[music] I'm Alexander Heffner, your host on The Open Mind.

I'm delighted to welcome our guests today, Ellen Prager and Dave Jones.

They are the coauthors of Megalodons, Mermaids, and Climate Change Answers to Your Ocean and Atmosphere Questions.

Welcome to you both.

Thanks for having us.

Thanks.

It's great to be here.

You're both scientists.

Dave, you are a, three decade long meteorologist.

And this is really a terrific, accessible, discerning book, for people who want climate science, but not in so much spreadsheets and data, but in a curious, creative fashion.

One of the things you both highlight are the greatest sources of dis or misinformation still about the climate and science in general.

But I want to give you a platform from the outset to kind of just notate, for us, like what in your mind are still the greatest sources of disinformation or misinformation, and we on The Open Mind often distinguish between the dis informing that is intentional by governments or other malicious actors who want you to, think something that's not true, and then misinformation just wrong.

And there's some intersection, but, starting with, Ellen, what in your mind are the greatest sources of misinformation still and just basic fundamentals that people get wrong?

So we talk.

Well, I should say we write about in the book where misinformation comes from and sources.

But for us, a lot of it is where people are actually getting their information.

Right?

Are they just, family tells them something and they say, oh, it must be right because my family tells me, or are they going online to social media?

And there are a lot of people out there who are not experts who are, you know, trying to explain things or coming up with things, or they try and explain what the science is.

But don't quite get it right.

So that's a big part of it.

And just to clarify, so I'm a marine scientist.

And so in the book we sort of we do both and climate is both ocean and atmosphere.

So you know we combine our, Dave's meteorology and my oceanography to sort of bring it all together.

But so Dave, what about you?

Those were would be what I would say.

Yeah.

I think from, doing the weather, on television in Washington, D.C., for almost ten years in the 90s, we would get lots of people calling because they think, oh, you're on TV and you're accurate all the time.

We would get questions like, what weather do you have scheduled in six months?

Like we schedule the weather, right?

And so, today, it's a lot of people thinking that if somebody shows a scientific chart, they are an expert.

And so, unfortunately, that's the downfall of the internet, where people can sit in their chair and put on a graphic of a weather forecast that might not be valid for 30 days and say, oh, look, we're going to get a ton of snow and they get millions and millions of views.

When the meteorologists are trying to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on here.

That's not really what's going to happen.

So you know, the internet has given people the power of publishing without any reviews and, without any editor.

And that's really what's gone.

I think quite viral.

Was there ever a point where you wanted to, say something that there was like, an editorial control, based on, the science or maybe not?

You know, maybe there is a big festival in DC over the weekend, and your editor wanted to make sure people were out there at that festival.

Did you, you know, do you ever feel, like you were, muzzled at all in making your assessments of the weather?

Well, actually, I was fortunate, enough that I worked for NBC4 in Washington, D.C., and, the chief meteorologist had been there for a long time, Bob Ryan.

He used to do the Today Show before Willard Scott.

But we were never questioned on the science, that we would communicate on the air, in Washington.

We would certainly get a lot of viewers asking us, after a forecast of a couple of inches of snow, if we were in cahoots with the local grocery stores.

We were not getting tips off of toilet paper being purchased.

Well, that's important to note, you know, that your fidelity was to the science and, it can be, sometimes unpredictable and volatile in how these patterns shape out.

Let me ask you, Ellen, when you think of, what's transpired in the last year with what I understand to be the downsizing, if not just the plain and simple deletion of jobs in, weather systems, and our eyes and ears, on the day to day forecast.

But things as, necessary as, you know, watching for, floods that are going to overpower levees or asteroids that might make close contact with us, like you guys are network, both of you, probably with a lot of people in that community.

My understanding is that it's been not totally wiped out, but nearly wiped out.

A lot of people have lost their jobs who, assess, environmental conditions, is that accurate?

Absolutely.

And it's across the board from meteorology to oceanography to hydrology.

And one of the scariest things, I think, is it's not just that we've lost people.

We've lost huge amount of institutional memory, experience.

A lot of the people that either were let go or walked away because they were, you know, given offers and kind of, I would almost say, threatened, but where people at a very senior level and you can't just replace those people, you know, tomorrow it takes a lot of skill and time and learning.

And so it's not just the numbers that are gone.

It's the expertise that is gone.

And that to me is really scary because, we always talk about, people say, oh, we don't really need all that data and all those observations.

