the climate is actually warming exceptionally fast, by at least an order of magnitude faster than the fastest know natural warm-up, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event (caused by an undersea volcano in the North Sea destablizing methane hydrate deposits), this makes adaptation by migration very difficult And also the infrastructure of human civilization acts as road-blocks to would-be migrating plant and animal species.

Life uses (mainly) solar energy to reduce entropy locally in much the same way we use the energy from the food we eat to keep our homes clean and organized. And just because "shit happens" doesn't mean earth isn't self-regulating, any more than does being shot mean human bodies are not self-regulating. Tropical rainforests keep themselves from overheating by creating their own cloud cover. The conifers of the boreal forests are adapted to shed snow, this makes the forest dark, even in winter, and thus trap solar radiation rather than reflecting it back into space. tropical algae cool the tropical oceans by releasing dimethyl sulfide, which breaks down into sulfur dioxide and stimulates cloud formation.

Unlike other things that have caused mass extinctions, we are sapient beings who can understand what we are doing and thus stop it

Originally Posted by The Rani

WHY DO WE PRETEND TO UNDERSTAND CLIMATE CHANGE?

Denialist claptrap. This stuff has been refuted countless times by climate scientists already.

And we do know what causes ices ages, it's called the Milankovitch Cycles. When the cycles are in a phase that decreases the amount of solar radiation hitting the Arctic in the summer snow starts building up into glaciers, and then ice caps. CO2 levels drop as the chilled water stimulates plankton growth and the dissolving of CO2 in the ocean, which cools the climate more leading to bigger ice sheets.


The longer-term shifts from ice-house to hot-house climate regimes, stem from a tug of war between ocean life, which likes it at a cool global average 50F because cool water helps dredge up nutrients from the deep, and land life, which likes it at a balmy 73F, the optimal temperature for land plants to photosynthesize.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Environmentalism is a philosophy and social movement. It is not naturalism nor biology nor physics and should not be confused with any of these. Environmentalism is yet another attempt by humans to meddle in the affairs of nature. Its core beliefs are arrogant presumptions that man holds ultimate power over nature and that only man can “save our earth.” It is largely the philosophy of those who fear changes in nature that may cause them personal inconvenience or hardship. It is certainly not knowledge of the natural world and presses the earth into a whore-like slavery where even her majestic views are traded and consumed as a commodity under the guise of “conservation”. It seeks to make the forests safe for our vacations.

Well I take exception to that philosophy.

I do too, since it is not environmentalism.

The arrogant presumption is that we humans should have control of nature and that we have the right to wipe out other species for our own convenience. E'ism recognizes that we DON'T have that right. The changes we seek to stop are changes not in nature, but imposed on nature by humans.

Ridiculous to whom? "Ridiculous" is a human emotional response to stimuli and cannot be applied to nature or the universe which does not use or even define these terms. You are applying human emotion to nature which is superstition (little more than animism).

You are evading the issue by responding to the word I used instead of the obvious scientific fact that more species by far have been wiped out in the last few decades of human assault on our environment than any time in the past, ever. I think the word ridiculous degree sums up the situation just fine.

Well what do you think we have now? Competition for resources.

No what we have now is monopolization of resources by one species.

What exactly have we “won?” An overpopulated world with limited resources? That’s not a victory condition for any species. That’s the point where nature re-establishes balance.

You already know that I and everybody else disagrees with your "natural" solution to human abuse of our planet.

Ask any biologist Eric. Extinctionary pressures are the drivers for adaptation, evolution and the creation of new species. Evolution actually begins to diminish and slow down during periods of high bio-diversity. For instance Eric, biologists know that the population of human beings (that is homo sapiens) has dropped as low as 1000 breeding pairs as recently as 100,000 years ago. You exist today because of this event Eric.

To better explain how this works, imagine that you have some random mutation that increases your chance of survival and that you pass this mutation onto your children. That mutation is more likely to propagate and take hold in a small population of say 1000 animals than it is in a large population of 7 billion. Mutations in any large population of animals are exponentially more diffused and diluted and it becomes worse as population increases. It is simple math and simple science.

