On Wednesday, March 18, 1925, a catastrophic weather event scoured three states, Illinois in particular. What came to be called the Great Tri-State Tornado touched down in southeastern Missouri and stayed on the ground continuously — first across that corner of the state, then across southern Illinois, before it dissipated in southwestern Indiana.
Just over 1,000 people were killed on that March day; towns, farms and schools were leveled; the twister gouged nearly a mile-in-diameter track into the earth. There’s no denying it.
When I first learned of the Tri-State Tornado in the early 1990s, it caught both my attention and imagination, as the scientific community had been warning that sudden, violent weather events would become more common due to global warming. As a result, I came to use that horrific event as my starting point to understand such severe weather events going forward.
Recall, for instance, the 2011 Joplin, Missouri tornado that devastated that city, or the violent, multi-state, mass tornado outbreak of March 31 through April 1, 2023. As in 1925, Illinois was hard hit.
While my educational background is in American literature, and the humanities in general, I pay close attention to science-oriented issues. Thus, I’ve never doubted the claims of science about global warming. And I’m definitely not a denier, like our Denier-in-Chief, Donald Trump.
I do look askance, however, at optimistic claims that global warming can be reversed. It is, unfortunately, a process that began centuries ago at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and its active agents were, and still are, fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas.
If irreversible, are we then to do nothing? Of course not, as I believe — hope — that we can mitigate the negative effects of global warming. We must greatly reduce our seemingly insatiable appetite for energy; we must move further away from fossil fuels (no “Drill, baby, drill!”), and we must embrace an electric future, even if it means expanding our use of nuclear energy (but with a thoughtful plan regarding the long-term storage of nuclear waste).
Put pressure on Congress to stand up
In order, though, to make wise decisions, we need accurate, detailed scientific information. Trump denies global warming by trying to deny us, the public, that very information. While many of his threats and actions are aimed at the social safety net — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — his initial executive orders were aimed at cutting staff and freezing funding for science-specific agencies: the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, and more recently, the National Weather Service.
I haven’t been that surprised at his actions, as Trump tailored his 2024 campaign for the anti-science, anti-book, anti-intellectual crowd, just as he did in 2016. On the other hand, I am surprised, to a degree, as we live in a science-infused civilization. If it concerns corporate America and its desire to build data centers and develop artificial intelligence, then science flies high. When it comes to the needs of the rest of us, then science — as it concerns violent weather events, global warming, or environmental degradation — is a hoax, a scam.
What can we do? Instead of marches or demonstrations (which only make for 30-second spots on the evening news, or for 500 words and a photograph in the newspapers), get after your members of Congress, regardless of party, and urge them to confront Trump through legislative action. If they balk, remind them of the 2026 midterm elections. With 2026 in mind, go to the polls armed with information as to where the incumbents and challengers stand regarding Trump and his war on science, as well as his war on the social safety net. Send his lackeys packing!
And then in 2028, send Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Elon Musk into political obscurity.
Until then, we need to keep our eyes on the sky, listen for the sirens, and duck and cover from flying debris. Good advice, in general, for the next four years under Trump.
John Vukmirovich is a Chicago-area writer and book reviewer.
The views and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.
The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.
Get Opinions content delivered to your inbox.