Posted by Wayne Jones on August 10, 2012 at 9:44 PM
Stan, Thanks for bringing this up, and for showing us the discussion in the Rock Mt. Nature Photographers forum.
The sad fact is that there are still lots of people who do not believe that our human activity is responsible the accelerated climate changes and the resultant environmental changes that we have been witnessing for years. (Even sadder that there are some who don't believe these changes exist.) If anyone has doubts that this is real, and caused by human activity, please read about this report from NASA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here--and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html. Just looking at weather data from past decades shows that climate change is already happening about 100 times faster than can be expected from natural causes, and that there is virtually no other way to explain it other than human industry.
Why do people continue to deny the facts? They are listening to high-profile leaders who are heavily invested in continuing the current oil-based economy. It's a case of that wealthy one percent buying the minds and votes of the public. I spent most of my life as a conservative, and as a scientist. Scientific facts in recent years have continued to show us that carbon-fueled industry and related human activities are indeed causing the climate changes that will cause environmental and economic disasters that will fuel social upheaval and wars. As a long-time conservative I find it alarming and disgusting that conservative political leaders are among those who are leading the efforts to deny what science is telling us. For political survival in a two-party system that has degenerated into a disguised form of class warfare (as mufti-billionaire Warren Buffet put it: “There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”) many politicians are virtually on the payroll of the corporations whose wealth depends on an oil-based economy. There is no denying that the economy is driving political action, and that the financial survival of each of us depends on the economy. But at the same time, each of us who appreciate that ecological issues are the real issues that will shape future economies and the world that we leave to our offspring. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to look beyond current economic rhetoric and vote for leaders who are willing to put the needs of our planet ahead of the need for corporate profits that pay for political campaigns. There are very few politicians now that fit that description, but if we get them elected, and demand that existing politicians act responsibly, we can begin to save this planet.
Posted by Wayne Jones on August 10, 2012 at 10:02 PM
One more thing... (I'm a little sorry I got off the track of science and into politics, but only a little.)
Back to the immediate issue of climate changed, and the NASA study, some of you may notice that the Washington Post replied with what appears on the surface to refute the NASA study. But in fact, even the Post concluded: "And the planet is certainly warming. Humans releasing heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere are almost certainly responsible for much, if not all, of that warming; the particular patterns of warming, comparison to the historical record, and the basic precepts of physics all indicate this. ... So, while the science of attribution improves, what can you say the next time you’re suffering through a sustained heat wave? That this is the sort of thing will get more common across a warming world. That should be more than enough to spur Americans to demand action from their leaders."
Posted by John Mumaw on August 10, 2012 at 11:49 PM
"(I'm a little sorry I got off the track of science and into politics, but only a little.)"
Heh heh...only a little?!?
But I do appreciate the opinion piece from Dr. Hansen, who appears to be moving right on up into the ranks of the 1% 'ers.
Nice work if you can get it.
Please note that I am not in denial over climate change, but instead have grown extremely weary of alarmists and extremists of all stripes in my six decades on the planet.
Posted by Stan Rose on August 11, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Wayne, Amen. So long as the few who reap obscene benefits from this system have a stranglehold on us, there will be no true recovery. Under our two party system, I just don't see anyone with the vision and courage to bring about real change. Incidentally, I am an Independent (according to the 'political tests' im closest to Libertartian) but environmental issues often are politically important to me.
John, I'll continue to like you no matter how grumpy or weary you get
I don't claim that there is 100% certainty that AGW is causing these issues. What I can't understand is the resistance to change things that need to be changed anyways (like moving away from fossil fuels, and learning to get by with less) If I'm right (about AGW) the results will be catastrophic, and inaction will contribute to it. If I'm wrong, then what harm is done?? I hear constantly about how it's a big conspiracy by the left-wingers to take away freedoms, their comfortable way of life etc. I think this is being extremely short-sighted. It's brainwashing by those who benefit from our blind consumerism. I'll never understand why it's such a bad thing to reduce pollution and waste. I just don't get it.
Posted by John Mumaw on August 11, 2012 at 1:04 AM
"I'll never understand why it's such a bad thing to reduce pollution and waste."
It's not, Stan. I agree wholeheartedly with those thoughts. I practice a sustainable lifestyle myself as much as I possibly can in my household and there are millions of us in North America who are doing the same Those numbers are increasing, too.
