I have had a much different experience with the Tea Party.
Both grasslands and woodlands can be degraded, though many wouldn’t know they were just by looking.Sounds like you have an ideal life close to nature. Not ideal. I also have my “day job”
I had a reading in my Environmental Anthropology class by Michael Dove, who is a specialist on grasslands. He doesn’t consider them to be degraded areas of inutility (compared to forests), but sees forests and grasslands in a dynamic process, and both have traditionally been managed by peoples there. Here’s a site I found to go along with that reading: marietta.edu/~biol/102/grasslnd.html
Also I saw a film years ago about “mule logging,” which some ranchers/farmers who have good hardwood forests use so as not to harm the baby trees, and actually find it more profitable. They have the loggers go in there and cut down some mature trees, then they chain the log to a mule, who pulls it out to where the hauling truck is. I think they had some contrapion to hoist up the log onto the truck bed, also using mule power.
Perhaps you are right. I wasn’t having a go at Blessed JP2, I was criticising po18guy for grossly distorting his statement.Okay. I had read “Peace with God, Peace with All Creation” 22 years ago, and I just looked it up again now. Here is the part that you are concerned about (see vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html):
The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related “greenhouse effect” has now reached crisis proportions as a consequence of industrial growth, massive urban concentrations and vastly increased energy needs. Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment. The resulting meteorological and atmospheric changes range from damage to health to the possible future submersion of low-lying lands.
I don’t have any trouble with this. Both problems – the ozone hole and the GH effect – came upon the public at about the same time. (And, yes, many people did confuse the two, and some still do.)
I suppose one could take this as JPII confusing the two, or that he was extremely sophicated (perhaps had his Vatican scientists look into his message before presenting it) and understood how the GH effect and stratospheric ozone depletion were related.
As I mentioned, CFCs & some other chemicals contribute to both. In fact, CFCs & co. are much more powerful GHGs than CO2. At the time they signed the Montreal Protocol, there was acknowledgement that it would not only help mitigate ozone depletion, but also global warming. Also the GH effect causes cooling in the stratosphere (above the GHG belt) by not allowing as much radiated warming out, and the cooler temps helping provide the necessary conditions for ozone breakdown. So in those two ways they are most certainly related. Here’s something that might help some people here understand the relationship: see ratical.org/ratville/ozoneDepletion.html
The fact that JPII mentions “energy needs” and “burning of fossil fuels” and “unrestricted deforestation” indicates that he understands causes of anthropogenic global warming. The fact that he mentions “herbicides” and “coolants and propellants” indicates that he understands causes of stratopheric ozone breakdown (and the anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect). Also the fact that he mentions “meteorological changes” and “submersion of low-lying lands” indicates he undersands some of the impacts of AGW; the fact that he mentions “harm to human health” indicates he understands impacts of both AGW and stratospheric ozone depletion.
I have always interpreted that he had the more advanced knowledge and knew the two were related (but not the same thing), rather than he was confusing the two. Now in rereading it again, I’m sure he was not confusing the two.
Scientists may behave that way but that approach doesn’t appear to be the rule for climate scientists and this pretty much captures the reason so many of us have no confidence in the people pushing AGW. If the science supports the claims why does so much of it turn out to be contrived?
I find the scientists very hard-working and honest, and, yes, too reticent for my taste – but I understand their need to be cautious in their claims. It’s just too bad that the people of the world expect 101% confidence there is a problem to do anything about it…at the risk of annihilating life on earth.
That you find the scientists involved to be honest indicates a disconnect from reality. Even if AGW was true that would not excuse the behavior of (many of) the scientists involved. There is no justification for the actions of Mann, Briffa, the CRU, the IPCC et al. There is no doubt that a great deal of honest and valuable research has been done by many scientists. There is also no doubt about the dishonesty and deceit practiced by others.
Don’t you recognize the David and Goliath relationship between the “denialist” side and your side? Practically every news outlet and government agency is a proponent of AGW; there are at best a handful of outlets for those who oppose it. If the anti-AGWers are succeeding it surely is not because of the size of of their propaganda machine. One explanation for their success is that truth is a powerful thing and while you may question whether the doubters have it it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the AGW side doesn’t.
