Bob, The main reason why many people think global warming is bull is because they see a massive government power grab. It's not because there are some scattered religious zealots or some right wing kooks. Hell there's enough left wing kooks to balance those morons out. The government has bankrupted our country because they let the Wall Street money people, the "free traders", and the neo-cons sell our country right down the river. Now we are supposed to trust government with another trillion dollar scam called "cap & trade". Hell no!
In MA, many people know FSC "green certification" is a bunch of crap. Now we have to listen to these government types preaching that unless we surrender total control to their regulators we are all doomed. Lee is right that CO2 is increasing and it has been proven to be a greenhouse gas that will trap more heat in our atmosphere. But I'm more of an optimist; I think man-made global warming will be slight giving forests and people plenty of time to adapt. Steve, I hear ya. The most numerous zealots I hear are these global warming screwballs. If you disagree with them, they try to demonize you. Ellen Goodman, a columnist from the Boston Globe, wrote that people who are "global warming deniers" are as bad as Holocaust deniers! That was the most reprehensible thing I've heard in a long time. I don't think the millions of victims (including some of my relatives) of Nazism would appreciate that as they look down on us. Goodman should have been terminated for writing that. But of course the left wing kooks like this kind of talk. I just talked with my oldest stepdaughter Chung who is a Freshman at UMass. I told her I thought global warming was mostly bull just to challenge her because I know despite her history as a straight A student, she's getting a thorough brainwashing at UMass by her Commie profs. Hey they did it to me when I was there! HA! But Joe Six pack old man will do his best to balance that out. However, Ryan is right. It doesn't matter if global warming is a hoax because we should be doing more to protect our planet. The big threats are deforestation, air and water pollution, and overpopulation. I suggest the following: 1. We must slow down deforestation by giving landowners more incentive to keep their land in forest. 2. Declare a moratorium on all new coal fired power plants. Replace aging coal plants with new nukes. Unfortunately Obama acquiesced to Reid of Nevada and Yucca Mt. has been mothballed which means no waste dump. This has effectively killed the nuclear option. So we have to find other big power sources. 3. Enforce our immigration laws; secure our borders, and provide severe penalties to employers who hire illegals. Finally, I have MA Senate Bill 1231 "An Act to Establish a Study Commission on Tax Policy and Carbon Emissions Reduction" scheduled for a hearing on April 15, 2009 at 10 AM at the State House, Room B-2. If you know of anyone who wants to testify there you go. You can also provide written testimony. The idea is to try and head off any "cap & trade" program with a more efficient and transparent carbon tax. But we all know the big government people are yearning for all that power they would get with cap and trade. Here is the text for that bill: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st01/st01231.htm I don't want "cap & trade" for my landowners!!! It's bullsh**! Both Hansen and the CEO of Exxon support a carbon tax over cap and trade and so don't many other esteemed scientists. etc. They know bull when they see it too! Some people just talk; I'm actually trying to do something here. Mike Leonard, Consulting Forester www.northquabbinforestry.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Re: Even if you think it is a hoax Lee, Don, Steve, et al: There is another element to add to the discussion mix that can shed light on our collective evaluation of climate change science in this country and our evaluation of the credibility of the champions of climate change. The element is the role of religion - the often unaddressed 800-lb gorilla in the room, not to be discussed within polite circles. Fundamentalist religious views held by a substantial number of Americans tend to bias them against the accumulating scientific evidence for climate change as tied to CO2 emissions and therefore the collective impact of humans on the planet. There is a fundamentalist element in our nation (includes a few scientists(?)) that believes that "God" is a capitalist and consequently just won't let anything inconvenient like global warming happen to us. Members of this group are represented in all professions and often make it to the top of the political heap. Can anyone think of a governor or two? Members of the fundamentalist religious sector believe that humans are here with direct orders from the Deity to replenish the planet and nothing is going to convince them otherwise. The most deeply committed members outright reject the 4.5-billion year history of the Earth. They think the Earth is something like 6000 years old because Bishop James Usher came to that conclusion a few centuries ago. The fundamentalists reject evolution processes as anathema to their religious convictions. Predictably, they are almost always ignorant of the actual histories of the great religions and their tortured paths to gain converts, and more to the point, hold absolute power over the minds and hearts of the faithful. Deeply held religious convictions demonstrate how easy it is for the human mind to compartmentalize. A person can be brilliant in one area, exhibiting the