Which species do you think will take over after human dinosaurs become extinct?

Justice? Where do you find justice in nature? Again you are trying to attach a fabricated human concept to the universe around you. Imagine your ancestors again, those little creatures scurrying around under leaves and branches, scratching a living in dirt, fearful of every shadow that passed overhead. How “just” was the world to them? How fair was it?

Or perhaps something more recent? Why don’t you ask a few survivors living on the coast of Japan how fair nature is or how in control and powerful they feel.

There is no justice in nature and there is no injustice. The strong survive, the weak do not. It is neither malevolent nor benevolent. It does not punish nor reward. It does not love you and it does not hate you. The only rule for life is that an organism must eat and eventually be eaten. It is the same for every microbe on earth as it is for every human being. You too Eric, eat life and will eventually be consumed by it. You will not find any justice in our universe. It is ruled by entropy and decay. Everything you see and care about today will be destroyed, recycled, destroyed again and eventually disappear forever. It’s more powerful than you, more powerful than all of us.

We will all likely have our lesson soon. I expect it will be hardest on the most arrogant among us.

Probably. But the human quest for justice is something that exists in nature, because we are part of nature, and evolution today (as opposed to 4 million years ago) also consists of human culture and society and human consciousness. Didn't you see Carl Sagan's program on genes, brains and books?

Really? I bet you do.

You lose the bet.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Reuters

Okay, okay! I pledge to never cut the cheese again!

Now that's alarmist. Satisfied?

Oh, my wife thanks you.

Originally Posted by The Rani

WHY DO WE PRETEND TO UNDERSTAND CLIMATE CHANGE?

For years the global warming lobby has acted as if there was only one thing which drives climate change: man-made carbon emissions.

Well… not true. Not at all true. In fact, it is so untrue as to be a strawman attack. Running roughly from short term to long term we have…

• Sooty volcanic eruptions. Big ones can cause cool streaks of about 3 years.
• Factory soot. (Global Dimming) Older designs of factories release the same sort of particles as volcanoes. This causes a cooling effect and significant health risks. As developing countries like India and China address major health concerns by adapting western soot scrubbing technology, the cooling effects of factory soot are apt to go away, resulting in a warming spurt.
• The solar cycles. Recently they have been running in 11 year cycles. There is a short term glitch in the cycles which may or may not indicate a repeat of the Maunder Minimum. The recent glitch is interesting, but it is early to count on a major change in the cycles.
• El Nino / La Nina natural cycles. The Pacific Oscillation can cause a measurable swing in global temperatures. It is possible that a major shift in climate could bring the Pacific into a new state where the oscillation does not occur, but there is no reason to assume this.
• Greenhouse gases. CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas, but methane, water vapor and several others are factors. Water vapor is complicated in that it is generated in nature. Heat in the atmosphere allows the air to carry more water vapor, which generates heat. This makes water vapor a special case. We can't redsign industry to stop releasing water vapor. Still, there are numerous man produced and released gasses that cause warming in various amounts and which linger in the atmosphere for different durations.
• Feedback Effects. The warmer it gets, the more ice melts, which causes it to get warmer, which causes ice to melt… There are a number of factors which amplify or dampen warming and heating.
• The Milankovitch Cycles are a highly predictable set of shifts in the Earth's orbit. This effects how much sunlight is absorbed. These shift very slowly, on the order of tens of thousands of years. These are associated with the recent ice ages coming and going.
• Continental Shift. If the poles are in open water, no ice caps can form. If a continent is solidly over a pole (such as current day Antarctica) or the pole is surrounded by land masses (such as the current day arctic) the poles can freeze over. If frozen, the white ice reflects light from the sun back out into space with less warming.
• Tipping Points. If it becomes warm enough to melt the north american Ice Age glaciers… if it becomes warm enough for the North American and Siberian tundras to release methane… If it becomes warm enough to melt the Greenland glaciers and Arctic ice cap… if it becomes warm enough to melt the Antarctic ice cap… if it becomes warm enough to release the methane stored at the bottom of the ocean… There are things which have happened in the past which have caused bursts of warming. It is possible to anticipate when they might happen again and with what effects. Once these things happen, it is very difficult to get genies back in bottles.

