Quick Notes: Janine Pommy Vega, Evangelical Backlash, and Pope Benedict the Pilgrim

Jason Pitzl-Waters —  January 3, 2011 — 82 Comments

Here’s a few quick news notes to start off your Monday.

The Passing of a Poet: The New York Times has posted an obituary of poet Janine Pommy Vega, who passed away on December 23rd due to a heart attack. Vega was an intimate of several Beat Generation writers, most notably Peter Orlovsky, who was once her lover. Among the Goddess community, she may be most famous for her 1997 book “Tracking the Serpent,” a memoir and travelogue of “pilgrimages to sites of female spiritual and temporal power.”

Here’s an excerpt from a 1997 Boston Phoenix profile concerning the book:

Following on this touchingly understated tragedy is the book’s spiritual turning point: a near-fatal car crash. During her months of convalescence, she happens on a book about the female images of the ancient Celts: the owl-eyed goddess, the mother/protector, the huntress in her antler mask. She responds to their Jungian echo of millennia of creative female voices; they symbolize her fight to put her broken mind and body back together. They are also the seed of her travels. “As I read into the early-morning hours,” she recounts, “an owl began calling at my window. Slowly the idea coalesced of making a pilgrimage to the ancient sites . . . I needed to reaffirm something in me that felt ripped apart and empty.”

Thus begin years of introspective journeying. Vega visits the ancient sites where the goddess was worshipped: Glastonbury, Silbury, and Avebury in England, the high hills of Ireland, the shrine of the Virgin in Chartres Cathedral. She studies Vedic myth in desolate Himalayan temples, explores the earth cults of the Andes, participates in a yage ceremony in Peru, where believers coax visions from the potent, peyote-like hallucinogen ayahuasca. Fascinated by the survival of these ancient, poetic faiths in remote agricultural regions across the globe, she becomes both scholar and mystic — a Boddhisatva seeking an image of herself among the ruins.

For more tributes, check out here, here, and here.

New York Times Discovers the Green Dragon: The NYT’s Green blog looks in on the growing evangelical Christian backlash against environmentalism, referencing the fear-mongering “Resisting the Green Dragon” video series. According to “green dragon” promoter Calvin Beisner, Christians who support environmental causes, and admit the reality of global warming, “probably did not understand the science,” and that Christian “creation care” is “infected by the false worldview and theology of secular and pagan religious environmentalism.”

“Mr. Beisner, a former professor of theology and a ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, argued that the science is still unsettled on whether greenhouse gases are warming the climate and that projections of dangerous human-driven warming in the future are flawed and unreliable. But an “Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” on the Cornwall Alliance’s Web site urges all evangelicals to accept that recent global warming is natural and that mankind is incapable of altering the climate.”

We’re incapable of altering the climate! God is in control! All who say differently are secularists or Pagans! Never mind the fact that humanity has been altering the climate for thousands of years, or that major climate change skeptics have been doing about faces recently. Even if you happen to believe that climate change has little or nothing to do with humanity, to audaciously endorse that we do nothing, that we continue as if everything will work out, is to turn a blind eye to the damage climate change is already doing to the world. Every inane joke about blizzards and global warming (refusing to distinguish weather from climate) simply reinforces how uniformed we truly are, and how insulated most of us are from the problems these changes in the climate are causing.

Who’s Invited to Benedict’s Interfaith Pilgrimage? In 1986 a massive interfaith gathering convened by Pope John Paul II was held in Assisi, Italy  in order to foster peace and dialog between different faiths. Since then the yearly event has become something of a political football within Catholicism, loved by the Catholic left, and often reviled by the Catholic right. The current Pope, since his days as Cardinal Ratzinger, has been a vocal critic of the gatherings. In 2005, most likely spurred by false rumors spread by an Italian journalist saying the Franciscans allowed African animists to slaughter chickens on the altar of the basilica of Santa Chiara, and American redskins to dance in the church,” (a rumor shamelessly repeated by Rod Dreher) Pope Benedict XVI removed autonomy from the Franciscans of Assisi. Now, with the 25th anniversary of the gathering approaching, Benedict says he’ll be attending “as a pilgrim” and is calling for “all men of good will” to attend.

Celebrating World Peace Day on Saturday, Benedict said that he would travel as a pilgrim to Assisi in October, inviting Christians of other confessions, leaders of other world faiths “and, ideally, all men of good will, to recall the historic gesture sought by my predecessor and to solemnly renew the commitment of the faithful of all religious to live their own religious faith as a service for the cause of peace.”

So now we get down to it. Who, exactly, will be attending? How many polytheists, animists, and non-monotheists will be in attendance? Will any indigenous religious leaders show up? What about any of the Pagans serving as trustees for  The Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions (Andras Corban-ArthenPhyllis Curott, and Angie Buchanan)? Would they be allowed to come if they wanted? Could they rub shoulders with the pilgrim Pope? Will the man who predicted that Buddhism would replace Marxism as the Catholic Church’s main enemy this century, and that native populations were “silently longing” for conversion truly allow himself to be on equal ground with other non-Christian religions? I’ll be paying close attention to this issue, as we approach October.

That’s all I have for now, have a great day!

Jason Pitzl-Waters

Posts

  • http://www.facebook.com/OberonWhitethorn James Russell Rusty Broach

    You know it's funny. In live in a rural farming area. A place where the environment affects everything.

