After buying the Farm, and being a city boy, I was in need of ideas and inspiration. I searched out blogs of other folks doing something like this to see what they were up to.
Most of those people have closed up shop and are no longer blogging. I suspect that they have found that the "back to the land"/"simple living" was not so simple. Mortgages, property taxes, car payments, health insurance... with the proceeds from a small family farm? NAFC.
Buying a farm is one thing. Stocking a farm is something else altogether. Fencing, tractors (or horse drawn equipment), and other equipment - like money - does not grow on trees. Most of the people I read about were disillusioned, middle class, college educated white kids ("DMCEWKs") with student debt and no grounding in reality. Starting a family farm with no firm commitment to "family", student debt, no social connections in the community, and a suburban childhood background is a recipe for a very short adventure in "simple living".
Here is a link to a fellow that seems more committed than most - and who, more importantly, has the right idea: NO OVERHEAD. While I have observed a near 100% failure rate with the DMCEWK's in their "simple living" quest, I have also observed a near 100% success rate in the Amish community near us (oh, they lose 15% to 20% of their young to the outside world, but those that stay seem to stick pretty well). I think this is do to the fact that the Amish people do not have insurance payments, car payments, a cable bill, an electric bill, a telephone bill, do not pay FICA taxes (the SCOTUS decided in their favor and they do not have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes and do not collect benefits and divorce is unheard of. Hmmm... no health insurance, no social safety net... how do their life expectancy/homelessness rates compare to other other truncates in the population? Spectacularly. Gee... I wonder what would happen if The People could opt out of these "programs"?)
Got that? The fellow at the "Living a Simple Life" link above is living in a cabin without electric or running water. He heats with a wood stove. Good for him. Now, his wife has left him, he sees his son every other weekend... it won't be long before he is back living in a garden apartment and working in a cubicle and commuting to work - that is, unless he is some kind of hero/mountain man/lunatic. I am rooting for one of the latter. Or not. Living alone in a cabin just does not strike me as all that appealing.
The DMCEWKs that fled the "simple life" with their tail between their legs were all enlightened save the planet/nuke the whales/pro-choice/Prius driving/ vegetarian Lefties (Come on, no self respecting/nose picking/gun toting/meat eating/bible thumping Rightie would be caught dead in the "simple life"). People whose entire life is one big "Cause". So what happened? Simple economics happened. Sexual selection happened (well, personal economic and sexual selection are pretty much 2 sides of the same coin). How does the Left propose to order community given their success in devaluing the family unit?
I wonder how much attention the Left has given to the impacts of Sexual Selection on Carbon emissions. Other than me, the only person that ever brought this up anywhere that I am aware of was Nate Hagens in an excellent lecture he gave that can easily be found on the web. I was thrilled to hear that I was not the only lunatic to make this association.
So let me make another politically incorrect observation: I assert that Consumerism is driven by sexual selection, and; Consumerism is what is driving carbon emissions and climate change. How does the Left/the Environmentalists (and the Climate Change folks have won me over) propose to counter that?
The Left is ascendent in American politics . They might want to consider ending their castigation of the Right (they are as dead as fried chicken. Why does the Left continue with their propaganda?) and show the rest of us how they intend to address Climate Change given their Keynesian/Social Safety Net/Redistribute the Wealth mindset.
I am truly ALL EARS.
Because, frankly, the track record of the Left's elite is not so hot. Look at Bill Clinton and Al Gore: Darlings of the Left and formerly fire breathing in their suspicions of the profit motive, neither of these guys made a dime in their lives before the presidency/vice presidency - yet each has racked up 9 figure fortunes and personally pump into the atmosphere hundreds of times the Carbon that a nose picker like me does. Do I really have to go after Hollywood's enlightened morons and their private jets or New York's Liberal establishment and their debt enslavement machine? I'd rather not. I am sending this to a number of Left Leaning individuals in the hope that they will explain to me how "we" are going to end CO2 emissions before we all starve or bake to death.
The Left championed the Climate Change issue. Good for them. They have convinced me. The Left as also championed massive social programs and safety nets that requires massive economies that burn mind boggling volumes of fossil fuels. These positions do not appear compatible to me.
And dear Left:
Please don't tell me we are going to do it by "conservation". Whatever I don't burn someone else will. Personal "Conservation" does not lower aggregate emissions, and it is the aggregate emission level that matters to the atmosphere - NOT which group or which individuals is doing the emitting.
