Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ferdgoodfellow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynnvinc said:
As an anthropologist I heard quite a different story in grad school. Plus nearly all the land in the U.S. today was under the auspices of Indian tribes – we robbed it from them by lies, deceit, and genocide. And I’ve heard present-day anecdotal stories of how they are now sterilizing some Indian women, so they won’t have babies.

As for diseases, yes, to some extent they were spread accidentally, but there were many cases in which the white purposely exposed Indians to contagious diseases to which they had no immunity. Add that to cutting them off from their subsistence base into near starvation conditions, and that did cause lots of deaths. But that also amounts to a large portion of these deaths being de facto killings.

That’s referred to as the domino effect. White settler colonists were coming in from the east from the 1600s onward and moving westward, which pushed the eastern tribes to the west, who pushed those tribes west of them farther west and so on.

Prior to that it was more a matter of occasional Indian tribe-on-Indian tribe raiding. Nothing at all comparable to warfare.

Though I imagine (not sure) there may have been something on the level of ancient warfare during the Mississippian civilization, centered at Cahokia Mound in SW Illinois, since state-level societies in general are notorious for warfare. (We stopped by Cahokia on our way to Texas.)

Well, maybe your anthropology professors may not have known, but it is well accepted that a good portion of the Aztec people had originally lived in the north (where the U.S. currently is, in that Aztlan area), then migrated to the south to where Mexico City is today.
Click to expand...
Wrong in almost every way. But if you truly did learn the above in grad school, one is not terribly surprised since so many grad school profs are anti-American leftists nowadays, particularly in the humanities.

Kind of hard to explain Cahokia from the “hate America” point of view, isn’t it, since an obviously large and sophisticated Indian society disappeared from the Central U.S. before a white ever set foot on the continent. One could wonder about the cliff dwellers of the Southwest for the same reason. They disappeared before Columbus.

Indians displaced and killed Indians before whites got here. There was no Texas when the Comanche drove the Apache from the southern plains. Caddoans in my Ozarks were driven out by Osage who wanted the area for a private hunting preserve. And the Osage came from the north, not from the east, and they did it before there were any whites in north America. Same thing in Ky except the tribes were different.

The Great Plains were almost devoid of population before the horse. People can’t eat grass. The only Indian settlements were very sparse and were along river valleys. The horse is what made it possible for greater populations of Indians to live there.

It is utterly false to claim Americans deliberately spread disease among the INdians. The Brits are said to have done it on one occasion to the Mohawks, but it’s uncertain. Likely the greatest introduction of Eurasian disease came when DeSoto went through the south of the U.S. Spanish expeditions always took pigs along because pigs could live off the land and were a ready food supply. But they’re hard to herd, and many escaped. Pigs carry almost every human disease. And some of the Spaniards were captured by the Indians. Bad move.

Read your history. There were large settlements on the southern Mississippi when DeSoto went through. 200 years later, the French explorers only found a nearly uninhabited wilderness.

Nahuatl, the Aztec language, is related to some more northerly languages, particularly some of the languages in northern Canada and Alaska. But that doesn’t mean the mythical Aztlan was in the Northwest Territories any more than it was in Arizona. The southwest U.S. Indian languages are not Nahuatl.

It’s a shame your education in anthropology occurred when and where it did. More recent scholarship contradicts almost everything you have asserted. All that remains in some reactionary school programs are the old anti-white racist myths.
 
lynnvinc said:
Furthermore, it is a lie that Indians killed white women and children. They carried them off and made them part of their tribes.

The list goes on. We are part and parcel of a society and economic system that engages in a lot of harms (even if there are lots of positives, as well). Are others who are part of other systems equally bad or even worse than us? That’s not the point. A priest we had would point out that trying to get off the hook of responsibility by pointing to worse people is wrong. I think it’s a favorite ploy of children. 🙂
Click to expand...
The Sioux certainly massacred white women and children in Iowa and Minnesota in the 1860s. Abraham Lincoln estimated the Minnesota toll at 800 in his second inaugural address.

The Comanche did capture women and children in both Texas and Mexico. A famous result of that was, of course, Quanah Parker. But more often they were kept as slaves or sold as slaves to others. It was the refusal of the Comanche to turn over all the captured white women and children at San Antonio which precipitated the first major American/Comanche war. Interestingly, before “Anglos” began settling Texas and fighting the Comanche and Kiowa, there were almost no Mexicans north of San Antonio, and it, and a huge part of northern Mexico were becoming unpopulated because of Comanche raids.

Nobody is trying to get anybody “off the hook” for white atrocities by pointing out the vastly greater Indian atrocities, mostly against each other. The point is really to point out that many Indian societies were warrior/raider societies for whom war and out-of-tribe killing was a commonplace, and that their locations were extremely fluid. The image of the greedy white settler going into a heavily-populated location in which Indians had lived peacefully for eons is just a racist myth.

