Climate Change

That's nothing new that anything the "White House" supports is lambasted by the right.  In the first place, the report does not come from the White House and is not a White House Report.  The "report" came from the international community of scientists from multiple disciplines that are non-political and cross borders. 

Next, to call an entire "climate change" a "hoax" is the height of stupidity and political propagandizing that appeals to the emotions of those who will cling to anything that represents a potential change in their thinking paradigm.

What reason would the entire scientific community (barring a few outsiders who will always have differing points of view - which is healthy) have to commit such a "hoax??"  What $billions do they have to gain from such a "hoax?"

On the other hand, the Farm Bureau includes mostly republican members dependent on farm subsidies that are out of date providing hugh revenues to the industrial farming complex (not the moms and pops which are very few anymore),  that should be ended or be defended, and who have $billions to gain by not make any changes that such a report might require.

One must always consider the source of information and then follow the money.  I have yet to know a scientist whose income is parallel to anyone in a corporate position with a global corporation - unless they were a paid lobbyist for that corporation. 

Scientists work at educator wages to gather information, sift through it, and make analyses with the aid of sophisticated,  yes sophisticated, modern technology.  While their predictions are not God nor do they have a crystal ball and yes, some farmers may be able to predict the immediate weather better; but they do have the knowledge to draw conclusions from their research and make recommendations.

Look at the demeaning language used by VanderWal:  "this climate thing..."  Well, this "climate thing" is a complex study across the world and across the disciplines of science.  It's not a "small thing," but by using demeaning language he can bring the ordinary citizen to see as he does.

Then to use grandiose terms, "that's ever been placed upon the people of the world,"  There have been plenty of hoax's over the years that have fooled plenty of people and at great expense to them and at great profit to the perpetrators.  There's no profit motive here for the writers of the report.

Those who provided the studies and prepared this lengthy and detailed report were not trying to fool anyone.  They brought together all the information and then made an analysis.

The Farm Bureau is a lobbyist supporting membership organization.  Their statement was probably followed by a request for donations.

Well, farmers are more interested in climate than anyone I know. I wish I had a pound (dollar) for every time my uncle tapped the glass (barometer) to see if the weather was going to change. Haymaking time is crucial for farmers (having to buy fodder for livestock throughout the winter is a costly business). Keeping a close watch on the weather is essential.

In the UK, haymaking is the longest established method of conserving grass for feeding cattle and sheep through the winter and has been an important function of the farming calendar in the UK for the last six thousand years. Successful haymaking relies on the crop of grass being thoroughly dried before it is baled or stored.

With all the intensive farming going on in the UK, traditional haymaking is less prevalent than it was in the early part of the 20th Century. However, some local farmers are still using the traditional methods and developing the natural landscape to fight climate change:

http://www.geographical.co.uk/Magazine/UK_Landscapes/North_Pennines_-_Aug_08.html

Farming in the USA is not the same as farming in the UK, but on both sides of the Atlantic, farmers' interest in the climate and its effect is just as keen.

ETA: if you are interested in GLOBAL warming, you can't limit climate change to the US.

Shelagh, your post suggests that you believe in Climate Change.  Farmers are more aware of the changes than most.  And as you mentioned, climate is not localized.  The same applies to pollution.

Climate change is a world wide issue.  When a U.S. organization that is a lobbying organization to attain U.S. subsidies, for industrial farming where those subsidies were designed for the small farms of the past but have become entrenched in budgets, then it's necessary to explain their vested interest in fighting the science of climate change for fear it might impact the money they receive from the U.S. government.

Small family farms are an entirely different issue.  They are struggling to survive and do attempt to farm with knowledge of preservation of the land as they own it. 

It is the industrial farming that lays the land to waste then tries to make up for it with chemicals that harms us, the environment and eventually the air and land.  They continue to poison the migrant workers who pick our food and live in those chemicals twelve hours a day, seven days a week and pass them on to the people in their homes.