    Yet in rural areas the majority deny global warming. Now switch over to the cities a place that most Pagans and environmentalists insist is cut off from nature and acknowledgement of global warming is more common place and the phenomenon is more accepted.

    • Pagan Puff Pieces

      A city can be ten degrees warmer than the surrounding area and be subject to pretty wacky weather patterns. It's not exactly cut off from nature so much as there's a magnifying glass on human activities. When you're living on top of each other, the filth adds up faster, while it may be hard to imagine how one person throwing trash out the window could possibly add up elsewhere.

      • Crystal7431

        That's precisely right. Where I grew up in rural WV lots of people dumped their trash out in the woods somewhere far from where they lived. No harm done when you can walk away from it and never see it again.

      • http://www.hellenistai.com Ruadhán

        This. It's not that urban people are "removed from nature", it's that we see how the local nature adjusts to our presence in a very different and (as you say) typically magnified way.

  • http://meadowsweet-myrrh.blogspot.com/ Ali

    Personally, I rather like this new term for environmentalism. "The Green Dragon" just makes us sound so cool (or nerdy, if you're a Tolkien fan). Now I want a bumper sticker that says, "Riding the Green Dragon!" (You know, if I had a car….. and if I did, it'd be a hybrid….. Maybe I could put it on my bike….)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667952307 Jennifer Parsons

      It would be a lot more fitting to have such a sticker on your bike, when you think about it. ;-)

  • blah

    maybe i'd be more inclined to believe in global warming if data to support it came from sensible source. has any supporter of AGW read the east anglia university emails? even their own scientists know the world is cooling yet they continue with propaganda (from one of emails:"The scientific community would come down on me in no
    uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
    7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.") do people know that other planets in solar system are warming up too? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/0

    • Jason Pitzl-Waters

      "In July 2010, the British investigation comissioned by the UEA, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, and announced in December 2009, published its final report saying it had exonerated the scientists of manipulating their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Un

      • blah

        honestly, that review was like trial for the pope where jury, judge and prosecutor were all devout catholics.
        and there was much at stake in the inquiry, not only east anglia university's reputation. UN would lose reputation because it relied, in part, on these reports. science itself would take a hit in eyes of ordinary people. politicians and lobbyists who depend on flow of money from policies based on AGW would lose their fortunes. official inquiries couldn't make unbiased reports because of all the pressure piled on them.

    • Jason Pitzl-Waters

      Did you read the part in National Geographic article that said "according to one scientist's controversial theory." One. One scientist. That does not a scientific consensus make.

      • blah

        something is either true or it isn't. truth doesn't need consensus of large number of scientists.
        also, any scientist who dares to question climate change is immediately discredited, and their research is swept under the rug. we can't expect more opposing opinions until climatology stops being propaganda and becomes scientific.

        • Baruch Dreamstalker

          blah, one scientist's opinion is not a reasonable basis for a flat repetition of that opinion without qualification, which is what you did at the beginning of this thread. It's poor form. You saved your integrity by including a link.

          • http://www.hecatedemetersdatter.blogspot.com Hecate

            , Benedict says he’ll be attending “as a pilgrim” and is calling for “all men of good will” to attend.

            Ah, well, I'm a woman of good will. Guess I'm off the hook.

        • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

          For a man who is talking about propaganda, you show very little understanding of how the work of science progresses.

          Please excuse my pointing this out.

    • http://thegodsarestillhere.blogspot.com/ Hylomorphic

      I actually /did/ read the e-mails. A pretty hefty chunk of them, at any rate. They're still on my computer.

      There's some cattiness and frustration there, but I didn't see anything that indicated dishonesty.

      You're not relying on the snippets that got put on television and in the newspapers, are you? You went and read the full e-mails, right?

    • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

      Having working in the field of climatology and glaciology, and having done first hand work with O16/O18 ratios in ice cores from Antarctica, as well as watching other people (TEDIOUSLY!) count tree rings, yes, the data is there.

      And yes, seven years of data is insignificant, when you are talking about thousands of years of data.

  • caraschulz

    Heh. Many people's 'healthy skepticism' is if you wonder if humans are 100% responsible for the current climate cycle or just 90%. But if you go below that…well… *grin*

    BTW – the data and groups you posted on above…I'll have to see if I can spend a few minutes on that because there is much room for very healthy skepticism there. Or someone else can do it. It would be nice for some actual science to go on in this – meaning the raw data is made widely available and the outcome can be replicated. Right now we have theories with suspect (and now missing) raw data, a prediction when we don't even know how it all works (climate science is in its infancy), models that don't work and can't be recreated independently, etc.

    Also – this blackballing and muzzling of scientists who are trying to disprove human impact on climate change has to stop. It's absolutely imperative that scientists try their hardest to disprove theories – that's the scientific method. That's how we advance in knowledge.

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    One major problem with the whole climate change discussion is that it has become more of a two-way ideological crusade than a genuine scientific debate.

    But to a certain extent the vast majority of people are only capable of approaching this as an ideological issue. If you don't know what words like "adiabatic cooling" mean, and also have some basic understanding of thermodynamics, partial differential equations, computer modeling, non-linear dynamics, and statistics, then you are not in a strong position to make a well informed scientific decision yea or nay.