Please also consider how your policy proposals/ideas will effect the economy's ability to fund those social programs and safety nets that the economy is already not funding (we are doing it with debt), and then explain to me how far, far lower carbon emissions are compatible with these programs. I will try and keep a straight face and I will be polite - but you will have to make sense and defend your assertions intelligently. Good luck.
So let's hear it. You have convinced me. Now what?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
I have a book: 'Security from Five Acres' by John Tobe. This man managed to make a fair living from various farming endeavors (nursery, commercial flowers, truck gardening, etc.) and believed that intensively farming five acres could produce a family's food and enough extra income for basics. He lived the life, but he had considerably more than five acres to work with. The old standard of 40 acres is proven by our forefathers and the present-day Amish, less seems dangerous to me.
I'm a knuckle-dragging conservative, so my opinion isn't worth anything. Given that, the elite of the Left are setting themselves to be the new aristocracy. The various causes and calls for conservation are for the masses, not enlightened folks such as themselves. Those government programs are only for short-term control, to get a formerly free people to accept the chains being placed on them. Soon it will be 'discovered' that such expenditures are impossible to maintain, but only after the masses are brought to heel.
The problem with this has always been that the military (eww) has too many pesky Righties in it, so cannot be used to keep the unwashed away and the enlightened in power. Thus we have the rise of Big Sister and Homeland Security, with thousands of armored vehicles and billions of bullets to equip the minions of the Left.
Hmmmm. There's a lot here to kick around, but I agree, I don't think the formal Left has any answers.
As for myself I should clear some things up.
I am living a semi-simple, but certainly not a back-to-the-land existence. I have a simple job, working with at-risk, rather poorly behaved, residential kids as an experiential outdoor educator and garden manager. I try to get the kids out in the woods. I do farming with them on my employer's fairly huge field and forest campus - but there are no animals because our agency refuses to allow livestock, so it's far from a full blown general farm like you're running. Here in Massachusetts I care for my mom and my sister's family lives nearby. The kids I work with are something of my surrogate family. I have electricity and a cell phone, but no cable or house phone. I have a car I bought gently used as they say and that I paid cash for that I drive 2 miles to work when I don't use my bike, which is about 3/4 of the time.
Meanwhile, since this home is in a family trust, I bought my own, "other" home in northern Maine because I like rural areas and I am tired of the burn-the-candle-at-both ends, Massachusetts attitude towards living. The house I bought was a cheap, cheap, cheap 1050 sq ft. home and garage/barn on 55 acres done with mostly cash. (It was not falling down, however, by any means.) There is a small mortgage that I could settle right now out of other retirement accounts quite easily, but for tax reasons it made sense to run a small mortgage rather than draw retirement $$ and incur penalties to do so. The mortgage will be gone in a few years more in any case. As for the farm, right now 10 of those acres are rented to a commercial potato-grain farming neighbor who farms 100 of his acres and another 200 rented acres (including my tillable.) I've been fixing up that house more or less as a hobby/therapy project. So far it's gotten a new roof, new concrete basement floor, some foundation repairs, electrical work, and is halfway towards a new bathroom. I'm also gutting the interior room by room and super insulating and will be switching to wood heat. Taxes are minimal and the only utility is electric which runs about $20 or so a month. I blow the plumbing out when I am gone and shut the heat off entirely, and thus, it takes so little oil heat that the last oil delivery of 150 gallons has lasted me over 2 years. It most likely will be the last oil I ever buy for the house. I am working on some fruit trees and preparing a garden spot up there among other farm things, including readying the barn for maybe some beefers or a horse, but for now my heart is in working with the kids on my employer's farm down in MA rather than semi-retire to my place in Maine. If I do resettle up there, I’d probably keep a few animals and reclaim some of the 20 or so other acres that is pasture in various stages of re-growth, but for now, no. Regardless of whether I am talking Maine or Massachusetts, I eat simply and generally locally, but I doubt it is as locally produced as what you’re doing in TN. I have another 25 or so acres of woodland that will be selectively harvested from time to time, at some point.
(continued below...Stephen B.)
Returning to your questions, the first thing I would say is that I have never even contemplated trying to live solely off of farm production and farm life the way you seem to be trying to do or others are trying to do. I advocate a simple life, less expenses, less frills, but I don't think I'd ever go and do what the Living A Simple Life guy is doing or do as the Amish do. I also need people in my life. I am not married, but get enough family out of my extended family and particularly my work kids, many of which I have stayed in close contact with as they aged out, that it works for me. If I relocated to Maine, I'd need to recreate that. I don't think it would be too hard as there are kids in need everywhere.