Certainly, the industrial farming complex does not want any legislation that might interfere with their profit-making production methods.

You see, so long as they can use methods that cause harm, there is no incentive to use methods that increase production and do no harm.  The small farm owner has the incentive of land ownership and passing the farm on to family members. 

My stepbrother and his family were permanently harmed by poisons in the feed for their dairy cattle that came from fertilizer with weed killer and cattle feed being manufactured in the same facility and intermingled.  My stepbrother died.  It was a Michigan case.  His family was paid $50,000 in a class action suit against the manufacturer.  He lost his dairy farm and his livelihood and his family were poisoned. 

There's a lot goes on that we do not know about in the name of profit today and damn tomorrow.  The international climate change report is an effort to make us aware and make recommendations.  The only people who will object are those whose excessive profits might be challenged by finding more positive ways to make profits without doing damage.  Imagine - encourage innovation.

Abe F. March wrote:

Shelagh, your post suggests that you believe in Climate Change.  Farmers are more aware of the changes than most.  And as you mentioned, climate is not localized.  The same applies to pollution.

Climate change alarmists say that the world will be destroyed if we do not make changes now. Predicting what will happen over the next fifty years if we continue with intensive farming methods is the equivalent of Londoners in the 1950s predicting that, by the millenium, London would become uninhabitable. If you compare the health, wealth and quality of life of city dwellers in most western countries, not just London, the city folk of today live in a cleaner, healthier environment than they did fifty-sixty years ago. Why would anyone think that we have suddenly lost the plot and don't know how to maintain and improve living conditions? We've been doing it for thousands of years, which suggests we'll carry on improving over the next few thousand years.

Ah, but there are more people with more affluence demanding more destructive stuff in greater quantities than ever before.  Thus, the destruction is faster and the solutions also need to ramp up faster.

While the past has lessons to learn, the present and future are changing much more rapidly and will require quicker thinking, planning and implementation of creative and innovative ideas.

There's a difference between chicken little being hit on the head and starting a panic with "the sky is falling," and scientific evidence that we need to seek solutions and implement changes.  This scientific evidence is not alarmist.  It is a report that begs for solutions.

Words may be twisted so that they create an emotional response.  None of us want to be subject to a "hoax."  We don't want to be put in a state of anxiety by alarmists, either.  Neither are the intention of the world report that was just released.  It is too large and too complex to be either a hoax or alarmist.  It "just is."  Where we take it from here is up to each responsible person.

In the U.S. the responsible people do not seem to be in the global corporate structure bent on wringing out as much profit from overseas production and destruction of fossil fuels and the earth's surface and air as possible before we catch on and it's too late.  It's sort of "we're getting ours before you decide to go after yours." 

Unfortunately, the ordinary citizen like me just watches the Gulf turn black, the fish dying and stinking up the beach, and wrings my hands in sadness for my own loss by choosing to live near a beautiful, natural wonder where I can no longer swim because of the runoff in the Everglades pumped down the River because U.S. Sugar became immensely rich on our sugar addiction and their rape of the Everglades.

"The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases. Physicians, cardiovascular scientists, public health experts and others all agree smoking causes cancer," the AAAS wrote in its report, "What We Know."

When I read statements like the one above, my immediate response is: "Where's the evidence?"

The link between smoking and lung diseases is tried and tested under controlled laboratory conditions, providing scientific evidence that is conclusive -- although the evidence from tests done so far on animals are seen as inconclusive by some because of the possibility that animals react differently to humans. Where are the results from lab tests on animals or humans that prove that human activity is linked to climate change? It's all just statistical evidence and not all scientists are in agreement:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-nipcc/

Pollution is a problem, but the kind of pollution that fouls up waterways does not necessarily contribute to global warming.

"There once was a time when the Thames was teeming with life. Otters, eels, and even salmon were abundant. But time has not been kind to the river, and it has been subjected to the worst consequences of human development.