    The situation is further complicated by the fact that "science" as a profession is not without it's own political bias. People who identify both as "Democrat" and as "liberal" are far more likely to become scientists than people who identify as "Republican" and "conservative".

    • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

      Although having participated in any science does give you a sense of how mechanisms like peer review work, and doing any research of your own in the sciences gives you a sense of how theories are confirmed, modified, or rejected in practice, as research progresses.

    • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

      EXACTLY!!!!!!!

  • http://pagancollegestudent.blogspot.com WarriorPrincessDanu

    It really bugs me that environmentalism has become all about climate change. In the eyes of many people, if climate change is the only threat to the environment, and if climate change (especially human-caused climate change) is disproven, then they can go back to their comfortable, convenient, consumeristic lifestyle. I'm somewhat skeptical of human caused climate change, but I think we should strive to reduce our environmental impact. Climate change isn't the only reason to take care of our planet. I think if more people understood that, there would be fewer flame wars, and the environmental movement as a whole would be stronger.

    • Rombald

      That's a good point. I'm probably in the moderate-sceptic camp as far as climate change is concerned. However, most things that reduce climate change are good for other environmental reasons, and probably social reasons as well – travel less, consume less, eat more local food, eat less animal-derived food, cycle, subsidise rail and urban buses, grow your own food, etc.

      Personally, my big difficulty is giving up air travel.

      Politically, the sticking points for people who are broadly liberal-left, like myself, are the needs for
      (i) Population control, which almost my definition necessitates extreme hostility to Catholicism and Islam, and also suggests that social welfare policites that encourage childbirth are inadvisable.
      (ii) Cessation of immigration.

      • Baruch Dreamstalker

        You're left-liberal and you want to cease immigration? Can you unpackage that a bit, please?

        • Rombald

          Well, that's why I said "sticking points".

          • http://www.facebook.com/lili.jinsei Li Li Jinsei

            Yeah but why is that in there at all? Why is there a need for cessation of immigration? What does the movement of people have to do with the environment? Population density? Doesn't necessarily have to be always related to immigration. There are ways to address it when it is that don't involve ceasing it altogether.

            And I am all for discouraging childbirth when one hasn't got resources for such an endeavor (I'm for responsible reproduction, like responsible anything), and I am indeed extremely hostile to those religions, for many reasons.

          • Baruch Dreamstalker

            You mean you believe we need to halt immigration but otherwise consider yourself left-liberal?

        • Don

          I don't see the problem here. While not a conclusion many left-liberals embrace, the premises for his opposing immigration are in the left-liberal tradition. If population control and human consumption are problems, then halting immigration is logical: fewer mouths to feed, reduces development and urban/ suburban sprawl, fewer energy consumers and carbon producers, etc.

          • Pagan Puff Pieces

            I don't know. That seems to be more shifting the mouths to feed/energy consumers/carbon produces onto someone with fewer regulations to take care of the problem. It's not like they're immigrating from Mars.

          • Bookhousegal

            Yeah, that's one thing about it. I suppose that theoretically, having people come to high-consumption lifestyles from places with less might accelerate environmental degradation, but then again, these are also places where industry is made pretty dirty a lot of the time, absent the controls we have here. There's so many factors involved, I don't think you can just make blanket claims about immigration policies assuming that if the Right wants to kick them out or subjugate immigrants, that there must be some Left that wants as many as possible to come in.

            Personally, I'm more concerned with how immigrants are *treated* than how many of them there are (or are perceived to be) From a climate and economic standpoint, a lot of the real problems there are about mutinational corporations simply crossing borders to pollute more, often in the process worsening conditions in other countries in the first place. The notion their mere presence is 'taking jobs' has more to do with the fact that companies want the cheap labor without paying benefits than who's in those jobs. I think this has more to do with labor laws across the board than the border itself.

            The environmental impacts are less clear, in these regards.

          • Baruch Dreamstalker

            Don, immigration doesn't create new population; it just moves it around.

      • Bookhousegal

        Oh, and regarding population control: people who use fears of that as an argument against environmentalism tend to completely ignore the fact that no such 'plan' actually exists: while the notion follows in the abstract that this ever-increasing population is a huge part of the problem, and that it's darn near criminally-irresponsible for churches and religions to deny people reproductive control and speak against reproductive responsibility, I don't think that adds up to 'Extreme hostility to Catholicism' or any such (Frankly, you can look to the Right being more paranoid about being *out-bred* by Catholic minorities and Muslims for *that.* )

        But I don't see some feared kind of like 'state controlled reproduction' scheme or population reduction schemes, either, save, perhaps, by the terribly-irresponsible worsening of the climate situation which is, if unchecked *bound* to start creating a lot more mass-casualty situations,famines, and especially displacements from a lot of the prime agricultural land and densely-populated areas of the world. I don't see any way to *force* it. For whatever reason, even China seems to have given up on that notion.

        Certainly, we should be empowering and encouraging people to limit their own reproduction: there are more tangible and immediate benefits to this once a standard of living and security reaches a given point: it's possible to reach that point with some greener technology, (as opposed to repeating the dirty Industrial Revolution model and all that comes with it in every given place.)

        it's actually a fairly big problem of overpopulation: human life gets pretty cheap. Which of course suits the corporate Right just fine, even as they spin notions of vast conspiracies out to kill people , while the way things have been going has been making whole populations vulnerable to drought, famine, war, and disaster.

