turtlehurricane Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Would you elaborate? You've seen the temperature data and stories I'm sure based on your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Which one of the Heartland funded sites originated the story that the MWP was warmer than today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The Medieval warm period is very real... The myth of a MWP that was global in nature and warmer than today's temperatures is just that - a myth. Europe, like most regions, has had warm spells, sometimes of prolonged duration, at various periods in the past but that is a far cry from the entire Earth warming - and warming more than we have recorded over the past century. Since you clearly reject the data and paleoclimate reconstructions that others have posted how about sharing your wisdom and giving us the starting date, ending date, and maximum temperature for the MWP? With links, of course, to the supporting research. Enlighten us poor deluded alarmists since you know the science so much better. If you are right and the MWP was 'very real' that shouldn't be tough to do. Hopefully you'll do better than Cheetah did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The Medieval warm period is very real... The danger in this culture of skepticism is that it will become a “culture of ignorance,” as author Isaac Asimov described it: a “thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’ ” http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/02/heartland_institute_leak_shows.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The myth of a MWP that was global in nature and warmer than today's temperatures is just that - a myth. Europe, like most regions, has had warm spells, sometimes of prolonged duration, at various periods in the past but that is a far cry from the entire Earth warming - and warming more than we have recorded over the past century. Since you clearly reject the data and paleoclimate reconstructions that others have posted how about sharing your wisdom and giving us the starting date, ending date, and maximum temperature for the MWP? With links, of course, to the supporting research. Enlighten us poor deluded alarmists since you know the science so much better. If you are right and the MWP was 'very real' that shouldn't be tough to do. Hopefully you'll do better than Cheetah did. Thanks for insulting me since you disagree with me, again! Here you go, not sure why I'm insane for saying the Medieval Warm Period is real. The only people on Earth that I have ever heard say it's a myth are in this thread. http://en.wikipedia....val_Warm_Period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Thanks for insulting me since you disagree with me, again! Here you go, not sure why I'm insane for saying the Medieval Warm Period is real. The only people on Earth that I have ever heard say it's a myth are in this thread. http://en.wikipedia....val_Warm_Period You don't even have to read the article you linked to - just look at the pictures - I assume you are capable of that. Your own link proves you wrong! The MWP Myth was perpetrated by two Canadian's with no education in anything remotely related to climate - or history. The Franklin Institute - a Canadian version of the Heartland Institute - was there primary benefactor. Funny how they all link back to institutes of propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 You don't even have to read the article you linked to - just look at the pictures - I assume you are capable of that. Your own link proves you wrong! The MWP Myth was perpetrated by two Canadian's with no education in anything remotely related to climate - or history. The Franklin Institute - a Canadian version of the Heartland Institute - was there primary benefactor. Funny how they all link back to institutes of propaganda. Is there or is there not a Medieval warm period on the graph?! It's friggin labeled. And then tons of supporting details in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm leaving this sub-forum for good, y'all are too psychotic. Saying the Medieval warm period is a myth in a thread about how anti-AGW people on this board work for big business. C'mon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I am saddened to see that this is being used as evidence by a side who claims that they go "by the science." It's just like ClimateGate except the Pro AGW version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Thanks for insulting me since you disagree with me, again! Here you go, not sure why I'm insane for saying the Medieval Warm Period is real. The only people on Earth that I have ever heard say it's a myth are in this thread. http://en.wikipedia....val_Warm_Period I'll ask you the same question I asked Cheetah - did you actually read the article you linked to? Here are the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia article (emphasis mine): The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China,[1] New Zealand,[2] and other countries[3][4][4][5][6][7][8] lasting from about AD 950 to 1250.[9] It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.[10][11] Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. The heterogeneous nature of climate during the Medieval Warm Period is illustrated by the wide spread of values exhibited by the individual records.[12] Warmth in some regions appears to have matched or exceeded recent levels of warmth in these regions, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.