Posted on

Please sign the petition to implement the adopted Ridgewood Schedler Park plan

333430219 593616728970822 2939465005132766152 n

To Our Community:

Please sign the petition to implement the adopted Schedler Park plan.

At a recent meeting, the new Village Council moved to replace the Schedler Park plan (approved

by Resolution 18-236), adding a full-sized regulation turf field. The approved plan, now in jeopardy, balanced the needs of the impacted neighborhood, sports groups, conservationists, historians, and taxpayers and included a 75×50 multi-use field. With required oversight from the State of NJ Historic Preservation, the plan was moving forward with expected completion by late spring 2023.

Continue reading Please sign the petition to implement the adopted Ridgewood Schedler Park plan

Posted on

What the Press Still Doesn’t Get About Trump

Trump

He’s not unprecedented. He’s not going to change. And 11 other lessons the media still haven’t learned about the president.

By POLITICO MAGAZINE

May/June 2017

There was lots of hand-wringing after the election about how the media had messed up. Were we too quick to believe the polls? Did we have any idea what real Americans actually thought? Did we give Donald Trump too much attention—or not enough? Now that journalists have spent a few months covering President Trump, we asked a range of media critics, political operatives, historians and more: What does the press still get wrong about Trump, and what do we just not get at all?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/28/what-the-press-still-doesnt-get-about-trump-215049

Posted on

Historians and archaeologists are very well used to quite dramatic climate changes through history

1280px Battle of Trenton by Charles McBarron

The One Thing about ‘Climate Change’ That’s Always Bothered Me…

Daniel Lattier | January 21, 2016

On the issue of climate change, there’s one particular claim of its apologists that has always bothered me. And I don’t think I’m alone.

It’s not the idea that we should take better care of the earth—I’m all for adopting a less utilitarian view toward it. It’s not the idea that taking better care of the earth may involve some major sacrifices and life changes—though I’d likely have issues with a national or global mandate. And it’s not the idea that the earth’s temperature may be warming, or cooling, or just “changing” (I can’t keep track of what’s currently considered orthodox).

It’s the claim that recent changes in the earth’s climate have been primarily caused by man, and that policy changes can reverse these changes. To me, it seems problematic to conclude this without defining a benchmark and without adequately taking into account dramatic climate change in past centuries.

Apparently Philip Jenkins, professor of history at Baylor University, agrees with me.

In a thoughtful piece for The American Conservative today, he explains that he doesn’t take issue with the scientific consensus “that the world’s temperature is in a serious upward trend,” and that it could have significant consequences for life on earth. And he’s in favor of developing new technology that depends more on renewable energy resources.

As a historian, however, he has a few issues “with defining the limits of our climate consensus, and how these issues are reported in popular media and political debate.”

For one, writes Jenkins, “[T]he correlation between emissions and temperatures is none too close. Rising temperatures do not correlate with any degree of neatness to overall levels of emissions.”

Also, Jenkins notes that assertions that modern climate change is “catastrophic and unprecedented” are amusing to historians:

“[Historians and archaeologists] are very well used to quite dramatic climate changes through history, notably theMedieval Warm Period and the succeeding Little Ice Age. That latter era, which prevailed from the 14th century through the 19th, is a well-studied and universally acknowledged fact, and its traumatic effects are often cited.”

And there seems to be a lack of precision when it comes to defining what constitutes a “normal” temperature for the earth. The 2015 Paris Conference said it hoped to restrict “the increase in global temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to… limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”—and did not provide further clarification. But as Jenkins asks,

“[W]hat on earth is intended here? Which pre-industrial levels are we talking about? The levels of AD 900, of 1150, of 1350, of 1680, of 1740? All those eras were assuredly pre-industrial, but the levels were significantly different in each of those years.”

These all seem like reasonable points to raise, though it’s difficult to do so in today’s political “climate” without being immediately shouted down.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/one-thing-about-%E2%80%98climate-change%E2%80%99-%E2%80%99s-always-bothered-me