        India, to my understanding, could support itself just fine with a bit more in the way of simpler machines, as long as the water keeps coming (which climate change itself puts in doubt, unfortunately, glaciers and monsoons are what much of this depends on.)

        Even here in America, we may find it to our benefit to return to a more labor-intensive, less-mechanized farming system, and better it be while there's still some expertise at it around: sometimes I wonder if some of what we see among the Pagan homesteading movement and organic farming and even urban food production might end up leading to peeling a certain amount of people back out to the countryside to farm, maybe even in some collective part-time sort of arrangement that combines all this digital life with some more physical out-in-farmland lifestyles.

        There's plenty of people growing kind of disaffected with where a lot of modern life has taken us, and people getting more in touch with real life in some productive way could really help balance a lot of things which have gotten *out* of balance, not just environmentally, but economically and socially, and even just in terms of the various malaises of modern life. It's certainly something that would be better-done under people's own power, rather than waiting for some emergency to end up forcing some form of that under more desperate circumstances.

        If the big machines start slowing down or stopping, *someone's* going to get that idea, and it'd be better if it wasn't someone as feudally-minded as some people we see out there. Whatever happens, so much comes down to *time,* time to build back some redundancy and resiliency and diversity of human know-how, and structures to do it in, ….and population's role in that could go a few ways.

        Fearmongering about Green Dragon conspiracies aside, the only people and things at all likely to or capable of starting to 'adjust' population down by the billions is in fact the way things have been going. Unless maybe some of those fanatics uncomfortably-close to the nuclear arsenal decide to let fly, but that's hardly what I'd call an environmentalist move.

  • Alex Pendragon

    If ever a planet needed a species to be "raptured", this one does. Please, angry white man in the sky, take your idiots to paradise before they destroy this one…………..

    • kauko

      Good news, I read on teh internetz today that some Christian preacher has figured out that the Rapture will occur on May 21, 2011. I fully expect to wake up that day to find all of the Christians gone from the earth so we can have it all to ourselves.

  • kenneth

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that global warming via greehouse gas is a hoax or a monumental collective error by science. The warming skeptics still have to answer a big question. By what stretch of fantasy can the current fossil fuel energy regime be considered sustainable, even over the short term? Whatever is or isn’t happening with the climate, we have gas prices going up by the day here in the states, right here, right now. That’s happening despite lower demand, and it’s happening because hundreds of millions of people in China and India who once walked are buying cars, and soon SUVs. There are predictions of $5 gas in 2012. A war with Iran, any hiccup in production, could make that $8 or $10. Anyone here prepared to spend a thousand or so more a month on food, transportation and heating? Anyone want to wager on how many more tens of millions of us will be unemployed in an economy with runaway energy costs?

    Right now we are paying probably $10 a gallon, but our government manages to hide that cost. The cost comes in the form of perpetual war, costing TRILLIONS of dollars we don’t have. Our government pays its bills on a payday loan system which is nearing the end of its limits. The military contractors get paid, of course. The enemy gets paid every time you fill your tank. You might as well send a pay pal donation to Al Queda with every fillup. Of course the tradeoff is that the money for your retirement and healthcare and your kids education won’t be there because it’s been pledged to service the interest on loans to make war to keep fossil fuel flowing.

    It’s a clever scam, but one that is approaching its end. One day soon China will have a vibrant domestic market for its junk, and they won’t need to float us endless cash loans on easy terms anymore. When that happens, the dollar and our credit will be even more worthless, and the only way out will be to print more money. So you’ll have to revise my earlier prediction of an extra thousand a month for expenses. It will grow by a thousand a month every quarter or so. Food prices will go up before you can push your cart from one end of the store to the other.

    The cost of the current regime, of course is not all measured in dollars. It’s emboldened corporate America to the point where our government no longer even makes a pretense of answering to regular people. It’s created a security state in which air travelers are strip searched like common criminals. Respect for the Bill of Rights is at such a low ebb that we are seeing people seized by armed agents for the simple act of criticizing the government. (Recall the recent story about the airline pilot whose house was tossed by TSA agents for criticizing airline security). We have mainstream politicians calling for the extradition and even the extrajudicial killing of a man for the same sort of investigative journalism that was lauded as heroic in the Vietnam Era. So the energy economy we have is effectively transforming us to become more like China and the enemies our grandfathers died fighting.

    But hey, as long as you’re convinced global warming is a conspiracy hatched by some scientists with a liberal agenda in an email exchange, we have nothing to worry about. Keep those SUVs rolling!

  • Pagan Puff Pieces

    It really ticks me off. Quality of air and water, injustice, poverty, illness, and tyrannical oil governments aren't important enough. The only reason is "WE'RE GOING TO DIE OH NO," and even then the reaction is "Are you sure? And even if you're sure of it existing, are you sure it's our doing, because I'm not going to be efficient with consumables for no good reason."

    And now added to it is a fear of being on the "wrong" side of a religious/cultural/moral war!

    The human body is an amazing, intricate, self-regulating and self-mending machine about which we constantly learn more and more, one in which many people see a reflection of godliness, and even then it is a very delicate and fragile system, easily tampered with and destroyed. Is that really so contradictory? Aren't the most beautiful things easily destroyed? Didn't it take very, very little to lose paradise?

