Editor's note: The following op-ed piece by Ron Maxwell initially ran on The American Conservative website.
The American people did not vote for Donald Trump because they wanted their forests logged, bounties placed on wolf packs, national monuments reduced in size, and a resumption of the universally outlawed ivory trade.
These odious policies are the direct result of the appointment of a swamp creature positioned by the crony class to further its own narrow financial interests and agenda: Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. Thankfully the president reversed Zinke’s plans [1] for elephant trophies, calling them a “horror show,” which is what they are. But Trump recently traveled to Utah to announce the opening up of public lands [2] for commercial developers to pillage and plunder to their hearts content.
Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante were first on the chopping block but Mr. Zinke has more in mind. At least eight more of our treasured national monuments, set aside for their beauty and the public’s enjoyment and use, are targeted for reduction. The Antiquities Act of 1906 gives the president the authority to set aside public lands as national monuments, and also to do the reverse. After reviewing these sites, Zinke has recommended that Trump reclassify and reduce the size of these national treasures.
No president has ever shrunk the sizes of monuments, but the Department of the Interior is filled with swamp denizens like Zinke and his deputy David Bernhardt, a former lobbyist for the oil and gas industry and big agribusiness, those most interested in using public land for private gain.
This reclassification means the acreage of the national monuments will be reduced, and the lands—some of the most spectacular scenic areas in the country—can be used for commercial development.
Unlike national parks, national monuments allow local residents and tourists alike to participate in recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, cattle-grazing, and hiking. This is why local businesses, sportsmen, and community groups tend to support keeping the monuments intact, as they provide dependable incomes for local economies, including the additions of jobs.
There is also widespread and bipartisan public support for preserving our national monuments. A new McLaughlin & Associates poll of 1,000 likely voters found that 90 percent of Americans support the creation of more monuments or at least keeping the current ones protected. Maintaining these lands also has the backing of local Native American tribes and chambers of commerce.
Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks in New Mexico is a prime example of how local areas surrounding national monuments can benefit from tourist opportunities. In 2016, tourism hit an all-time high following the monument’s mention in Lonely Planet’s “Top 10 Places to Visit” travel guide, which resulted in a 50 percent increase in visitors over the past year. The monument features petroglyph-line canyons, with thousands of Native American archeological sites, and many historical landmarks and training sites.
If the personal income of those who live near the Organ Mountains can increase by 42 percent, community involvement in supporting national monuments can lead to economic prosperity throughout the country.
Nonetheless, Secretary Zinke has recommended reclassifying Organ Mountains Desert Peaks for oil drilling and mining.
Gold Butte National Monument features significant cultural, historical, and natural treasures: thousands of Native American artifacts, historic mining and pioneering artifacts, rare and threatened wildlife, and dramatic geologic features. Broad and deep local support is a principal reason for its designation, which, in turn, has benefitted the community greatly.
Gold Butte also encourages tourism and increases expenditures for local businesses. An economic study conducted by Applied Analysis found that if only 10 percent of new visitors decided to spend one night in Mesquite, Nevada, the total economic impact for the community would be $2.7 million per year. Think about what that could mean if visitors were to spend the week.
Nevertheless, Secretary Zinke proposes that Gold Butte National Monument should be opened to “traditional uses,” including mining and drilling.
Aside from their captivating scenery and cultural and historical sites, monuments already provide an economic boost for nearby communities without risking damage to their environments. Additionally, their archaeological sites are a link to our prehistoric past and a vital tether to Native American cultural history.
Secretary Zinke’s misguided policies are toxic for local communities and even worse for American economic prosperity. President Trump knows business, but he also understands the need to protect these lands and the local economies they serve. He is wise to question the plans of his swamp creature and should continue to do so.
Ron Maxwell is writer and director of the award-winning film Gettysburg.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
No president has ever shrunk the sizes of monuments...
Really? Can we get a fact check here? I've read of numerous instances where a monument has been reduced. Navaho NM, Bandelier NM, Craters of the Moon NM, Great Sand Dunes and others come to mind. I believe I've even seen an article right here on NPT saying it has happened in the past.
Not that I'm for shrinkage mind you. But misrepresentations bother me more.
Indeed, there have been major shrinkages in the past--the first by Woodrow Wilson in 1915, who, at the request of the U.S. Forest Service reduced the then Mount Olympus National Monument by HALF. In short, he reduced the monument by 300,000 acres--all of it rich in timber. The glaciated half he left untouched.
