To the global warming nay-sayers

[EasterJoy]

I touched on that a couple pages ago. It’s based on the global average temperatures from, if I remember right, 1950-1970, which was actually a cooling period. Twenty years isn’t even a good, representative sampling of the amount of time humans have walked the earth, let alone the entire history of the planet. Someone else replied that it’s the rate of change that’s alarming the GW alarmists, but I’ve read plenty of articles that are just as if not more alarmed over the diversion from their gold standard than anything else.

There are pictures and descriptions of the glaciation on Mt. Hood and other peaks of the West that show how much the ice has retreated, and they weren’t taken in 1950. The methods of dating the features of the moraines aren’t perfect, but it should not be implied that nothing is known about what the ice has been doing except in the past century.

Concerns over the glaciers are a typical concern: Not just some particular temperature, but what streams are getting less and warmer water over the course of the summer. Likewise, concerns over the rise in ocean levels take into account that half of the rise can be accounted for by the rise in temperature, because water expands as it warms up. With glaciers, a temperature rise means both less snow (because the cold season in shorter) and more melting and evaporation (because the warm season is longer). A small rise in the sea level doesn’t sound like much, but it is the difference between lands that get washed by salt water and those that get only freshwater. A difference in what areas get frosts at what date means what places are OK for fruit trees that need a frost, what are OK for trees that can’t take a frost, what places are and are not going to have insects overwinter without kill-offs.

So it’s not a temperature “gold standard” that is the issue, like the difference in whether your thermostat is at 67 or 69. It is all those places where a relatively few degrees on a relatively few days can make a big difference in how much freezing and how much melting there is. It is what places will have summer runoff or glaciers, what places will be under salt water, what places do the polar animals live as the seasons change. There has been enough temperature change to change those things in obvious ways, so let’s not imply this is all in somebody’s imagination.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

There are pictures and descriptions of the glaciation on Mt. Hood and other peaks of the West that show how much the ice has retreated, and they weren’t taken in 1950. The methods of dating the features of the moraines aren’t perfect, but it should not be implied that nothing is known about what the ice has been doing except in the past century.

Concerns over the glaciers are a typical concern: Not just some particular temperature, but what streams are getting less and warmer water over the course of the summer. Likewise, concerns over the rise in ocean levels take into account that half of the rise can be accounted for by the rise in temperature, because water expands as it warms up. With glaciers, a temperature rise means both less snow (because the cold season in shorter) and more melting and evaporation (because the warm season is longer). A small rise in the sea level doesn’t sound like much, but it is the difference between lands that get washed by salt water and those that get only freshwater. A difference in what areas get frosts at what date means what places are OK for fruit trees that need a frost, what are OK for trees that can’t take a frost, what places are and are not going to have insects overwinter without kill-offs.

So it’s not a temperature “gold standard” that is the issue, like the difference in whether your thermostat is at 67 or 69. It is all those places where a relatively few degrees on a relatively few days can make a big difference in how much freezing and how much melting there is. It is what places will have summer runoff or glaciers, what places will be under salt water, what places do the polar animals live as the seasons change. There has been enough temperature change to change those things in obvious ways, so let’s not imply this is all in somebody’s imagination.

And so? Humanity has shifted all over this planet due to climate shifts. Greenland used to be, go figure, GREEN. What galls me is that people are using natural processes that we cannot in our wildest dreams control, to grab power and make billions. Their motives are not pure, not in the slightest.

All of this ecological worship comes directly from secular humanism anyway. We are not the drivers of this temporary home of ours. We are here through God’s grace but this planet is not a particularly human friendly place at its best. We can try our best to affect it, but it’s very likely that our interventions, however well-meaning, will only make things worse.

 

[Mark121359]

And so? Humanity has shifted all over this planet due to climate shifts. Greenland used to be, go figure, GREEN. What galls me is that people are using natural processes that we cannot in our wildest dreams control, to grab power and make billions. Their motives are not pure, not in the slightest.

All of this ecological worship comes directly from secular humanism anyway. We are not the drivers of this temporary home of ours. We are here through God’s grace but this planet is not a particularly human friendly place at its best. We can try our best to affect it, but it’s very likely that our interventions, however well-meaning, will only make things worse.