We just turn on the television, we get our weather, we get oh, we get warnings about beaches, well, where do they think that information is coming from?

It's all based on observations.

Dave?

Yeah.

No, it's the same thing when NOAA, had a major, release of people, in one week, they had lost, 27,000 years of experience, 27,000 years.

I mean, you know, it's going to take a long time if we ever are able to recover, from the institutional knowledge that has left federal agencies and the data, this is what opens the door to potential misinformation and disinformation.

What are people doing with the data?

Is the data secure?

Is it protected before it goes into the numerical weather prediction models and things like that?

We're very much concerned about it and trying to watch it very closely.

As of our recording, we've learned that, the EPA, may no longer in its mission consider assessing, hazards, specifically like carcinogens in the water and air and just sort of giving up on that, as part of its mission.

That, is something you both are likely concerned about as well.

There was the impression, I think, that this was already happening, that there was a lax philosophy towards, emissions or emission standards.

But what do you make of this most recent development?

Just as of this week, we're recording this, that there seems to be like a total, if you will, ban, on measuring certain data points and you probably have read up on what some of those data points are that are no longer going to be assessed.

Well, I mean, I've been watching it and some of it has to do with like pollution in the water, in the air, right?

And not looking at projects and permits and what the impacts are going to be in terms of pollution and what that does for human health.

And that is really worrisome.

And, you know, the only thing we can hope for is that, it's short lived and people start to recognize the problem.

There's legislation comes in and people start to stand, those who can start to stand up and, you know, cry out as to why this is such a horrible idea.

I mean, I think about if you look back at history and you look at waterways that were unbelievably polluted, I mean, you know, we hear about whales returning to New York Harbor.

We hear about oyster beds coming back.

All those things could go away.

If we go back to the way of just polluting the air, polluting the water system.

There has been so much progress.

And there are so many great stories now of how things have improved and the idea that we would go backwards.

It's just almost unthinkable.

Right.

And, Dave, I think what's so tricky about this is that, I reflect often on a conversation I had on The Open Mind with Jim Hansen.

And, he's a native born Iowan, and long considered one of the founding fathers of climate science, but he didn't really have a good answer to my question when I said, what is it going to take, for your fellow Iowans, although he's been an adopted New Yorker for some time, to be concerned with climate change and the effect of climate change?

And, you know, we had a dust bowl in this country, that happened to be coupled with the Great Depression.

I don't know that the Dust Bowl in and of itself would have engendered such great concern about air quality.

I think it was compounded by the Depression.

But, there is a holiness and, gravity of singular events like Sandy and Irma and, Katrina, that do have, repercussions and consequence in the consciousness of people, even those are still short lived, but to my mind, everything that Ellen was just mentioning, is so quickly forgotten or viewed as like a single anecdote in a sea of like, well, that's not the reality here on Saint Pete Beach.

I'm not seeing this, or I am seeing this, and I've been talking about this with, science authors and scientists on The Open Mind for 12 years now, and nothing has really changed.

And I'm wondering, first Dave and then Ellen, what to do about this climate where nothing really matters unless you, like Erin Brockovich, are the victim of carcinogens in your stream?

Right.

If you are personally, impacted by an extreme weather event, then you start to think about, actions you might take in the future.

I do know that the other thing that's going to impact it are things like insurance rates.

And people who have been impacted by these storms in Florida, along the Gulf Coast, sea levels are rising, at an unprecedented rate, threatening many homes along the coastline, that people can't get insurance anymore.

They find it too expensive so they won't insure their properties.

So in a way, climate change and extreme events are impacting people, they still want to live wherever they want to live.

But extreme events are on the rise.

And, just last year, the number of billion dollar, storms and events that impacted the United States was one of the highest in recorded history since we've been tracking billion dollar events.

And, of course, it was led by the the wildfires in California that, impacted the Palisades.

So, I think people are starting to see it.

There are lots of meteorologists, broadcast meteorologists and others that are out there trying to incorporate impacts from these events and trying to explain why these events are happening.

And there's a growing science called Attribution Science, where you can take a look at particular events and see what percentage of the strength of that storm or hurricane or moisture that's been dumped is attributable to higher temperatures of the Earth, and human induced climate change.

So from my perspective, I'm always been a little cynical, about this because I feel like basically what you said is that unless it impacts you directly, people don't seem to care.

But that is really starting to happen across the board.