I love Mr. Maxwell's film, and have watched it dozens of times. But richp's warning here is fair. Just because Mr. Trump is doing something you don't like is no excuse to make up history. And Wilson, by the way, was a Democrat. Now what do you make of that? History makes of it that BOTH political parties are lax when it comes to parks. Were it not for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Mount Olympus (later Olympic National Park) would never have recovered from what was called the "rape of 1915."
When an author succumbs to name calling to try to make his point you know it is because he is coming up short on a substanative argument. And shrinkage is not his only factual shortfall. He cites "universally outlawed ivory trade", yet the ivory in question came from local government sanctioned hunts determined to be beneficial to the herd. I suppose next he will be decrying the "deforestation" of the Jackson magnolia in the fashion of CNN.
You are correct. There is seldom bipartisn support for fiscal responisibilty. Frequently this site has discussed the backlog of maintenance at the NPs as a result of the lack of funds. Yet you advocate maintaining more property than can be adequately managed. I have asked at this site before and I will ask again. Would you personally buy a beachfront cottage if your home has a roof you can't afford to repair? I hope not. You may think that the U.S. budget is a bottemless bucket, but it's not and that is why there isn't bipartisan support.
This is piece is a perfect example of why I can’t support NPT. I do enjoy some of your content, it’s this garbage and the climate scare crap that stops me.
Anon, this is garbage but not a reason to refuse support for NPT. We need all views in public display to be scrutinized.
And during a destructive administeration we need as much bright daylight shone on their activities as possible.
Remember, Anonymous. Journalism is an equal opportunity offender. Kurt has never rejected one of my articles because it happened to disagree with the "party line" on climate change--or anything else, for that matter. If I could support my views, he published it. And he was right to publish Mr. Maxwell's piece, because yes, we need strong opinions as the basis for thought and judgment. As for the facts, no one always gets them right. With all the falsehoods being published on the national monuments (and national parks) by the so-called mainstream press, we can forgive Mr. Maxwell for believing a few of those articles. Every writer has to start somewhere.
I would simply remind Mr. Maxwell why "Gettysburg" is one of the finest historical films ever made. He had a great book from which to work--KILLER ANGELS, by the late Michael Shaara. It won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1975. But it is not just fiction--it is superb history, reflecting years of mastering the battle and the Civil War. Every July 1, I reread the book and watch the movie as reminders of what the country sacrificed to end slavery and save the Union.
Unfortunately, Donald Trump added little to the national conversation by kowtowing to the state of Utah. But will it come back to haunt him? It didn't for Woodrow Wilson in 1915, or 1913, for that matter, when he signed the Raker Act awarding the Hetch Hetchy Valley to San Francisco. The best we can do is avoid any temptation to lash out rather than educate the American public. They'll get it right if first we get it right--and believe in getting it right.
Now, if you haven't seen Mr. Maxwell's movie--and it's wonderful sequel, "Gods and Generals," you're in for a treat. Go rent or buy them both. Just watch them in the proper sequence, starting with "Gods and Generals" first. That's move-making, folks, the good old-fashioned way. Again, there are no finer historical dramas around.
I'm late to this party, but while reading this editorial I immediately thought "BS" on the "no President has ever shrunk the size of monuments", and "national monuments allow local residents and tourists alike to participate in recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, cattle-grazing, and hiking." [The latter also evoked a "huh?". Fishing & hiking are allowed in every National Park I can think of, hunting is more about overlays of "National Preserve" on top of "National Park", and grazing is unit-specific: allowed in some parks & monuments but not in others.]
And while I'm agreeing with EC, the Jackson Magnolia has been on its last legs (limbs?) for decades, and the removal of (nearly) all of it needed to happen. NPS ("President's Park", not "The White House") has grown replacements from both seeds and cuttings. Yes, the President (delegated to Melania) had to give the final sign-off, but the entire initiatve & justification & recommendation came from the grounds staff, with expert consultation from the National Arboretum.
Facts matter. At least to me.
... and, speaking of facts, I see I was agreeing more with richp's first comment than with EC about the article. I suspect that most of us find the same problems with the article, but I'm guilty of not paying sufficient attention while posting (while writing a paper while on annual leave).
[I edited the above post to insert the missing "o", not to fix my mistake.]
