It is not often that I turn a comment into a complete post, but this comment from Willis Eschenbach on the Trust and Mistrust article today, merits such a promotion. – Anthony
Which death is more troubling? (images: from NOAA, upper, Wikimedia, lower)
Willis Eschenbach
I am surprised at the visceral nature of the rejection of the term “environmentalist”. I had not realized it had gotten that bad. I don’t think I’d want to be one of those if that’s how people feel.
It also appears that the new preferred term is “conservationist”. But as I said, I don’t make those fine distinctions, so I’m not sure how that differs from the “e-word”.
So let me modify my statement, and say that I am a conservamentalist. I would define that as someone who thinks long and hard about the effect of our actions on the tangled web of life that surrounds us.
I was fishing herring in the Bering Sea one season. I heard on the radio that the annual killing of the Canadian Arctic fur seals had begun, along with the obligatory protests that seem to be required these days.
We’d caught about fifty tonnes of herring that day, killing on the order of a million living beings. I remember thinking how if some creature has big soft baby eyes, it gets lots of sympathy. But if a creature is slimy and has cold fish-eyes, its death doesn’t matter. People hated the seal killers for killing a few dozen creatures, while I killed millions of creatures and was ignored.
If I had to pick one word to describe my position on the ecological webs that surround us, it would be “realist”. Life eats life to live. I am not a man who eats the meat and blames the butcher.
I’ve worked a good deal as a builder. I build with wood. I cut down trees to make room for the building I live in. I grew up in the forest, my step-daddy was a timber feller, the royalty of the logging fraternity. I’ve worked killing trees on an industrial scale.
And I’ll also fight like crazy to see the logging done right. with proper roads and proper setbacks, and proper slope limits, and reforestation. I’ve seen what bad logging practices look like and do.
So for me, a conservamentalist is someone who has thought hard about and balanced the needs for wood and cleared land, balanced those needs with the way that wood is harvested. I grew up in the middle of hundreds of square miles of virgin forest. I have a deep and abiding admiration for that raw wildness. And yet, I cut down trees. I just want to see things done carefully and with forethought, see them done properly with respect for the consequences. I don’t elevate some mythical “Nature” above humans, and I don’t forget nature either.
I was a sport salmon fishing guide a couple years ago, on the Kenai River in Alaska, as I described here. Kenai River king salmon are magnificent beings, fifty pounds or more of powerful, glittering, awe-inspiring fish. When one of my clients caught a salmon, I always thanked the fish in a loud voice for giving up its life for us. Life eats life, beings die so that I can live, and I can’t ignore that. I don’t let it keep me from fishing salmon, but I won’t pretend that I am not killing a splendiferous entity. Some of my clients understood.
Heck, I apologize to trees when I cut them down. Yeah, I know it looks dumb, a grown man talking to trees. But it doesn’t stop me from cutting them down by the scores if need be, I’m a realist. Life eats life. Me, I don’t take killing anything lightly, be it redwood or herring or salmon. Someday, I’ll be chopped down in the same way.
So I’m forming the Conservamentalist Party, our motto will be,“Conservamentalists unite! You have nothing to lose but your minds”.
Now, back to the climate…
[no taunting ~ ctm]
davidmhoffer (21:24:49) : How many animals kill for sport?
You, uhmm, ever watched a cat and a mouse? Most cats don’t actually eat the mouse, they play with it to death. I had a curr dog once. Dad bought a bunch of chicks to raise for the year. Came home from church one day and had 50 bright yellow and red spots all over our lawn. None ate, just dead. Oddly, dog died of lead poisoning an hour later.
Do you people ever really know what your talking about? Do you ever really observe their behavior? Do you know what bull bovines do on occasion do to the people that care for them? Deer? Raccoons? “Other examples”????? R U kidding me? You ever drag bodies that were killed by mountain lions home? Because the bodies were moved affirms they weren’t ate. Nor were they armed. Animals kill. It’s not good nor bad, that’s just what they do. There’s no psychology about it, it is their nature.