But what about the Third World countries who are finally coming into their own and want what we have enjoyed for several decades now? And now the Western world wants to deny them? There are so many angles to this future crisis that ascribing it solely to greed, "right wingers" and "one percenters" is not only disingenuous, but counterproductive.
I am an optimistic Libertarian and this discussion will assuredly not impact our virtual friendship.
Posted by Jim Bullard on August 11, 2012 at 7:55 AM
"...there are millions of us in North America who are doing the same Those numbers are increasing, too."
Therein is the real core of the problem, the "millions of us". It's all in the numbers. Though millions are trying to mitigate their impact on the Earth there are billions of us and still growing. People look around at their immediate neighborhood and figure they don't have that big an impact. They can't see how the smoke from their exhaust spreads and they don't see the smoke from billions of other exhausts at all. And then there is the population itself. We are outgrowing our habitat but there is zero talk of population control except in China whose "one child" policy is reviled by the rest of the world. Granted it is an intrusion on personal liberty but they at least recognize that there is a problem and at some point Mother Nature will force the rest of us to recognize it too, although she will be much more brutal about it when she does.
Posted by Ed Williams on August 14, 2012 at 2:22 AM
If you are going to have a campfire when you are out taking photographs, buy it where you burn it.
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/firewood/
Do what little things you can and try to spread the word the best you can to let others know the problems with invasive species and over use of natural resources like petroleum products without finding alternative clean fuels to use.
Please note that I am not in denial over climate change, but instead have grown extremely weary of alarmists and extremists of all stripes in my six decades on the planet.
Not trying to be pejorative, just seeking perspective.... what differentiates an alarmist from someone who is warning of a dire situation that, in reality, is indeed dire? In my mind, it's the quality of their reasoning and, in this case, scientific support. Science is nothing more than truth in progress. Some people simply won't accept anything other than incontrovertible truth. Science rarely delivers that, and even if it could in this case, it may not happen until long after corrective action could have any significant impact.
It's possible that "alarmists" may have a valid reason to be alarmed....
Posted by Phillip Noll on October 5, 2012 at 10:00 AM
BTW, Nature is the probably the single most respected scientific journal on the planet.
Posted by Dan Roberts on October 5, 2012 at 6:41 PM
Well I'm a fairly pragmatic, apolitical individual with a technical background. From my perspective life isn't all that complicated. The world obeys the laws of physics, society is ruled by economics, and 5000 years of recorded history demonstrates that the nature of man has not changed. We have accumulated more knowledge and created more gadgets, but we haven't fundamentally changed. If we had we wouldn't revere the words of philosophers and scholars that lived two or three thousand years ago.
The thing that is most alarming to me about the whole climate change debate is the absolute certainty and arrogance on both sides of the argument. The earth is not a static thing. It is and has always been in a constant state of change. One might consider that the only thing that is different now is that we are here witnessing the change and have the technology to measure it. We're putting all our eggs in the basket of hope that we caused therefore can stop/reverse the current trend. What if that's not the case? Maybe we should be preparing to adapt and survive in a future world that is different.
But even if we assume that we are in-fact the cause. Forget about the science, pick up a history book. Someone please show me when in history has mankind demonstrated, at a societal level, the ability to collectively work towards the greater good. I'm sure some will make the argument that man has never been faced with such calamity and that this time maybe there is the motivation to cooperate globally. Good luck with that. Before modern science things like volcanic erruptions were clearly visible calamities that were believed to be caused by things as profound as we now consider climate change to be. Did people pull together in those situations? History suggests the opposite. They turned on each other or took advantage of the situation to further their own selfish interests.
Man will not voluntarily change the current trend. But it will come back into balance. Economics is natural selection at a societal level. And economics is what will save the planet in the end. But it's not going to be pretty.
I'm glad I'm an old fart.
