National Park Service Superintendent states "Global Warming ... - EnvironmentalChemistry.com

[WhiteBlaze]

<table border=0 width= valign=top cellpadding=2 cellspacing=7><tr><td valign=top class=j><br><div class=lh><a href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/0-0&fd=R&url=http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/09/national-park-service-superintendent.html&cid=0&ei=sxT0RuWsCp2G0gGjoqGdDw">National Park Service Superintendent states "Global Warming <b>...</b></a><br><font size=-1><font color=#6f6f6f>EnvironmentalChemistry.com,&nbsp;ME&nbsp;-</font> <nobr>29 minutes ago</nobr></font><br><font size=-1>By Kenneth Barbalace Yesterday (9/20/2007), the National Park Service&#39;s <b>Appalachian Trail</b> Superintendent Pam Underhill of West Virginia, stated that global <b>...</b></font><br></div></td></tr></table>

More... (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/0-0&fd=R&url=http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/09/national-park-service-superintendent.html&cid=0&ei=sxT0RuWsCp2G0gGjoqGdDw)

[jesse]

quick move this thread before the erruption begins. Lets talk religion instead, ther's a lot less controversy.

[Blue Jay]

quick move this thread before the erruption begins. Lets talk religion instead, ther's a lot less controversy.

What controversy? The earth is no longer considered flat, get over it. The church does not rule the world anymore, get over it. Republicans are now extreme spending liberals, get over it. People with their heads in the sand need to pull them out. Like THAT'S going to happen.

[weary]

Trail Superintendent Pamela Underhill is a very dedicated supporter of the Appalachian Trail. She testified at the Black Nubble hearings this week at the request of the Maine Appalachian Trail Club.

FWIW, here is a transcript of my remarks at the same hearing:

Black Nubble testimony by Bob Cummings, Phippsburg, September 19, 2007

My name is Bob Cummings. I live in Phippsburg. I’ve been involved with Maine trails for at least 40 years. I do volunteer work for the Maine Chapter, AMC, and for the Maine Appalachian Trail Club. I am also a founding director and now president of the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust that seeks to protect the trail in Maine from incompatible development. Tonight, however, I am speaking for myself.

I’m not opposed to alternative energy. But the plain language of the LURC statute should not be forgotten just to satisfy the popular clamor for wind energy.

I believe the global warming threat is both real and serious. That’s one of the reasons I wrote a book 25 years ago extolling the need for conservation.

But I don’t believe we need to support every wind project where developers think they can make a profit. We shouldn’t destroy the best of Maine to protect Maine.

I have no personal bias in this belief, other than a love for the mountains and the opportunities they provide.

There are many legitimate reasons for rejecting this project. You will hear about most of them in the testimony from the interveners. I’ll restrict my comments to a few thoughts that you might not otherwise hear.

Most importantly, these high peaks, the cluster of 4,000 foot summits surrounding this project, are the jewels of inland Maine. Were it not for the beauty of the coast, these mountains would have been protected long ago. Sadly, Maine has lacked a John Muir to call attention to this unique region. Maine still has no concept of the ecological and potential economic importance of this region that these developers are proposing to change forever.

My wife and I over the past three years have visited most of the wilder places in these United States, from the coast of Maine to near the Arctic Circle in Alaska.
As we worked our way west, I began to realize, that this high peaks region of Maine was the equal or exceeded all the parks we visited. Desecrating this region would be the equivalent of placing wind towers next to Old Faithful, or in the high meadows of Yosemite.

Maine Mountains have a different beauty than the barren mountains of the West. But not an inferior beauty. By world standards we live in a northern rain forest. There is nothing like Maine anywhere else in this nation.

I know this from personal observation. A few years ago I took the train out of Boston for Georgia, and then walked home, 2,175 miles on the Appalachian Trail, traversing The Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Shenandoah, and all the eastern seaboard national forests. What I discovered and heard confirmed in conversations with other hikers is that Maine is the wildest, most remote, and most beautiful section of the entire trail.

Approval of this project will change many miles of the Maine trail from what is now perceived by most hikers as one of the wildest and least developed viewsheds along the long footpath, to one of the most developed viewsheds.

Just one final thought. You have been shown “photo simulations,” allegedly showing what the wind towers will look like to hikers and others passing by. They don’t show any such thing. Not because the simulations are necessarily wrong, but because a camera never sees what the human eye sees, as even the most casual photographer quickly learns. The camera sees the whole scene. The eye sees a thousand views almost simultaneously, each encompassing an arc only a few degrees wide. The brain merges these views and concentrates on whatever is most dramatic and unique, which if this project is approved will be the wind towers.

The fundamental requirement of the LURC law is that new developments must fit “harmoniously into the natural environment.” That is a requirement that is impossible to achieve with 400 foot lighted turbines, twirling blades, and a landscape bulldozed into access roads on what is now a remote wild mountain. The law, LURC regulations, and protection of a unique wild landscape all require that this project be rejected.

Weary www.matlt.org

[camojack]

quick move this thread before the erruption begins. Lets talk religion instead, ther's a lot less controversy.
Ah, but it is a religion. And I'm a heretic... :eek:

[hopefulhiker]

After thinking about this, I agree with Weary on this..