Zike just did another number on us by re-interpreting the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, allowing incidental bird kills as long as it wasn't intentional. I'm guessing Alfred would not like this.
Alfred does NOT like it, anymore than he liked President Obama's insistence to make even intentional deaths perfectly legal. At least, President Trump admits that wind farms kill eagles.
https://apnews.com/b8dd6050c702467e8be4b1272a3adc87/final-wind-energy-ru...
Which is worse? The person who pretends to be a conservationist--and isn't--or the person who makes no bones about being a hypocrite? One of these days, we will stop defending hyprocrites if they happen to be a member of OUR political party. For me that day has long since arrived.
President Obama never said that wind farms do not kill eagles. Now they can kill with glee and not even try to stop the deaths
The Woodrow Wilson national monument changes are the exceptions that prove the rule that national monuments are not reduced. Wilson was out to undercut his enemy Theodore Roosevelt, and among other reckless things, he fired all Roosevelt's African Amerian hires and slashed national monuments. And yes, once in a while, largely for small administrative reasons, a few other Presidents made adjustments, but NOTHING like what the current President did for the pride of Senator Orrin Hatch at Bears Ears.
The reason changes in national monuments without Acts of Congress diminished is because President's around Franklin Roosevelt's time read the law and saw that fundamental changes in a national monument is both inconsistent with the law and fundamentally illogical. President's already had the authority to protect land temporarily as an executive authority of the President. The whole point of the Antiquities Act was the recognition that the integrity of some fragile resources require permanent protection. Wilson was so new to the Antiquities Act and so narrow minded and self-regarding a man that he often acted willfully, and with bias. As illustrated by his firing permanent employees of the Federal Government of achievement because they were Black.
I mean, for those who like to think, think about it. Why would the Congress pass a law to give temporary executive authority over the public lands, since the President already has temporary authority over the public lands? The Antiquities Act did something else. It made such executive presidential action permanent.
The point of the permanence required by law is so profound that when President Bill Clinton rushed to save a portion of the National Landmark District of Governors Island in New York Harbor as a national monument, from an unbelievably corrupt law that Newt Gingrich forced through Congress, that their was an uproar when bureaucrats from the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget formed a hit squad to destroy Governors Island the day after Clinton went out of office.
When the Office of Legislative Counsel in DOJ and the OMB issued in 2001 their claim that the Governors Island National Monument was temporary, there was an electric uproar because by that time it was well understood that the only way to make major National Monument changes of the Bears Ears sort is by going to Congress and passing a law.
Now the reason we have such trolls and others repeating talking points of attack as you read above, by proclaiming their great knowledge of history (without doubt recently acquired) is because a few of the right-wing hack law firms, backed if you can believe it as tax-deductible charities rather than the political instrumentalities they are, wrote up long, Through-The-Looking-Glass briefs to invent a legal framework to support the illegal action recommended by Zinke and willfully issued by Trump. Trump needed Hatch.
If you look at Zinke's paper recommending this action, you quickly see how empty of merit it is. He actually tells the President of the United States, who Zinke is responsible for serving, that the Antiquities Act explicitly "provides" for Presidents to modify monuments. If any of the deeply thoughtful historians here read the Antiquities Act i defy you to find one word that indictes, or that even implies, authority given by Congress to the President to modify National Monument Proclamations by previous Presidents. This authority is not there. You cannot find it. The Presidents who so acted broke the clear law.
Obscuring the facts is one "skill" they teach you in law school that becomes whole careers for unscrupulous lawyers. I remember in my second year of law school, in my class on "Wills," on the opening day the professor says: "There is only one rule you need to know in decedents estates, or wills. It is this: 'A man's will is law!' Now we are going to spend the rest of the year finding the exceptions." (direct, word-for-word unforgettable quote) This is the kind of lawyer who digs up irrelevant exceptions to expand Presidental powers beyond those clearly provided by Congress.
No one in their right mind would cite the Wilson exceptions as evidence that national monuments can be changed willfully by subsequent Presidents. It is like saying that the law allows you to shoot a law enforcement officer acting to arrest you, even though once in a blue moon a jury will let such a person off. It is the rarest exception that proves the rule that you cannot shoot law enforcement officers.