    (Yes, convenience, I know)

  • Michael Lloyd

    As a chemical engineer (though not an atmospheric chemist), a Pagan, and a man who grew up on a farm and who is in tune with the cycles of nature, I have examined the scientific argument and compared it to my own observations over my almost 53 year life. I have concluded that global warming is real and is very likely caused by the actions of humankind. The arguments against global warming were politicized by the right wing and industry, not by the scientific community. That scientists have responded to the name-calling in kind (though mostly in private) is sad, but , it is nothing in comparison to the ignorant, inflammatory bs spewed by the right-wing naysayers, most of whom do not appear to have even a de minimus familiarity with science or mathematics. They certainly have a right to their opinions on this subject as much as any other, but their opinion does not deserve the same weighting as those who are actually in this field of study.

  • Daniel

    Hmmm…."Man did not weave the web of life. He is but a mere strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." Enough said, methinks.

  • Pitch313

    It strikes me as odd that Native Americans whom the Pope insists are silently longing for conversion to Catholicism should be condemned for dancing in the precincts of a Catholic church. But them all us Pagans and Heathens and not-so-Christians are probably uncouth enough to eat chicken in a church, rather than the body of Christ.

    Let the Green Dragons roar and blow fire! Let environmentalists ally with the Green Dragons! Blue Marbles and Green Dragons!

    Janine Pommy Vega, poet and magic worker, hail and farewell!

  • chuck_cosimano

    In this, as in any other matter, the politicians have much more weight than any scientist of group of scientists. They control the money and the decisions. Until you can win an election with this, you are just spitting in the wind. And everyone who has to run for re-election knows now that if you say "sacrifice" to the voters, the voters will respond, "You're fired."

    • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

      Which is why we need to begin with culture change. And as a Pagan, I'm sort of already committed to that…

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

    Thank you for your comments on global warming, Jason. I think I'm at least as appalled by the presence of climate change skeptics (petrochemical corporation enablers?) in our midst as Pagans, as the hysterical Mr. Beisner could possibly be about evangelicals who accept climate science in this regard.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667952307 Jennifer Parsons

    I'm a Pagan, and I'm a climate change skeptic. Not in the sense that I believe that humans can't affect the ecology in which they live– of course we can, and we do (we can't not). But I doubt humanity is fully capable yet of truly understanding what it has done and what is going to happen. There is just too little data and too many possible explanations for that data, though recent advances may prove me wrong, and I'm glad of that.

    There are plenty of reasons to minimize carbon footprints, though– most of them have to do with the fact that carbon emissions aren't healthy for humans or the organisms which which we have symbiotic relationships.

    You may throw tomatoes when ready, thanks.

  • caraschulz

    I've never understood why healthy skepticism is respected in all areas of science but climate studies. We should never stop questioning and seeking answers.

    The reason some, including myself, DO see environmentalism as a religion is because there is a dogma that must be adhered to or you are branded a heretic. No questioning is allowed. Your actions mean less than your beliefs – meaning even if you take steps in your life to reduce your negative impact but don't think that humans are the primary driver for the current climate cycle you are seen as a less moral person than those who do less but state their belief.

    I've been in the environmental movement for quite some time (and helped draft the EPA's guidelines for Greener Meeting and Expos) and this is one of the ways in which this movement hurts itself and blocks itself from moving forward on its goals. Many more people could be encouraged to to make profound changes in their behavior by appealing to them in different ways instead of demanding adherence to dogma.

    Example: Getting off foreign oil (and all oil) could be a project that many would make sacrifices for if it was framed as a national security issue. Or to put it more bluntly – we get off oil and we can tell the Middle East, Mexico, etc to go F themselves.

  • Bookhousegal

    I think the fact that denialists are always repeating oft-debunked assertions as an attempt to confuse people into thinking there's more doubt than there is, about the urgency with which we should have been doing things that we knew needed doing for manifold reasons, in order to defend wasteful consumption that even they say is bad for people, (when they aren't claiming the economy can't live without it)

    ….Well, I don't think it constitutes 'skepticism' to keep repeating debunked distortions and fabrications, while saying there's a slight possibility the facts might one day rearrange themselves to make liars with major and obvious ulterior motives suddenly 'correct,' or that even if it did, that where they want us to go is sustainable to begin with.

    These are the same people who distort and fabricate 'studies' about gay people, evolution, the tobacco industry, …And Pagan religion. They claim they know better than we do that we 'sacrifice babies' and all the rest, you think they're suddenly climatology experts? They mean to confuse and obfuscate, cause there's billions of dollars of profit for a few and a lot of votes for profitable-to-them politicians with every day of delay.

    Frankly, there's nothing to be skeptical *about,* really. The only natural thing that I think can really halt this cycle will be something *no one* has seen coming: some new buffer or feedback not behaving as expected, for instance: not anything deniers say suddenly becoming true.

  • Jason Pitzl-Waters

    No tomatoes here, at least not from me. Though I'd like you to expand on "too little data". From my readings there's plenty of data, so what data points are in including, and what are you excluding?

    For example, what about NASA's data? What do you make of it?
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    How about the climatic research unit?
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

    Or the World Meteorological Organization?
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html

    Or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
    http://www.ipcc.ch/

    What major scientific or meteorological bodies do rely on to fuel your skepticism?

  • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

    Jennifer, we have data going back approximately 2 million years for climate, between O16/O18 ratios, tree ring counts, pollen location studies, etc. They correspond amazingly well, from all over the world. We can say that these are accurate because we can test conditions as they are now versus what we find in these ice cores or tree ring counts, and it is in the analysis of the data is where things can get hazy.

    The most clear answer that anyone can give on this subject is that we don't know fully, but the most logical explanation (via Occam's Razor) is that it is human industrial activity causing the increase in both global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere (there are other things like the giant heat sinks that are our modern urban areas that are another thing entirely). Is it possible that we just don't have enough data to tell what it is really? Of course, and that is the point of science – keep checking and re-checking, and if you find out that everyone else in the world working on the problem has missed something, they give you a Nobel Prize and a big healthy budget to investigate it further (And no, I'm not kidding either.)

    Science (though not necessarily scientists) love to be proven wrong – it means we're actually learning something.

  • The Pagan Gardener

    I used to think exactly this way Ms. Parsons until I realized 99% of scientific community all have reached a consensus that climate change is real. Listen to Noam Chomsky on this subject, he's very informed. I even debated an academic person on this, and though I was great at making my point, I always felt this nagging doubt. I trust the view of the scientific community on this one!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667952307 Jennifer Parsons

    Thanks for the reply, Jason. I rely upon the same as you. I just notice that data sets that can actually be used only go back about 150 years at most– NASA, for example, points out that the data it can use is only from 1880 onwards. I worry that the data sets are too small to be of much predictive use. The conclusions that we are and have been changing climate is obvious. How and to what ends is only starting to be understood, and that's why I hope to be proven wrong: if we know what is happening, we know better how to stop it.

    In the meantime, I think the recommendations made by scientists are sound, but I don't look at them as an environmentalist does.

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    Jason is right to ask for some sort of evidence. Genuine skepticism prompts one to look more deeply, not simply to stand off to the side and "be skeptical".

    Vanishingly few meteorologists are "climate change skeptics". When you do find references to "scientists" who are "skeptics" they usually turn out to be from other fields, or they turn out to not be scientists at all. TV weathercasters and science fiction authors (like Michael Crichton) are often cited as "scientific" experts on this issue by the so-called "skeptics".

  • kauko

    There's a difference between your kind of skepticism and that of people for whom it's just an excuse to not make any changes to their lifestyle out of laziness and the inconvenience it would cause for them.

  • Baruch Dreamstalker

    Cara, zero tolerance for deviance from basic doctrine doth not a religion make. The civil rights movement and the anti-war movement in the 1960s did not have room for disagreement on their basic purpose, but they were not religions.

  • Khryseis_Astra

    While I do feel the scientific community has made a strong enough case, in my personal view, it's irrelevant. To me the question has always been: even IF they're wrong about the man-made component, are the changes they're suggesting we make to our ultimate benefit anyways? In most cases, the answer is a resounding yes. For me it has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with common sense: if you don't want to live in a toxic waste dump, don't create one.

    You make a great point Cara, about just one of the many alternative reasons to get away from foreign oil. :) But it's been my (admittedly limited) personal experience that most of those complaining about the "dogma/religion" of climate change see it as such because it's a direct conflict to their own dogma: one that says their deity – the only one in existence – created all there is for us to do with as we see fit. And nothing can happen without being a part of that deity's plan, so if the Earth gets wrecked in the name of exploiting its resources, so be it. They believe their deity will just destroy this world and make a new one anyways.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667952307 Jennifer Parsons

    You're entirely right. (Also like you, I'm appalled that a fiction writer is considered a scientific "expert.") Who knows– maybe I'll find information as a result of this discussion that will convince me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667952307 Jennifer Parsons

    An interesting "information sheet" from the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia can be found here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/milltemp/), courtesy of Jason's link. It cites investigations that compile data going back 1000 years…nice. That's a lot better, though I'm curious as to how that data was compiled. Obviously, time for more research. Hooray!

  • caraschulz

    But here's a question for people – to make the deep and quick changes that (human caused) climate change scientists are putting forward – and these are put forward by many in the environmental movement – are you willing to have a fairly negative impact on the poor of the world? By negative impact, I'm talking a sharp escalation of starvation and death rates from things like…oh…freezing to death?

    Prices of everything will go up. Sharply. Could you afford to pay triple for food? 4 to 7 times for heating your home and electricity costs? Many people couldn't afford that. Especially after more mass lay-offs and companies going under.

    Things would sort themselves out in a generation or two, but living through that shift would be brutal on those who live on the margins. That's part of the environmental/climate change debate that doesn't get talked about very much.

  • caraschulz

    The raw data that they used…seems to have gone missing. And it is the (interpreted) data that many other groups are using.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667952307 Jennifer Parsons

    Eran, thanks for the reply; believe it or not, it's actually close to what I'm already thinking. Regarding data that goes back further: Can you give me a citation– or at least a lab or institution working on such a study that I could look into?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667952307 Jennifer Parsons

    Sigh…you don't make this easy, do you, Gaia?

  • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

    There is plenty of other data available, Cara.

    Additionally, there is plenty of data available that was NOT compiled by the East Anglia group that is public, and published. Its there if people bothered looking.