If this is so then stop mischaracterizing them and deal with the arguments being presented.
When you find an article using terms like “gluttonous, addicted public” you should realize you are reading a piece of advocacy journalism, not a scientific paper. How can an intelligent and informed person continue to believe in a bogeyman?
I just got the chance to read the linked article, and it is a red herring. JPII and I accepted that AGW was a real problem to be mitigated well before the hockey stick proxy reconstructions – which do not prove AGW. It’s long handle (whether flat & horizontal or having a big MWP hump) are not even necessary to the understanding of it.
I don’t find any wrong-doing, except irritation at extremely obnoxious and dangerous denialists out to harass them, even threaten their lives and the lives of their children. In fact, I’m very much impressed they haven’t caved to the pressure, but are still engaged in honest science.
Governments and the media have exceedingly failed in their moral duties to present the truth so we could act on it to protect life. They should have been heavily covering this (even tho slow moving problems such as AGW are not “news-catchy” to most readers who’d rather read about OJ’s trial, etc.). There was an extremely long “silent treatment” from about 1991 to 2005 during which the public hardly ever heard about AGW from the media – the very period we should have reduced our GHGs by 30% cost-effectively and invested in GHG-reducing measures instead of “speculating in real estate” (buying homes one could not afford), thereby contributing to the economic down-turn.
Coal sands require a larger energy (name removed by moderator)ut than they produce. Until that changes they are useless.
I sort of suspect that may be the case. Do you have any credible sources.
I read it some time ago in a feature on the world’s oil reserves which appeared in Al Jazeera. It is a good source for energy reporting due to the audience it is written for, and the region it is based in. The claim was that in two decades of trying, that the energy output has yet to be positive for shale or sand sources of oil, and that barring a technical break through, that they should not be considered to be oil reserves for now.
The inequity in coverage that you point out is not necessarily the result of unfairness by the media. If the media were to give equal time to both sides in every debate, regardless of the objective merits of their case, then you would get some very undesirable results, like giving equal time and coverage to holocaust deniers, geocentrists, and segregationists. The fact that these groups and positions do not get equal coverage comparable to the majority view on the holocaust, Newtonian physics, etc, most likely reflects the responsible journalistic practice of weighting objective merits over blind parity. If someone holds a minority view, whether it be on climate science or on anything else, it is reasonable to expect that more will be required of them to prove their point. There are examples in the past of minority views eventually becoming accepted (such as the theory that disease is spread by unseen germs). And those that first held these views had to face formidable obstacles before they were taken seriously. Only in retrospect do we see that they were right. But you don’t hear much about those who had minority ideas that were wrong. So you can form a mistaken impression that minority views tend to prove true in the end and therefore all such ideas should be given an equal chance.
You focused on the wrong point. I made no argument that the deniers position deserved more press coverage, only that it received a good deal less than the pushers position. lynnvinc was complaining that the pushers arguments were being overwhelmed by those of the deniers when, as you yourself recognize, it is the pushers position that receives the bulk of the coverage. There may be very valid reasons for the disparity in coverage; I merely pointed out that it exists and is one sided in favor of the AGW side. Since you know this yourself I’m not sure why you would reject the analogy.
The analogy carries a value judgment in addition to a size comparison. David was the good guy. Goliath was the bad guy.
I completely agree with you. The whole AGW/CC thing is just too political and lacking in science. It demonstrates the power of propaganda in a democracy.
All the more reason for Catholics to get on board and propose ethical solutions.
.It’s not just Pickens who knows we’ve passed peak oil (of course, the fact that we’re going after very deep oil (as in the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexco), tar sands, oil shale, and fracking our drinking water supplies into oblivion are good indications that we’ve done so), but the major CEOs and players in the oil business.
That may be true, but individuals acting through the democratic process can affect policy that can affect how these large utilities and companies operate.