I’ve a black lab. I love the guy. He has a great demeanor and I wouldn’t part with him for love nor money. But he’s an animal. His life is in no way comparable to the life of a human. Any human. Its an apple and orange comparison that shouldn’t even be attempted to be made. It is obscene to even try to draw a comparison.
They call themselves “indians”, so I go with it. All the signs for their reservations put up by them signify “indian”. I agree that “native american” doesn’t do it. I was born here, so I’m a native American.
My environmental message has always been as follows 😉
http://localgeographic.com/pictures/M-03.gif
Urederra (19:30:34) :
Oh please…. Most plant won’t grow? And you just cherry picked a paper? Have you read the paper, BTW?
You could assure that for a single species (what it is real cherry picking), not for all plant species. 🙂
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/37/14724.full.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5973/1642
Read any book on plant physiology. You will see that there is a big difference among C3, C4 and CAM photosynthesis on taking and using the carbon dioxide when it is at of high concentrations, so in the air as in the water.
The major difference between a conservationist and a environmentalist, is the first understands he/she is preserving “nature” for the benefit of others humans while an environmentailist is preserving “nature” for some obscure philosphy and/or some equally obscure nature god.
Environmentalist is an epithet because many self-described environmentalists wrap themselves in the cloak of “science” but are totally dogmatic in their belief structure. While Al Gore is the charlatan face of the AGW crowd, it is the scientists in government and academia who have knowingly made the term environmentalism profane in order to gain more grants or fleeting fame.
Stick with the term conservationist – it denotes a respect for life and that humans are atop the food chain.
Reply: Have fun. ~ ctm
Uhmm, yeh, thanks. That was a hoot. :D. The first headline I saw was asking “What is your vision of a perfect mate?”…………..With the beer in me and all, well, criminey ……………….hahaahahahahaha…..
KCT in MN (20:16:17)
KCT, thank you for a very inspiring story about your life, much appreciated.
w.
Gary Mount (20:31:54)
My point exactly. If you have bunny-eyes you get legal protection … and meanwhile, the PETH* can’t get any traction at all …
w.
* PETH – People for the Ethical Treatment of Herring
ctm said . . .
“Don’t take it personally because my inline response appeared in your comment. My response was for everyone involved. This means the end of the Biblical discussion even if you did not start it. Don’t get defensive. Nothing you said was deleted.”
Please note your own words added to my comment at 20:29:30
“[I’m deleting this rest of this. Ethics of medical research may be a valid topic, but when we get into terms such as “supposed cures”, dismissing modern medicine outright, the discussion is not a rational discussion. I’d probably lean against allowing much more of this. ~ ctm]”
And you did delete it.
[[Reply: Yes when I realized I was dealing with the same person on two different issues and went back and put in an update, hours before I saw this comment. ~ctm]]
It was a perfectly reasonable comment and question, intended to encourage “hendrik” to think about what he was doing.
I appreciate your response, above, but I think “hendrick” (or, more accurately, the unfortunate animals he experiments on) might have benefited from what I had to say.
[[and I don’t which is why I am now deleting your similar words for a second time. I will paraphrase for you. You think medical research on animals is evil and never produces any discoveries or medical procedure of value and hendrick is a bad person. New comments noted with dual brackets. ~ ctm]]
Willis,
You are right on with this post.
I have noticed from reading this blog that you are a sort of lightning rod for the assorted and varied views on AGW and it’s implications or lack thereof.
Hello Phil M and please feel welcome here as I respect your conflicting views as posted here as valuable arguments in this important and crucial topic.
Now as for conservamentalism as you call it, let’s not forget humanism. I bring this up because of the disturbing consequences suggested by environmentalism, that is, that being human and pursuing human interests we are manifestly destroying planet earth. We are not destroying planet earth. CO2 is not destroying planet earth. Planet earth is doing fine.
