Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL

[mudsucker]

No way to tell unless Hammer says so. He wants to think for us!

[Bullreds & Greenheads]

I love how you citicize PML for changing his tune.

Having seen your earlier posts where you railed against "Big Money Corporations" and how eeeeeevil they are/were, you sure are quick to drop to your knees and unzip the fly of any corporation that says the word "green".

[JDgator]

I love how you citicize PML for changing his tune.

The only thing I'd like to criticize PML for is being an Ole Miss fan. Everything else if forgiveable.

[Po Monkey Lounger]

"Note that PML has changed his tune since this thread started...He has gone from denying that Earth temperatures are rising and denying that human GHG emissions are the culprit for that warming to attacking the messengers, not the message, so let me again note the obvious: SCOREBOARD! "

Say What?????????????????????

Read all my posts again Jethro. Perhaps there is a reading comprehension course in your future.

[Hammer]

I am not now, nor have I ever been a cigarette smoker

I am not now, nor have I ever been a tobacco company lobbyist or any other kind of lobbyist for that matter

Both of my kids go to public schools

I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the KKK, the Aryan Nation or the John Birch Society

Satisfied Mud Sucker?

[Hammer]

Oh yeah, and I do support the cigarette tax hike/grocery tax cut and hope (and pray) that Jaime Moore sticks this issue so far up Phil Bryant's booty that it comes out his mouth the day before the election to the point that Bryant is soundly defeated on Election Day...Heaven forbid that Boss Hog Barbour have the power that would be commisserate with Bryants as Light Gov...Incidentally, I am not a staunch Dem nor a staunch Repub...I generally prefer diversified and divested power such that neither party can run roughshod over the other and, hopefully, thus over We The People...

This thread is and has been about change and willingness to change. Mississippi and Mississippians have always had problems dealing with change and the vast majority of you have exhibited classic symptoms of intractability on the issue of GW even as more and more compelling evidence has come forward during our MS DUCKS based debate, even in the light of the very real threat that GW poses to the future of waterfowling in the Lower MRV...

As we near the end of our journey together on this issue, let's remember where we started this thread:

Q: WHERE ARE THE DUCKS?

A: THEY DONT MIGRATE LIKE THEY USED TO DUE TO GW

Of all the As posited to the Q, none has more likelihood for bearing the majority role than GW.

[JJ McGuire]

What the correlation does not do is prove causation, as arguments that use the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy as a pattern of reasoning assert.

Ice cream sales go up with the number of people who drown at sea.
Therefore, ice cream causes people to drown.

[mudsucker]

I am not now, nor have I ever been a cigarette smoker

I am not now, nor have I ever been a tobacco company lobbyist or any other kind of lobbyist for that matter

Both of my kids go to public schools

I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the KKK, the Aryan Nation or the John Birch Society

Satisfied Mud Sucker?

OK. Now. What the fu(k does the answer to these questions have to do with GW?

JJ Says

What the correlation does not do is prove causation, as arguments that use the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy as a pattern of reasoning assert.

Ice cream sales go up with the number of people who drown at sea.
Therefore, ice cream causes people to drown.

Is this what you were trying to do?

[Money]

[Hammer]

THIS IS WHY GW SHOULD BE IMPORTANT TO ANYBODY THAT CALLS HIMSELF OR HERSELF A WILDLIFE CONSERVATIONIST

Experts: Warming will harm wildlife- Climate change seen as added problem

By James Bruggers
jbruggers@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal

Global warming will add to the problems of fish and wildlife already trying to cope with habitat loss to human encroachment, wildlife experts said yesterday.

The one-two punch could push some species into extinction, and others closer to it, affecting not only the environment but the hunters, anglers, bird watchers and others who get a thrill out of nature, members of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies were told.

The group, which consists of fish and wildlife managers from throughout North America, is meeting at the Galt House through Thursday. Eight hundred people are attending.

The conference is the association's first to take on global warming, said spokeswoman Rachel Brittin.

With decisions being made now on how to deal with warming, wildlife managers "need to be at the table," she said.

During a keynote address, Virginia Burkett, chief scientist for global change research at the U.S. Geological Survey, summarized scientists' understanding of global warming, which most experts blame in large part on burning fossil fuels and other human activities that release heat-trapping gases.

A lead author in a recent report by the United Nations-sanctioned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Burkett noted that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are the highest they've been in 650,000 years, and are projected to keep rising. "It's impossible for the climate not to respond to that level of greenhouse gases," she said.

She said some wildlife changes have already been observed, as winter and nighttime temperatures rise, winters generally become wetter, summers turn hotter and drier, snowpack in the mountains declines, glaciers retreat and coastal areas erode.