Now, it is admittedly true that white settlers, with their European ways, didn’t understand Indian ways very well. White settlers’ agricultural methods baffled Indians in that whites used every inch of ground which they cleared and put into cultivation. And they stayed throughout the year. Indians, by and large, planted, left, and later harvested whatever made it through the depredations of wildlife. (there were exceptions to that) White populations were huge compared to those of INdians in any given area because European agriculture was intensive and supported large populations. Indians, early on, also expressed surprise that whites “brought their animals with them” instead of hunting wild animals in the woods.

Whites considered an area unpopulated if it had no permanent population. When Daniel Boone went into Kentucky, and later into the Ozarks, both seemed total wildernesses to him and the settlers who followed him. From the European point of view, they were unpopulated wildernesses, and would seem so to us today. From the Indian point of view, they were “hunting grounds under possession” by right of conquest and removal of other tribes, even if they didn’t live there.

It is exactly because of human technology that the earth supports vastly more humans than it did for millenia. As such, it should not be deprecated, nor should return to primitive ways be praised.
 
Thanks Bob for the link to the Hansen article.

Ridge, Hansen still has a large following and blond bimbos like Daryl Hannah love to get arrested with him for acts of civil disobedience while protesting coal mines. Maybe it’s the goofy hats he wears. Who knows what the attraction is.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I know you put a funny face on your posting, but allow me to address it semi-seriously.

Burning campfires, enemies, and even wildfires to drive buffalo over cliffs do not contribute one little bit to the CO2 in the atmosphere. And here is why. If they had not burned the grasses, those grasses would have eventually died and rotted and released all their CO2 into the atmosphere. It was going to go there anyway. Burning some of it a few years before it would have decomposed naturally does not change to total amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. And the prairie grasses naturally grow back after a fire, so they didn’t leave a permanent mark on the vegetation. Their effect was neutral.

Peabody Coal Co., however, takes coal that has been sequestered in the ground for centuries, and would have remained so for centuries to come. When this coal is burned it adds new carbon to the carbon cycle. It is a one-way process. Once the carbon has been put into the atmosphere like this, it is very hard to sequester again.

Oh, the trees do a pretty good job of it. They take CO2 and use it to build their wood. If that wood gets put into permanent use by humans, or if it falls into a swamp and petrifies, that carbon has been successfully sequestered. But you need a heck of a lot of new trees to offset the carbon that has been added in the industrial age. And the measurements of CO2 concentration confirm that there are not yet enough trees to do that job, or else those trees are being burned when they die, or rotting in the forest. In any case, a good amount of the carbon they captured does not remain captured.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the serious (name removed by moderator)ut, Leaf…I know you are right.

I used the little smiley face because I could not find anything to symbolize “absurdity”.
Which is where this thread is at now.

We have reviewed all the arguments, graphs, charts, studies, and computer models that we have seen before on other climate change threads. We have heard one “expert” debunk another “expert” only to have another “expert” debunk the original “experts”.
Now we are talking about the treatment of Native Americans and Muslim extremists. :confused:

A long time ago, Chicken Little ran amok around the barnyard screaming that the sky was falling. The other animals believed her and ran amok also.

Now we have someone telling us that the Earth is warming and if WE don’t do something about it…WE will be crispy-critters.

The difference between Chicken Little and “us” is that Chicken Little did not have to explain anything. Today, whoever brought up the subject of AGW is obligated to EXPLAIN it to those with questions or skepticism. It has been my life experience that when you find yourself explaining something…you are losing the negotiation, the compromise or the argument.
 
Zolt sed:
We have reviewed all the arguments, graphs, charts, studies, and computer models that we have seen before on other climate change threads. We have heard one “expert” debunk another “expert” only to have another “expert” debunk the original “experts”.
Now we are talking about the treatment of Native Americans and Muslim extremists.
Click to expand...
When yer right yer right. Let’s back on track guys and gals.

ferd
 
ferdgoodfellow said:
mrctv.org/blog/epa-chief-admits-low-income-minority-families-will-be-hardest-hit-new-climate-regs#.qimivt:SaQR

I am sorry. But I am struck by the title.
Click to expand...
I’m curious about the accounting that yields the huge savings, and did they exclude the cost of all those federal credits.
She prefaced her statement by saying that the cost increases to Americans as a result of the regulations would be, “at most, a gallon of milk a month increase out the gate which tapers off to incredible savings by 2013.”
Click to expand...
Ms. McCarthy didn’t explain how she came up with that particular assessment.
Click to expand...
The EPA head went on to discuss how the government will provide states with federal credits as an incentive to implement efficiency programs.
Click to expand...
 