I couldn’t agree more with this post! Things that you learned in the fourth grade…the natural freezing and thawing of the earth. How in the world did we get to where we are now? It’s become a religion. A sick one at that! A lot of those who support AGW believe that population control is a viable option to combat this “perceived” threat. Boy, that dovetails well with Catholic teachings…doesn’t it?

---

Peace, Mark***

 

[EasterJoy]

And so? Humanity has shifted all over this planet due to climate shifts. Greenland used to be, go figure, GREEN. What galls me is that people are using natural processes that we cannot in our wildest dreams control, to grab power and make billions. Their motives are not pure, not in the slightest.

All of this ecological worship comes directly from secular humanism anyway. We are not the drivers of this temporary home of ours. We are here through God’s grace but this planet is not a particularly human friendly place at its best. We can try our best to affect it, but it’s very likely that our interventions, however well-meaning, will only make things worse.

TRJ, you have gone from skepticism about global warming to sowing doubt about environmentalism in general? All I can say is that your attitude is contrary to that of the last three Holy Fathers. They do not dismiss concerns for the environment as something that “comes directly from secular humanism.” They do not dismiss the science out of hand as being impure. If I’m being duped, I’m in the company of some very wise, saintly, and scholarly men.

Meanwhile, I don’t know what bishops you’ve been listening to. This is the final document of the Fifth General Conference of the Council of Latin American Bishops, a document drawn up by a committee chaired by then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio. I invite you to read it: old.usccb.org/latinamerica/english/aparecida_Ingles.pdf. Most of the boldface below is mine.

**2.1.4 Biodiversity, ecology, the Amazon, and the Antarctic **
83. Latin American is the Continent that holds one of the greatest biodiversities on the planet and a rich socio-diversity represented by its peoples and cultures. Those peoples have a great store of traditional knowledge of the sustainable use of natural resources, and of the medicinal value of plants and other living organisms, many of which form the base of their economy. Such knowledge is currently being subjected to unlawful intellectual appropriation, when it is patented by pharmaceutical and biogenetics industries, generating vulnerability to the farmers and their families who depend on these resources for their survival.
84. The traditional communities have been practically excluded from decisions on the wealth of biodiversity and nature. Nature has been, and continues to be, assaulted. The land has been plundered. Water is being treated as though it were merchandise that could be traded by companies, and has been transformed into a good for which powerful nations compete. A major example of this situation is the Amazon.
85. In his address to youth in Pacaembu Stadium in Sao Paulo, Pope Benedict XVI drew attention to the “environmental devastation to the Amazon and the threats to the human dignity of its peoples,” and asked the young people for “greater commitment and the broadest areas of action”
86. The growing assault on the environment may serve as a pretext for proposals to internationalize the Amazon, which only serve the economic interests of transnational corporations. Pan-Amazon society is multiethnic, multicultural, and multireligious. The dispute over the occupation of the land is intensifying more and more. The traditional communities of the region want their lands to be recognized and legalized.
87. We likewise note the shrinking of ice fields throughout the world: dwindling ice in the Artic, whose impact is now being observed in the flora and fauna of that ecosystem; global warming can also be felt in the thundering crackle of blocks of Antarctic ice that are reducing the glacier coverage of the continent which regulates world climate.

**Twenty years ago speaking from the tip of the Americas, John Paul II pointed out prophetically:

From the Southern Cone of the American Continent and facing the limitless spaces of the Antarctic, I issue a cry to all those responsible for our planet to protect and preserve nature created by God: Let us not allow our world to be an ever more degraded and degrading land.**

 

[lynnvinc]

The problem with yours and all these other schemes is that simply paying money doesn’t affect carbon emissions in the slightest.

I’m not one for burning my money out on the lawn, so to speak, as climate skeptics are by insisting they remain inefficient and non-conservative of energy and resources. Which is also money down the proverbial drain.

I would only pay IFF the money goes for drawing down CO2. And according to the article I cited, there has been a recent break-thru at least in the lab which suggests that could be done on a large scale for about $100 per ton of CO2.

Here’s the article again: “Small-scale U.S. lab experiment removes CO2 from atmosphere at relatively low cost” at eenews.net/stories/1059981902 It was originally for producing hydrogen low cost, but by adding silica they were able to also draw down carbon.