You talked about Iowa, well, farmers, you know, they are subjected to drought, wildfires, you know, extreme flooding.

And like it's happening more often in more places.

And so, I don't think there's going to be anybody who's not going to be impacted by this.

And it could be because the food they get is harder to get because of drought or wildfires.

And so for most people, I'm sad to say, I don't think they are going to do what needs to be to vote for the right people who are going to make the right policies, make the right investments unless it impacts them directly.

However, I think with the younger generation coming up and getting into more leadership roles, that will also cause change.

I have great hope that sort of the upcoming generations understand what's going on and see what's happening, and I hope there will be more investment in explaining people in nonscientific terms, why they should care and what the impacts are.

I can say as a scientist, I think as a community, we've done a pretty bad job in communications and bringing the science to people in a way that they can understand, talking about things that they care about and how it relates to those things.

And I think we need to invest a lot more in doing that.

And when we're thinking about, the events that would precipitate that kind of reform mentality, around climate, do you see any events that are not disasters that are going to push forward in this conversation.

Because a lot of it is driven by, like you said, new people maybe running for office.

To my knowledge, as a native New Yorker, you know, I can't associate the aftermath of Sandy with a new generation of leaders.

And I do understand there's a Green New Deal movement, or at least there was.

But, there aren't legislators that, I saw emerge from Sandy.

Now, I'm not as close to Katrina as other people are.

So perhaps in that case, there's been a generation of leadership that's rebuilt the levees and, feels as though the climate there is more resilient now.

But I, at least on the national stage, I don't see the green or environmentally forward candidates really having a sense of purpose and mission that is that discernible.

But, to Dave's point, if it's about dollars and cents, not being able to insure your home is something that can move the needle.

I don't see anything on the horizon, maybe besides that as the non, and that's sort of like averting disaster.

But as a non disaster incentive or motivation to act.

And I'm wondering if you see anything, that you attribute to the higher levels of engagement on the issue?

Well, as you were speaking, I was thinking about a project that we're involved in right now, with the state of New Jersey, where, they have, 47 towns that are members of this New Jersey coastal coalition and their main concern is to make these new Jersey towns more resilient, to learn more about extreme weather events that are impacting them.

And I was just on a call earlier today, when people were talking about.

Yeah, you know, we really just need to let our residents know when to move their cars when the tides get so high, because it's salt water that comes into the parking lots and can impact their cars.

And you know what?

They're having to move them a heck of a lot more than they had to ten years ago.

And so, even just in the last six months, New Jersey has had major flooding, and these storms haven't been overly, impactful, just strong easterly winds lasting for a couple of days going over multiple tide cycles, and it impacts these towns.

Low lying areas are getting flooded more.

And every time you do that, you impact critical infrastructure like the sewage systems, the water systems, the water treatment plants, the phone lines, the power infrastructure, and it makes it weaker every time those flood waters come in.

Yeah, it's funny, I was thinking the same thing in terms of king tides and think about all along the coast, with sea level rise, more and more coastal areas are getting flooded more often.

And again, the ramifications are not just, oh, you know, you can't drive down the road.

There's, inundation into the freshwater system, contamination in freshwater system, there's infrastructure damage, you know, by groundwater, by saltwater coming in.

You know, obviously, the flooding, having to think about moving people back from the coast.

That is not, you know, it's not going to be a one day that happens.

But, I will just say also having done written about sea level rise and things like that, we've never seen the ice sheets melt like they are today.

And so nobody really knows how fast it's going to happen and how far sea level is going to rise.

And you know, I would predict it's going to happen faster than we think.

And when that starts happening and people start seeing it and the impacts again, I think we're going to see a change.

You know, I know for a while the whole, The Day After Tomorrow scenario was, mocked and ridiculed and certainly the, you know, within 24 hours, the Statue of Liberty is under water, like, was not.

And then like, yeah, within 72 hours, there was a new ice age, like, that was considered, not to be factually sound or hypothetically factually sound.

Right.

Yes, we all agree with that.

Having said that, what you're suggesting, Ellen, is that, at a certain point, the incidental episodic feeling of impact will change and it could change rather dramatically.

In the meantime, we just will either consider ourselves, you know, Pollyannas or like, okay, we'll accept, that you think we're fatalist.

But like, in 2029 or 2035 or whenever that year comes, we won't be fatalist or alarmists, we'll be realists.

Is that a fair way to operate?

Well, I think that, you know, we are seeing, you know, impacts right now around the world.