[13] As your own reference states, there is little solid evidence that the MWP was global. There have been attempts to match up warm spells in different regions of the globe in order to show a global MWP, but nothing conclusive has been published. When you expand the definition of the time period involved to 500 years (10th through 14th centuries) you can fit a lot of regional warm spells into that envelope. Contrast that to today's warming during which greater warming has occurred in a matter of decades. So thank you for showing that my assertion was correct - the myth of a global MWP with temperatures higher than today is just that - a myth. Regional does not equal global, and cooler does not equal warmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I am saddened to see that this is being used as evidence by a side who claims that they go "by the science." It's just like ClimateGate except the Pro AGW version. Dry those tears, Snowlover, everybody is welcome to post here. All that's asked is for skeptics to support their positions with actual science and not just opinion. Is that so unfair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 You don't even have to read the article you linked to - just look at the pictures - I assume you are capable of that. Your own link proves you wrong! The MWP Myth was perpetrated by two Canadian's with no education in anything remotely related to climate - or history. The Franklin Institute - a Canadian version of the Heartland Institute - was there primary benefactor. Good grief, are you really arguing that there was no MWP? Many historical documents all throughout the world confirm that there was a time in climate history that was similar if not warmer than the current modern warm period. The MWP is a scientific fact based on thousands of proxies across the globe. What is interesting to note is that the proxies deviate in other spikes/dips in the temperature anomalies throughout the years, but they are all consistent with some sort of spike occuring near 1000, which is the MWP. Holmgren et. al 2001 for South Africa: A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa | Mendeley Oritz et. al 2000 for the African SSTs: Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period Yoon et. al 2002 for Antarctica: Bertler et. al 2011 for the Ross Sea: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X11002925 Noon et. al 2003 for Antarctica: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/13/2/251.short Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Dry those tears, Snowlover, everybody is welcome to post here. All that's asked is for skeptics to support their positions with actual science and not just opinion. Is that so unfair? What does a Heartland Institute leaking of documents that may very well be fake have anything to do with science and posting here or not? It is extremely pathetic to see this being used as evidence by a side who claims their opinions on the climate debate are influenced by "the science." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm leaving this sub-forum for good, y'all are too psychotic. Saying the Medieval warm period is a myth in a thread about how anti-AGW people on this board work for big business. C'mon. For the record, the MWP was brought up by skeptical Cheetah in post #64, but I apologize for participating in the digression of the MWP. It was not my intent to derail the discussion of the Heartland revelations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Good grief, are you really arguing that there was no MWP? Many historical documents all throughout the world confirm that there was a time in climate history that was similar if not warmer than the current modern warm period. The MWP is a scientific fact based on thousands of proxies across the globe. What is interesting to note is that the proxies deviate in other spikes/dips in the temperature anomalies throughout the years, but they are all consistent with some sort of spike occuring near 1000, which is the MWP. Holmgren et. al 2001 for South Africa: A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa | Mendeley Oritz et. al 2000 for the African SSTs: Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period Yoon et. al 2002 for Antarctica: Bertler et. al 2011 for the Ross Sea: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X11002925 Noon et. al 2003 for Antarctica: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/13/2/251.short I think I see your confusion - I'm asserting that the MWP was not warmer than today, and probably was not global in nature. I believe Terry's position is the same and I hope he'll correct me if I'm mistaken. Those were some interesting charts and papers you linked to. Thank you for that info. But, once again, I have to ask a skeptic - did you actually read what you linked to? Here is the list of MWP dates on the graphics you posted: 800 - 950 AD (1050 - 1200 yrs BP) Holmgren 2001 950 AD (1050 yrs BP) Oritz et al 2000 (the chart is vague so they may have meant a longer period centered around 950 AD) 1200 - 1400 AD (600 - 800 yrs BP) Yoon et al 2002 1125 - 1375 AD (625 - 775 yrs BP) Bertler et al 2011 1050 - 1350 AD (650 - 950 yrs BP) Noon et al 2003 Some of those periods don't even overlap. and that is a very long span of time (800 AD - 1400 AD) so that's really stretching the definition of the MWP - but, technically, it all fits within the Medieval period (5th to 15th centuries). Do I understand correctly that your position is that all of these warm spells were part of one unified global phenomenon and not separate regional heat waves? For comparison lets look at four more recent heat waves, France 2003, Australia 2009, Russia 2010, and Texas 2011 and ongoing. Four heat waves, four regions, within eight years. Do you feel that they are part of one global phenomenon, too? If not, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Thanks Phillips - Of course there were Medieval Warm Periods, there were also Medieval cool Periods, even a Little Ice Age that's credited with driving the Vikings from Greenland. None of these were periods of global warming or cooling in any way comparable to what we are now experiencing, and no one thought it was so until a Canadian prospector teamed up with an economist, got some funding (1k or so per presentation) from the Franklin Institute (a Canadian version of the Heartland Institute), that is funded