At this link you will find a letter that denounces NASA's support of Climate Change having human activity as a major cause: http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warm...
On that webpage you can find a link to the report regarding this letter.
If their motive is looked at carefully, what would we find?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
I covered that too, and dying off is important to the narrative because it's the alternative explanation to moving for *why they aren't there*.
No it isn't. It is compatible. Some died and the rest moved away. Doesn't change the fact that European diseases did most of them in.
So... what are you disagreeing with me about? European diseases is part of dying off... I agree with all of these things! lol
And still, none of this relates to climate change.
You and I are talking about different eras. The indian population I speak of died out about 1100-1300 CE, before any Europeans came to the America's. As far as archeologists can tell, they were wiped out by massive droughts that occurred in sync with little ice ages.
For more information, consult:
Brody, J.J. "The Anasazi: Ancient Indian People of the American Southwest, Rizzoli, New York, 1990.
Hohmann, John W., and L. B. Kelley. "Erich F Schmidt's Investigations of Salado Sites in Central Arizona." Museum of Northern Arizona, 1988.
LeBlanc, Steven A. "The Mimbres People: Ancient Pueblo Painters of the American Southwest. Thames and Hudson, London, 1983.
Lister, R. H., and F. C. Lister. "Those Who Came Before: Southwestern Archeology in the National Park System. Tucson, Ariz, 1993.
And of course you can always Google to find other archeology studies.
Southwest Archaeology Lecture Notes
" Great Drought from 1276 - 1299."
"1539 Fray Marcos de Niza visits Zuni. This is the first recorded contact."
"Hot With Decades of Drought: Expectations for Southwestern United States."
"A 60-year drought like that of the 12th Century could be in our future."
Try again, Ben.
While living in Arizona and very active in water resources, the info I saw said drought drove the Anasazi Indians from the state many years before Columbus left Spain.
Long before our Declaration of Independence, drought drove the hunter-gathers from what is now the Phoenix area.
So far as I now know, no one knows where either group went.
Tom, that is my understanding as well.
I already know the things I brought up are not sound arguments against climate change--I never said they were. I brought them up to show that for those who don't have time to do research (most people), there are enough conflicting messages flying about from legitimate sources to justify a large amount of confusion.
I was drawing a distinction between scientists and activists because they're doing different things.
Scientists like David Keith are generally pretty sober. Climatologists readily admit that the amount of warming we'll see for a given among of CO2 has a large error range. They point out the things that could go wrong if we do nothing over many many decades and reality turns out to be nearer the upper error bar. But they give it a sense of proportion instead of making it a scare tactic. They also point to both long term solutions for reducing emissions and shorter term solutions like geo-engineering. They realize that the predictions they make are shocking and they take the time to calmly confirm to the rightfully initially skeptical public that yes, they're not making this up.
Activist may not be the optimal word, but who I'm talking about are a subset of liberals--not all liberals--, who use climate change rhetoric as a shibboleth to identify people they can feel justified in calling stupid, immoral and evil. They accuse anyone with doubts or skepticism about climate change of being retarded, and they accuse anyone with hard questions about their pet solutions of being an idiot, malicious or both.
Activists are using climate change to further authoritarian political agendas and/or a hipster-ish elitism complex. Their rantings are hurting the legitimate cause of the scientists, but no one will point it out because they're afraid of being labeled uncool.
Remember Love Canal? Neighbors began to notice foul smells, feeling ill and officials ignored their situation. The community formed a group and were successful in getting federal funding to test basements and soils. Indeed, Love Canal contained 20,000 tons of buried toxic waste filling homes with toxic fumes.
It was not the builders who warned of toxic dangers, it was ordinary citizens who insisted on studies that revealed the effects on humans, water, soils, air, flora and fauna.
"A Corporate, Governmental, and Fatal Error
In all, 20,000 tons of 248 assorted chemicals were buried at Love Canal, including: the pesticide hexachlorocyclohexane (known as Lindane), chlorobenzenes, chlorinated hydrocarbons, benzene, chloroform, trichloroethylene, methylene chloride, benzene hexachloride, phosphorous rocks, polychlorinated biphenyls, and 1, 3, 7, 8- tetrachlorodibenzo- para-dioxin (or just dioxin). There was an estimated 130 pounds of dioxin contained at the Love Canal dumpsite; it has been estimated that three ounces can kill in excess of one million people."
The Love Canal Disaster: An Error in Engineering or Public Policy?
Remember Kellogg, Idaho? Tests revealed school children had dangerously elevated levels of lead in their blood. Infants revealed signs of lead poisoning. Mothers' milk contained lead. It was an outcry of "activists" who called these details to attention of the government. Bunker Hill Mining Company had contaminated the entire Coeur d'Alene River water drainage area from the mines, and into streams, lakes and rivers.