The problem isn't in understanding any one given effect. We've had a number of volcanic eruptions, and can get a pretty good idea of how much soot causes how much cooling. We've been monitoring the solar cycles, and can see their effects on the temperature record clearly enough. We have temperature records, and can see what happens if the Antarctic melts, or if the oceans release their methane. None of the above factors are particularly difficult to understand if you look at them one at a time.

What is difficult is to build a system where all of the above are put together as a whole. This takes a big computer and climate professionals. The process is difficult and complex enough that a layman isn't going to be able to judge the work.

There are both denialists and alarmists who will focus attention on the factors pushing the temperature one way while ignoring the factors pushing the other way. The denialists, however, will deny the science. They will reject the models which put all the factors together without producing their own models. They will produce propaganda articles which say it is so hard to drive the car that we should just let the car go over the cliff.

I quite understand that there are many who don't understand climate change, including the author of the article. Some don't want to. It would put the life style that they have become accustomed to at risk. Some don't want to do their homework. They don't want to spend the time and effort it takes to become familiar with climate systems.

But the ignorance of some should not be taken as an indication that others haven't taken the time.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Life is at the constant mercy of entropy and luck.

That's a philosophical statement right there.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The U.N. says it is, based on current scientific research.
You can't stick to a vegetarian diet to save the planet?

-If a person voluntarily sticks to an veg-head diet, how does that help fight capitalism-ah, I mean, global warming?

Now, if you forced people to do it, that would be different!


Cooking the books:

http://www.realclearscience.com/2011...ms_241641.html

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the UN in 1988 to advise governments on the science behind global warming, issued a report last month suggesting renewable sources could provide 77 per cent of the world's energy supply by 2050. But in supporting documents released this week, it emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years – and that the lead author of the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164 investigated by the IPCC.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is your own strawman, because that's not at all what people are denying.

Originally Posted by The Rani

WHY DO WE PRETEND TO UNDERSTAND CLIMATE CHANGE?

Seems to me that you were denying that 'we' understand climate change. If you say it is true of yourself, I have no reason to disbelieve it. It is certainly seems true that the author of the article doesn't understand climate change if he alleges that CO2 is the only factor being considered seriously.

I took the 'we' to be highly inclusive, though. Do you deny that scientists understand climate change? If so, my statement that denialists are denying the science is certainly true of you. I don't think you unusual.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, thanks for reminding me.
I also wanted to ask the alarmists how they would feel about anti-meat legislation to reduce carbon emissions.

-They'll love it, as long as Left-wing groups are allowed to opt out for certain "reasons"...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.realclearscience.com/2011...ms_241641.html

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the UN in 1988 to advise governments on the science behind global warming, issued a report last month suggesting renewable sources could provide 77 per cent of the world's energy supply by 2050. But in supporting documents released this week, it emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years – and that the lead author of the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164 investigated by the IPCC.

Following the money trail has to be part of understanding the propaganda exchanges, but throwing away anything written by a current or former member of Greenpeace would be similar to throwing away any stuff written by current or former energy company employees. Yes, you have to expect slanted presentations, but you still want to read what is said. "It was said by someone who disagrees with me thus it must be wrong" seems an insufficient argument.

The IPCC did create a number of possible scenarios depending on how aggressively the world attempts to fight warming. Turning over 77 percent of the world's energy to renewables by 2050 would be an extremely aggressive response. I'm not familiar with all 164 IPCC scenarios, but surely a 77% turnover by 2050 would be one of the more aggressive responses investigated or expected. It might well be the correct scenario.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I also wanted to ask the alarmists how they would feel about anti-meat legislation to reduce carbon emissions.