Okay, guys, now that you've been loaded for bear with the talking points written by the kind of lawyers who wrote up the legal briefs for President Bush that gave him the courage to say that torture was not torture, you can focus on the trivial as Zinke and Trump did in order to rationalize the illegal policy. Well done! But the reality is that even if you can get away playing 'got'cha' to a fundamentally accurate analysis of the issues at stake, wow are you missing the point. If you are more than a troll.
By the way, what happened on Governors Island, and the effort by exactly the kind of lawyers at OLC who write torture exonerations is this: even though President George Bush II campaigned (as Trump did) objecting to the way his predecessor used the Antiquities Act, when it became clear to Bush and Cheney how disturbed people were that the principle of the Rule Of Law was being violated and threatening Clinton's Governors Island National Monument, that Cheney set up a public review process to verify that the public overwhelmingly approved of this and other Clinton National Monuments, and President Bush then allowed the Republican Governor to fly him around Governors Island, and then tell Bush what it meant when we play games with the law for ideological purposes. He told Bush his Secretary of the Interior, who came from one of those politicized right-wing 'charities,' was about the dumbest person he had ever talked to. Bush realized that the easiest way to undo all the damage would be to hire a lawyer from outside who had no biases at work, and that guy devised a way to outsmart OLC and OMB and save Governors Island from disappearing without Act of Congress. In fact Bush even added a little bit of land and a dock, so the NPS could do a better job managing this partnership park, and set up a system to work with the City and the State for the rest of the Island. So much for Newt's incredibly corrupt law. Of course as we know, Newt was a big supporter of Trump.
Ok so Maxwell, not a historian, made a trivial mistake. One that does not diminish his point as much as it diminishes his critics. But the fundamental truth remains that for our entire lifetimes it has been profoundly understood that the only way to lawfully cut out a National Monument's core resource is by Act of Congress.
Thank you d-2.
Okay, D-2. We all stand corrected. I am just a bit suspicious that you give no citations, other than to accuse those with other interpretations for being trolls.
"Obscuring the facts is one "skill" they teach you in law school that becomes whole careers for unscrupulous lawyers." Well, they now teach that in History departments, too. Inconvenient? Just leave it out. The inconvenience you fail to address is the whole matter of legal precedent. If I do something--and it goes unchallenged--it may indeed come to be interpreted as precedent, in fact entitled to the rule of law.
Wilson's reduction of Mount Olympus was hardly minor in that respect. You can say all you want what the Antiquities Act allows and doesn't allow, but now, I should think, it will be up to the Supreme Court. In a democracy, a century is no minor amount of time. Explicit actions, as much as explicit words, do make for legal precedent. As a historian, I've said all along that the Antiquities Act will one day wind up in the Supreme Court. And if you think the Supreme Court is itself not governed by the culture in which it convenes, you should have paid more attention in law school. In the end, law is all about the culture--and changing times. We can only hope the Court agrees with our interpretation that national monuments should be inviolate.
"President Obama never said that wind farms do not kill eagles. Now they can kill with glee and not even try to stop the deaths."
No, all that President Obama did was sidestep Congress--resorting to the Federal Register to establish a "legal" take. As I say to D-2 above, if no one opposes the subterfuge it takes on the quality of precedent, in which case precedent can become the law.
If anyone killed "wtih glee," it was the owners of the wind farms, who pulled a fast one on both the president and the American public. But at least the president should have known better.
Which remains the issue, does it not? You use the royal "they," meaning strictly the "other side." When we do it, it's okay. When they do it, it's a crime. The crime, Argalite, is your indifference to anything suggestive of a moral compass. If you have one, please tell me what it is. Tell me where and when your outrage is simply outrage, rather than political showboating veiled as outrage.
I normally would not bring religion into it, but we sure could use a dose of the Old Time Religion. The Founding Fathers were willing to admit that. For them, "In God We Trust" was more than a cliche. Now, which of your beliefs are more than a cliche? You want to "stop the deaths?" No, you don't, if they were ordained by Democrats, which is to explain why you resort to the royal "they. " You need "they" when you lack the courage to name the players honestly, in this case everyone in government who values power over morality, and that goes for your "side," too.
Orrin Hatch just announced that he will not run again for his Senate seat.
Speculation is high that this will lead to the re-entry of Mitt.