The use and abuse of the Thames started as far back as the 14th Century when only 12 rubbish carts served the whole of London and even then they dumped their rubbish in the river! Things got so bad that fifty years ago, the river was declared biologically dead."  

Well we've certainly speeded up things considerably in the last fifty years! Read this to find out how:

http://www.isciencemag.co.uk/features/thames-back-from-the-dead/

Recognizing the problem and taking corrective action made a difference.  I think recognizing problems is the greatest problem we face.

Yes, Abe, it would seem that the problem with the Everglades is being solved after decades of wrangling:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/epa-everglades-cleanup-880-million_n_1594079.html

I practically live in the Everglades.  The resolution will not be made until U.S. sugar sells the state the piece of land between Lake Okeechobee and the River of Grass.  The land is south of the lake.  It will also take years for vegetation to return and flora and fauna to flourish if ever at previous levels. 

I note that land wants to return.  However, it is the hardiest species that are not always native that seem to have the most grit for life.  They initially are challenging. The Everglades are currently overrun with Boa constrictors from released pets and hurricane releases from sellers.  They have no natural enemies here.  There are also species of trees that are water guzzlers that are not native.

With that said, I participated in projects to train heavy equipment operators who were assigned to Everglades Restoration in the Big Cypress Everglades Preserve.  They were breaking up housing development streets and canals that were already returning to nature in their own way.  They were also removing non-native species and those plant species such as the pepper tree that crowd out everything else. 

It was a costly and labor intensive project in the hot 95 degree and 95 degree humidity.  I was in misery just watching them and learning about the need for trained people.  New reservoirs are going to be built, but they will still not be large enough for the Lake Ocheechobee runoff or to clean it.  The cleansing of the water is the time it flows through the pristine Everglades, sifting through the sediment and lime rock below.  The poisons don't sift.  Instead they poision the entire underground aquifer.

This is from the article referenced:  

"The Everglades are a key water source for millions of South Florida residents, but the Everglades have been damaged for decades by the intrusion of farms and development. Dikes, dams and canals have been cut, effectively draining much of the swamp and polluting it with fertilizers and urban runoff."

Not only that, the water from the Everglades rises to create clouds and fresh rain.  The Cypress canopies create oxygen. 

The money allocated that should be coming from U.S. Sugar is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed.

In the meantime, that runoff will be dumped in the river to run into my Gulf again this summer to kill its sea life, add to the poisonous red tide bloom that just grows bigger and bigger over the years and more money will be (taxpayer money) pumped into the study of where red tide comes from.  It also kills sea life, damages lungs and ends swimming along the Western Gulf from the river south.

We've used our water resources for toilets.  Now we are trying to clean them.

The pumping has been delayed. For how long?

http://www.wpbf.com/news/water-protesters-out-in-force-for-arrival-of-army-corps-of-engineers-head/25856520?tru=MLwOd#ixzz318Jvy9sI

It's a political morass since Lake Okeechobee is West of the affluent Atlantic Coast and North of the less influential southwest Florida - with the potential to dump into rivers affecting either coast.  Last year they ruined our Gulf with only a little running to the east coast.  It's a matter of influence and money talks.  U.S. Sugar execs are in their watching their investment in the Everglades as well, not wanting their sugar cane swamped.  When the article said "farms" it was not quite right - it's one big U.S. Sugar cane field - really big.  The dikes for the lake are weak in places and the engineers say it could spring a leak that would flood the city of Clewiston and do major economic damage to the area.  However, I wonder if that's the truth as no one seems to tell the truth in this situation.  Everyone has a vested interest in the outcome - including me.  It is wrong to destroy the Gulf and its sea life to save a lake and a sugar plantation.  If U.S. sugar would let go of that land, it is the natural flow from the original Everglades.  That would take care of the lake's stress and no more unfiltered phosphorous water would come down our river.

I have heard they will send it down to us again.  I'm just hoping to swim once before it happens. The Gulf is up to 83.  I prefer 90.

I don't see how this affects global warming. It's an environmental problem.