Beetles whose range is restricted by colder temperatures, for example, have moved into British Columbia, wiping out large pine forests and changing the ecosystem there, she said.

If the shallow lakes and ponds of the northern Great Plains dry up, mallards, pintails and other migrating ducks that use them for breeding could face a steep decline, said Dave Erickson, chief of the wildlife division of the Missouri Department of Conservation.

Generally birds are better equipped to adapt to changes because they can fly, he said.

That won't be the case with brook trout in the southern Appalachians, said Fred Harris, interim director of the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission.

Already restricted to the cooler waters of the higher elevations, brook trout won't be able to swim north because the streams generally run east and west, he said.

The fish are already facing survival challenges from pollution and warmer water that comes from urban runoff, and from land-use practices that remove shade trees from banks, he said.

Predicted more frequent, heavy storms will also wash away stream banks, he added.

"It's uncertain there's going to be habitat there to support trout," Harris said.

Many amphibians and reptiles already live in isolated natural wetland areas and probably won't be able to flee, said Mike Harris, chief of the non-game conservation section in the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

Their numbers will drop as wet areas dry up or are lost to development, he added.

Speakers said wildlife managers will need to improve and alter conservation strategies in response to the changes, such as working harder to improve existing habitat and limiting its degradation from growth and development. It could also mean anticipating climate changes in deciding where to invest in the conservation of certain species, they said.

One strategy may be to just help a species cling to life.

In the case of the Appalachian trout, for example, wildlife managers may need to create small refuges at the highest elevations, said Fred Harris, the North Carolina official.

That way, he said, the trout could perhaps "hang on for however many centuries until the temperatures come down."

Reporter James Bruggers can be reached at (502) 582-4645.

[cwink]

THIS IS WHY GW SHOULD BE IMPORTANT TO ANYBODY THAT CALLS HIMSELF OR HERSELF A WILDLIFE CONSERVATIONIST
A lead author in a recent report by the United Nations-sanctioned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Burkett noted that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are the highest they've been in 650,000 years, and are projected to keep rising. "It's impossible for the climate not to respond to that level of greenhouse gases," she said.

See this is why I call BS on this. There is no way to prove that Greenhouse gasses are the highest in 650,000 years. They throw these numbers around like they are fact and it is all speculation. Just like they throw around the age of Dinosaurs as 4 Million years old or what ever number the pull out of their head.

[pntailhntr]

I tend to agree with Winkler on that one. How in the hell do they know what lever the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere were 200 years ago, much less 650,000 years ago. Come on!!!

I do agree we need to do a little something to do our part though. The Greenhouse gas thing is a problem or they wouldn't be talking so much about it. But, Stop throwing those numbers around like they know what they are talking about it. We only know the numbers on things like that dating back to when they STARTED keeping records, not before they knew what a record was, or could even read a record if they saw it!!!!

[JJ McGuire]

highest they've been in 650,000 years

so 651,000 years ago it was higher...and 750,000 years ago it was higher and 850,000...so...what caused it to be so high then... SUVs, dinosaur farts....what caused it to go down...still no clear cause and effect... this is all BS being pushed by commie/socialist/fascists and being swallowed and regurgitated by dupes.

[mudsucker]

I tend to agree with Winkler on that one. How in the hell do they know what lever the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere were 200 years ago, much less 650,000 years ago. Come on!!!

I do agree we need to do a little something to do our part though. The Greenhouse gas thing is a problem or they wouldn't be talking so much about it. But, Stop throwing those numbers around like they know what they are talking about it. We only know the numbers on things like that dating back to when they STARTED keeping records, not before they knew what a record was, or could even read a record if they saw it!!!!

Oh, they will say from ice core samples taken at 300' down at the North Pole or some such schit!:roll:

[Hammer]

GENTLEMEN:

In prior posts, I have alluded to the spiritual aspect of the GW debate in particular and environmentalism in general...I have mentioned connections to formal Christian institutions like the Evangelical Environmental Network....Given below is what the POPE has to say about the matter.

Nobody should understand Natural Law and its implications like a hunter. In fact, I believe this is the true test of what ethical hunting is about. If you hunt within the spirit, the context of Natural Law, you are an ethical hunter. If you dont, you are a killer of defenseless creatures for an ulterior motive- your ego, masochism, etc- and you are thus unethical- ie immoral- by default.

By definition, we all eat of the Apple. All of us- everyday. The peepee crows three times and we dont answer the bell. That is human nature and what Christ Jesus came to Earth to save us from. The question for every man, every woman and every child thus becomes:

Do you understand this and do you truly do something about it? Do you understand that every decision you make, every day, all day long is fundamentally about the same thing: Will you eat the Apple or will you repent and not eat of the Apple?