Alfred, I fear that climate change is the thing that will kill this planet for us and most other higher life forms. Anything to keep those temperatures down, and I don't care if it kills individuals at all. My moral compass is against climate change and you seem to be clueless as to the ramifications. What is real strange is that no one on this continent seems to be upset about the amount of plastic everywhere. It's in our fish already
Argalite, there are many things on this Earth that can kill you--and rising temperatures are the least of them. There again, adjustments will be made--just as they were made when Americans invented air conditioning. and turned virtually uninhabitable parts of the country into boom towns. To be sure, where would the country be without air conditioning? For one thing, there would be no Donald Trump. He won most solidly where Americans changed the environment the most (TVA, for example). Or is the only course in environmental history you ever took Hand-Wringing 101?
Clueless? No, educated. And today that difference is extreme. The cabal of alarmists running America's universities today (and media) have no clue what to be educated means. This much they do know. If you question them, you might learn to question everything. And that they cannot allow. So they invent courses in hand-wringing--rather than thought--and push you out the door.
Ramifications? There have always been ramifications, of which the biggest is still mortality. When you are born, you are going to die. Try hand-wringing yourself past that.
In 1947, when I was born, whole parts of this country were still virtually unsettled. What settled them? Human ingenuity, starting with all of FDR's programs during the New Deal. Today, there is not a free-flowing river in the greater Tennessee Valley--or most of the American West, for that matter. You want to talk about climate change? It is still barely a ripple of reality against changes as big as that.
To keep you paying the subsidies, you need to be kept afraid. First the cabal took away all your free-flowing rivers and streams. Now they want to take away your deserts and eagles, too. It's not President Trump you should be afraid of. It's the people who still believe in growth--and will do anything to keep the country growing, now to scream climate change if you don't believe in their "solutions," e.g., renewable energy and driverless cars.
Funny, isn't it, how we seem to need all of these things to support the growth of air conditioning. Hmmm. But I thought environmentalism was learning to do without, But there you have it--why "nature" again needs to go.
Plastic everywhere? You're right, but there are other villains, too, among them concrete and asphalt, still needed to support "driverless" cars.
You want out? The world will one day let you out. Me? I intend to be cremated. Then I'll have my family take my ashes to the Tetons, and no, I won't ask the Park Service for a permit. They would probably deny my ashes as an "intrusion" on the environment, while allowing more widening and straighening of every road.
Me worry about the future? Why? The future will take care of itself. It will either turn out well or badly, but no, I don't expect to drown in rising seas. You worry about that if you want to. I've worried enough in 70 years about things that never happened, only to regret not worrying more about what actually did.
Alfred you have a point, I agree that population growth and all it entails is the root cause of the problem. However I do think your point about trying not to make a difference based on the best science available, is a cop out. To support the positions of the current administration is not helping. To compare it to the previous 8 years and the people appointed to head our government agencies by President Obama is wrong in my view. I think it is important to try, be it in our personal lives, or in our support of good policy making, to make the effort to do better, the alternative only makes things worse. I find that in my own 78 years now, much good has happened, but the demagogery of our current President and some members of Congress is, in my opinion, extremely destructive.
Alfred,
I do not worry about the future, because worrying does nothing. When people plan for things, often they are more prepared. Please do not attack my education, as I can see when man puts so much carbon into the air, something is going to happen. You don't seem to understand that. You sure write allot about nothing. Have a problem?
And I'm certain that all those climate scientists with their highfalootin' education are less understanding of what's happening than Trump, who apparently does not read. Don't worry about Al - he still reads, but I'm uncertain when he last studied, taught, or published. He did a fine book once.
Problem is, you don't have a clue what. The alarmists have made dozen of claims (predictions) based on AGW theory but for the most part they have proven wrong. Will it be bad? Will it be good? Will it not make a bit of difference? None of us know for sure, but I am confident that I, my children, my grandchildren and many generations beyond will die of something other than carbon enduced dangers. In fact, I am more fearful of the AGW alarmists for the wellfare of my decendents than I am of GW, no matter what the cause.
Thanks for some words of wisdom, Ron.
I don't know what you are reading Alfred, because climate change predictions seem be going as predicted, in the general sense that each year is gettin warmer. More fires, more droughts, yes, predicted and happening. Predictions in changes of phenology is evident as well, and many more things too lenghty to put here.
"Don't worry about Al - he still reads, but I'm uncertain when he last studied, taught, or published. He did a fine book once."