by the Canadian Tar Sands oil industry. Can't imagine why they would want to muddy the water. To keep us on track the trolls that keep this myth in circulation were originally funded by Canadian Tar Sands money, now augmented by the Heartland Institutes paid propagandists. I'm amazed that people want to argue their BS myths on a thread about paid disinformation - is this some sort of tacit method of admitting that they know that these memes are propaganda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Heartland Institute faces fresh scrutiny over tax status http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/heartland-institute-fresh-scrutiny-tax?newsfeed=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm leaving this sub-forum for good, y'all are too psychotic. Saying the Medieval warm period is a myth in a thread about how anti-AGW people on this board work for big business. C'mon. You cry that people insult you. you are asked to back your claims, you don't. you make other posts about this forums alarmist posters in other parts of this board. you again are asked to back your claims, you don't. then you attack people more. hopefully when you come back, you choose to participate in a scientific discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Thanks Phillips - Of course there were Medieval Warm Periods, there were also Medieval cool Periods, even a Little Ice Age that's credited with driving the Vikings from Greenland. None of these were periods of global warming or cooling in any way comparable to what we are now experiencing, and no one thought it was so until a Canadian prospector teamed up with an economist, got some funding (1k or so per presentation) from the Franklin Institute (a Canadian version of the Heartland Institute), that is funded by the Canadian Tar Sands oil industry. Can't imagine why they would want to muddy the water. To keep us on track the trolls that keep this myth in circulation were originally funded by Canadian Tar Sands money, now augmented by the Heartland Institutes paid propagandists. I'm amazed that people want to argue their BS myths on a thread about paid disinformation - is this some sort of tacit method of admitting that they know that these memes are propaganda? Terry - thank you for the info on the Franklin Institute, and for bring the discussion back on topic. My opinion is that the pseudo-skeptic camp is pushing the MWP myth because they have very little else to use. For years they've said that global warming either wasn't happening, or was exaggerated - but with the reports of the BEST project validating the long-term temperature records and trends that zombie argument is (hopefully) finally dead forever. Since they can't say global warming is not happening, they have to say it's not serious because it's not unprecedented - just look at the MWP. The whole Earth was hotter back then, right? I expect that anything that relegates the MWP to being a cooler and/or regional warm spell will be attacked passionately by both the paid and volunteer denialists. And I expect that the denialist crowd will also keep pushing the myth that global warming has paused or stopped altogether. Remember, they don't have to be right to win - they just have to create doubt and that's enough for the Heartland sponsors to keep raking in the profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Terry - thank you for the info on the Franklin Institute, and for bring the discussion back on topic. My opinion is that the pseudo-skeptic camp is pushing the MWP myth because they have very little else to use. For years they've said that global warming either wasn't happening, or was exaggerated - but with the reports of the BEST project validating the long-term temperature records and trends that zombie argument is (hopefully) finally dead forever. Since they can't say global warming is not happening, they have to say it's not serious because it's not unprecedented - just look at the MWP. The whole Earth was hotter back then, right? I expect that anything that relegates the MWP to being a cooler and/or regional warm spell will be attacked passionately by both the paid and volunteer denialists. And I expect that the denialist crowd will also keep pushing the myth that global warming has paused or stopped altogether. Remember, they don't have to be right to win - they just have to create doubt and that's enough for the Heartland sponsors to keep raking in the profits. If you feel strongly that we are headed towards disaster what steps are YOU willing to take right NOW? Are you writing your congressmen and other government officials about this? Posting on an obscure BB about the problem is not going to fix it, or hell even draw attention to it. On the internet you have about a 0% chance of swaying someones opinion. Just get out there and fight the good fight if you are that worried. Spending hours day here is getting NOTHING done and you aren't persuading a single person. Honestly what is the point of any of this back and forth froth? Some of you attach labels to people denier/skeptic/alarmist/moderate it doesn't matter one iota. If climate change means that much to you step away from the keyboard and start acting. "Be the change you want to see in the world." -Mahatma Gandhi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 If you feel strongly that we are headed towards disaster what steps are YOU willing to take right NOW? Are you writing your congressmen and other government officials about this? Posting on an obscure BB about the problem is not going to fix it, or hell even draw attention to it. On the internet you have about a 0% chance of swaying someones opinion. Just get out there and fight the good fight if you are that worried. Spending hours day here is getting NOTHING done and you aren't persuading a single person. Honestly what is the point of any of this back and forth froth? Some of you attach labels to people denier/skeptic/alarmist/moderate it doesn't matter one iota. If climate change means that much to you step away from the keyboard and start acting. "Be the change you want to see in the world." -Mahatma Gandhi Basically saying just go away and do something else 'cause this doesn't matter anyway, (of course that would leave them influencing anyone who did stumble onto the site). I don't know which propagandist started this meme, but it might be fun to try and track down. Any one have any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Basically saying just go away and do something else 'cause this doesn't matter anyway, (of course that would leave them influencing anyone who did stumble onto the site). I don't know which propagandist started this meme, but it might be fun to try and track down. Any one have any ideas? I have seen my arguments show up prominently in the comments at major blogs, like real climate. Same graphs, same reasoning. I have seen links to my topic "This is not good" numerous times, often high up in the first 10-20 comments. It is the third most viewed topic in this forum, in only two months. My goal here is to influence meteorologists who seem to be disproportional skeptical, and have the ear of the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 If you feel strongly that we are headed towards disaster what steps are YOU willing to take right NOW? Are you writing your congressmen and other government officials about this? Posting on an obscure BB about the problem is not going to fix it, or hell even draw attention to it. On the internet you have about a 0% chance of swaying someones opinion. Just get out there and fight the good fight if you are that worried. Spending hours day here is getting NOTHING done and you aren't persuading a single person. Honestly what is the point of any of this back and forth froth? Some of you attach labels to people denier/skeptic/alarmist/moderate it doesn't matter one iota. If climate change means that much to you step away from the keyboard and start acting. "Be the change you want to see in the world." -Mahatma Gandhi Those are pretty fair questions - as I interpret them you are asking me to establish my 'creds'. I'll happily oblige, but I'll be brief since I can't imagine anybody will be much interested. I'm a gray-haired engineer who a few years ago made a career switch from aerospace to renewable energy. My two cars are a hybrid and an all-electric pickup truck. My wife and I have made a number of renovations to reduce energy use and add rainwater harvesting. We have nine raised-bed gardens and grow a small, but tasty, portion of our produce. We'll add more as we learn what works and what doesn't in this region. We plan to add PV arrays as the budget allows. Yes, I email my congressman and senators. As an Independent voter I've given time and money to both Reps and Dems - I judge candidates on their merits. In 2005 we spent a 6-figure sum to purchase a tract of old-growth forest to preserve it from scheduled development, and we are talking to land trusts to ensure its preservation. Two cool things we've learned about the tract since we bought it - there is an Indian quarry site on a bluff where native americans quarried chert and made tools. We've found points and pre-forms lying on the surface. Second, a stream that runs through the tract is cutting through a deposit of ice-age fossils. I've found bones and teeth of llama, Scott's Horse, bison, Dire Wolf, raccoon and so forth in the streambed and banks. As I write this I have a bison femur on my desk which washed out of the bank a few weeks ago during a heavy rain (the femur, not the desk). I feel that I'm doing more than many to minimize my impact on this planet - but I know that there is more I can, and will, do. So now I ask you - as a fellow steward of this land, what are you doing to pass it on to the next generation in better shape than you recieved it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 Those are pretty fair questions - as I interpret them you are asking me to establish my 'creds'. I'll happily oblige, but I'll be brief since I can't imagine anybody will be much interested. I'm a gray-haired engineer who a few years ago made a career switch from aerospace to renewable energy. My two cars are a hybrid and an all-electric pickup truck. My wife and I have made a number of renovations to reduce energy use and add rainwater harvesting. We have nine raised-bed gardens and grow a small, but tasty, portion of our produce. We'll add more as we learn what works and what doesn't in this region. We plan to add PV arrays as the budget allows. Yes, I email my congressman and senators. As an Independent voter I've given time and money to both Reps and Dems - I judge candidates on their merits. In 2005 we spent a 6-figure sum to purchase a tract of old-growth forest to preserve it from scheduled development, and we are talking to land trusts to ensure its preservation. Two cool things we've learned about the tract since we bought it - there is an Indian quarry site on a bluff where native americans quarried chert and made tools. We've found points and pre-forms lying on the surface. Second, a stream that runs through the tract is cutting through a deposit of ice-age fossils. I've found bones and teeth of llama, Scott's Horse, bison, Dire Wolf, raccoon and so forth in the streambed and banks. As I write this I have a bison femur on my desk which washed out of the bank a few weeks ago during a heavy rain (the femur, not the desk). I feel that I'm doing more than many to minimize my impact on this planet - but I know that there is more I can, and will, do. So now I ask you - as a fellow steward of this land, what are you doing to pass it on to the next generation in better shape than you recieved it? Well I'm impressed, Philip. I'm just a garden variety Prius hypermiler. Wow. I'm here because I'm intrigued by the science and more than a little bit afraid for my kids. Also, I've seen the interface between science and personal weakness play out in my own field, and I find the subject interesting from personal as well as a neuroscientists' POV (although I admit that this is not my area of expertise in neuroscience). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 If you feel strongly that we are headed towards disaster what steps are YOU willing to take right NOW? Are you writing your congressmen and other government officials about this? Posting on an obscure BB about the problem is not going to fix it, or hell even draw attention to it. On the internet you have about a 0% chance of swaying someones opinion. Just get out there and fight the good fight if you are that worried. Spending hours day here is getting NOTHING done and you aren't persuading a single person. Honestly what is the point of any of this back and forth froth? Some of you attach labels to people denier/skeptic/alarmist/moderate it doesn't matter one iota. If climate change means that much to you step away from the keyboard and start acting. "Be the change you want to see in the world." -Mahatma Gandhi Another age old deceptive trick. I mean, it's so far beyond the rhealm of possibility that some of us actually love SCIENCE. And congegrate here to discuss it. The label attaching has to do with unresasonable disccusioners dismissing facts and overwhelming data and instead using whatever they choose to believe no matter the factual inaccuries of such beliefs. This is not a crime. Playing scientist for fun on the internet is just fine. Which is the intended purpose of this forum. To educate oneselfs playing scientists is perfectly fine. If the forum read "OMG, how do we stop AGW from destroying the Earth". Then this assertion would hold more water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Why do some oil companies pay millions for propaganda to confuse the climate change dialog, while others accept the AWG science and act on it; like chevron? At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment. Guided by our Seven Principles for Addressing Climate Change, Chevron is working internationally and at the U.S. federal and state levels to contribute to climate change policy discussions. Our stance reflects a balanced approach to addressing climate change through short- and long-term measures. As we work to reduce GHGs, our collective challenge is to create solutions that protect the environment without undermining the growth of the global economy. We believe that a successful climate policy will be one in which the reduction of GHGs is accomplished equitably by the top emitting countries of the world through long-term and coordinated national frameworks. http://www.chevron.c...CFSUbQgod_QOEPg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Why do some oil companies pay millions for propaganda to confuse the climate change dialog, while others accept the AWG science and act on it; like chevron? [/font][/color] http://www.chevron.c...CFSUbQgod_QOEPg[/size] Ideology and politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Those are pretty fair questions - as I interpret them you are asking me to establish my 'creds'. I'll happily oblige, but I'll be brief since I can't imagine anybody will be much interested. I'm a gray-haired engineer who a few years ago made a career switch from aerospace to renewable energy. My two cars are a hybrid and an all-electric pickup truck. My wife and I have made a number of renovations to reduce energy use and add rainwater harvesting. We have nine raised-bed gardens and grow a small, but tasty, portion of our produce. We'll add more as we learn what works and what doesn't in this region. We plan to add PV arrays as the budget allows. Yes, I email my congressman and senators. As an Independent voter I've given time and money to both Reps and Dems - I judge candidates on their merits. In 2005 we spent a 6-figure sum to purchase a tract of old-growth forest to preserve it from scheduled development, and we are talking to land trusts to ensure its preservation. Two cool things we've learned about the tract since we bought it - there is an Indian quarry site on a bluff where native americans quarried chert and made tools. We've found points and pre-forms lying on the surface. Second, a stream that runs through the tract is cutting through a deposit of ice-age fossils. I've found bones and teeth of llama, Scott's Horse, bison, Dire Wolf, raccoon and so forth in the streambed and banks. As I write this I have a bison femur on my desk which washed out of the bank a few weeks ago during a heavy rain (the femur, not the desk). I feel that I'm doing more than many to minimize my impact on this planet - but I know that there is more I can, and will, do. So now I ask you - as a fellow steward of this land, what are you doing to pass it on to the next generation in better shape than you recieved it? I recycle which ends up being about half of my total garbage. I didn't do it in the past but my fiance got me doing it and once I realized how easy it was I went along and now enjoy the idea that those items are not ending up in landfills. I keep my energy bills low by keeping lights turned off when not in use. I don't waste water, I only have the faucet on when using. When it comes to power and water I minimize as much as possible. I have a small garden that I get a modest amount of my vegetables from. I use eco-friendly bug killers and household cleaners. I looked into hybrid cars last summer when I was in the market but decided that the technology needs a bit of work to make it cost effective for my income. When they break they are still too expensive to repair when you are on a budget. But I did look into it and it was the first choice I had before the cost of the reality hit me. I'm also an independent voter and am not tied to one party or another. I believe the EPA is a good agency to have to keep chemicals out of the environment. Overall I'm not extreme in my ways about