It might happen, but not primarily as a result of global warming. The United States is turning grains into fuel and grains into meat. China is also going to be turning grains into meat much more in the near future as their middle class can afford to create the demand. The result is apt to be a critical grain shortage in poorer nations. The unrest in the Middle East and northern Africa show that this food shortage resulting in increasing prices leading to political unrest is already here. To date, it is economic. Americans can afford fuel and Chinese meat more than Africans can afford sustenance food. At some point there might simply be not enough food to go around unless meat and fuel production from agriculture is cut.

Global warming might contribute, as will peak water. There are places where the aquifers are rapidly depleting, which
might not be suitable for producing crops in the near future. Yemen is a prime example, though even in the United States we are depleting our aquifers. Current water policies cannot be extended indefinitely. Global warming could produce climate shift, which might decrease net agricultural production as well. I suspect the food question might come to a head before the climate problem, however.

Actually, they should be viewed as aspects of the same problem.

I suspect there will be a lot of things Americans will do before they change their eating and driving habits. I suspect energy policy will shift towards renewables long before diet change is put on the table. I also anticipate it becoming a military problem, with people migrating out of places that haven't enough water, that cannot produce enough food.

The Pentagon is looking at this possibility as well.

Suj, there will still be meat in a environmentally sustainable world. There are large parts of the High Plains that are too dry to farm without irrigation, the only reason there is farming there right now is the rapidly depleting Ogalla Aquafer. Such plains, however, are perfect for large grazers like cattle, which fit the identical ecological niche as bison.

Originally Posted by Odin

the climate is actually warming exceptionally fast, by at least an order of magnitude faster than the fastest know natural warm-up, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event (caused by an undersea volcano in the North Sea destablizing methane hydrate deposits)

Somewhat still under debate, but even if that point is granted you still haven't proven that today's climate is the absolute best climate for life on earth. For instance, we know scientifically that not only has the earth been much warmer in (geological) recent history than it is now but also that CO2 concentrations were significantly higher during those periods. During those periods the fossil records show a lot more bio-diversity than there is currently. Statistically speaking, a point can be made that a hotter, more CO2 rich world is better for life though not necessarily human life. Now I don't particularly believe that means that we should be dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and poisoning the earth, however that point of view is admittedly biased because such things affect me directly.

Originally Posted by Odin

...this makes adaptation by migration very difficult And also the infrastructure of human civilization acts as road-blocks to would-be migrating plant and animal species.

And that is evolution in action. Animals under extinctionary pressure will either adapt or die out. Not all animals are doing poorly. Feral hogs for instance are doing so well in North America that they are expected to be found in all 50 states within 10 years. Not bad for a former farm animal. Insects are doing quite well as are some flora. Perhaps you have noticed that many trees are actually producing more pollen over the past 20 years? Scientists certainly have. Not a surprise that a life-form that breaths CO2 might actually prefer our man-made, high CO2 environment.

Originally Posted by Odin

Life uses (mainly) solar energy to reduce entropy locally in much the same way we use the energy from the food we eat to keep our homes clean and organized. And just because "shit happens" doesn't mean earth isn't self-regulating, any more than does being shot mean human bodies are not self-regulating. Tropical rainforests keep themselves from overheating by creating their own cloud cover. The conifers of the boreal forests are adapted to shed snow, this makes the forest dark, even in winter, and thus trap solar radiation rather than reflecting it back into space. tropical algae cool the tropical oceans by releasing dimethyl sulfide, which breaks down into sulfur dioxide and stimulates cloud formation.

And yet everything alive still dies. Your body is only alive for a very, very short time. From your perspective it appears to be a stable system because you experience things over a very short time-slice. To a tree the level of decay and entropy in your body is obvious and rapid. To a mountain, even more so. To a star you are nothing more than a few atoms constantly breaking down, reshuffling and being recycling countless times.