I know, I know, absolutely.

You know, and so.

And I consider myself among those who were in that, category of saying, not I told you so, but that it's definitely a possibility that there are extreme impacts three years from now, five years from now, ten years from now.

I think it's going to be sooner I mean look at coral reefs.

Coral reefs around the world are dying.

We've had mass mortality events, you know, in Florida, throughout the Caribbean and Great Barrier Reef.

And that is going to have huge impacts.

And people are starting to see it.

And the impacts in terms of tourism, recreation, fisheries, the protection of the coastline, people are really starting to pay attention.

And so, you know, I think we just have, we have to keep talking about, we always say, you know, what's the one thing people can do?

And we always say inform, you know, vote, inform voting hopefully sooner rather than later.

And we have to do whatever we can to keep people thinking about it.

And investing in mitigation, reducing emissions.

You know the truth is, there a lot of people out there and, you know, you have to have hope.

Cause there a lot of people actually doing good work, who are doing it.

Maybe not at the national level right now, but in terms of some industries, some private investments, there are people making a difference right now.

And we just have to keep that going.

I mean, we sometimes get frustrated and think, you know, oh my gosh, this is this is horrible.

Nah, we never get frustrated.

But we say, look, just continue doing what we can.

And if everybody does that I mean, you have to go forward and you have to do what you can.

You can't just throw up your hands.

I mean, that's not realistic either.

You know, what's important is to continue the investment in that core research.

Because when big things happen, like another outbreak of disease or another, major disaster and God forbid two happen at once, that, you know, we just can't turn and say, oh, we need to do this.

We have to keep doing that research to make sure that the steps that we take are having a positive impact for everyone around the world.

And if you take away that research and that base funding and that capability that we're just trying to build on, it pushes the can down the road further.

And that puts, I think, every city at risk -around the world.

-Right.

But, let me just add one thing but just as importantly as the research is the communication I'm going to come back to, that because what we see now is there is a concerted effort for a, like you said, disinformation.

And if we don't invest and make a concerted effort on the other side, when that research is needed or when things are needed, if people don't understand not only the science, but why it's important, -that's a huge problem.

-Yeah.

And I'm left still concerned that in the discourse and in the politics, until you experience something like Katrina or Sandy, the idea of resiliency is just like some cute expression or it's some, nanny state regulatory, pretext to raise taxes, or invest.

I mean, at the end of the day, you know, a lot of cities will, do so in a capitalistic, American private public partnership, when it comes to strengthening levies or, any of the mechanisms, seawalls, that you would use to address the problem.

And I think that's where there's probably been more success in, revitalizing communities through, a mission resiliency.

That is, concrete, where people understand concretely, what does it mean to be more resilient?

But, I think it's also very fair to say that, resiliency means nothing or can quite easily be mocked, relegated, whatever, by people who haven't experienced, any extreme weather event.

Is that fair?

I think that's fair.

I also think that, from the political side, when people need to make decisions, they really shy away from making investments that are going to benefit their cities beyond their term in office.

I mean, they want to see things that are going to benefit them immediately.

And, you know, over the next couple of years.

I mean, what do you do when you want to let everybody know if you're the fire chief in the city, you go paint all the fire hydrants, you know, because everybody sees a fire hydrant.

Right?

But long term investments are critical.

And what's being impacted is the critical infrastructure of all of our cities and towns that is going to take large investments, from everybody.

Yeah.

And that's not even considering the fact that, California is overdue for the next big earthquake.

And, you know, people will never believe you when you hear you know, Miami or Saint Pete.

Miami's been targeted.

But something like Saint Pete, you know, with all these recent hurricanes, it's still not been hit, you know, head on, since the 90s.

And like, it will happen.

It will happen.

And we'll be prepared or not prepared.

With that, we've run out of time.

But, Ellen, I definitely want to hear your insight again.

So we'll have you and Dave both back on The Open Mind.

In the meantime, really thank you for the book.

And thank you for your insight.

Thank you so much for having us.

Yeah, thanks for having us.

It's great, and we appreciate the time.

[music] Please visit The Open Mind website at thirteen.org/openmind.

Download the podcast on Apple and Spotify.

And check us out on X, Instagram, and Facebook.

Continuing production of The Open Mind has been made possible by grants from Vital Projects Fund, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, Angelson Family Foundation, Robert and Kate Niehaus Foundation, Grateful American Foundation, and Draper Foundation.