Dear All, In my humble student opinion, I feel that discussing the causes of global climate change is futile. As with most issues of non-point source pollution, it seems there will always be some contention between specialists with different results/theories. As I understand it, the general public does believe that global warming is happening but no one really knows what they can do to slow it besides cut down on their energy/fossil fuel usage. The thing is, for most people climate change is extremely broad, long-term, and abstract. Can you imagine trying to understand it when the most you know about ecology and science is what you learned in Biology class your first year in highschool or Chemistry when you went to college? I think a much better way to go about change is to focus on what we DO know that we CAN change that PROBABLY affects climate change. For instance, the use of fossil fuels is 1) finite 2) causes air pollution, sometimes extreme in cities, which in turn degrades human health. These are two immediate issues that should be readily dealt with, regardless of whether or not it causes climate change, and the latter is easiest for most people to grasp. So, why not discuss how we can go about the drastic change that is needed to reduce the use of fossil fuels? Why not pour money into mass transit and the development of sidewalks to better the air that we and our children breath? Another example is land use change. Much of our wetlands have been drained for agriculture and urban development, which releases the gases that we believe may be causing global warming. But this loss of habitat also means less buffers for pollution, destruction of valuable habitat for endangered species, reduction of diversity, and alteration of local hydrology. Why not try to preserve wetlands and restore altered land for these simple reasons? Why should we need a larger reason to fix this issue? These reasons are easier for the general public to understand than global climate effects, so why not use them? There are many other examples of these types of issues, but I think right now what society needs are examples to be set for how to change society as a whole, new ideas and leaders, innovations, and a better education of how everything in ecology is full circle. It all comes back to us.
Sincerely, E.A. Burnett ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Hamilton" <roberthamil...@alc.edu> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 11:31:14 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich I see no evidence that CO2 causes global warming. CO2 levels would rise if we had global warming in any event due to increased cellular respiration. I don't know what causes global climate changes, all I know is that the global climate will always change one way or another. Rob Hamilton -----Original Message----- From: kerry Cutler [mailto:cutler.ke...@gmail.com] Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 2:04 PM To: Robert Hamilton Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Dear Rob and the rest of Ecolog listserve, I am not a climate scientist, but am an ecologist. Your idea that it is not CO2 causing global warming is not new to me and I know that people put forth several other hypotheses for the current global warming. I am curious about what research (a link to a paper, perhaps?) you know of to support your idea and what evidence you have to invalidate some of the calculations on the absorptive quality of CO2 effects and some of the analyses that support the opposite conclusion to yours (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006, etc...). For that matter, I would love to hear some evidence-based arguments from the other side: What are some of the most controversial issues surrounding this topic and what kind of research could be done to improve upon our models and convince even the most unshakable skeptic? I am sure that this is well discussed in other forums, but I would be interested to have us consider it here. This seems like an important enough issue to warrant some sensible intelligent discourse and to leave out the rhetorical extravagance. Let's give it a shot. Kerry Cutler On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Robert Hamilton <roberthamil...@alc.edu>wrote: > I would not be much of a scientist if I accepted conjecture based solely > on authority. My reason for not accepting the view that CO2 causes current > global warming is based on my acceptance of conjecture related to the > effect of water vapour on the energy of the atmosphere, and it's variation, > relative to the effect of CO2, conjectures for which there are actual data. > I have done my own analysis for my own sake and come to my own conclusions, > but saying CO2 causes global warming to me is like saying someone throwing > a bucket of water into the Pacific Ocean in Hawaii caused the tragic > Tsunami in Japan last year. > > As for attacking me personally, even if I worked for the coal industry > itself, so what? If CO2 is not causing global warming it is not, what I do > has no effect on that. I am somewhat fortunate that I don't have to sell > myself out to some political establishment though (I don't have to get > grants from politically biased granting agencies). If I did research the > issue I would probably look at things like "development" and the way we > manipulate watersheds as a human cause of global warming over CO2, and thus > would fail, so I am lucky! > > Nice thing about where I work is that while we have a tiny endowment, our > students graduate with the least debt of any school in the US. No Greek > columns, no art galleries, no mahogany garbage cans, but then we don't > force students into massive debt to support such things either. As for the > coal, IMHO the coal is worth more in the ground than it is to mine it > presently, IMHO. Maybe after generations of being ruthlessly exploited by > commercial and consumer interests for the sake of cheap electricity to run > air conditioners and computers, people around here might get a good return > on their labour once it starts costing a person like you the equivalent of > @2000.00 per month to heat your home to 68 degrees in the winter, something > that