Why have I kept this thread going for 40 or so pages?

Because I am a Christian Warrior for the Creation and I have been called to this task. I am a deeply flawed human being, one who has made many, many mistakes in his life. But I have been set free by the love of Christ, the Blessings of the Father and the power of the Holy Spirit. I have seen part of the Truth and that is that God gave Man dominion over the Earth not to rape and pillage in the name of economic development (ie eating the Apple) but to sustain our physical needs as we grow- both individually and as a species- closer to God. Individually during our lifetimes and over the Millenia as a species. Simply put, we were created both individually and collectively to get back to the Garden.

I have been cut by the beauty of jagged mountains and have a gift for the written word wherever I am called to share it. This is my gift to you if you are willing to take it.

HAMMER


For Benedict, environmental movement promises recovery of natural law tradition

Posted on Jul 27, 2007 09:19am CST.
Print Friendly Version

All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr.
Friday, July 27, 2007 - Vol. 6, No. 47

One could say that summer 2007 is when the Vatican decided to go green. First came an announcement in June that more than 1,000 photovoltaic panels will be installed atop the Paul VI Audience Hall, allowing the building to utilize solar energy for light, heating and cooling. A month later, the Vatican became the first state in Europe to go completely carbon-neutral, signing an agreement with a Hungarian firm to reforest a sufficiently large swath of Hungary's Bükk National Park to offset its annual CO2 emissions.

To some, these may seem curiously cutting edge moves from a pope whose recent decisions to revive the pre-Vatican II Mass and to reaffirm claims that Catholicism is the lone true church have cemented his reputation as the ultimate "retro" figure. He sometimes brings to mind the famous quip that rolling back the clock is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if it's keeping bad time.

So what gives?

This week, we got the outlines of an answer from the pope himself, during a July 24 conversation with priests from the northern Italian dioceses of Belluno-Feltre and Treviso. (Such encounters have become an annual ritual as part of the pope's summer vacation.)

The first question had to do with the formation of conscience, and Benedict replied with his now-familiar diagnosis of the cultural situation in the West. By truncating the sphere of reason to only those things which can be empirically verified or falsified, the pope said, spirituality and morality have been "expelled" from rationality, consigned to a merely subjective sphere, understood as a matter of individual taste and judgment.

In response, Benedict proposed a two-pronged strategy, one being the path of religious faith, the other being what he called "a secular path." By that, Benedict appeared to mean natural law, the idea that nature itself carries a moral message that can be deciphered utilizing the faculty of conscience, even by those who aren't Christian or who aren't religious at all.

In the pope's mind, this seems to be where environmentalism enters the picture.

"Everyone can see today that humanity could destroy the foundation of its own existence, its earth, and therefore we can't simply do whatever we want with this earth that has been entrusted to us, what seems to us in a given moment useful or promising, but we have to respect the inner laws of creation, of this earth, we have to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive," Benedict said. "This obedience to the voice of the earth is more important for our future happiness than the voices of the moment, the desires of the moment. … Existence itself, our earth, speaks to us, and we have to learn to listen."

From there, Benedict said, we may also learn anew to listen to the voice of human nature as well, discovering in other people and in human communities moral laws that stand above our own ego. In that regard, the pope said, we can draw upon the great moral experience of humanity. Doing so teaches that human liberty never exists in isolation from others; it works only if it's rooted in a sense of common values.

In other words, Benedict sees in the modern environmental movement the most promising route for recovery of the natural law tradition. What today's rising ecological awareness presumes is that there are limits inscribed in nature beyond which humanity trespasses at its own peril. Without any particular reference to religion, the secular world today is arriving at its own version of natural law theory. Building upon that momentum, and directing it beyond environmental matters to questions of individual and social morality, is what Benedict seems to mean by a "secular path" to formation of conscience.

To extend a metaphor, one might say that Benedict XVI is trying to paint a distinctively Catholic shade of green.

I don't mean to suggest that the pope's environmental concern is entirely instrumental, as if he OKed putting solar cells on Vatican buildings simply because, in some round-about fashion, he thinks that'll convince people not to have abortions. He's made clear on multiple occasions that he regards defense of the environment as an urgent moral necessity all by itself. But Benedict also appears to see something deeper stirring in Western environmentalism, a new sense of moral restraint grounded in objective natural reality.

To put the pope's point simplistically, if the world is willing to limit its carbon output on the basis of the laws of nature, then maybe it will become more willing to accept limits arising from nature in other spheres of life as well.