Climate Change

[Jim Mason]

Thanks JP,

Progress <could> also mean we grow up and start behaving like citizens of 
the Earth instead of selfish little brats.  As a rule, the naysayers are 
either bought and paid for by the hydrocarbon industries, or, as you 
suggest, just too human-centric to give the rest of the biotic community any 
respect.  And the latter is a hugely short-sighted attitude, seeing as how 
our existence depends on healthy ecosystems.  Even if all the climate change 
deny-ers are correct, we will still be better off moving to an economy based 
on renewable, non-polluting energy sources.

Jim Mason, Naturalist
Jim at gpnc.org
Great Plains Nature Center
6232 E. 29th Street North
Wichita, KS 67220-2200
316-683-5499 x103 - voice
316-688-9555 - fax
www.gpnc.org


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JPPelham" <zapjammer at verizon.net>
To: "Leps List" <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:14 AM
Subject: Climate Change


> All,
>
> I have been staying strictly out of the Global Temperature debate; it has 
> been and remains a contentious and fruitless discussion on list-serves. 
> However, after reviewing the various exchanges and visiting some of the 
> suggested websites, my conscience will not allow me to refrain any longer. 
> There are obviously agendas at play.  I cannot fathom all of them, nor 
> will I make the attempt.
>
> Global Warming/Cooling, CO2, Hot/Cool Sun...whatever.  A majority of 
> scientists studying earth’s climate are concerned over the potential 
> effects that humans are having on the climate.  I think this statement is 
> beyond dispute.  As an example of how people try to negate this fact, I 
> heard one soul proclaim that upwards of 30% of the scientists at a 'Bali 
> Symposium' refused to sign a declaration of consensus on the subject, 
> demonstrating considerable dissent.  I later discovered that these 
> recalcitrant scientists were upset that the measures discussed were too 
> lenient!  Was this is a simple oversight on the part of this poor soul, or 
> blatant misrepresentation for the purpose of misleading people?  This 
> happens so often that I suspect an intent to defraud.
>
> People do misrepresent themselves.  They can also be misrepresented.  Both 
> are lies, but apparently, 'we' are becoming immune to dishonesty.  It 
> seems to me that we shall not know who is 'right' as to whether humans 
> influence climate for at least half a century.  But there is something 
> unsaid in all of these arguments.  There is something that disturbs me 
> about what seems a widespread anti environmentalism.  It is possible that 
> it has something to do with these agendas I cannot fathom.
>
> While cruising the internet, I read some incredibly absurd arguments from 
> people who seem supremely qualified to post them.  There is a lot of that 
> going around these days.  As a result of my incredulity, I formed some 
> questions.  I think the answers are obvious enough, but I would also guess 
> that they will generate great indignance.
>
> 1. Can there ever be too many people on the planet?  Is ever increasing 
> human population growth not only conceivable but preferable?
>
> 2. Can 'Human Progress' and development of resources expand indefinitely? 
> Is there no end to human potential?
>
> 3. Is it demonstrable that the human presence on our planet does not cause 
> stress to environments and the diversity of organisms that dwell within 
> them?
>
> 4. Can a secular argument be generated that humans are, collectively, 
> 'better' than any other creature?
>
> Can anybody examine our natural world and find evidence that any creature 
> is better than any other?   How can it be possible to show that we humans 
> are superior creatures, especially in light of our ephemeral existence? 
> One cannot merely cite our 'accomplishments' as evidence of our 
> superiority.  A complex creature is not 'better' than another simply as a 
> product of its complexity.  Is an ant better than a solitary wasp?
>
> The reason I exclude spiritual arguments seems obvious.  I know that there 
> are spiritual arguments for and against, just as in the secular world. 
> However, the sources for spiritual support of an argument are not subject 
> to the same scrutiny that secular facts can be.  They are <de facto> 
> unassailable.
>
> In my nearly 60 years on this planet, I have seen one after another of my 
> favorite places developed or destroyed.  This has been incremental and, 
> sorrily, I do not see an end in sight.  Many of you of similar experience 
> (as old as me!) will note the same.  The only defense I can distill from 
> the many arguments in support of human progress, is that people come 
> first, all else is (apparently) subservient to our needs.  If this is so, 
> if people are actually so precious, then it would seem that we ought to 
> consider what the next several centuries will present us.  Instead, we 
> plow straight ahead, blissfully unaware of consequences.
>
> If incremental development and human progress continue at the same pace as 
> they have, there will be no room for e.g. butterflies & moths, save those 
> that can adapt to our environments.
>
> That concerns me.
>
> JPPelham
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 
>
>   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
> 


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl