Saturday, July 15, 2006

Climate change and “Restoration” of Magazine Beach

Kathy Podgers comments. Marilyn and Bob respond.

1. Kathy Podgers.

For the past 10 years, since the unusual weather we experienced in 1996, I have been following stories about the phenomenon of Climate Change. One fact is affirmed over and over again, that scientists (note I did not say environmentalists) around the world agree on the data.

Unfortunately, here in the USA, this alarming compilation of evidence has been turned into a political fodder, with the "test tube" environmentalists "blaming" the rebubs for "Global Warming" and the "Corporate Lobby" claiming that saving the planet will cause a loss of jobs.

Of course what is needed is a united front, based on the empirical evidence we all have access to, and which evidence itself is not in dispute.

While the sea levels have been steadily rising, and the temperature of rivers has been rising, causing the death, extermination, and disruption in the migratory patterns of wildlife, including land animals, airborne and sea animals, here in Cambridge some folks, suffering from compartmentalized thinking, cannot understand that the fish cannot swim upstream to spawn, that the geese cannot find habitat on the tundra due to the melting of the perma frost, and that wild life never seen in these northern parts settles in.

Unfortunately, even plant species never seen in these temperate climes have been appearing. And folks, who just do not understand the connection between the change in climate, and in the adaptation of both plant and wildlife to these severe changes, are attempting to "restore" our local environment to a time when the weather here was much different, much colder, and when the seasonal changes were significantly different.

I have recommended that folks go to see the film An Inconvenient Truth, so they can get a painless update on where we really stand today on this small boat, planet earth, that we all share. I wonder how many have seen it, or read the devastating data on this serious threat to our way of life? Perhaps the strategy of continuing to ignore this, and remaining ignorant of this Truth is convenient, so folks can continue to implement environmental strategies that are doomed to fail.

I never cease to marvel at the power of activily ignoring the approaching storm until the levee is breached.

Spending time on Lake Erie for the past 60 years has shown me the powerful force of Mother Nature. There is no man made devise, no technology, no business plan no smart bomb, that can return the environment of the Great Lakes to what it was in the 1950's. I have witnessed this environmental shock with my own eves, gradually, it changed, over 50 years.

However, the changes that are about to pull the blindfolds off those of us living here in Cambridge are approaching at break neck speed. Folks are rushing to Alaska, Greenland and Antarctica to watch the glaciers "calving." Soon they will be rushing to put flood insurance into place, but not realizing the ins co's are beating them to the punch by getting legislation passed that would allow them to deny flood ins even to folks who do not live on a flood

So, I wonder, why do folks believe that if we dam the Charles, it then is no longer an Estuary? Has anyone sent a telegram informing Mother Nature that the wetlands at "Magazine Beach" are no longer part of her "flood management plan" because the habitat has been destroyed? LOL

The Estuary that we refer to the Charles River is still an estuary. What will be the effect upon our local environment if the Sea leval on the other side of the dam rises 5' in 5 years? how about a 10' rise.

Gee, want to make fun of me, belittle me, how about read this message, but not respond to it, continue to ignore it, and wave more silly banners declaring how we are the beat and the brightest and Mother Nature has no dominion here!

Copied here please find the most recent article that provoked me to share my opinion on Climate change with you all. Perhaps we could dispatch our resident experts in "Non Native" or "Invasive Species" to Antarctica, to aid them in their "Restoration" efforts?" Please note I am not being sarcastic, I and drawing a picture.

Enjoy your evening, downpour and all, and get used to it; welcome to the realities of climate change.

ever your good neighbor,


Trees could grow in Antarctica within century: scientist
Wed Jul 12, 1:30 PM ET

Trees could be growing in the Antarctic within a century because of global warming, an international scientific conference heard.

With carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere set to double in the next 100 years, the icy continent could revert to how it looked about 40 million years ago, said Professor Robert Dunbar of Stanford University.

"It was warm and there were bushes and there were trees," he told some 850 delegates in the Tasmanian capital Hobart, the national AAP news agency reported.

The delegates are attending the combined meetings of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs.

Dunbar said climate experts were predicting a doubling of the levels of carbon dioxide by 2100, "but it actually looks like it's going to come sooner unfortunately."

Scientists blame greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, for causing rising temperatures worldwide.

2. Marilyn Wellons.

This is excellent.

For me, one of the exciting things about birds is that they're descended from the dinosaurs. Paleontologists are now pretty certain that's the case, that birds' ancestors survived catastrophic climate change after the asteroids (I think there were at least two different ones) hit the earth (Alvarez theory, as I remember).

I've wondered if migratory patterns began with the flying dinosaurs' search for habitat after the explosions. The patterns would co-evolve with the animals themselves, of course, over the course of millions of years.

So it makes perfect sense that birds' migratory patterns are changing with climate change.

And your point about plants' and other animals' movement is very well taken. See Stephen Jay Gould's article in Arnoldia (An Evolutionary Perspective on Strengths, Fallacies, and Confusions in the Concept of Native Plants, Arnoldia, Vol. 58, No 1 [1998], pp. 2-10) for a discussion of change in plant and animal populations.

A further point, of course, is that landscape design and our own government parks agencies are the last redoubt of nativist thinking in this country. See the article by two German professors, "The Native Plant Enthusiasm: Ecological Panacea or Xenophobia?" Arnoldia, Vol. 62, No. 4 [2004], pp. 20-28. Well, maybe not the very last redoubt, but certainly in there.


3. Bob La Trémouille

The extreme and belligerent hypocrisy of nine Cambridge City Councillors cannot and should not be ignored.

For these hypocrites to claim that all is well with them “saving the world” and destroying Cambridge makes exactly the opposite of what they tell their constituents: an excellent case study in destroying the world while spouting extreme hypocrisy.