The lab team used saline water electrolysis, which involves running a current through slightly salty water to break it up into hydrogen and oxygen.

The test was at a small scale in a lab, but the mechanism at a commercial level could harvest a large amount of hydrogen for various purposes, said Rau. If renewable energy were used to power the electrolysis, the result would be “super green” hydrogen, he said. Large-scale electrolysis is something that is already available, he said.

“The process doesn’t require high temperatures or exotic chemicals,” said Rau. “It uses commonly available materials.”

The process generated a pH divide in the saline water solution, so that one electrode in the solution was very acidic, and the other was very basic. The solution as a whole remained neutral initially.

**The scientists then added silicate minerals, which neutralized the acidic component of the electrolyzed solution, allowing the overall solution to shift from neutral to basic, or alkaline.

This resulting solution proved highly absorbent of carbon dioxide from the air, sucking up the greenhouse gas at a rate approximately 45 times greater than a control test.

Silicate minerals hold the advantage of being very inexpensive and abundant, making up the majority of the Earth’s crust, said Rau. The dynamic could make air capture with them relatively cheap – the scientists estimated that a system at scale could cost roughly $100 a metric ton of mitigated carbon dioxide.**

Of course, even if this does pan out, it would require a lot of time & effort to bring it to fruition on a scale large enough so that most people could actually be a part of drawing their CO2 emissions down.

So if they were to, say, develop operations across the country that could draw down one-tenth of our emissions by, say, 2030, that would be great. But then we’d only have to pay for that (not for half or one-fourth of our emissions, as I suggested).

In other words, we still have to do our part, as JPII told us in 1990, to mitigate this problem, which would typically mean by reducing our own emissions. We could also help others to reduce theirs, but I think this should be as free gift, not as a license for us to emit more.

 

[EasterJoy]

I couldn’t agree more with this post! Things that you learned in the fourth grade…the natural freezing and thawing of the earth. How in the world did we get to where we are now? It’s become a religion. A sick one at that! A lot of those who support AGW believe that population control is a viable option to combat this “perceived” threat. Boy, that dovetails well with Catholic teachings…doesn’t it?

---

Peace, Mark***

When were you in 4th grade, that you were taught that human activities have no impact on the earth? Did you also learn that a useful skill to have in the event of a nuclear attack was to be able to very quickly get under your desk and cover your eyes?

A lot of those who look at the numbers and say “yes, there is evidence that is consistent with a lot more thawing and a lot less freezing” who are quite thoroughly orthodox Catholic, thank you very much. If you think that the Columbia River Pastoral Letter was written by bishops who had sold themselves out to a “sick religion”, you are very much mistaken!!!

Has anybody here been listening to what the last three Popes have had to say about this stuff? If anyone tries to tell you that only secular humanists and those in favor of artificial contraception “perceive” many serious threats to God’s creation, they are at best seriously mistaken.

Why so many of you cannot imagine that anyone would lie to you about whether current consumption patterns pose any threat to the natural world, I have no idea. It is not as if we’ve never been lied to about this kind of thing before. (And what was the “sick religion” being preached? Oh, you know the one: $$$. And don’t forget unfettered individualism. The World and the Flesh, those are very old friends of Old Scratch.)

 

[lynnvinc]

…A lot of those who support AGW believe that population control is a viable option to combat this “perceived” threat. Boy, that dovetails well with Catholic teachings…doesn’t it?

---

Peace, Mark***

Just as I am against Cap&Trade as a way for people to wiggle out of reducing their own GHG emissions, I’m also against championing abortions or pop control as a way for people to wiggle out of their own personal responsibility for reducing their own GHG emissions and other pollutants that harm and kill people and others of God’s creation.

I think those “AGW believers” supporting pop control were probably already in favor of abortion or were “pro-choice” BEFORE they became interested in saving the earth. So it was just an easy step for them to support abortion for others so that their own children could get a bigger piece of the pie, which is expected to be shrinking in a few decades due to AGW and many other problems and issues IF we fail to mitigate. That is perhaps a natural attitude (to help one’s children, even at the expense of harming others) “according to nature,” but we are called to God’s grace and attitudes and actions “according to grace.”