highest level of cerebration, and be dumber than a box of rock in another. History is full of examples. Ego is another great hindrance to clear thinking and evaluation of scientific evidence. I remember when the great chemist Linus Pauling got stuck on vitamin C as a cure-all for everthing from cancer to in-grown toe nails. Pity. What went wrong in his otherwise brilliant mind? Once ego becomes involved, clear thinking goes out the window. Now, if fundamentalist leanings are combined with ego, you have a closed and often belligerent mind. In terms of climate science, the mounting evidence for global warming that is being spurred on by CO2 emissions from all areas of the globe seems to me to be simply overwhelming. How many people who claim tro evaluate the data really do so? When people "reject the climate data" as biased, which data are they rejecting? More to the point, whose partyline or talking points are they parroting? As has been pointed out, the climate change data are flowing in at such a rate and from so many diverse, credible, and unconnected sources that it would take a 24-hour commitment to stay on top of it. So when critics poohoo the data, exactly which data and from what sources are they poohooing? Basically, I think a lot of good people (religious and non-religious) who reject the scientific evidence for global warming underneath are just plain scared, but they haven't quite come to realize it. So rather than face their fears, they turn to skepticism and anger. Shoot the messenger. Basically, they don't want to change their consumption habits and they perpetually fear for their jobs. They dismiss environmental science as what they believe to be a green conspiracy to lock up all natural resources and return us to scavenging and eating roots and berries. In the case of thenreligious, rather than face the need for change, it is easier to trust to a benevolent Deity to insure everything works out in a big picture context, i.e. seven billion humans pumping out wastes at an ever increasing rate really won't have an impact. We all can understand soiling our immediate environment, but the fundamentalist rejects the impact of large scale pollution because that would interfere with the free flow of commerce and God will countenance no such interferences. Actually, maintaining a high standard of living while simultaneously living green presents us with our best course of action to finally get it right as a species. Combining good high tech comfortable living with green living points the direction to regaining the technological lead that we've frittered away in the global economy. By regaining lost ground, we could turn a handsome profit in the process. But the way forward isn't letting polluters off the hook by trading in carbon credits and continuing to rely on fossil fuels. And the right course certainly isn't just pretending nothing is happening on a global scale and trusting to politicians like James Inhofe (tied to big oil) and loud-mouthed demagogues like Rush Limbaugh to tell us what is what. Of course, they tell us that climate change science is a hoax -which brings me to the last point in my acknowledged ramble. One indirect confirmation of the validity of the evidence for climate change is to scan the opionins of the nuts on the far right. If you position yourself 180 degrees removed from the views of the rightwing nuts, your odds of being right dramatically improve - regardless of the subject. As a final comment, if the views I've expressed above should lead anyone to believe that I am not religious, or atleast not spiritually committed, nothing could be further from the truth. I totally reject the pseudo-scientific position that the physical world as we know it and we humans are the result of several billion years of random events. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Frelich" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:26:56 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [ENTS] Re: Even if you think it is a hoax Steve: Based on this excerpt from your last posting, I finally figured out what you and Don Bertolette have been talking about. Steven Springer wrote: > > My experience regarding this "consensus gathering" has been limited to > those boots on the ground colleagues in the Forest Service, at the > Federal and State level (remain un-named to protect the innocent!). If > one chooses to research this issue deeper, there are many in the > scientific field at a world-wide scale that are very skeptical and > will not mince words in calling those who are convinced as fools! > That's absolutely true. During February I presented at a conference on carbon markets to a Society of American Foresters audience of about 100 people. We gave them clickers so that they could respond to questions asked throughout the day and the results would display within a few seconds on the screen in the front of the room. During a session on the science of climate change we asked how many believe in global warming and whether it was caused by people--36% said no. I was surprised it wasn't more like 50%. Foresters are particularly conservative when it come so accepting new ideas. However, the consensus that CO2 is the main cause of global warming and that humans are the main agent of change in CO2 and climate, is among those scientists with primary expertise in climate science, not among all scientists in the world. It takes decades for consensus in one scientific community to diffuse through other fields of investigation. Lee --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