is just around the corner IMHO. > > The thing that bothers me about this sort of issue is the effect it has on > Ecology a a science though. I have seen go from being required in every > school I have known to not being so required (it is here though), and I > blame that decline on the emphasis on political hackery that has developed > in Ecology over the past generation. I applaud your desire to stand up for > your political view, but it they are not science and they are not Ecology, > and when any science exists to serve politics, it ceases to be real > science, IMHO. > > Rob Hamilton > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of David > L. McNeely > Sent: Mon 12/5/2011 1:49 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul > Ehrlich > > Well, I don't know exactly how to respond to such a claim from a > professional biologist. Could the importance of the coal industry to the > endowment of Alice Lloyd and other economic entities in Kentucky have > anything to do with this outrageous claim? How much credible science is > needed to convince you? Does the fact that the world's leading > climatologists and the National Academies of Science all disagree with you > matter? Does the fact that the "conflict" you claim comes from fewer than > 1% of all reports on the question, while those few reports lack credible > analysis matter? > > Sincerely, David McNeely > > ---- Robert Hamilton <roberthamil...@alc.edu> wrote: > > Science works to persuade when it provides real data, not weak > > hypotheticals. Consider the issue of ozone vs CO2. Lots of real data on > > ozone, nothing but political hackery on CO2, so we get some action on > > ozone and nothing but conflict on CO2. However, we are only as strong as > > our weakest link, so the CO2 argument defines us. > > > > Robert Hamilton, PhD > > Professor of Biology > > Alice Lloyd College > > Pippa Passes, KY 41844 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Bowles, Elizabeth Davis > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:07 PM > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul > > Ehrlich > > > > Social and environmental psychologists have known for some time now that > > knowledge does not change *behavior* and that information-only campaigns > > rarely are effective. This is because, as opposed to commercial > > marketing campaigns, usually you are asking the public to give something > > up, step out of social norms, or do something that does not reap > > immediate benefits to them. This requires a completely different > > approach, including removing perceived or structural barriers to > > sustainable behavior. Ecologists should strongly consider collaborating > > with psychologists on any outreach program in which a behavior change in > > the public is the goal. > > > > See this paper in conservation biology: > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x/full > > > > and this website: > > http://www.cbsm.com/pages/guide/fostering-sustainable-behavior/ > > > > and this report from the APA: > > http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx > > > > Beth Davis Bowles, Ph.D. > > Research Specialist > > Bull Shoals Field Station > > Missouri State University > > 901 S. National > > Springfield, MO 65897 > > phone (417) 836-3731 > > fax (417) 836-8886 > > ________________________________________ > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely > > [mcnee...@cox.net] > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:55 AM > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul > > Ehrlich > > > > ---- Steve Young <syou...@unlnotes.unl.edu> wrote: > > > Lawren et al., > > > Unfortunately, I think you may be preaching to the choir. I'm not > > > trying to be pessimistic, but if every ESA member were to follow > > > through and commit to the 'doing something', instead of just 'talking > > > more', what would that accomplish? Just going by the numbers, > > > conservatively speaking, ESA membership is around 10,000 and according > > > > > to the Census Bureau, the current population in the US is 312,718,825 > > > ( > > > http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) So, what do we > > > do about the other 312,708,000? > > > I'm in the education arena and it is a question that I've been trying > > > to figure out how to answer for a long time. I know advocacy is one > > > way and something I work on all the time. Maybe this should be part of > > > > > the focus of the 'doing something' approach. > > > Steve > > > > I believe when we help to educate others we are doing something. I'm > > funny that way, I guess. > > > > The difficulty comes when our educational efforts fail, as they seem to > > be doing on this matter. So, I need help in knowing what to do that > > will actually work. So far as individual effort, I already try to buy > > only what I need and to use old stuff. I minimize my fuel use by > > driving a Toyota Prius, walking for local transportation when I can, not > > using air conditioning though I live in a very hot climate, wearing warm > > clothing and keeping the house cool in winter ................ . But I > > have not been able to persuade many others to engage in the same > > actions. Reading and understanding the data that come in seems > > unconvincing to so many. Science is only trusted when it reinforces > > already held beliefs, even if less than 1% of those claiming to be > > scientists provide the claims that reinforce. > > > > So, what can I do? > > > > David McNeely > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or entity > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or an > agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any > review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender > immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank you. > > -- > David McNeely > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or entity > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or an > agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any > review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender > immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank you. > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank you.