"The Bunker Hill site, located in the Coeur d’Alene River Basin, is one of the largest environmental and human health cleanup efforts in the country. Historic mining practices generated an estimated 70 to 100 million tons of mining waste that are now spread throughout regional streams, rivers, flood plains and lakes. The contamination resulting from these mining practices affects all media and poses public health risks, particularly to young children and pregnant women due to exposure to lead. Ecological affects include sterile river regions and hundreds of avian deaths each year."
Superfund Program Implements the Recovery Act, Bunker Hill, Kellogg, Idaho.
It was not the mine that notified health risks to humans, but the citizens themselves who spoke up and successfully revealed the effects on local residents and later studies revealed how far and wide water, soils, flora and fauna contained contaminated toxins.
In my opinion, a good citizen is one who observes situations and events and calls attention to things that need attending. These citizens can be called "liberals", "activists," or whatever name you want to choose. These citizens perform heroic acts in the face of painful challenges.
Did you ever read "An enemy of the people" an 1882 play by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen?
What did you intend this wall of text to have to do with global warming?
Are you implying that CO2 emissions have always been known to be a problem (like dumping hazardous pesticides has been) and we are justified in calling those that released either of them evil?
Are you implying that a few people have secretly dumped CO2 into the atmosphere and now responsible citizens (like yourself) are needed to bring the existence of the pollution to light?
Are you implying that any company who's released CO2 (basically all of them) deserves to be ruined like companies who've poisoned ground water? or that we therefore shouldn't worry about the effect on the economy of attempts to fix the situation?
Hopefully you meant something else as all of those connections will appear dubious at best to those reading this, and completely irrelevant to my point. You need to tie your examples to your primary subject better so that we understand which parts of the stories you're sharing you believe to be relevant.
Also, if you're going to bring up a play satirizing Victorian moral hypocrisy that most readers here won't have heard of, tell us what's in it and why it's important to your argument instead of just asking the person you're talking to whether he's read it. I realize it was probably not your intent, but the way you brought it up makes it sound like a transparent attempt to appear more intelligent/well read.
I'm totally with you that people who bring the dumping of toxic waste to light deserve praise, but CO2 is only toxic like water is toxic, not like pesticides are toxic. Too much and we die, but we definitely need some of it and we can get by just fine with a wide but somewhat uncertain range of it. Too much CO2 is a problem, but we've all been part of the problem not just one of those rare unscrupulous people or companies.
Regardless of which of those is your argument, I explicitly drew a distinction between people who are simply bringing up hard facts and people who assume their opposition is evil or are using downsides of technologies they don't like to try to demonize the instruments of our economic success. Why are you smudging the line of that distinction?
I have given you examples of natural climate changes that clearly can be observed by archeology studies.
I have given you examples of the role citizens take in protecting themselves from improper corporate action and inadequate government regulations.
Do I really have to spell out in lengthy detail what I mean by these comments? Do you think these few examples are just random events, or that don't reveal patterns?
I haven't mentioned global warming as caused by human activity because we have plenty of evidence that natural disasters occur that force great changes in peoples lives. It is not the people who describe events that cause economic disruptions, it is natural disruptions that cause economic disruptions. What is the point in blaming the messenger?
Wow Ben what an array of attacks, insults, and unproved assertions about activists and climate change. Sure there are occasional people on both sides of the issue who go to extremes, but attacking only people on the pro-climate change side (there really isn't another side) you make your own posts and discussions uninformative and downright insulting.
There are just as many, if not more, anti-climate change denialists with outrageous claims of conspiracies and anti- freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. Why do you discount those people? The political tone to the discussion is a large part of why we won't attack the real problem. Once again I invite you to have a discussion about what approaches are best and feasible. I'll start by discussion geo-engineering. Unfortunately it seems to be the newest excuse for not dealing with the underlying issues. At most these might delay the tipping point of extreme effects. We really need to find real solutions.
Right now geo-engineering is alot of talk about technologies with zero science. Climate is such a complex system that any technology can't be used without understanding it's global effects. The dollars spent on these could be better used finding better ways of powering civilization. Just an example - the plan to add particulates to the atmosphere to decrease the amount of sun reaching the globe - the sun is a perpetual source of energy, producing 10,000 times as much energy to the earth than all fossil fuels ever, in a single day. It also powers the entire food chain, water cycle, climate, ocean currents, etc. etc. Another issue with this particular idea is any failure means warming at a much faster rate with the added issue of extreme acidification of the oceans. Before talking about geo-engineering we need to get the science. Until that's known and understood talking about geo-engineering as a solution is moot.