  • caraschulz

    She is very, very complex and we are just beginning to make the first steps towards understanding her.

  • kauko

    I wasn't even talking about such large changes as that. Those things need to be addressed in the long run, and ideally be handled in a way that would minimize any such negative impact. I'm well aware that, to a large degree, things like reducing your carbon footprint, buying organic, local food, and fair trade products are a privilege for those with a certain amount of wealth. What I was more refering to were the smaller day to day choices we all make. I don't think that people being conscious about buying a more fuel efficient car, say, as opposed to a huge gas guzzler or bringing your own reusable canvas bags every time you go shopping instead of the plastic bags at the store is going to cause starvation throughout the world. The sad fact is that we have built our whole world on convenience without really thinking about the consequences of how we get those conveniences, and yes, it won't be easy to bring about changes on a world wide scale that will lead to a more sustainable life on this planet. But just because change won't be easy is not a reason to ignore it or do nothing.

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

    How about we make a few sacrifices around here? For instance, did you know that 40% of the food Americans purchase we waste and throw away? And that, by some estimates, producing that food via unsustainable, petroleum-intensive monoculturing and factory farming of meat, releases as much global warming gasses as does transportation? Did you know that the average American household uses 10–15% of their electricity (produced, for the most part, in carbon-intensive ways) on operating electric clothes driers? Did you know that the petrochemicals used to manufacture cosmetics in this country are approximately equivalent to the amount of oil lost in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill every day?

    I don't know about you, but it seems reasonable to me that I be asked to eat less meat, buy more of my food from sustainable agricultural sources (which does mean no California or organic Arizona-grown lettuce for me in January–ah, the pain, the pain), use a damn clothesline every once in a while (my granny never complained, and lived to a ripe old age) and just generally waste less crap.

    Especially since the alternative is denying third world countries access to basic necessities, like clean water.

    Starvation? Would not be such a problem if we were a little better at sharing what we have. A lack of food production is not the problem, nor need food production be petroleum-intensive. The issue is not starvation, but a particular brand of industrialized agriculture which favors large producers over small at all cost–including the starvation of those small producers. Is it really in the best interests of the residents of Fiji, for instance, to lower their water table bottling individual water portions for Americans–with access to safe local drinking water of our own–in order to raise the profit margin of a corporation like Fiji Water, simply because we believe private markets always know best?

    Prices will reflect the true costs of things. The current, heavily subsidized (because it is far from a free market–I presume you know that, yes?) agribusiness sector will not be able to muscle out small growers, big oil's interests will not outweigh the need for human beings to live sustainably rather than use up land and water through heedless pollution, and, yeah, I might not get that wide screen T.V. set. Hell, I might not even get a new computer every three years–the American average–and ship the old one to China where weak environmental regulations make it "cheaper" to burn the plastic and release the heavy metals that cannot be salvaged into the water and soil over there.

    But you know what? If that's the cost of my having a planet that is liveable for my descendants one day, I think that's just fine, Cara… just fine.

    The earth isn't listening to our debate. Nature doesn't care if your prices go up. And the changes that are in store if even the more conservative estimates of the impact of anthropogenic climate change are realized will be even harder on those on the margins than the changes we will need to make–now, with the hope of preserving more of health of the environment all over the globe…

    …or later, when there is a lot less left to save.

  • Baruch Dreamstalker

    The Cornwall Alliance cited "God's intelligent design" in its anti-environmentalist screed. I wonder if they've drunk all that Kool-Aid, or just a sip?

  • kenneth

    If this new interfaith conference is a call to "men of good will" I presume Ratzinger won't be attending!

  • caraschulz

    But what climatologists and environmentalists are saying is that unless we make profound changes right now, it won't matter. It won't alter the outcome. Those kinds of changes will come with a dreadful toll on human life.
    http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/40639

    The climate scientists say we have just 10 years to make the economic, infrastructural and industrial changes required to achieve these massive cuts to our emissions.

    1. Implement immediate emission reduction targets with the aim being to reduce net emissions to zero as soon as practicable. The goal should be to achieve 95% of power from renewable sources by 2020, with a 90% cut in overall emissions by 2030. Introduce annual reduction targets.

    2. Initiate further international treaty negotiations aimed at getting all countries to agree to a global target of 90% emissions reductions on 1990 levels by 2030.

    3. Start the transition to a zero-waste economy. Engage workers in industry, with technical experts, to redesign their products and jobs sustainably.

    4. Require the fitting of all feasible energy-efficiency measures to existing houses and subsidise owner-occupiers for the costs.

    5. Bring all power industries under public ownership and democratic control. Begin phasing out coal mining and coal-fired power stations immediately. Provide guaranteed jobs and retraining on full pay for coalmining and power-station communities, with new sustainable industries being built in their areas and paid redundancies offered.

    6. Bring the whole car industry under public control. Re-tool this industry to manufacture wind turbines, public transport vehicles, solar hot water and solar photo-voltaic cells. Subsidise the conversion of private cars to electric power.

    7. Accelerate the construction of wind farms in suitable areas. Boost research into all renewable energy sources. Build pilot solar-thermal and geothermal plants now. Create localised power grids.

    8. End logging in old-growth forests. Begin an urgent program of re-forestation, and protection of biodiversity to provide increased carbon sinks.