It has something to do with the evaporation of the everglades

Yes, but you are putting the cart before the horse. Global warming affects the precipitation/evaporation in the Everglades, not the other way round.

ETA: Oh, I see, you can blame big business for pollution but not for natural climate damage to the ecosystem ... but if you can link climate change to human activity, you can blame fossil fuel companies. I forgot just what a "blame society" America is.

I did a Google search on global warming "Who can we blame"

Google pulled up 1,270,000 matches:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=global+warming+"Who+can+we+blame"&oq=global+warming+"Who+can+we+blame"

The evaporation in the Everglades has been diminished over the years because the swamps have been filled in by housing developments and cane farming on a large scale.  The cypress have been logged.  If some people had not wised up that they were destroying the water supply the entire Everglades would have been filled in instead of a significant amount.

Remember, we agree that climate change is from a complex set of natural and human causes and interactions.  The international report lists the causes; they are not listed as a result of "blaming" out of context by the the U.S. or any other single country.

The land in white around the lake and between the lake and the new flow plan belongs to U.S. sugar.  The did sell back and donate some of the land in the new flow plan but the water cannot naturally flow from the lake.  You can see the river that brings it to southwest Florida unfiltered.  It's a shorter distance to the Atlantic but they have more influential politicians to keep their shores alive.

The flow is not a raging river. It's a moving swamp that fills and dries, evaporates and sifts through the soil to the aquifer water table below in the lime.  The entire state of Florida has a connected underground aquifer that divers actually follow under the earth (not me for sure!).

4

DK, You have explained it well. 
Love,
Betty

Shelagh wrote:

Yes, but you are putting the cart before the horse. Global warming affects the precipitation/evaporation in the Everglades, not the other way round.

ETA: Oh, I see, you can blame big business for pollution but not for natural climate damage to the ecosystem ... but if you can link climate change to human activity, you can blame fossil fuel companies. I forgot just what a "blame society" America is.

I did a Google search on global warming "Who can we blame"

Google pulled up 1,270,000 matches:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=global+warming+"Who+can+we+blame"&oq=global+warming+"Who+can+we+blame"

Florida is not a State, it’s a swamp It has no hills…it’s flat. It has big snakes, alligators, and bugs. The shipping companies want to sink it so their ships don’t have to go all the way around it to get to Texas. Besides, it’s not America any longer. 90% of the people are from Cuba. You can’t buy a cup of coffee unless you can speak Cuban. They have painted all the buildings in Miami, yellow, pink, bright blue, and red. All the cars have those fuzz balls hanging around the tops of their windows, The women are a knock out…they don’t wear underwear. The men all have black mustaches, and talk like Desi Arnes. Every shop has outside load speakers flooding the streets with CHA CHA music. It must be against the law to walk in Miami, all the people short of do the mambo. And yeah, they don’t like Americans there either.

Florida has a west coast

Thanks for the heads up Domenic. UK tourists only see the areas that are designed to attract overseas visitors. Whatever the problems are in Florida, they seem to be self-inflicted. The state politicians allowed the sugar plantations to develop to bring money into the area. The cost to the environment was colossal ... and now the arguments go on about who is responsible. Seems to me EVERYONE played their part in the present day problems. It's almost analogous with Lewinsky/Clinton: naivety on the one hand and power politics on the other. About climate change it is not.

Solution:

http://webworldwonders.firn.edu/eco/

"The collective properties managed by public agencies and private groups, such as national forests, state parks, and private refuges, form a fragmented but extremely important Nature Reserve System of Florida. Enlarging and/or connecting these fragments into a more integrated and comprehensive protected area system is a critically important goal of the next decade but will not by itself suffice to maintain the existing biodiversity of Florida. In addition, human activities in the vicinity of reserves should contribute to protection of biodiversity in the reserves, and Floridians everywhere must live in closer harmony with their natural heritage."

Sugar and the environment:

http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/sugarandtheenvironment_fidq.pdf