What’s interesting, however, is that I am able to bring such environmentalists over to my side of thinking, by saying, “It is illogical to kill children in order to save the world for the children” (and most environmentalists I know are highly interested in saving the earth for future generations and are not misanthropes). I think by that way I’ve helped reduce at least some abortions among environmentalists I know, and have at the least gotten them not to promote abortion as a way to solve enviro problems.

OTOH, it is nearly impossible to get those AGW skeptics who claim they are against abortion to mitigate AGW (or other enviro problems) by informing them that AGW and other such enviro problems are harming and killing people and causing miscarriages and birth defects, etc.

Which leads me to believe they are more into AGW skepticism than pro-life issues, such as fighting against abortion.

 

[Fairwinds]

…
OTOH, it is nearly impossible to get those AGW skeptics who claim they are against abortion to mitigate AGW (or other enviro problems) by informing them that AGW and other such enviro problems are harming and killing people and causing miscarriages and birth defects, etc.

decouple this “science” from politics and religious fanaticism, and, … well, you’ll just be ignored.

Which leads me to believe they are more into AGW skepticism than pro-life issues, such as fighting against abortion.

I’m positive global warmerists are pro-abortion.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

TRJ, you have gone from skepticism about global warming to sowing doubt about environmentalism in general?

Speaking for myself, I’m entirely dismissive of environmentalism, period. However, I’m a huge proponent of conservationism. Environmentalists tend to put their cause above all, even the environment itself if it suits their needs. The people who are more apt to identify themselves as conservationists are much more sensible. A good example are the animal rights nuts who released a bunch of minks from a mink farm, only to have them kill thousands upon thousands of local chickens. Or the ones who release animals from labs, pet stores or wherever into what isn’t their native environment, only to have them die from exposure. I have a friend who for years would go out with a group every Earth Day putting up posters and sticking thousands of flyers under people’s windshield wipers protesting, among other things, deforestation. Most self-identifying environmentalists I know either don’t recycle or do so sparingly and would cheerfully dump motor oil down the sewer, shoot the last surviving carrier pigeon or burn down a forest of baby seals if it meant saving themselves a dollar or five minutes of their time. Nearly every environmentalist I know has justified some anti-environmental action or stance of their own by saying the fact that they vote for Democrats or other environmentally-minded candidates makes up for their 240-w incandescent bulbs and frequent spotted owl bonfires.

 

[EasterJoy]

Speaking for myself, I’m entirely dismissive of environmentalism, period. However, I’m a huge proponent of conservationism. Environmentalists tend to put their cause above all, even the environment itself if it suits their needs. The people who are more apt to identify themselves as conservationists are much more sensible. A good example are the animal rights nuts who released a bunch of minks from a mink farm, only to have them kill thousands upon thousands of local chickens. Or the ones who release animals from labs, pet stores or wherever into what isn’t their native environment, only to have them die from exposure. I have a friend who for years would go out with a group every Earth Day putting up posters and sticking thousands of flyers under people’s windshield wipers protesting, among other things, deforestation. Most self-identifying environmentalists I know either don’t recycle or do so sparingly and would cheerfully dump motor oil down the sewer, shoot the last surviving carrier pigeon or burn down a forest of baby seals if it meant saving themselves a dollar or five minutes of their time. Nearly every environmentalist I know has justified some anti-environmental action or stance of their own by saying the fact that they vote for Democrats or other environmentally-minded candidates makes up for their 240-w incandescent bulbs and frequent spotted owl bonfires.

I’m not concerned with how anyone splits hairs with their -“isms”, although I’m very suspicious when anyone in politics talks about putting anybody else into a box of “ism”, because of how often it is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Honestly, I’ve heard enough of that from people of every party to make me sick.

I too, have known the ardent “lovers of the environment” who just had to choose neon paper for the flyers that they used to cover campus with their ardent activism, even though at the time the neon colors were the only colors the recycling centers wouldn’t accept. That tells me they are foolish, but it doesn’t tell me whether or not their flyers have some truth printed on them. Heavens, we know what foolishness and even evil people have combined even with the Gospel itself. Sometimes the truth gets stuck in some very nasty hands, but it is still the truth, even so.

