Skip to content

On October 23, 2012, I came out in favor of skipping after skipping down the deserted streets of Brattleboro, Vermont.

“The swinging of the arms, the momentary, almost violent liftoff into the air in the midst of each skip and the inability to do anything but smile throughout the process, make it something we really should do more often.”

My wife even commented on the post:

I’m glad I missed it.

On December 16, 2014, Kevin Zawacki of Slate wrote In Defense of Skipping. In many more words, along with a video clip of Neil Armstrong skipping on the Moon, he essentially makes the same argument.

image

I could’ve let this go, but then this happened.

On November 13, 2014, I wrote a post about my desire to publish a book with a list of all the politicians who are denying climate change as a means of holding them accountable to history when the polar caps are melted and sea levels have risen 20 feet.

When a politician tells us that he does not believe in climate change or does not accept that climate change is the result of human activity or can’t be certain enough about the science to take action, he or she is either lying or stupid. The science is simply too overwhelmingly in favor of manmade climate change for anyone with half a brain to deny it.

On December 16, 2014 (the same day Zawacki published his piece about skipping), Slate’s Lawrence Krauss published If You Don’t Accept That Climate Change Is Real, You’re Not a Skeptic. You’re a Denier.

But we felt that when someone like Inhofe, who has so clearly denied or ignored the major scientific analyses of human induced climate change and its consequences, was so inappropriately described by a publication like the New York Times, it was necessary for a broad-based group in the scientific community to speak up. The effort to stop effective action to curb climate change has been successful in part because it has focused on public relations rather than content. By confusing skepticism with ideological intransigence, journalists play into the hands of those who plan and implement these large-scale disinformation campaigns.

We are making the same argument.

Two pieces, published on the same day, which essentially reiterate (in substantially more words) arguments that I made one month and two years ago.

Someone at Slate has been reading my blog.

Of course, I don’t really believe this to be the case. Mostly.

More likely, it’s the result of my tendency to be ahead of the curve, a frontrunner, a visionary, a pioneer, and similar synonyms.

Still, quite a coincidence.