keep a handle on what his city is saying?  I would, in his shoes, I think- even though, yes, he kind of has his own news service (uh, you've heard of Bloomberg?)

If he was reading the NYT; the very first article they carried about a possible connection between Sandy and climate change - carried my blunt and rude comment (#9 out of 178, so...), and linked here, to We Told You So, which is even ruder and blunter.  Did Bloomberg read it?  We'll likely never know- but- the We Told You So post got 450 hits, the very first day - mostly from the NYT.

There are now quite a few voices saying "we told you so" - but as far as I know, they only started to speak up the next day...

And I kept pushing.  With what I intended to be readable- but tough- comments, in several places;

Here: "Warnings for Years", my comment has 58 "reader recommends"- putting it high on the list:

"Hurrah!. Thank you for the plain statement- scientists saw this coming, long ago- did their duty and warned the public about it- and nothing happened.

"Journalists, and the NYT, bear some responsibility for that lack of action- by insistently presenting these warnings as doubtful; when in fact they are as certain as the fact that the San Andreas Fault- WILL - slip again some day.

"So it's grand to see this. I'm hoping the Times as a matter of policy will start to bar climate change deniers from its pages- exactly as it now bars Holocaust deniers. Deceiving the public causes very great societal harm. You can see it today- all around you.

"For the non-scientific; there's another powerful fact here: in the practice of Science, everything is constantly doubted; even peer-reviewed "truth" always carries a 5% rating of "or, we could be wrong". (That's not supposed to cause paralysis.)

"But- in the long term testing of concepts; one of the most powerful pieces of evidence is the prediction- that comes true. Einstein's theories have been tested this way multiple times, just in the last decade- and his predictions, so far, are always correct. That's powerful evidence that he understood the universe.

"This storm, and its consequences, were predicted in detail; and it has all happened. That is, formally, a powerful piece of proof that the overarching concepts of global climate change- are correct."

Rude, huh?

Finally, ending with this one- directed to the Mayor; at which time the NYT top Science article was this horror - which has no opportunity for comment with it...  but did have big links on the front page...

"Hurrah for Bloomberg! Frankly, 3 words I did not ever expect to be coming out of my mouth- along with "This just makes Christie look like a bigger man!"

"Now- Mr. Mayor- can you put some pressure on the NYT editors to quit printing this "scientists aren't sure" malarky? Scientists ARE sure- it was predicted, in great detail, that such storms could happen, and how NYC would flood. And here we are- "proof" doesn't get any better than predictions that come true."

You know what?  That comment again got plenty of "likes"; lots of people saw it and agreed- and if you go to the NYT right now- you have to really dig to find that "scientists not sure" article; it's place at the top of everything has been given to articles on "prescient maps" and "preparing for next time."

Not only did the Bloom berg move- the NYT editorial policy seems to have moved; and there's an iceberg for sure.

My pushing?  Laughable.

Except- I did keep pushing; as hard as I could- and I was pushing at the right time, in the right place- for it just maybe maybe- to have made some difference.

It doesn't really get any better than that, when you push on an iceberg.  You'll never really know- if you made a difference.

But the fantasies are great!  And I'm going to keep pushing.  : - )