Let’s keep the debate focused on humanity and how we can all pull together and get everyone on the planet up to the same level of wealth and freedom shared by us on this blog.
regeya (21:32:46) :
“Amen. For whatever reason, if you buy a hybrid car, or you buy perfume-free dryer sheets, or if you turn off your lights when you’re out of the room, you’re trying to destroy capitalism. Um, sorry, I didn’t realize it was my moral obligation to be wasteful, in order to help those poor billionaires in the energy sector get more of my money. I thought the money was mine, to spend as I saw fit…and I choose to conserve it.
Along those lines, have you noticed how many conservatively-minded folks out there talk a mean game about how they’re free to do as they wish and don’t want those darn “greenies” telling them how to live, but they seem awfully eager to tell everyone what they should eat, how they should get to and from work, who they should marry and what they should worship? If the majority weren’t so darned hypocritical I’d identify with the conservatives. I might, if they ever stop trying to run everyone else’s lives.”
Uhmm, out of curiosity, what is it that the conservatives are telling you to eat? The reason I ask, is that I’m a card carrying conservative, and I don’t remember the memo. How you go to work? We’d just be happy if you did!!! Most of us would just love it if you did recognize some being to worship, much less what.
I don’t mean to pick on you, but this one, I really don’t get. “or if you turn off your lights when you’re out of the room, you’re trying to destroy capitalism…”. I guess I don’t understand your understanding of “conservative”. I don’t know a person that advocates you leaving the lights on if you leave the room. In fact, I’d encourage you to turn them off. It is reasonable and sensible, to do so.
Sis, I WORK FOR AN ELECTRIC COMPANY, and there is no one in my company nor any electric company that I know of that wishes you to waste energy in that manner. Not even the IOU’s (Independently Owned Utilities) Further, If there is someone who actually tells you that turning off your light while you’re not in the room is detrimental in any way, please understand, that isn’t conservatism, that’s liberal use of electricity. And, we all know liberal anything is discouraged.
James Sexton (21:57:55) :
davidmhoffer (21:24:49) : How many animals kill for sport?
You, uhmm, ever watched a cat and a mouse?>>
Yes I have, another exception. And I have paid personally with my entire summer’s wages when I was in high school because MY dog killed 200 chickens at my neighbour’s place. Instead of KILLING her, I tied a dead chicken to her collar for three weeks. Yes it stank, and she never played with chickens again, which is what she was doing, not intentionaly killing them. Your dog got “lead poisoning” because it was PLAYING with the chicks and didn’t understand it was killing them. The dog was PLAYING and took a bullet to the head because you didn’t understand that is what happened and couldn’t be bothered to train the dog not to do it anymore? And you call ME down? And yes I know what bull bovines can do. They can become very agressive when they feel threatened and they can do a lot of damage, but they are reacting out of fear or anger. Have you ever broken up a bull fight? You go on horseback because the horse is smart enough to help you break up the fight and keep you and him safe. You don’t go on a motorcycle. I know someone who did. The funeral was three days later. You don’t even go in a half ton truck. You would be amazed what an enraged 2800 pount Charlois bull can do to a truck. If you approach an enraged animal, it is taking out its fury (and fear) on what ever is nearby. And yes, mountain lions will kill. So will bears. They are territorial, and like humans, will defend it, and will attack if they feel threatened. That is not the same as killing for sport.
I never said humans and animals were equivelant. I said the notion that they can’t think, and aren’t self aware was wrong. Nor is it the same for all animals. There’s a big difference in cognitave function between a rat, a monkey and a herring.
Whilst Willis Eisenbach makes some good points in his latest contribution methinks he did a much better job of demolishing the CAGW nonsense. I don’t think– as already pointed out by others — that the term conservamentalist will ever catch on. It is a far too awkward six syllable word.
I don’t think the idea of the earlier inhabitants in North America being concerned for the environment has any real substance to it. As Alexander Feht points out the true facts tell a very different story. So forget about this noble savage nonsense and leave it in the hands of long gone and much deluded Rousseau.