Is any of this going to solve the carbon crisis and fix the formal economy? I don’t think so, but it will certainly make things better and more resilient. With an ever growing human population, the burden on the earth is going to get ever heavier I should think. As for lowering carbon footprints, well, I've slashed mine via local eating and local heating, and a small commute, excepting the obvious once a month haul to and from northern Maine. I'm thinking of leaving my car (a 2007 Ford Ranger actually) up there as there is easy bus service, believe it or not, a mile and a half from my house there, that runs all the way to South Station in Boston, with easy commuter rail to quick walking distance from my exurban MA house. The thing is, for now, I'm still moving too many construction items and so on up there on the Maine trips, but I will be ditching the long distance car trip soon.
(continued below...Stephen B.)
I live the life I live because it works for me. With this life I don’t need much cash, have saved quite a bit of it as well, and am working on some kind of semi-retirement or outright retirement house. Living this way eases the burden on the planet as well, though it does not do so completely. Years ago I made some financial and career miss-steps, but think I’ve recovered rather nicely if I do say so myself.
Looking forward, I cannot see how the mainstream Left’s approach to the economy and the environment could ever fix things for exactly the reasons you mention. I am more of a libertarian than anything else except that recently I’ve noticed the growing wealth disparity in our country and society – something I credit or blame to the power of technology, corporations, and government to centralize and concentrate wealth. Up until recently, I couldn’t have cared less, but am now beginning to wonder if such extreme wealth concentration is in itself, socially destabilizing as it proceeds to further concentrate. I wonder about what will happen as millions upon millions of US Americans find themselves with nothing to do in their day due to unemployment. It’s exceedingly socially degrading. Government wealth redistribution programs are sort of expanding to fill the need that increasing legions of people laid off by technology and by those very welfare programs themselves are demanding. I don’t have an answer as to whether this expanded government is an okay thing or not. I really don’t like it, but I don’t see any realistic alternative at the moment. I strongly believe that traditional socialism is and would be a disaster. I want to see another alternative for people and for society, but I am not sure that I do see a better solution. While I expect the cheap energy situation to remain a societal obstacle, I doubt it, in and of itself; will significantly slow the concentration of political and economic power, or wealth, in this country all that much.
I think people should produce as much food, shelter, energy, and whatnot as they can in their lives. I think they should try to live outside the corpora-government, formal economy as much as possible as well, but I cannot see small-scale farming and homesteading as a solution without some kind of other cash income as well. Such an augmented lifestyle will also ease the burden on the environment, somewhat anyhow. I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or better, however that saying goes.
Best,
Stephen B.
Having said all that, and given that it was mainly background information on what I've been doing personally, I am not sure I actually answered your questions, so let me add or reiterate this:
I don't think that there really is a total solution to the carbon problem, given wildly expanding human populations. Whether we live some "green" (liberal?) lifestyle or not, we've taken over so much of the biosphere with our activities, major disruption of Terran biological activity is a given, because it's already a fact.
What I do know is that going full speed ahead with things like Canadian tar sands development, hundreds, if not thousands of new fission reactors, everybody trying to live in a 4000 sq foot, grid-heated and cooled house, two cars to a household averaging 300 driven miles a week, hundreds of millions of acres of mono crops, planted with seeds owned by 2 or 3 corporations at most, drenched in chemicals controlled by a handful of companies, every large farmer financially indebted to those companies, and so on, is a recipe for even faster global, environmental and climatic messiness.
All I am trying to do is buy time for my nieces, nephews, and the many dozens of kids, some now youngish adults to live something of a reasonably comfortable life.
I don't think I'm very liberal, though as of late a number of liberal, progressive people have befriended me on Facebook - most of them being friends of friends. We've shared a number of political and/or environmental stories, many of them with sharing set to "public", so I may have created the look that I am very lefty, but in general, I don't believe in forced solutions to these problems.
Buying time is all somebody can do at the individual level, I think, at this point.
To do that, I've simplified my life and produce what I can, locally.
More of the best,
Stephen B.
Excellent Stephen!
It was only in the last few years that I came around to side with the Climate Change environmentalists. It occurred to me that it would not matter to Carbon emissions just how much Carbon I used or didn't use. We, The People, burn everything that comes out of the ground. If a wealthy American passes up on some Carbon then 10 or 20 developing nation citizens will be happy to take the Carbon I have freed up and put it in the atmosphere.