What I quibble with is not what label we put on ourselves, but whether or not we try to act as if human actions are just too small to possibly harm something as big as a whole planet or if we try to pretend that there is just no way we can draw any meaningful conclusions about what are and aren’t unwise consumption habits because nature is just too complex for anybody to know anything. That is a cop-out, and it is a cop-out sold to us by people who are interested in selling a lot more than ideas.

So don’t tell me whether you’re an environmentalist or a conservationist or a preservationist. Tell me what you think of what scientific evidence and why. Tell me what you think we ought to do or refrain from doing and why–what we individually ought to do out of our own discernment, as well as those things that we need to put into the law or our public policies or take out of it. If you think that some problem is important but needs to be handled in a different way than this or that person in this or that other group, let’s talk about that. If you want to do something that some nut also happens to want to do, I promise I won’t conclude that you, too, must be a nut until I hear you out. Maybe in the end we’ll disagree, but let’s not say that something that might be a problem can’t possibly be a problem because someone who is immoral or just plain nuts seems to be upset about it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, after all.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

So if they were to, say, develop operations across the country that could draw down one-tenth of our emissions by, say, 2030, that would be great. But then we’d only have to pay for that (not for half or one-fourth of our emissions, as I suggested).

I think your economics are entirely off base. Someone will still have to pay for the development and infrastructure; these won’t be given away freely or appear magically off in a field somewhere. As I pointed out, the cost of this will either cripple low wage earners or be unfairly shouldered by the middle class (and what’s the likelihood that the money collected for this will actually go where it’s intended and not into the general fund?). I’m not saying I’m opposed to taking efforts to clean the air, but these mandates you mentioned are a pipe dream.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

So don’t tell me whether you’re an environmentalist or a conservationist or a preservationist. Tell me what you think we ought to do and why–what we individually ought to do out of our own discernment, as well as those things that we need to put into the law or our public policies or take out of it. If you think that some problem is important but needs to be handled in a different way than this or that person in this or that other group, let’s talk about that. Maybe in the end we’ll disagree, but let’s not say that something that might be a problem can’t possibly be a problem because someone who is immoral or just plain nuts seems to be upset about it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, after all.

Just a few of the things I do:

1. Recycle, recycle, recycle: We have 5 kids and seldom fill our big trash can more than 1/3 of the way each week. We could easily use a second recycling bin. We also compost which cuts down on what we throw away even further.
2. Gardening: About 1/3 of our yard has been converted to gardening space, and we add a bit more each year. We buy very little produce from June-September which cuts down on our costs, our trips to the grocery, the gas we use, etc. We’ve offered to take over a portion of our parents’ yards and split what we grow with them, but they’ve yet to take us up on it. Going along with the gardening, we compost and have a rain barrel. I’ll likely be adding another rain barrel or two as we outgrew our current one a couple years ago.
3. Trip planning: I seldom go anywhere without planning our stops. I also drive as conservatively as possible: turning off the engine instead of idling, no fast starts or stops, etc. This became a big deal to me after a couple years ago when I was the only one driving for a week and we went more places than normal yet used less than half a tank of gas, as opposed to the 1.25 tanks/week we normally use.
4. Energy efficient bulbs & appliances: I was an early adopter of both CFL’s and Energy Star appliances, TV’s, etc. The first CFL’s I bought I think were $7 apiece, and I haven’t bought a single non-Energy Star appliance (as long as one was available) since my wife and I got married. If you remember 15+ years ago, Energy Star items weren’t the standard and came at a premium. I think we currently have 6 incandescent bulbs in the house, and those are all low-wattage bulbs that either don’t have CFL equivalents or for which we’ve found the CFL equivalents don’t last (as in, for the refrigerator and dryer).
5. Reuse: Hand-me-downs and thrift stores are a way of life for us. We have a couple articles of clothing that our 1-year-old is now wearing which we bought for our 11-year-old when she was that age.
6. Cut out plastics: We’ve spent the last several years cutting out whatever plastic we can from our lives. We have very little plasticware in the house, use cloth shopping bags when we can and whenever we order something from Amazon that has the option, we get the hassle-free packaging which cuts out almost all the extraneous packaging, including most of the plastic.
7. Buy in bulk: We buy as much as we can in bulk. This saves us money, cuts down on packaging and cuts down on trips to the grocery store.