Whether you are a conservementalist or conservative-minded or what have you there is much that we do to the environment which is inexcusable such as deep sea trawling, flooding the oceans with plastic and using really bad tree harvesting methods (which Willis so clearly describes). And the real tragedy of the AGW scam is that it has placed so much emphasis on phony global warming which it dishonestly refers to as “climate change” that all other aspects of environmental damage have been forced to take a back seat. Labelling CO2 a pollutant is probably the most dishonest aspect of the story with untold deleterious consequences.
I am truly surprised that in this discussion of the need to be thoughtful about the way we treat other living animals and plants no one seems to have mentioned the worst thing we humans have done, to planet Earth or Gaia or whatever you want to call it, is to overpopulate our home. Nothing can or will come right unless and until we bring population growth to a complete halt.
@ur momisugly Christopher Horst
Imagine having a conversation about morals with Adolf Hitler. Quite frankly I trust my dogs to make moral choices superior to that of many humans. It’s all a matter of how they’re raised whether human animals or non-human animals. My dogs don’t kill living things they but rather, like me, protect living things and they make very well reasoned choices on when, where, and how to do it well outside their previous experience or training. Humans are animals and run the gamut in moral character from Mahatma Ghandi to Genghis Khan. I’m not really aware of any non-human mammal so adept and willing to kill their own kind. Dogs don’t torture other living things unless some sadistic human taught them to do it but humans will not only torture a dog they’ll torture other humans. Tell me again which is the moral animal?
I admire Willis’ awareness of taking the lives of other living things. The apologies to trees are to keep him aware of his actions not to make the tree feel better about it. Apologizing to whatever is being harvested is traditional in many native American cultures although as far as I know the Aztecs didn’t apologize to the victims of their mass ritual human sacrifices so it isn’t by any stretch of the imagination a universal practice in native American culture. I don’t mean to single out meso-Americans. History is replete with examples of human atrocity. The games and spectacles in the Roman Colosseum come to mind. Humans murdering humans, animals killing animals, animals killing humans were entertainment for 50,000 screaming grinning spectators who flocked to see it. Have some moral conversations with those folks and you’d find yourself a member of the cast instead of the audience.
April E. Coggins (21:16:11)
The problem with that theory is that one person dumping junk into a big river makes no difference. When an entire city full of people do it, it makes a big difference. So even though one person’s actions are not consequential, that doesn’t absolve us from personal responsibility. I had a real hard time with that one myself, because I grew up on a cattle ranch in the middle of miles of forest. Regarding my habits, I figured “Good enough for Daniel Boone, good enough for me.”
But one day I realized that when a million or so Danny Boone Juniors live together, they simply can’t live the way Daniel Boone lived. One person can throw a plastic bag in the air, sure, no problem. But when a million people do it, it’s an ugly plastic blizzard …
Urederra (19:30:34) :
For example, some C3 plants would enhance their growth at high concentration of CO2, but almost all C4 plants would not take advantage of the same condition. Actually, many C3 plants won’t be benefited by the high concentration of CO2 if they lack of an efficient symbiotic mechanisms with microorganisms which fix the N from the soil. CAM plants growth enhancement is barely 12% and stops its enhanced growth when photosynthesis stabilizes. The latter happens also to C3 plants and those few C4 plants which enhance their growth at merely 21%.
We cannot deduce from experiments over few species that all plants benefit from high concentrations of CO2. The same happens with temperature, light, water, etc. Excessive exposition to light, for example, directly damages the plants.
“These are the cries of the carrots. You see… to us today is harvest day, but to them it is the holocaust”
Great sentiment here Willis. Thank you
Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (12:43:28)
I think you missed the point.
When they want to control you…they are Fascists!
regeya (21:20:36)
Dusty heap? Say what? That’s some of the most productive farmland known. The prairies are still, to use your term, “fertile ground”. I fear the hyperbole is on your side.