Ergo, this is not a matter of conscience - it is a matter of science. (For the sake of argument let us assume that the Climate Change folks are spot on.) It then follows that we, The People, must either leave the carbon in the ground unburned OR we must innovate and somehow reclaim that Carbon and put it back in the ground.
If option 2 is untenable for any reason, then we must leave the Carbon in the ground which will absolutely, positively crush the current economic system. Without that massive system there can be no Nanny State services. PERIOD.
Is the Left willing to stand on ceremony, knowing they were dead right (pun absolutely intended) about Climate Change, but unable to accept what the ending Carbon emissions means?
That is the $64k question.
And Stephen... we NEED answers. The U.S. cannot survive 40+ days of 100+ temps in the grain states, severe droughts in the cattle states, and hurricanes barreling into the east coast.
The carbon emissions of those receiving nanny state services will needs be cut deeply. The carbon emissions of those paying for those nanny state services will need to be cut drastically.
Doing this will cut the size of the economy down several sizes with all manner of unintended consequences - first and foremost is the end of the social programs.
Now what?
All I can think of is that humanity has to control atmospheric carbon (and methane) better than it does now.
Some months ago, I think I mentioned the idea of returning more carbon to farm soils as unburned charcoal - biochar - as a way of both improving the soil's nutrient retention, and as a way of reclaiming carbon from the atmosphere and banking it in the soil. Done in regional biomass-burning power plants, the biomass could be partially burnt in ways that control the pyrolysis so that there would be biochar to return to the soils that produced this biomass. I read once that adding 2 pounds or so of carbon/charcoal per sq. foot of agricultural soils, could remove and bank over 150 short tons of CO2 per acre....Done over the many hundreds of millions of acres of now carbon-depleted soils worldwide, we could remove all the fossil CO2 we've already added, *and* produce energy (heat and power) as well. (A pound of solid carbon/charcoal equals about 3.65 pounds of CO2, the latter weighing more because of the attached O2, if I recall correctly.) It could be done in power plants, and in the undeveloped world, it could be done on a smaller scale as well.
The details are a devil, however, for, if we clear cut standing forests to do this, we temporarily put even MORE carbon into the atmosphere, and that wouldn't be good at all. We can do selective cutting of mainly downed and dead forest material, and especially we can grow crops with a much quicker turn around and recovery such as switch grass and so on.
Solar PV electric panel prices are really crashing too. 1 in 4 residences in South Australia now have a system and it's really cutting into peak electric demand....*Maybe* that and wind power and biomass, and hydro combined with increased electrical efficiency buy the biosphere more time too.
Outside of that however...ouch.
Cuts to services are coming...We've all seen that for some time, thus the desire to get at least some cottage, homegrown food, energy, and other production going as a sideline, in as many people's lives as can reasonably be had.
Stephen B.
A few more things...
I think in a way it does matter how much carbon I personally avoid adding to the atmosphere. Given the way humans follow and imitate each other, if I, though my actions, can show others that there is another way of living with less carbon dumping in the air, then to a certain point, others will feel easier about following, even if it means living a somewhat "lower" standard of living, at least, lower by prior social standards. Momentum of group thought might actually convince others, over time, that the pound of carbon that I bypassed the opportunity to burn, is one that they too can bypass. I grant you that this is only a maybe so far.
I'll also add that I don't think we need to suddenly turn millions of acres of farmland over to growing biomass for heat and power. Simply collecting some of the existing crop residue and burning it to biochar would be a carbon improvement over letting the residue return directly to the soil I should think. I say this because crop residue left on the soil surface, while also beneficial to the soil, "burns out" of the soil much faster than does biochar, stabilized, pure, carbon, and at this point, we really need to tie up as much atmospheric carbon as we can, for as LONG as we can.
Stephen B.
Follow the climate change rhetoric all you want I guess. It isn't going to matter in the end one way or another except the Left attempting to ram more wealth redistribution down our throats and make even more illogical laws. We have yet to see ice melt or high temps greater than we have seen before even in relatively recent recorded history. The Northwest passage is a good example for one.
I think you are giving the Lefty/Feminist way too much credit as a matter of fact. The whole thing is much much simpler. Cheap energy.
Cheap abundant energy mixed with certain other cultural factors as hold overs from before that energy was available caused what we have as the Left today to take root. It's not natural and it cannot last regardless. The only question is how much damage will it do before it burns itself out and will it kill the host before it can run it's course.