Theo520 said:
I’m curious about the accounting that yields the huge savings, and did they exclude the cost of all those federal credits.
Click to expand...
There is no real accounting. In principal, there cannot be an accounting. She is a----not telling truth.

ferd
 
ferdgoodfellow said:
…Lynn, weather is complex. How can climate, the long term behavior of weather, not be complex? Not a whole lot of variables? Go read the code of even the simplest general circulation model. It is only simple if you are working with a simple model: more CO2 = more global warming.
Click to expand...
I know it is pretty weird, but climate, the aggregate of weather, is very stable compared to local, short-term weather. And that’s true for many macrolevel-vs-microlevel phenomena

Check out an old atlas pre 1980 with a new one post 2010 – see the climate map sections – and you’ll see what I mean.

There really are not too many variables and the models do pretty well in predicting so 10, 20 or 30 years out. Compare that to weather predictions 20 days out. That is not to say (and climate scientists will admit) that in addition to the known knowns they include in their analyses, there are also known unknowns (things they cannot quantify so as to include in the models & calculations – like outgassing from permafrost & ocean hydrates), and unknown unknowns. We just have to do the best we can with the knowledge we have, and make wise decisions based on that. That’s how all science and all life works.

I know you will point out that the climate models have recently overestimated the warming (and fail to mention how they have sometimes underestimated the warming), but that seems about to change as we’ve been experiencing several years higher than any since instrumental temps around the world have been taking back in the late 1800s. This last year was the warmest on record, with this year shaping up to be even warmer.

My position is why wait to turn out lights not in use; lets’ dig in now doing the needful to mitigate AGW. It would be extremely remiss not to mitigate it, considering the grave risks to people around the world and on into the future.

What is very complex and difficult to understand is human behavior and this anti-environmental, anti-life, pro-death stance that so many are glomming onto – sort of a head-in-the-sand, live-it-up-for-tomorrow-we-die and/or who-cares-about-other-people-as-long-as-I-get-mine type of attitude. Considering many people are members of religions that promote compassion and mercy towards others and should know better and do better.
 
Mornin Lynn,
lynnvinc said:
I know it is pretty weird, but climate, the aggregate of weather, is very stable compared to local, short-term weather. And that’s true for many macrolevel-vs-microlevel phenomena

Check out an old atlas pre 1980 with a new one post 2010 – see the climate map sections – and you’ll see what I mean.
Click to expand...
Yes, thank God the climate isn’t as variable as weather.
There really are not too many variables and the models do pretty well in predicting so 10, 20 or 30 years out. Compare that to weather predictions 20 days out. That is not to say (and climate scientists will admit) that in addition to the known knowns they include in their analyses, there are also known unknowns (things they cannot quantify so as to include in the models & calculations – like outgassing from permafrost & ocean hydrates), and unknown unknowns. We just have to do the best we can with the knowledge we have, and make wise decisions based on that. That’s how all science and all life works.
Click to expand...
I know you will point out that the climate models have recently overestimated the warming (and fail to mention how they have sometimes underestimated the warming), but that seems about to change as we’ve been experiencing several years higher than any since instrumental temps around the world have been taking back in the late 1800s. This last year was the warmest on record, with this year shaping up to be even warmer.
Click to expand...
If climate is so stable and simple, why does the IPCC need super computers to model it?

Back in 1988 when James Hansen gave his dramatic testimony before Congress, he presented a graph with his model’s predictions. Please tell me how well they panned out in the succeeding years.
My position is why wait to turn out lights not in use; lets’ dig in now doing the needful to mitigate AGW. It would be extremely remiss not to mitigate it, considering the grave risks to people around the world and on into the future.
Click to expand...
What is very complex and difficult to understand is human behavior and this anti-environmental, anti-life, pro-death stance that so many are glomming onto – sort of a head-in-the-sand, live-it-up-for-tomorrow-we-die and/or who-cares-about-other-people-as-long-as-I-get-mine type of attitude. Considering many people are members of religions that promote compassion and mercy towards others and should know better and do better.
Click to expand...
I will turn off the lights because it is good not to waste, not because I will be mitigating GW. I read somewhere that even if the US strenuously tries to reduce our CO2 emissions the effect will be miniscule. If I ever have a moment when GW theory seems credible to me I still do not think mitigation is the way to go. Better to work on adaption. You should check out Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus on how to prioritize the world’s problems.

I hope you aren’t lumping me in with the “anti-environmental, anti-life, pro-death stance that so many are glomming onto – sort of a head-in-the-sand, live-it-up-for-tomorrow-we-die and/or who-cares-about-other-people-as-long-as-I-get-mine type of attitude” crowd.
 
ferdgoodfellow said:
I read somewhere that even if the US strenuously tries to reduce our CO2 emissions the effect will be miniscule…
Click to expand...
I know you are wrong on that.