As far as what the government can do, one thing I’d like to see is an investigation into price-fixing in the green energy industry. I mentioned earlier that if my wife & I had gotten solar panels when we got married, we were told we’d recoup our investment in 7-15 years. We’ve looked into it several times since then, most recently about 1.5 years ago. Each time we were told, despite technological advancements and wider adoption of the technology, that we’d be able to recoup our investment in 7-15 years. Odd how that works out.

I’m also in favor of tax breaks for companies that produce more efficient vehicles, lower cost green energy products and that voluntarily cut back on their emissions. I’m totally opposed to subsidizing car companies and green energy companies, especially when you see what a failure that has been.

 

[EasterJoy]

Just a few of the things I do:

1. Recycle, recycle, recycle: We have 5 kids and seldom fill our big trash can more than 1/3 of the way each week. We could easily use a second recycling bin. We also compost which cuts down on what we throw away even further.
2. Gardening: About 1/3 of our yard has been converted to gardening space, and we add a bit more each year. We buy very little produce from June-September which cuts down on our costs, our trips to the grocery, the gas we use, etc. We’ve offered to take over a portion of our parents’ yards and split what we grow with them, but they’ve yet to take us up on it. Going along with the gardening, we compost and have a rain barrel. I’ll likely be adding another rain barrel or two as we outgrew our current one a couple years ago.
3. Trip planning: I seldom go anywhere without planning our stops. I also drive as conservatively as possible: turning off the engine instead of idling, no fast starts or stops, etc. This became a big deal to me after a couple years ago when I was the only one driving for a week and we went more places than normal yet used less than half a tank of gas, as opposed to the 1.25 tanks/week we normally use.
4. Energy efficient bulbs & appliances: I was an early adopter of both CFL’s and Energy Star appliances, TV’s, etc. The first CFL’s I bought I think were $7 apiece, and I haven’t bought a single non-Energy Star appliance (as long as one was available) since my wife and I got married. If you remember 15+ years ago, Energy Star items weren’t the standard and came at a premium. I think we currently have 6 incandescent bulbs in the house, and those are all low-wattage bulbs that either don’t have CFL equivalents or for which we’ve found the CFL equivalents don’t last (as in, for the refrigerator and dryer).
5. Reuse: Hand-me-downs and thrift stores are a way of life for us. We have a couple articles of clothing that our 1-year-old is now wearing which we bought for our 11-year-old when she was that age.
6. Cut out plastics: We’ve spent the last several years cutting out whatever plastic we can from our lives. We have very little plasticware in the house, use cloth shopping bags when we can and whenever we order something from Amazon that has the option, we get the hassle-free packaging which cuts out almost all the extraneous packaging, including most of the plastic.
7. Buy in bulk: We buy as much as we can in bulk. This saves us money, cuts down on packaging and cuts down on trips to the grocery store.

As far as what the government can do, one thing I’d like to see is an investigation into price-fixing in the green energy industry. I mentioned earlier that if my wife & I had gotten solar panels when we got married, we were told we’d recoup our investment in 7-15 years. We’ve looked into it several times since then, most recently about 1.5 years ago. Each time we were told, despite technological advancements and wider adoption of the technology, that we’d be able to recoup our investment in 7-15 years. Odd how that works out.

I’m also in favor of tax breaks for companies that produce more efficient vehicles, lower cost green energy products and that voluntarily cut back on their emissions. I’m totally opposed to subsidizing car companies and green energy companies, especially when you see what a failure that has been.

Doesn’t a lot of being environmentally conscious look a lot like what everyone did as a matter of course only a few generations ago? The main difference is that sometimes with science we can heat a house and run a car and so on with a fraction of the petroleum and a very small fraction of the dirty by-product pollution.

Like you, I’m in favor of rewarding those who succeed in doing something beneficial for everyone, rather than subsidizing those who claim to be trying to do it. It is in the nature of a trainable animal to figure out how to jump through just those hoops needed to get the reward!

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Doesn’t a lot of being environmentally conscious look a lot like what everyone did as a matter of course only a few generations ago? The main difference is that sometimes with science we can heat a house and run a car and so on with a fraction of the petroleum and a very small fraction of the dirty by-product pollution.