Surplus and leisure combined with a cultural cooperation and trust between the genders that only really existed in one large society in all of history. When a surplus like oil gave us hit Northern European-based society we had absolutely no natural immunity to Feminism and the Socialist dogma creeping in.
No other societies except the Western ones are plagued by these issues. Dictatorships in other societies are common but that is always male elitism, we have a case of a much more dangerous and lethal social illness. One that is only possible from a unique blend of male protectionism mixed with a healthy dose of Chivalry.
The energy doesn't have to run out, it only has to cease being cheap to kill the left. Once that happens nature will begin to creep back in and then we will see a return to the land and balance restored.
Until that time it is our job to prepare ourselves and our children for the type of life that we are returning to. As much to make the transition easier for us and our children as it is to assure something remains before the Liberal/Feminist destroy it all.
It's a race. We need to preserve at a fast enough pace to reach the end before they do.
Pioneer:
Your command of history understandably exceeds my own. I understand where you are going with your comment and you will find little disagreement from me.
However...
I think that the data (and science) supporting Climate Change is overwhelming (I will write something soon in layman's language about this. My friend Stuart Staniford comes close, but he can't help being a freaking genius/scientist, so I think a regular Joe translation is in order - and that's assuming this Regular joe can do the job) and I think that, for better or worse, until women come around to the fact that their men are not the enemy the Democrats/Left are in charge at the Federal level. How long that lasts I don't know. I think that Carbon emissions must be cut drastically and immediately. Since they are the group in power, and especially since they were the champions of this, to me, very real issue, I REALLY WANT TO KNOW what they plan to do about it besides talk and hold sayances and sing cum-by-ya, and sand blast the idiotic Right.
Or was it all for political gain and the Left has no intention of doing anything about it? If so, we need to know that, too.
Indeed, without cheap, easily available energy, the automation of the home that went with it, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the introduction of powered transportation, the women's movement would have literally never gotten out the (house) door. All of which, of course, explains why the women's movement first took hold in the Western, developed nations.
I do have to disagree on the Warming data, however. We can all pick individual data points, and I agree that there have been fairly warm periods in the not so distant past, but in my mind, the near universality of the warming around the world in the past several decades, excusing the few years around things like the major volcanic eruption in years like 1991, etc., warming in places ranging from Australia, to the US, the the rapidly receding summer Arctic ice (see Staniford's Blog)....by the time the Warming is totally clear to everybody, it will be pretty damn warm indeed.
...Off to work to go play in the snow with kids. 'Will check in tonight.
Stephen B.
Greg and Stephen
The warming stuff and carbon thing really doesn't bother me because although I feel it is just another feminist myth to gain wealth the end result will kill their ideology. Short term however their response has seemed more aimed at urban lifestyle destruction more than industrial carbon reduction. Think cow farts and wood stoves here.
As you say Greg what are they going to do about it except attack individuals such as us? Anything else they try will hurt them more in the end.
One of the first general things they teach about History, especially European, is how civilization's great leaps correspond to general warming periods. Warming periods are not usually viewed as bad things from a Historical, social or anthropological point of view. They are typically a time of surplus even if they change micro-climates a bit.
I guess all I am saying is that the average Feminist/Lefty really doesn't understand how all this currently blended mix creates a very specialized environment that is not going to last. For us it is a lifetime but from a Historical view it will be an interesting and twisted little blip.
I just hope I get to witness some of the backlash.
Oh I meant rural lifestyle destruction not Urban of course.
I agree that Left and feminist folks don't see the special mix of inputs that got us here and that won't last.
Still, I don't see what feminists have to gain by pushing a Warming agenda. If anything, sendind all of us back to a lower level of energy use could and most likely will *hurt* the woman's movement as Sharon Astyk has often written about. The only way feminists have developed any commonality with GW scientists is that they want to change others' behavior. Women have nothing at all to gain from reduced fossil energy use as I see it. Maybe they themselves haven't figured this out either yet.
Stephen B.
Or maybe the best of women HAVE figured out that the movement has a lot to lose, but that they and whatever family they have has other things to lose in a warm world.
I do agree too with what you say about people flourishing historically speaking, in warmer times, but I always understood that to mean warm times versus glacial expansion rather than normally warm times versus even hotter times. If the scientists are to be believed, we are on a path to a climate that humanity has never experienced.
If the earth could heat up moderately just enough so that the polar regions defrosted without hugely expanding Hadley cells and what have you putting the mid latitudes into extremely dry conditions, that might indeed be a good thing (once we relocate over a billion people back from the rising oceans.)