It was upsetting to hear the operation of the logging operations in the 100 mile wilderness.

I really enjoyed hiking through Maine. When I hiked it it was in October and there were very few people on the trail. The experience was incredible.

If they develop the trail corridor in any way the experience for the hiker will be forever changed. It would take centuries to get it back..

Not that I have a vote but maybe they could find another way to generate power..

[camojack]

One of the commenters in the link from the post that started this thread put it exceedingly well:

When talking about global warming, there are a few questions that must be dealt with.

First, is climate warming? The answer, though not definitive yet, is probably yes. We can readily see some evidence of that happening.

The Earth is a dynamic system, which means it is constantly in flux. Average temperatures are continually moving up or down. Equilibrium would mean that the system was dead. In spite of what Al Gore says, there never has been a time of equilibrium in the system, and that's a good thing.

Second, if temps are going up, what is the cause? Is it Man's contribution of greenhouse gases? Conventional wisdom (as portrayed in most of the media, anyway) says 'yes'. But the truth is that that is a hypothesis, not even a full-fledged theory yet, and certainly not an established scientific fact. Let me explain:

Obviously we can't put the Earth into a laboratory and experiment on it. Experiments must be done on climate models. Scientists formulate a hypothesis, plug their assumptions into the model, and then see if the model can predict reality.

Even the best climate models don't predict reality very well. Heck, the Old Farmer's Almanac does a better job of predicting weather patterns and climate trends.

So what's going on? Is it worse than even the scientists have predicted?

That's one explanation offered by the manmade global warming enthusiasts, but a simpler, scientific, and less hysterical explanation is simply that one or more of the assumptions programmed into the model are incorrect. That just means the hypothesis is flawed. It does not prove or disprove the scientists opinions. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.

So how do we get from a flawed hypothesis to a sound scientific theory? The short answer is: we don't. The hysteria is due to politics and propaganda.

How do we get from politics and propaganda to an established scientific fact? Again, we don't, obviously. What we get is more politics and perhaps public policy.

Why? In two words: money and power.

More taxes. Higher prices on energy. Control of energy sources. Sales of books, 'carbon offsets', and myriad 'green' merchandise.

Does it bother the True Believer that Al Gore has 200 million dollars in the bank from selling carbon offsets, which do nothing to actaully help the environment? That his prediction of a 10-foot rise in sea level is echoed by not one scientist anywhere? No, of course not. Some people want to be scared. Does it bother them that Gore sued his 'mentor' Roger Revelle, to shut him up when Revelle objected to his name being used in Gore's environmental campaign? Again, of course not. Impending catastophe is supremely sexy.

Does it bother the True Believer to learn that many of the scientists involved in the IPCC project sued to have their names removed from the report?

Does it bother the True Believer that the grandfather of global warming politics is a man named Maurice Strong, a big UN muckety-muck who happens to be a eugenicist and de-populationist? No, of course not. Those same people craving catastrophe probably don't understand the implications of those words.

But politics and global evil aside, should we be concerned about climate change? The answer to that is an unqualified 'maybe'. So wouldn't it be nice to just let the scientists work without all the propaganda and hysteria?

Despite the claims of 'consensus', the science is very, very far from being settled. Do you realize there are still scientists studying gravity? And you thought that had been 'settled' long ago, didn't you?

Bottom line: Don't let anybody take your money or freedom based on a hypothesis. And real science is not done by a show of hands. Recognize the doomsayers, propagandists, and slanted journalists (and bloggers) for who they are and get on with life.

But don't necessarily abandon your 'green' practices. They'll save you money in the long run and conservation is always a good thing.

[weary]

After thinking about this, I agree with Weary on this..

It was upsetting to hear the operation of the logging operations in the 100 mile wilderness.

I really enjoyed hiking through Maine. When I hiked it it was in October and there were very few people on the trail. The experience was incredible.

If they develop the trail corridor in any way the experience for the hiker will be forever changed. It would take centuries to get it back..

Not that I have a vote but maybe they could find another way to generate power..
This is not a referendum. It's a legal fight and lawyers are expensive. Just ask The Weasel. MATC, the major opponent of the wind towers, has only 600 members. Dues income is only $9,000. But the club has raised and spent so far around $100,000, hiring the lead lawyer and the technical witnesses.

Those who can contribute to the legal battle should open www.matc.org

To help the effort to provide broader buffers to the narrow AT corridor in Maine open: www.matlt.org

These are separate groups, though there is some overlapping membership. The land trust has already bought one critical mountain, Abraham. We are now trying to connect that preserve to the Bigelow Preserve by buying another 8,000 acres. Our eventual goal for this high peaks area around Saddleback is 90,000 acres

WE face the opportunity of a lifetime. Real protection for the Appalachian Trail in Maine is possible. Only the lack of dollars stands in our way. You are right the $50, $100, maybe a thousand or two that most of us can afford won't go very far towards such a massive project.

But these dollars are essential for keeping the organization alive, and, more importantly, for convincing those with a spare million or two that protecting the trail in Maine is something that hikers really think is important. The argument of the developers is simple. "The trail goes past towns, and housing developments, condos and shopping centers elsewhwere. Why should Maine be different?" What's the harm of 18 windmills across a narrow valley from Saddleback, or another few thousand condos?

What do you think?

Weary