Originally Posted by Odin

Unlike other things that have caused mass extinctions, we are sapient beings who can understand what we are doing and thus stop it

Of course we can stop it but we won't and for the same reasons that other organisms don't. Nothing alive wants to die. Everything alive wants to consume and spread and everything alive does so until the resources dwindle and a die-off happens.

And that's the point Odin. If you really care about the health of life on earth as a whole then you should actively want fewer people on it. It's going to happen anyway.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

That's a philosophical statement right there.

Actually it's a scientific one. You are (and always have been) at at the mercy of nature and mathematics.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Actually it's a scientific one. You are (and always have been) at at the mercy of nature and mathematics.

"Nature" conceived as entropy and mechanical laws is not all there is to "Nature," and Mathematics is not all there is either. If the universe were running down it would never exist; it would be running down from zero. There is a creative, anti-entropy force, and it's found within life and the universe. Philosophy does make a difference to your outlook on policy.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Somewhat still under debate, but even if that point is granted you still haven't proven that today's climate is the absolute best climate for life on earth. For instance, we know scientifically that not only has the earth been much warmer in (geological) recent history than it is now but also that CO2 concentrations were significantly higher during those periods. During those periods the fossil records show a lot more bio-diversity than there is currently. Statistically speaking, a point can be made that a hotter, more CO2 rich world is better for life though not necessarily human life. Now I don't particularly believe that means that we should be dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and poisoning the earth, however that point of view is admittedly biased because such things affect me directly.

Note that I pointed out that there is no "absolute best climate", for all the biosphere. Land life likes it warm, ocean life likes it cool. It is true that a warmer world is a more bio-diverse world, but that is only because there tends to be more speciation on land than in the sea. From a POV of biomass a cool world is good for ocean life, the open tropical oceans are virtual deserts because they are poor in nutrients.

And yet everything alive still dies. Your body is only alive for a very, very short time. From your perspective it appears to be a stable system because you experience things over a very short time-slice. To a tree the level of decay and entropy in your body is obvious and rapid. To a mountain, even more so. To a star you are nothing more than a few atoms constantly breaking down, reshuffling and being recycling countless times.

individuals may die, but the greater ecosystem lasts millions of years.

Of course we can stop it but we won't and for the same reasons that other organisms don't. Nothing alive wants to die. Everything alive wants to consume and spread and everything alive does so until the resources dwindle and a die-off happens.

Other species don't understand what they are doing, we can and must. We are the first species where memes are more powerful than genes in shaping our species' future.

And that's the point Odin. If you really care about the health of life on earth as a whole then you should actively want fewer people on it. It's going to happen anyway.

I do want fewer people, but I want it to come from lower birthrates, not from people dying of thirst or starvation.

It does my heart good to see so many reliable and upstanding citizens calling for a revolution. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I will be involved. I have no other choice.


Van Jones at Netroots Nation: ‘We are the deep patriots, they are the cheap patriots’

By Kase Wickman
Saturday, June 18th, 2011 --

Environmental activist Van Jones, a former advisor to President Barack Obama, rallied the crowd with a keynote speech Saturday afternoon at the Netroots Nation conference in Minneapolis.

"I'm sick of us getting kicked around, folks. I'm sick and tired of it," he told the crowd.

Jones accused banks and oil interests of being "committed to one thing and one thing only: they are committed to killing the American dream."

"We'll fight, and fight well," he said of the crowd, and progressives across the country. "This is guaranteed. The question is, will we fight together, or will we fight alone? We have a common enemy and we face a common peril."

"They've got a wrecking ball painted red, white and blue."

However, it's time to work as a group instead of relying on a charismatic leader, which he called the "genius of the Tea Party." Though the Tea Party is one of the perceived enemies of progressives, Jones said, they're doing something right. Even if Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, the figureheads with the group, declared the Tea Party over, it would still live on, because its supporters have been empowered as group members.

"They have built a starfish, and not a spider," he said.