Ditto, Rick, for all of you people who continue to believe in the Party Line. A prediction? I can make lots of predictions. That doesn't mean any will be coming true. It's hardly Rocket Science to say that the Earth is warming. It's been going on for 15,000 years. Live near the Finger Lakes? The Great Lakes? The Columbia River? All were formed by melting ice.
You want to stop the melting? How? You're not God. You're not even in the league of saints. Scientists now, is it? But who are scientists? As many get it wrong as get it right. CO2 is up--and I will grant it is way up. The point is: In the past, living plants and the oceans absorbed the excess. If we just "reduce" CO2, how do we reduce the problem of disappearing forests and polluted oceans?
Failing in that, the Powers That Be invented a totally insoluable problem--climate change. And you know what? They're getting rich. I am sure Al Gore truly agonzies over the problem when flying his private jet and making "predictions" now that he is a billionaire.
Fine, but keep your high-flying, prediction-a minute hands OFF my public lands. Put your windmills where you can see them--not just where the public is forced to bear all of the costs, from a lost biology to a constant flood of subsidies that merely continue draining the middle class. Prediction: When the middle class finally comes to realize how much they have "lost" to all of the guaranteed loans and kickbacks--even while paying higher and higher rates for electricity--there will be no Republican or Democratic Congress. The whole bunch will be thrown out of office.
Not, right? It's never going to happen that way. The wonderful thing about holding power is that you get to make the rules. And you get to make things up. "97 percent of scientists agree with me on climate change!" Well, they would have to, would they not? It's been going on for 15,000 years. The question should rather be asked this way. Mr. Gore, other than by destroying my public lands, what do you intend to do about it? Reduce population? Save the Amazon rainforest? Tell God he screwed up in making so many deserts in the first place? (Or should I be saying she screwed up?) Whoever screwed up, there's nothing you can do about it. And that goes for Big Al, too.
Things are going as predicted? You aren't paying very close attention Argalite. Is the polar ice cap gone? Are the polar bears gone? Has the rise in temperatures been anywhere near the predictions? Has there been an end to snow? And no there hasn't been more drought, more and more severe hurricanes.
Yes, not the fine predictions, but the loose ones like more drought (California?) more fires (California?) phenological changes. No one has predicted the polar ice caps or polar bears to be gone at this time, nor does anyone predict the end of snow. Where do you get this stuff? Certainly not on any UN climate science pages.
Hey Al, take a pill
Argalite:
Your nay-sayers are counting on you not looking around. I lived in Alaska for five years and never had a doubt that climate was changing in a rapid and negative manner.
Examples: https://www.fastcompany.com/40402835/before-and-after-photos-show-how-ho...
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/retreat-glaciers-glacier-nat...
https://www.sciencealert.com/climate-scientists-release-unretouched-phot...
But Rick. Had you lived in Alaska at any time in the past 15,000 years, you could have said the same thing. Oh, my God! There goes the Bering Land Bridge!
A planet 4.5 billion years old is never going to listen to us. The California drought? I lived through a bad one between 1976 and 1978. Even in good years, southern California averages just 17 inches of precipitation. Without water from northern California and the Colorado River, there would be no California. Read CADILLAC DESERT, by the late Marc Reisner. Even in 1971, I was teaching the absurdity of California to my students at UC Santa Barbara. Then the plan was to "import" water from Alaska, using Canada's Rocky Mountain Trench as the major distribution point. NAWAPA it was called (North American Water & Power Alliance). The prediction? California would run out of water without it. True enough, but who had the trillion dollars to build it? And those dollars were being calculated in 1971.
We will never run out of predictions, but we have certainly run out of common sense. There is nothing anyone can do about it. Human beings are NOT in control.
What is? The laws of physics and diminishing returns. There is no free lunch. You never get something for nothing. Everything you do has a consequence. You can't just erase CO2 with another technological fix. The fix a century ago was dams and hydroelectric power, until finally, hoping to make uninhabitable states "habitable," engineers asked us to believe that "water flows uphill toward money." If we spent enough, we could do anything we wanted. God was not in control.
With that, we took out practically every free-flowing river in the nation, and now the dam builders have nothing to do. However, they can always pour concrete for wind farms (each turbine needs a base as big as a house). So yes, there's lots of opportunity left for ripping off the taxpayers. We just have to find the right cliche.