preserving the earth but I do make conscious efforts to do the small things. I try and minimize my carbon footprint as much as possible but there are certain things that you just can't avoid. More about me since some of you have the complete wrong idea about me. I really don't get it because if you actually look at my postings I'm very level-headed about climate change and the environment. I believe humans are pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and it is causing warming and some melting of the arctic and glaciers. How much of the total global temperature rise that is due to humans though I believe is not quantifiable when you factor in natural cycles. Mutli- decadeal cycles do exist and they do have an impact on global temps up and down. I believe that the arctic is melting away but I'm not convinced that the results of a compete melt-out will be catastrophic to the globe. I don't think we will see an ice free arctic in any of our lifetimes. Sure the impacts will not be good but I'm not on board with the biblical scale catastrophes that some claim. I think there is a chance that the arctic ice could recover some in the future even with the current rate of our impact on global temperatures but the trend is not good and if it doesn't start to stabilize then we are headed towards ice-free summers up there. As for my last post that got mocked by a few of you, all I can say is shame on you. It makes some of you appear like loons when you think everyone has an agenda or are getting paid to refute info on this site. The questions are legitimate and it is true if you want to make changes it starts with a single person. Sure some are here to discuss science but others are not, some are here to troll others to spout off about doomsday predictions and both are equally dumb as ****. It still doesn't change the fact that if some of you were truly serious about changing things you wouldn't spend thousands of hours on an obscure BB. There are more than enough scholarly articles to read if you really wanted to learn about the science of Climate change. There are not many on this forum who know enough to educate you properly. There are plenty of activist things you could be doing with you time other than sitting here. If you're so sure about the end result then go act on it, there is nothing more to discuss really. There is no agenda here on my end, I don't read What would watts do or whatever the **** it's called. I don't read any blogs about climate change. I'm a clean slate and I only accept information as fact after I've researched it myself thoroughly. If some of you continue to call people like me deniers and say I only get my info from propaganda sites you are going to lose the PR battle really quickly. I'm very even keeled about Climate Change and I think we still have tons to learn and I approach everything with caution and with the outlook that things could get very bad or perhaps not as bad as some think. That doesn't make me a denier it makes me skeptical of the doomsday predictions. I challenge any of you to find posts of mine when I openly deny climate change or that humans are causing warming. They don't exist and I have no idea why some of you paint me into that corner. I think some of it has to do with the extreme side of things some of you take. It's really like if you don't believe in the biblical scale cataclysms then you are a denier. There is a big gray area and there is plenty of room over here for anyone who wants to join us. It's not only black and white denier or alarmist there is a middle ground and some of you should look and see if you might enjoy it. I think that we need more posters like Skierinvermont, he is a very level headed guy and doesn't buy into the hype of a cataclysmic methane release and a few of the more extreme views presented here at times. But on the same hand he believes in AGW completely and to a pretty extreme end but I respect his opinion due to the non-alarmism approach he takes. I don't quite believe in the AGW theory to the extent he does but I do believe it exists but again I respect Skier because of the realistic approach he takes even though we don't agree all the time. (sorry for the lack of and terrible punctuation. It's late and it was a long post so please forgive me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I think that we need more posters like Skierinvermont, he is a very level headed guy and doesn't buy into the hype of a cataclysmic methane release Less than 2 weeks ago you admitted to not knowing much about the ESAS and not following methane much. 'The ESAS is frozen over at this point. I don't think methane could be escaping from underneath there at this point. I don't know much about that part of the arctic and I have not been following the methane very much so I could be wrong.' How did you come to the conclusion that it was just hype in such a short time? I've been keenly aware of the situation since last September and have read all I can find on the subject. I don't know yet whether S&S's fears are realistic or not - you are an amazingly quick study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Less than 2 weeks ago you admitted to not knowing much about the ESAS and not following methane much. 'The ESAS is frozen over at this point. I don't think methane could be escaping from underneath there at this point. I don't know much about that part of the arctic and I have not been following the methane very much so I could be wrong.' How did you come to the conclusion that it was just hype in such a short time? I've been keenly aware of the situation since last September and have read all I can find on the subject. I don't know yet whether S&S's fears are realistic or not - you are an amazingly quick study. Destruction of the world via methane is indeed hype, fortunately things are ok so far. Maybe not fortunate for those who want to see the world end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.