One of the reasons I’m glad we have as many kids as we do is because it forces us to be more conservation-minded. My kids have unconsciously picked up a lot of good habits along those lines. They’re all good at using things up as completely as possible, innovating with what they have on hand and the older ones all have a grasp of at least the basics of gardening so if they choose to do that later in life, they’ll have a much better start than I did when I first tried it. They also have a healthy appreciation of nature since we spend a huge chunk of the summer hiking and doing other outdoor activities.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

TRJ, you have gone from skepticism about global warming to sowing doubt about environmentalism in general?

EasterJoy, I have explained this a hundred times. There is a difference between caring for our environment and being good stewards, and elevating ourselves to the point where we think we are qualified to cure the earth’s climate variations and indeed, even the most basic influence on our climates and weather, THE SUN. Why can’t the enviro-worshipers separate out the two categories? When it comes to being good stewards, I think most people and companies already do a lot, which is not acknowledged by the radical earth worshipers. But believing that we are qualified to even try to mess with the natural processes that are not driven by us is sheer madness. I do believe that if we ever did try to affect the earth’s atmosphere in some fundamental way, we’d only end up sealing our own doom out of pure hubris.

Many of the environmental nuts think that the earth would be better off without people altogether, and that we poison the planet with our mere presence. Thus, all of the “Earth After People” shows on TV, and the push to have no children at all so our race can die out and leave the planet to the cockroaches, I guess.

I have no quarrel with people trying to use resources wisely. The control of resource use by overwhelming governmental intervention, or even private manipulation, that I have a huge problem with.

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy, I have explained this a hundred times. There is a difference between caring for our environment and being good stewards, and elevating ourselves to the point where we think we are qualified to cure the earth’s climate variations and indeed, even the most basic influence on our climates and weather, THE SUN. Why can’t the enviro-worshipers separate out the two categories? When it comes to being good stewards, I think most people and companies already do a lot, which is not acknowledged by the radical earth worshipers. But believing that we are qualified to even try to mess with the natural processes that are not driven by us is sheer madness. I do believe that if we ever did try to affect the earth’s atmosphere in some fundamental way, we’d only end up sealing our own doom out of pure hubris.

Many of the environmental nuts think that the earth would be better off without people altogether, and that we poison the planet with our mere presence. Thus, all of the “Earth After People” shows on TV, and the push to have no children at all so our race can die out and leave the planet to the cockroaches, I guess.

I have no quarrel with people trying to use resources wisely. The control of resource use by overwhelming governmental intervention, or even private manipulation, that I have a huge problem with.

I don’t have a quarrel with your contention that there are some antisocial human-hating wingnuts out there who claim to be saving the planet. I have no quarrel with your contention that a policy needs to be a lot more than well-meaning to be worth doing, and that throwing money at a problem only robs money from projects that could actually do some good. I’m not drinking the Earth First Kool-Aid–the more of those terrorists that are put in jail, the better–and I even look pretty closely at what the Sierra Club thinks ought to be public policy.

Still, do you really think that most companies already do a lot, without any outside pressure to do it? Where did you get an idea like that? Is there no truth to the contention that humans can poison an area without even wanting to? We know that it can happen, just from the messes left by the old mining practices that let arsenic and lead and mercury and who knows what else. I look at the two major political parties, see that the oil companies like Chevron and BP are on the top ten major political contributors for both candidates, and I have no doubt that there is money pulling the strings on both sides of this question. A lot of times, people making the money do not care how they make it. The question of what effect certain habits we have will have on the earth is still a question that we have to honestly answer as best as we can, anyway. That can possibly gain us some questionable political bedfellows here and there, but I don’t believe that someone who is out to lunch on one question is automatically wrong about everything else.