Only Mr. Trump won't allow us to use it. He dares call climate change a hoax. No, it's not a hoax, but it sure is something that's been totally abused, as was NAWAPA in the 1970s.
Rick asks what I've been reading, teaching, and writing. Well, here it comes again. Do read 25 MYTHS THAT ARE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT, by my dear friend, the scientist, Daniel Botkin. I wrote the introduction and helped Dr. Botkin find a credible publisher--mine, Rowman & Littlefield. Dan's latest invitation to speak, based on his book, will be to the Idaho Foresters Forum. They write: "Daniel, Thursday, February 8 is our big attendance day with over 200 resource professionals primarily Forester's for state, industry and tribal organizations. We have four concurrent sessions running three times during that day with a keynote in the morning and a closing speaker in the afternoon.
I have personally read your book the 25 Myths and have shared it with many of my staff, clients and resource professionals as we feel it is very appropriate and needed at this time in our efforts to do effective resource management."
Hmmm. They sound like "real" scientists to me. Congratulations, Dan, and by the way: His son Jonathan works in the field of renewable energy, having earned degrees in mechanical engineering.
These are the serious people--the serious thinkers. It's not about predictions announced on CNN. Dan admits he might be wrong. Any good scholar has that humility. But there it is--a book all of you might read that goes deep into the problem without insulting the reader who happens to disagree.
Argalite, did not Al Gore predict the artic ice cap would be gone by 2013? Didn't his film dramatically feature a polar bear on an ice floe indicating melting ice caps were a threat to their existance (there are more today than at that time. As to California droughts and fires. Has happened many times in the past. There is no evidence that California, much less the US or world is experiencing any droughts and fires outside the usual cycle. The only real difference in the fires is that more assets are at risk and the fires may be more intense because of prior fire suppression efforts. After all the at is what the science said - "don't let the fires burn".
I don't know what Al Gore did or didn't do. I read science publications. No one suggests ice caps gone this soon from the UN sciencce pages. Longest fire season since keeping records in CA. Usual cycle? Tell me about that
Oh so Al (the face of the AGW hoax) didn't base his predictions on "science"? Good to know that you are admitting that. So tell me, what "science publications" did you read 10 years ago and what were their predictions? Longest season "since keeping records"? How long have they been keeping records? Oh, and by the way, this years fires have been attributed to the excessive moisture (not drought) last winter that lead to much greater vegetation.
Gone no, but they did predict they were at risk, would be diminishing and could be gone by 2040. Like most AGW predictions, they were wrong. The polar bears are doing just fine.
https://polarbearscience.com/2016/09/13/recent-studies-show-sept-ice-of-...
"Oh, and by the way, this years fires have been attributed to the excessive moisture (not drought) last winter that lead to much greater vegetation. "
Very obvious from that comment that someone out there has absolutely NO understanding or knowledge of wildland fire and lands management.
Lee how wrong you are. I am actively involved in fire mitigation efforts here in Summit County, have represented the Town of Breckenridge in formulating Firewise regulations and have consulted with the chief fire scientist for the National Forest Service (Jack Cohen) and meet and speak on a regular basis with representative of the local fire department and state fire officials regarding WUI issues. They get most concerned after a very moist period. Grasses and shrubs grow dense in such an environment and then create a larger fire hazard when the normal dry periods occur.
Lots of rain last winter = more wildfire fuel
This seems counterintuitive, since rain should suppress wildfires. But from October 2016 to May 2017, record amounts of rain fell in the northern Sierra Mountain region, prompting grass, brush and trees to grow like they haven’t been able to in decades.
The new growth is now serving as fuel for this fire season, made worse by five months in a row of extremely dry weather.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/10/10/t...
But using the term "excessive moisture" shot the whole comment down. Now that drought has apprently returned, the fine fuels that resulted from a short and temporary spell of wet weather are again tinder dry. Fire managers understand and try to deal properly with those kinds of things. A short burst of dampness does not cancel the effects of Global Warming.
I never made a connection between "a short burst of dampness" and Global Warming. I made the accurate observation that the severity of the fires wasn't related to the "drought" (it is always dry in the summer months - see chart). The severity was due to the excess moisture during the rest of the year which led to thicker ground level vegetation.
Note, what you call a "drought" is actually the typical levels of rainfall experienced at that time of year:
https://cdec.water.ca.gov/images/WYPrecip/BAR_FSI_2017.PNG