By the way, "clean fuel" is an oxymoron. CO2 is the primary green house gas and is the product of burning ANY fuel other than H2. And it takes more energy to produce H2 than you get in return. So any of you that have bought into "bio fuels" are just paying more to enrich companies in competition with "big oil". Sorry but it's not saving the planet
Posted by Miro Susta on November 7, 2012 at 4:35 AM
Stan,
Interesting topic but missing many important facts. First how you people take care about your forests? Your photos show no care at all. In Switzerland we had late 70tees early 80tees similar problem. The politics instead to see the status of our "dying" forests introduced car free Sundays and reduced drastically road speed limits, blaming pollution from the traffic for bad forests conditions. Only later when appropriate measures have been introduced our forests regenerated very fast. Today we have healthy forests in the country. Measures? Removal of old trees, lighting the forests and distributing beetles catching boxes. You can argue that we are small country, we can afford such measures. Yes we are small but also small in population & manpower. Your country is large but also large in population, it should be no problem to get strong manpower for "forest regenerating" activities. And the forest waste? Excellent biofuel for power generation; another contribution to regenerate your dying forests.
IMO it is not enough to write about the problem, you have to work to solve it. The forests will be grateful to you.
Posted by Stan Rose on December 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Agreed, Miro--there is much work to be done. First, people have to acknowledge that there is a problem, and for whatever reason that is slow in coming. But unfortunately Mother Nature won't wait--we've just had our warmest Fall on record here in Colorado--and half of Rocky Mountain National Park is shut down due to a forest fire (very rare in December at that elevation!) that is burning through the beetle kill. Note that beetle mitigation efforts have been successful at small scales, but are simply impractical for the huge acreage of forest we are talking about--millions of acres. It would take a massive mobilization to have any impact at all.
Discussion
12 repliesThe sad fact is that there are still lots of people who do not believe that our human activity is responsible the accelerated climate changes and the resultant environmental changes that we have been witnessing for years. (Even sadder that there are some who don't believe these changes exist.) If anyone has doubts that this is real, and caused by human activity, please read about this report from NASA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here--and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html. Just looking at weather data from past decades shows that climate change is already happening about 100 times faster than can be expected from natural causes, and that there is virtually no other way to explain it other than human industry.
Why do people continue to deny the facts? They are listening to high-profile leaders who are heavily invested in continuing the current oil-based economy. It's a case of that wealthy one percent buying the minds and votes of the public. I spent most of my life as a conservative, and as a scientist. Scientific facts in recent years have continued to show us that carbon-fueled industry and related human activities are indeed causing the climate changes that will cause environmental and economic disasters that will fuel social upheaval and wars. As a long-time conservative I find it alarming and disgusting that conservative political leaders are among those who are leading the efforts to deny what science is telling us. For political survival in a two-party system that has degenerated into a disguised form of class warfare (as mufti-billionaire Warren Buffet put it: “There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”) many politicians are virtually on the payroll of the corporations whose wealth depends on an oil-based economy. There is no denying that the economy is driving political action, and that the financial survival of each of us depends on the economy. But at the same time, each of us who appreciate that ecological issues are the real issues that will shape future economies and the world that we leave to our offspring. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to look beyond current economic rhetoric and vote for leaders who are willing to put the needs of our planet ahead of the need for corporate profits that pay for political campaigns. There are very few politicians now that fit that description, but if we get them elected, and demand that existing politicians act responsibly, we can begin to save this planet.
Back to the immediate issue of climate changed, and the NASA study, some of you may notice that the Washington Post replied with what appears on the surface to refute the NASA study. But in fact, even the Post concluded: "And the planet is certainly warming. Humans releasing heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere are almost certainly responsible for much, if not all, of that warming; the particular patterns of warming, comparison to the historical record, and the basic precepts of physics all indicate this. ... So, while the science of attribution improves, what can you say the next time you’re suffering through a sustained heat wave? That this is the sort of thing will get more common across a warming world. That should be more than enough to spur Americans to demand action from their leaders."
But I do appreciate the opinion piece from Dr. Hansen, who appears to be moving right on up into the ranks of the 1% 'ers.
Nice work if you can get it.
Please note that I am not in denial over climate change, but instead have grown extremely weary of alarmists and extremists of all stripes in my six decades on the planet.
John, I'll continue to like you no matter how grumpy or weary you get
I don't claim that there is 100% certainty that AGW is causing these issues. What I can't understand is the resistance to change things that need to be changed anyways (like moving away from fossil fuels, and learning to get by with less) If I'm right (about AGW) the results will be catastrophic, and inaction will contribute to it. If I'm wrong, then what harm is done?? I hear constantly about how it's a big conspiracy by the left-wingers to take away freedoms, their comfortable way of life etc. I think this is being extremely short-sighted. It's brainwashing by those who benefit from our blind consumerism. I'll never understand why it's such a bad thing to reduce pollution and waste. I just don't get it.