Since 1990 my husband and I have reduced our GHG emissions by more than 60%, and we have more to do.

We reduced about 30% thru energy/resource efficiency/conservation (reduce, reuse, recycle, insulation, etc) by 2002, then when we moved to Texas, we went on an electric company that provides 100% wind energy. Now I know that 100% of the people will not be able to get 100% wind energy, but about 30% or more could do so. All these things net saving us $1000s, without lowering our living standard. Our $6 low-flow showerhead with off-on switch, we figure, has saved us about $2000 over the past 24 years (that’s better than the stock market) AND altho we felt a slight difference in flow up north, down here there’s no difference in the feel (only the water reduction by half).

Then we bought our Volt in 2012, thinking it, which would be our last car, a splurge, but it is also saving us money. We drive about 85% of the miles on that wind electricity.

And in 2013 we got solar panels on our roof, giving us about 40% of our electricity…reducing our wind energy use, so someone else can use it.

If nearly everyone were to reduce their energy/resource consumption in smart ways (not sweltering in the dark), that could reduce their GHG emissions by about 25%, even 30% or more cost-effectively.

Then if nearly everyone with somewhat south sloping roofs in fairly sunny areas (note that Germany is not very sunny) were to go on solar for 40% to 60% of their (reduced) electricity needs, then wind energy could take up a good portion (maybe 30% or more) of the rest of their energy needs.

In the end the U.S. could reduce its GHG emissions by maybe 75% cost-effectively.

Where there is a will, there is a way, and God will help! Praise the Lord!
 
lynnvinc said:
I know you are wrong on that.

Since 1990 my husband and I have reduced our GHG emissions by more than 60%, and we have more to do.

We reduced about 30% thru energy/resource efficiency/conservation (reduce, reuse, recycle, insulation, etc) by 2002, then when we moved to Texas, we went on an electric company that provides 100% wind energy. Now I know that 100% of the people will not be able to get 100% wind energy, but about 30% or more could do so. All these things net saving us $1000s, without lowering our living standard. Our $6 low-flow showerhead with off-on switch, we figure, has saved us about $2000 over the past 24 years (that’s better than the stock market) AND altho we felt a slight difference in flow up north, down here there’s no difference in the feel (only the water reduction by half).

Then we bought our Volt in 2012, thinking it, which would be our last car, a splurge, but it is also saving us money. We drive about 85% of the miles on that wind electricity.

And in 2013 we got solar panels on our roof, giving us about 40% of our electricity…reducing our wind energy use, so someone else can use it.

If nearly everyone were to reduce their energy/resource consumption in smart ways (not sweltering in the dark), that could reduce their GHG emissions by about 25%, even 30% or more cost-effectively.

Then if nearly everyone with somewhat south sloping roofs in fairly sunny areas (note that Germany is not very sunny) were to go on solar for 40% to 60% of their (reduced) electricity needs, then wind energy could take up a good portion (maybe 30% or more) of the rest of their energy needs.

In the end the U.S. could reduce its GHG emissions by maybe 75% cost-effectively.
Click to expand...
The trouble with this analysis, Lynn, is that it does not really refute the claim that " even if the US strenuously tries to reduce our CO2 emissions the effect will be miniscule…", which is what you quoted and were apparently addressing.

First you must recognize that ferd’s claim is about the US only. The idea being that the US is not the major contributor to GHG emissions, even if we do emit more per capita that most other nations. (I think only Canada emits more per capita, because of their small population.) If China and the others do not match our efforts at GHG reduction, our efforts may indeed produce “miniscule” results.

Also you are not realistic in estimating your personal reduction of your carbon footprint. You have cited several areas where you have reduced. But you have not taken into account your share of GHG due to industrial agriculture. You do buy food at the store, don’t you? Then to be fair you should count your share of the emissions that are caused in farming and transporting foodstuffs to the store. In light of the total indirect carbon footprint due to you, the reductions you cited may not be as dramatic as they seem at first.

I wonder about the total life-cycle carbon footprint of some of the capital expenditures you have made to achieve your reductions. How much CO2 is emitted due to the manufacturing of a Volt? Of your solar panels? Of your share of wind turbine production? Then figure how long these things last before they need replacing and amortize the manufacturing CO2 footprint over that lifetime and add it to your bill. See, there are a lot of CO2 emissions you have omitted talking about.

Also, I think it is much harder for someone living “up north” to even achieve the reductions you have mentioned in Texas. You have wind, and you don’t need much heat - mostly AC. That is well-suited to renewable energy. Most people in north cannot do what you have done. So ferd’s statement seems to stand.
 
Oh dear. I didn’t mean to link to that! (But it sure is funny)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top