 

[lynnvinc]

Speaking for myself, I’m entirely dismissive of environmentalism, period. However, I’m a huge proponent of conservationism. Environmentalists tend to put their cause above all, even the environment itself if it suits their needs. The people who are more apt to identify themselves as conservationists are much more sensible. A good example are the animal rights nuts who released a bunch of minks from a mink farm, only to have them kill thousands upon thousands of local chickens. Or the ones who release animals from labs, pet stores or wherever into what isn’t their native environment, only to have them die from exposure. I have a friend who for years would go out with a group every Earth Day putting up posters and sticking thousands of flyers under people’s windshield wipers protesting, among other things, deforestation. Most self-identifying environmentalists I know either don’t recycle or do so sparingly and would cheerfully dump motor oil down the sewer, shoot the last surviving carrier pigeon or burn down a forest of baby seals if it meant saving themselves a dollar or five minutes of their time. Nearly every environmentalist I know has justified some anti-environmental action or stance of their own by saying the fact that they vote for Democrats or other environmentally-minded candidates makes up for their 240-w incandescent bulbs and frequent spotted owl bonfires.

You can insult me as much as you wish, it will not stop me from striving to reduce my harm and killing of people thru env means. I will continue to do whatever I can, and also get others to join.

 

[EasterJoy]

You can insult me as much as you wish, it will not stop me from striving to reduce my harm and killing of people thru env means. I will continue to do whatever I can, and also get others to join.

When did he insult you? Did you read the whole post? He made it clear that when he said he had an issue with self-identified environmentalists, he was specifically talking about the people he knew who self-identified that way, people who in his experience considered themselves “environmentalist” either only because of how they voted or because of what high-minded vandalism they were willing to commit. He considers people like you to be conservationist, like he is, because you actually change your own habits in order to make a difference.

Sheesh, you disagree about some aspects of public policy, but for the most part you’re on the same side!

 

[lynnvinc]

When did he insult you? Did you read the whole post? He made it clear that when he said he had an issue with self-identified environmentalists, he was specifically talking about the people he knew who self-identified that way, people who in his experience considered themselves “environmentalist” either only because of how they voted or because of what high-minded vandalism they were willing to commit. He considers people like you to be conservationist, like he is, because you actually change your own habits in order to make a difference.

Sheesh, you disagree about some aspects of public policy, but for the most part you’re on the same side!

I’m a self-identified environmentalist and ALL the self-identified environmentalists I know recycle and take many environmental actions, so, no, he was not just insulting me, he was insulting all environmentalists I know (in person or online), plus who knows how many others around the world.

However, I did answer too hastily, bec I do know it is very difficult to take environmental actions, even for those who are committed to do so. So it is surely possible that he does personally know many environmentalists who do not engage in environmental activities, such as taking their own shopping bags or living close to work/schools/shops.

I read an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor some 20 years ago by one of their editors who said he was committed to helping solve environmental problems, but found it very hard to do even the smallest things, like recycling. He said what we need in addition to good knowledge about the problems and their solutions and good will to carry them out is prayer, a lot of prayer. Prayer to help us find solutions, and more prayer to carry them out.

I agree with that, and in fact that is the only thing that has ultimately helped me every step of the way.

It would also help if others on the side would pray for those struggling to do the right things, to help them do the right things.

I just returned from Mass, and Pope Francis has asked us to pray for one hour in re to the Holy Eucharist. Since the Mass was in Tamil, I didn’t completely understand it – that everyone would be praying at 8:30 pm (Indian time), which would be 9 am Eastern time in the U.S., or everyone should pray at their time 8:30 pm today, Sunday.

I’m planning to at least say Evening Prayer (which is on Corpus Christi) and a rosary…which should take about 40 minutes, then other prayers and meditations for the other 20 minutes.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m a self-identified environmentalist and ALL the self-identified environmentalists I know recycle and take many environmental actions, so, no, he was not just insulting me, he was insulting all environmentalists I know (in person or online), plus who knows how many others around the world…

What if he were saying that all the Christians he knows were having extramarital affairs, lie through their teeth whenever it advances their own self-interest, and cheat on their taxes but then scream and yell about how religious they are around election time? Are you going to take insult at that because you happen to live in a good parish where the Christians are nothing like that? Or might you be willing to admit that not everyone who talks the talk is willing to walk the walk?

You know it is possible that he is telling the truth about the people he knows; let it go. Keep your eye on the ball. It does not matter if you recycle your own bones, if you rush to take offense whenever you can find a provocation you will convert no one. You have common ground with this fellow when it comes to being willing to sacrifice in order to conserve natural resources. Work with that, and don’t go looking for strife.