It's not, Stan. I agree wholeheartedly with those thoughts. I practice a sustainable lifestyle myself as much as I possibly can in my household and there are millions of us in North America who are doing the same Those numbers are increasing, too.
But what about the Third World countries who are finally coming into their own and want what we have enjoyed for several decades now? And now the Western world wants to deny them? There are so many angles to this future crisis that ascribing it solely to greed, "right wingers" and "one percenters" is not only disingenuous, but counterproductive.
I am an optimistic Libertarian and this discussion will assuredly not impact our virtual friendship.
Therein is the real core of the problem, the "millions of us". It's all in the numbers. Though millions are trying to mitigate their impact on the Earth there are billions of us and still growing. People look around at their immediate neighborhood and figure they don't have that big an impact. They can't see how the smoke from their exhaust spreads and they don't see the smoke from billions of other exhausts at all. And then there is the population itself. We are outgrowing our habitat but there is zero talk of population control except in China whose "one child" policy is reviled by the rest of the world. Granted it is an intrusion on personal liberty but they at least recognize that there is a problem and at some point Mother Nature will force the rest of us to recognize it too, although she will be much more brutal about it when she does.
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/firewood/
Do what little things you can and try to spread the word the best you can to let others know the problems with invasive species and over use of natural resources like petroleum products without finding alternative clean fuels to use.
Not trying to be pejorative, just seeking perspective.... what differentiates an alarmist from someone who is warning of a dire situation that, in reality, is indeed dire? In my mind, it's the quality of their reasoning and, in this case, scientific support. Science is nothing more than truth in progress. Some people simply won't accept anything other than incontrovertible truth. Science rarely delivers that, and even if it could in this case, it may not happen until long after corrective action could have any significant impact.
It's possible that "alarmists" may have a valid reason to be alarmed....
http://www.lanl.gov/newsroom/news-releases/2012/October/10.01-climate-change-cripples-forest.php
For the scientifically inclined, here is the original Nature article:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1693.html
BTW, Nature is the probably the single most respected scientific journal on the planet.
The thing that is most alarming to me about the whole climate change debate is the absolute certainty and arrogance on both sides of the argument. The earth is not a static thing. It is and has always been in a constant state of change. One might consider that the only thing that is different now is that we are here witnessing the change and have the technology to measure it. We're putting all our eggs in the basket of hope that we caused therefore can stop/reverse the current trend. What if that's not the case? Maybe we should be preparing to adapt and survive in a future world that is different.
But even if we assume that we are in-fact the cause. Forget about the science, pick up a history book. Someone please show me when in history has mankind demonstrated, at a societal level, the ability to collectively work towards the greater good. I'm sure some will make the argument that man has never been faced with such calamity and that this time maybe there is the motivation to cooperate globally. Good luck with that. Before modern science things like volcanic erruptions were clearly visible calamities that were believed to be caused by things as profound as we now consider climate change to be. Did people pull together in those situations? History suggests the opposite. They turned on each other or took advantage of the situation to further their own selfish interests.
Man will not voluntarily change the current trend. But it will come back into balance. Economics is natural selection at a societal level. And economics is what will save the planet in the end. But it's not going to be pretty.
I'm glad I'm an old fart.
By the way, "clean fuel" is an oxymoron. CO2 is the primary green house gas and is the product of burning ANY fuel other than H2. And it takes more energy to produce H2 than you get in return. So any of you that have bought into "bio fuels" are just paying more to enrich companies in competition with "big oil". Sorry but it's not saving the planet
Interesting topic but missing many important facts. First how you people take care about your forests? Your photos show no care at all. In Switzerland we had late 70tees early 80tees similar problem. The politics instead to see the status of our "dying" forests introduced car free Sundays and reduced drastically road speed limits, blaming pollution from the traffic for bad forests conditions. Only later when appropriate measures have been introduced our forests regenerated very fast. Today we have healthy forests in the country. Measures? Removal of old trees, lighting the forests and distributing beetles catching boxes. You can argue that we are small country, we can afford such measures. Yes we are small but also small in population & manpower. Your country is large but also large in population, it should be no problem to get strong manpower for "forest regenerating" activities. And the forest waste? Excellent biofuel for power generation; another contribution to regenerate your dying forests.
IMO it is not enough to write about the problem, you have to work to solve it. The forests will be grateful to you.