In 2008, progressives rallied around then-candidate Obama. Now, without a leader, supporters are scattered and disjointed. Jones encouraged them to band together and network online and in person.

"The cheap patriots are gonna have to deal with the real patriots," he said. "The cheap patriots are going to have to deal with the people who believe in liberty and justice for all."

I am encouraged by so many upstanding citizens calling fro a revolution and speaking up to those who want to make our planet, and us, a commodity. Protecting my children has always been a priority for me. Now it is not only my children, but their children and everyone elses children.

Van Jones at Netroots Nation: ‘We are the deep patriots, they are the cheap patriots’

By Kase Wickman
Saturday, June 18th, 2011

Environmental activist Van Jones, a former advisor to President Barack Obama, rallied the crowd with a keynote speech Saturday afternoon at the Netroots Nation conference in Minneapolis.

"I'm sick of us getting kicked around, folks. I'm sick and tired of it," he told the crowd.

Jones accused banks and oil interests of being "committed to one thing and one thing only: they are committed to killing the American dream."

"We'll fight, and fight well," he said of the crowd, and progressives across the country. "This is guaranteed. The question is, will we fight together, or will we fight alone? We have a common enemy and we face a common peril."

"They've got a wrecking ball painted red, white and blue."

However, it's time to work as a group instead of relying on a charismatic leader, which he called the "genius of the Tea Party." Though the Tea Party is one of the perceived enemies of progressives, Jones said, they're doing something right. Even if Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, the figureheads with the group, declared the Tea Party over, it would still live on, because its supporters have been empowered as group members.

"They have built a starfish, and not a spider," he said.




In 2008, progressives rallied around then-candidate Obama. Now, without a leader, supporters are scattered and disjointed. Jones encouraged them to band together and network online and in person.

"The cheap patriots are gonna have to deal with the real patriots," he said. "The cheap patriots are going to have to deal with the people who believe in liberty and justice for all."

Originally Posted by The Rani

Wrong.

Food Consumption & Its Environmental Impact

I'm talking about old-fashioned cattle-ranching, not factory farms.

People seem to forget that before Europeans arrived there were MILLIONS of bison on the plains doing the same thing cows do.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This line refers to cattle out on the open range, not in factory farms. There is no "grazing" on feedlots:


And if you still don't believe that cattle need lots of water:

Texas cattle ranches suffer in drought

And bison don't?

Originally Posted by Deb C

I am encouraged by so many upstanding citizens calling fro a revolution and speaking up to those who want to make our planet, and us, a commodity. Protecting my children has always been a priority for me. Now it is not only my children, but their children and everyone elses children.

Van Jones at Netroots Nation: ‘We are the deep patriots, they are the cheap patriots’

By Kase Wickman
Saturday, June 18th, 2011

Environmental activist Van Jones, a former advisor to President Barack Obama, rallied the crowd with a keynote speech Saturday afternoon at the Netroots Nation conference in Minneapolis.

"I'm sick of us getting kicked around, folks. I'm sick and tired of it," he told the crowd.

Jones accused banks and oil interests of being "committed to one thing and one thing only: they are committed to killing the American dream."

"We'll fight, and fight well," he said of the crowd, and progressives across the country. "This is guaranteed. The question is, will we fight together, or will we fight alone? We have a common enemy and we face a common peril."

"They've got a wrecking ball painted red, white and blue."

However, it's time to work as a group instead of relying on a charismatic leader, which he called the "genius of the Tea Party." Though the Tea Party is one of the perceived enemies of progressives, Jones said, they're doing something right. Even if Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, the figureheads with the group, declared the Tea Party over, it would still live on, because its supporters have been empowered as group members.

"They have built a starfish, and not a spider," he said.




In 2008, progressives rallied around then-candidate Obama. Now, without a leader, supporters are scattered and disjointed. Jones encouraged them to band together and network online and in person.

"The cheap patriots are gonna have to deal with the real patriots," he said. "The cheap patriots are going to have to deal with the people who believe in liberty and justice for all."

