|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
bhuebner 
Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
 |
Posted on: Oct. 22 2012, 9:08 pm |
|
   |
So, the last debate is just starting and I'm thinking there is no way they are going to hit on climate change. I realize it is about foreign policy but my point is really about the whole campaign. Neither side ever seems to talk about climate change. why? Everyday it seems the evidence mounts higher and higher. Thoughts?
Brian
Www.trailpotato.com
--------------
Brian
TrailPotato
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
ol-zeke
me in the Tetons
Group: Members
Posts: 10807
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 22 2012, 9:10 pm |
|
 |
Each side is confident the ones that think like they do will vote for them, so it is of no consequence to mention.
--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.
The easiest way to ruin a Friday is to realize it is only Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39589
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 22 2012, 9:15 pm |
|
|
Romney doesn't want to mention, as he so succinctly put it, "an industry that kills people"? And it would be hard to avoid coal fired electrical generation of electricity in any discussion of greenhouse gasses.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Ecocentric
Group: Members
Posts: 3855
Joined: Jun. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 22 2012, 10:07 pm |
|
|
American politics has less to do with addressing the real problems and more to do with addressing the idiotic misconceptions.
--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
JimInMD
Group: Members
Posts: 3112
Joined: Feb. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 23 2012, 4:52 am |
|
|
ol-zeke and Ecocentric sum up my feelings exactly.
--------------
Checking out for a while, find me on FB.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
gunslinger
Group: Members
Posts: 6032
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 23 2012, 7:14 am |
|
|
Obama didn't mention it because of his green energy failures.
Romney didn't mention it because he didn't have to.
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
hbfa
Group: Members
Posts: 7077
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 23 2012, 11:14 am |
|
|
#4 offers an explanation
#6 gives an example to support it
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Dave Senesac
Group: Members
Posts: 3027
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 25 2012, 1:24 pm |
|
|
Check your local TV PBS listings, new Frontline program. Was on in our area last night. Massive behind closed doors run manipulation campaign of misinformation that has corrupted our political system and is pulling along an army of willing ignorant morons. Reflection on the current sad state of our political system.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/
--------------
...David
http://davidsenesac.com
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
craigwill
Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: Nov. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 25 2012, 4:47 pm |
|
|
The climate deniers belief system is no different than their religion. Their beliefs are entrenched in distorted information and myths. A political campaign would be expending precious energy and dollars in a futile effort. Any mention of the issue would also bring on an avalanche of more distortion propaganda from the fossil fuel industry. Terribly sad, but true.
Despite the incredible number of wildfires across the country attributed to a warmer planet, it would take a solitary burning bush speaking in a deep voice and biblical verse to get any traction on this issue.
I think the Obama campaign prefers to go after ground they might have a chance at taking and allocates its resources and focus accordingly. And the Romney campaign just doesn't recognize it as an issue.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4071
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 25 2012, 5:05 pm |
|
|
It's not all that surprising given that the same people base their regligion on a zombie who was dead for three days after being born to a mother who didn 't have sex.
After that, you can believe almost anything!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
bhuebner
Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 25 2012, 7:04 pm |
|
|
Some thoughtful responses and some not so thoughtful ones... I like to believe either side of the issue can be articulated without insults. Any hoo, Ironically, I just caught a little segment on public radio about this very topic. What I heard indicated that Mitt believes the earth is indeed warming but he isn't so sure that humans cause it. In the soundbite they played he went on to say that it isn't justified then to spend billions on it.
So, my question is this. What if we take the actions that are advised by those who believe it is human caused... and it turns out that the non-believers are right? Would all that money be wasted or would those same actions lead to other benefits such as cleaner air and energy independence? And what if we do nothing and are wrong? What is the cost of that? Would we even be able to do anything to correct our mistake in that scenario?
BTW- public radio is going to do a piece tomorrow on why Obama isn't talking about it.
--------------
Brian
TrailPotato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
GoBlueHiker
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Group: Members
Posts: 14071
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 25 2012, 7:43 pm |
|
|
(bhuebner @ Oct. 25 2012, 5:04 pm)
QUOTE So, my question is this. What if we take the actions that are advised by those who believe it is human caused... and it turns out that the non-believers are right? Would all that money be wasted or would those same actions lead to other benefits such as cleaner air and energy independence? And what if we do nothing and are wrong? What is the cost of that? Would we even be able to do anything to correct our mistake in that scenario?
Sigh. I appreciate the sentiment, and I suppose it's a fair question, but lemme just get one thing clear. The science isn't getting any weaker on it, despite the right-wing spin by well-funded groups like the Heartland Institute.
As for the exact consequences of it... some are easier to predict (sea-level rise) than others (hurricane frequency & severity), but the overall message is clear. It's happening and our actions cause a very large portion of it. There are more lines of evidence on the basic fundamentals than any rational, intelligent human being could doubt.
And just for the record, I didn't form that opinion from audio or web soundbites. I just got back from a scientific talk by Chris Landsea (NOAA, National Weather Service & Nat'l Hurricane Center in Miami) about this very topic (Global Warming and Hurricanes). Most of my advising committee is heavily involved with the top-level science on glaciology and sea-level rise. The science has accepted the fact of anthropogenic global change (climate and otherwise) and has moved on toward trying to make better predictions and more accurate measurements. The only ones still waffling about whether it's happening are politicians and talking heads, funded by industries willing to dump tons of money into spreading doubt and denial for their own short-term profit.
I don't mean this response to be pointed at you... I do appreciate the post. It's just frustrating to hear that this is still the debate folks are having. "Is it happening? Do we have anything to do with it?" Argh. The talking heads are continuing to win.