    9. End industrial farming based on fertilisers, pesticides and fuel sourced from petroleum. Restrict farming areas to ensure that riverine, forest and other indigenous ecosystems return to healthy states. Encourage new farming practices including organic and urban farming.

    10. Make all urban and regional public transport free and upgrade services to enable all urban residents to use it for all their regular commuting. Nationalise and upgrade interstate train and ferry services, to provide real alternatives to air travel. Rail freight must be prioritised. Ensure transport services are integrated.

  • http://www.hellenistai.com Ruadhán

    I'm well aware that, to a large degree, things like reducing your carbon footprint, buying organic, local food, and fair trade products are a privilege for those with a certain amount of wealth.

    It's really sick, proof of something very deeply wrong with society, that it's come to that.

  • sarenth

    Considering 100,00 fish just turned up dead in Alabama, some of these fixes sound like they need to be executed immediately anyway if we want to save our local ecosystems. In this, I'm specifically looking at 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Looking too, at some of the disasters we've had up here in MI, such as the recent Kalamazoo oil spill, and the disgusting conditions of anything remotely near Dow Chemical.

  • Khryseis_Astra

    But such changes could also create many new, living-wage jobs, which are sorely needed right about now. Gods know the multi-national corporations sure aren't creating any, no matter how many tax breaks they're given (or create for themselves) in this country.

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

    Best to keep on with the experiment on the atmosphere, then, do you think? (I don't, myself.)

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

    No citation for it, but I can tell you my uncle was busy studying ice cores in Antarctica going back a very long way indeed… and this was decades ago. (He is a scientist who was working for the U.S. Navy at the time; he has since retired.)

    My point being that it is not simply a few individuals doing this work, or in recent years. Which how there has come to be a 97% rate of acceptance of the theory of anthropogenic climate change among climatologists. There is really such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that it becomes difficult to sum it up succinctly in layman-accessible language–rather as is the case with evolution.

    And rather as is the case with evolution, the fact that there are ongoing debates over details in the theory (will we see 5 degrees of warming this century, or 15, for instance?) is taken as a point of weakness by those critics with a vested interest in "debunking" the theory–Evangelical Christians, in the case of evolution. Large oil companies (who have in fact been linked to efforts to repudiate the climate science) in the case of climate change.

  • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

    Well, this is where I did some undergrad work on climatology and glaciology:
    http://climatechange.umaine.edu/research/overview

    Here is an article on tree rings (over 1400 years):
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v346/n6283/a

    On using pollen to reconstruct climate variation in the Carribbean (over 10,500 years):
    http://www.ithelps.ch/grosjean/Quaternary_Climate

  • thelettuceman

    I heard about this new factual historian that just hit the streets. He goes by the name of Harry Turtledove. I think we should campaign to have his books used as reference material in our secondary schools.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667952307 Jennifer Parsons

    In fairness to the spirit of the argument, Noam Chomsky does not study climate science. I'm glad to see people looking into things that are not in their field, but I'm more impressed with Prof. Chomsky's pronouncements in linguistics and cognitive studies than I am with his faith in other fields.

    The fact that the vast majority of climate scientists not only agree that this is happening but are willing to share their evidence and methodologies is a better support of the argument. Like most experts, I agree that human activity has a strong effect on how climate changes. My doubt extends to how well this change can be predicted (lingering, but fraying as I sift through studies documenting climate change over time) and how humans should respond to it– particularly since NOAA points out that it's irreversible.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667952307 Jennifer Parsons

    Thanks, Eran. I appreciate the input. (I'm also impressed with your work). Hodell et al.'s work on using sediment cores to document how the climate changes is particularly interesting.

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

    Jennifer, you write suspiciously like a woman with an open mind! Also impressive. :-)

  • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

    I can't take credit for any of that, I was just an undergrad there, with only a minor in geology. But if you need, I have a plethora of articles on climate record reconstruction (I'm currently debating going back for my master's in glaciology).

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

    The irreversibility, as well as the magnitude of the change, is still under debate, as I understand it.

    Of course, even if it were not possible to reverse climate change, to slow it or halt its worsening would be worthwhile goals… and even more than that, as a Pagan, I take it that I have a deep and fundamental ethical duty toward the earth that sustains me. Were there no hope at all, I would still feel compelled to do all I can conceive to do to not be part of the problem.

    I do know Pagans who feel quite differently, and it causes me some real distress–those who believe anthropogenic climate change is in fact occurring, is a grave threat to the environment and to civilization, and yet who do nothing, change nothing, challenge nothing.

    I just don't get that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667952307 Jennifer Parsons

    Thank you, Cat. What a nice thing to say! (Don't be fooled though; I'm actually a woman who likes science and math. ;-) )

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

    At least some citations for my facts given above can be found in the sidebar of my environmental blog, for those who would like them, btw. (Scroll down below the blogroll, on the right.)

    I was a bit rushed last night, and neglected to add them to my post.

  • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

    Hm. Perhaps synonymous. *grin*

  • AusetGypsy

    NY Times is like siting Wikipedia, it’s a bias, one sided telling of a story from only one groups perspective. It’s not reall the trusted source it makes it self out to be. If anybof these stories presented here on this blog truly get your attention by all jeans research further to gain other insights and better perspectives. Thank you.
    Amma Iset!

  • http://www.hellenistai.com Ruadhán

    Totally agreed.