Great patriot, Van Jones. His points are obviously true. The great problem the human race faces, is that people are unwilling to listen to the points people make, and appreciate what others have to offer. They are stuck in their own conceptions. When will Americans ever learn to listen to facts, and respond to a vision? Their politics and culture, and the way they treat people, says they cannot now do this.

Real Climate recently put together an article, What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum? It presents a brief overview with links to additional sources.

The core just restates the obvious. The additional solar activity during the warm years of the solar cycles are small compared to the long term warming trend. Also, the Little Ice Age was a time of increased volcanic activity. The cooling at that time was not due exclusively to the sun.

Water resource models are very complicated, but keep in mind that their most important contributions (in areas served primarily by surface water resources) are at the extremes - floods and droughts. The question is not whether we can provide for water needs (whether agricultural or not) in normal times, but can we provide for them in times of drought? The question of floods is whether we have the will and financial resources to build the reservoirs and levees to reduce the tremendous property damage as well as capture water in surplus for use in droughts. Do we want to manage the resource to smooth out the most extreme events or simply let all the rivers flow without restriction?

As we strain against the available resources, we will have to answer these questions.

James50

Originally Posted by Odin

...People seem to forget that before Europeans arrived there were MILLIONS of bison on the plains doing the same thing cows do.

-Actually, no. There were lots of Indians in the South, the Midwest and on the Great Plains before the Europeans showed up. De Soto et al mention hordes of Indians, but litle mention of the buffalo. When the Indians' numbers were drastically reduced due to disease, the woods grew back, and the buffalo herds grew to take their place. By the time of the Lewis & Clark expedition, you had lots of trees in some places and lots of buffalo in others, but that was a relatively recent (less than 300 year old) phenomonon.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It does my heart good to see so many reliable and upstanding citizens calling for a revolution. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I will be involved. I have no other choice.


Van Jones at Netroots Nation: ‘We are the deep patriots, they are the cheap patriots’

By Kase Wickman
Saturday, June 18th, 2011 --

Environmental activist Van Jones, a former advisor to President Barack Obama, rallied the crowd with a keynote speech Saturday afternoon at the Netroots Nation conference in Minneapolis.

"I'm sick of us getting kicked around, folks. I'm sick and tired of it," he told the crowd.

Jones accused banks and oil interests of being "committed to one thing and one thing only: they are committed to killing the American dream."

"We'll fight, and fight well," he said of the crowd, and progressives across the country. "This is guaranteed. The question is, will we fight together, or will we fight alone? We have a common enemy and we face a common peril."

"They've got a wrecking ball painted red, white and blue."

However, it's time to work as a group instead of relying on a charismatic leader, which he called the "genius of the Tea Party." Though the Tea Party is one of the perceived enemies of progressives, Jones said, they're doing something right. Even if Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, the figureheads with the group, declared the Tea Party over, it would still live on, because its supporters have been empowered as group members.

"They have built a starfish, and not a spider," he said.

In 2008, progressives rallied around then-candidate Obama. Now, without a leader, supporters are scattered and disjointed. Jones encouraged them to band together and network online and in person.

"The cheap patriots are gonna have to deal with the real patriots," he said. "The cheap patriots are going to have to deal with the people who believe in liberty and justice for all."

I've never heard of this guy before, but I have to ask, does he drive a petroleum powered and built automobile, and use the coal and oil powered and built internet and electrical grid, etc., all of which were financed and built by bankers and rich businessmen? What does he advocate and propose that you agree with?

Bob Butler 54, thanks for the lists (and BTW your opinions seem to be the same as mine).

"Nature" conceived as entropy and mechanical laws is not all there is to "Nature," and Mathematics is not all there is either. If the universe were running down it would never exist; it would be running down from zero. There is a creative, anti-entropy force, and it's found within life and the universe. Philosophy does make a difference to your outlook on policy.

Eric the Green

Yes, I agree with you. Philosophy is a wonderful human endeavor.

World's Oceans in Shocking Decline