--------------
Wealth needs more. Happiness needs less. Simplify.
www.RainForestTreks.com
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
craigwill
Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: Nov. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 25 2012, 10:00 pm |
|
|
Over the last 5 years, I've been helping manage a renewable energy advocacy group here in Florida. The last few years, we actually made a deliberate decision not to mention climate change in our lobbying efforts with the Florida legislature. The reason was that the heavily tea-party-controlled Republican majority would scoff at any mention of climate change and immediately label the presenter as some kind of liberal heretic and his proposals not worthy of consideration. We decided there were plenty of other solid arguments for renewable energy that would speak to conservatives on what should be their own turf - economic growth, national defense, correcting trade imbalance, energy independence, etc. The Democrats were already on board with our proposals so there was no need to persuade them. But what we came up against was a hard-core ideology that is intent on shutting down government and allowing a laissez-faire economy to rule. If there happens to be any kind of crisis looming, whether it be resource depletion, environmental degradation, or an economic collapse, they would just as soon let the "free market" take care of it. They just don't recognize the problem or the idea that people working together through their government is how large, common problems are addressed.
I can't begin to tell you how discouraging the last 5 years have been. Even when a vast majority of Floridians favor state-supported renewable energy programs, the tea party manages to block every attempt to establish them:
http://cleanenergyflorida.org/
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
bhuebner
Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 30 2012, 8:14 am |
|
|
Before Superstorm Sandy hit this exchange inspired me to expand my thoughts on my TrailPotato blog. Coincidentally, it was scheduled to be published this morning and is now up. If you are interested in checking it out click here and let me know what you think.
--------------
Brian
TrailPotato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
muttpacker
Group: Members
Posts: 339
Joined: Nov. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 30 2012, 5:57 pm |
|
|
I happen to believe that there IS a religious component to the deniers. I can distinctly recall, from my own religious indoctrination, being told that the Earth was put here for humans. The animals are for us. The trees are for us. The water and air are here for humans. Given that kind of rhetoric, it's easy to understand why a devoutly religious person would deny that the actions of humans can have a destructive effect on something created by an all-powerful deity.
I don't mean to suggest that there is any church that is going out of its way to dissuade its flock from recognizing that humans DO affect the planet in tangible, and in many cases, permanent ways. But I'm sure they exist.
When faith and science are in conflict, faith wins. There's little doubt that that's the case. Otherwise there'd be a lot more atheists. And, by the same token, we must recognize that a lot of the willingness to ignore science, among doubters and deniers, comes from their faith. Whether it's being preached directly or not, it's likely that the devout will refuse to admit that we're capable, as a species, to ruin something created by their god.
To paraphrase Blues Traveler: "perhaps Earth is heaven and we did not know what a clever hell we could make. whoops!"
--------------
Ignorant is temporary. Stupid is permanent. Choosing to be ignorant is stupid.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
bhuebner
Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 05 2012, 9:43 pm |
|
|
I happened to be in Madison, WI this weekend with today off from work. When we got there we learned that Obama and Bruce Springsteen were going to be doing a rally. We were lucky enough to be able to go and it was reassuring to hear Obama talk about the environment, climate change and the fact that there is work to be done. I would still like to be seeing it get more attention but it does seem to have gained some momentum post Sandy.
Oh yeah, Springsteen delivered once again! No Surrender, The Promised Land and The Land of Hope and Dreams. Can't wait to see him in St Paul next week.
Red or Blue... go vote tomorrow!
--------------
Brian
TrailPotato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
dayhiker9
Group: Members
Posts: 5299
Joined: Apr. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 18 2012, 8:21 pm |
|
|
http://billmoyers.com/episode....mocracy
Obama needs a push
--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers." Krugman
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 10:06 am |
|
|
I watched Ken Burns episode #1 of "The Dust Bowl" last night. Frightening. Sobering. Tragic.
Ought to be mandatory viewing for every American. Especially those who'd like to wait for more evidence of how humans can impact weather.
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
dayhiker9
Group: Members
Posts: 5299
Joined: Apr. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 4:25 pm |
|
|
I did not watch much of it. It did remind of a book on GW. It tried to show what might be the impact for each degree © increase in GW. One interesting thing which you could see in that movie, is most of the west has a thin layer of soil on top of what used to be sand dunes. Once that soil blows away due to global warming it is all over - just one big desert, and people won't be able to just move to CA like they did during the dust bowl.
--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers." Krugman
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5308
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 7:32 pm |
|
|
The man-made ecological cause of the Dust Bowl (which I watched last night) was the destruction of the native buffalo grass that covered the plains. This grass evolved to cope with the low average precipitation, periodic severe droughts, and high winds. The roots extended deep into the ground and managed to hold some mositure below the surface.
Busting that sod and replacing the native grass with crops of wheat essentially destroyed the capability to hold moisture and soil in place during drought & high winds. In the 1890's those conditions temporarily ended large scale attempts to farm the region, but 20 years later a wet period ensued that made it possible, for a number of years, to sustain intensive wheat farming. Mechanized farm machinery made it possible to convert hundreds of millions of acres.
It was an ecological time bomb and a man-made disaster.
Not unlike global emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere today, except the consequences of APGW will be much more widespread.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
dayhiker9
Group: Members
Posts: 5299
Joined: Apr. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 10:16 pm |
|
|
I think the beginning of the show stated the same thing. Since I did not watch the whole show, I did not want to say there wasn't a GW impact. Perhaps Old Frank mean't the the dust bowl affected the weather not the other way around. I think the dust bowls traveled to Chicago maybe even DC.
The book I was reading was saying that global warming would affect this country more than some realize. I forget now how much temperature rise was estimated to cause the soil to blow away (no matter what it is planted in?).
--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers." Krugman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