Here’s a related curiosity. One of the less known stories of the prairies is that the Early Asian Immigrants didn’t live much on the prairies until the coming of the Europeans. This was because buffalo are very hard and very dangerous to kill if you are on foot. It wasn’t until the locals had enough escaped or stolen horses to be able to use mounted attacks against the herds that people could make a full-time living on the prairies. History is weird …
I have no problem with conservation or protection of the environment. I do have a problem with people who have co-opted those imperatives into something called “environmentalism” whose aims fundamentally oppose economic behaviours which actually protect and conserve the environment.
Like liberalism, which has in the Western world has been co-opted by an extremist political position that is fundamentally illiberal and irrational, environmental concern has been taken over by eco-apocalyptism and Bolshevist beliefs that are fundamentally anti-human, anti-science and anti-progress and will inevitably lead to environmental degradation and destruction as we found when the Berlin Wall fell 21 years ago.
I also find that those most taken by eco-alarmism are those least likely to have experienced what they propose for others: subsistance agriculture and grinding economic poverty.
I’m with Willis on these particular issues (but when he talks nonsense I say so). Perhaps we can forge a new consensus.
@JamesSexton
You’re right that humans are in a separate category. We are by far the most sadistic creatures on the planet and there is simply no equivalent category of critters that practice the killing of their own kind in such great numbers and constantly increasing efficiency. Sticks and stones, then bows and arrows, then rifles and grenades, then tanks and bomber aircraft, then nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Unlike you I’m not beaming with pride about how special we are. I’m rather sad about it and a bit frightened that we’ll be the cause of our own near-term extinction. There’s a good reason we’re a single-species genus and the same reason might soon make us a zero-species genus.
“Our age is one of guided missiles and unguided men.” ~Martin Luther King
Truer words were never spoken.
Willis Eschenbach (22:43:22) :
April E. Coggins (21:16:11)
I don’t feel a bit guilty about being at the top of the food chain. …..
The problem with that theory is that one person dumping junk into a big river makes no difference. …….
But one day I realized that when a million or so Danny Boone Juniors live together,……. it’s an ugly plastic blizzard …
(Abbreviated for brevity, not significance.)
Of course, you’re right. OTOH, if one thinks about it properly, if we took it out of the land, it should go back in the land. If we are raping the land as some have indicted here, then it stands to reason that we should put it back. Sequestering our waste, obviously, is a failed perspective. Given that man does not create, but only modifies, and given that everything degenerates, April isn’t too far off. Plastics are problematic, but most else is better served on the ground.
Heh, I’ve got to go to work early tomorrow, but this has almost been a hoot.
Willis, I don’t think you intended all of this, but maybe you did. Some could perceive this as divisive in nature. I find it comforting to see so many people of diverse mindsets, here because of the obscene bastardization of naturalism created by the CAGW alarmists. We’ll work the rest out later, but for now, we’ve more important things to set straight.
Cheers to all.
Susan C. (12:57:10) : “Arctic harp seal pups are the species hunted on the east coast of Canada that draw lots of protest.”
It is true seal hunt protests centre around images of the seal pup; however, the fact remains seal pups (Whitecoats and Bluebacks) have not been legally harvested in Canada since 1987. Only self-reliant and independent seals are harvested during Canada’s seal hunt. Harp, hooded, grey, ringed, bearded and harbour seals are the six species of seal harvested during the Canadian seal hunt.
Sources:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/seal-phoque/myth-eng.htm#_04
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/seal-phoque/faq-eng.htm#_2
A few years ago I would have proudly described myself as an environmentalist. Sadly, I have become very sceptical of much of what passes for environmentalism these days. This to me is one of the worst effects of the “climate change” movement – environmentalism has become a bit of a dirty word. In the past few days we have seen evidence of what was once a shining example of concern for the environment – Greenpeace – turning into yet another bunch of “climate change” extremists.
The obsession with CO2 has distracted attention from good old-fashioned environmental causes. We are told that measures to limit CO2 will have positive effects on other environmental problems, but I think it is more likely to be the other way around – if we deal with the immediate, tangible problems, such as deforestation and loss of habitat, this will do more to help regulate climate than any pointless, futile attempts to limit CO2.