Best,
Stephen B.
Just a data point, the Earth hasn't warmed in the last 15 years. The giant hockey stick temperature climb is NOT materializing. I'm sure that more CO2 in atmosphere leads to some increase in the Earth's temperature, but the models are diverging from actual measured data. I still believe that it is a doomsday tactic to scare people into submission to their Socialist Masters.
Regards,
Coal Guy
I'm... not so convinced about us causing global warming. Thirty years ago the cries were that we were heading into an ice age. Well, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I actually was starting to believe the claims of AGW until the hackers put Dr. Phil Jones' info out on the web. I took a good long look at that stuff. Hide the decline, indeed! Then NASA's Dr. James Hansen got caught manipulating their archived data to make the last decade the hottest on record (the 1930's were actually the hottest, btw). These were ignored, minimized and whitewashed by our MSM, of course.
The Viking's grain fields in Greenland are still under ice, and Newfoundland and England are still not able to grow grapes like they were in the Medieval Warming Period (mysteriously avoided or obliterated in those alarming graphs used to 'educate' us). From plant types and such the global temp is around where it was 2000 years ago in the Roman high. Yep, those were certainly bad times for civilization. Cough.
I guess you and I don't agree on the data that say there hasn't been any warming in the past 15 years. What I have seen of the US, Europe, and Australia says there has been lots of warming. Just sticking to the US, several of the past 10 or so years have been marked as some of the warmest years of all recorded records. If the planet on balance has not heated in that time, there must be some really cold other places that aren't being mentioned.
Best,
Stephen B.
But Warming or not, I also guess I don't get the idea that there is some kind of controlling conspiracy behind all this Warming push. At best, I think the link up between feminists and Warmers is kind of accidental in that they both ended up on the left because the Right wouldn't have them.
It seems to me that The Powers That Be are so well represented on both the Left and the Right that there really isn't any advantage to them to control the peons via denying them carbonized energy.
Stephen B.
Some really good comments coming in.
Feminist do not have any long term gains by pushing a global warming agenda but they have an abundance of short term gains that open up to them.
Bureaucracy and regulation helps western Feminist exponentially as far as wealth goes. For every buck they claim that goes to some program they gain the lion's share of that buck in wages for more government employees and always manage to get a return off the programs actual operation as well.
The reality is that in Feminist ideology long term change cannot be considered except within the sphere of total feminist control.
War, climate change, natural disasters, large human migrations. None of these can do anything except destroy Feminism therefore they cannot be allowed to happen. The only way they can be stopped is by a world government dominated by Feminist and that will require huge wealth transfer from Western Nations to the rest of the world to addict the rest of the world to Feminist control.
The One World Order conspiracy theory with a twist I guess.
It requires Feminism to somehow take root in cultures and areas that are not fertile for it to do so. Namely the Middle East, Africa and South America. Asia is such a tough nut they are saving it for last.
This is why Feminist and the Left in general commit so much hypocrisy in allying with so many different and basically opposing groups. It is also why they require a common enemy that is strong enough to unify these groups.
Feminist don't care about Global Warming. They are about the wealth fighting it will give them. SO true or not pushing it works to their advantage.
Tweel,
Yep, they are doctoring the data. The comments in the code for their own computer models verify it.
Notice, also, that "Global Warming" has become "Climate Change" 'cause there hasn't been recent warming. Further, reporting on "Climate Change" has devolved into reporting bad weather. There are certainly more people affected by bad weather, mostly because people have moved to the coasts and because there are many more people to be affected. I'm very skeptical of what gets reported.
Stephen, have you been to Europe? There are talking heads on TV in 5 languages railing about "Climate Change" 24/7. The goal is to scare everyone enough to accept onerous taxes, laws, rules and regs to support the Socialist establishment. Same as here, except they've been more successful at it. They are probably scraping another 10% of earned income out of people's wallets with this.
The socialist elite believe that the common people, like some kind of house pets, are to stupid to run their own lives. It is the elite's duty to run our lives for us and save us from ourselves. They have no moral grounding. They will do whatever they find expedient. The big lie is just another tool to manipulate us for the greater good (whatever that happens to be today).
Regards,
Coal Guy
The US data has been tampered with multiple times. First, many weather stations have been engulfed by cities, providing a temperature increase from the rural setting they were once in. Next, by James Hansen, who destroyed the original information and then tweaked the 1930's data to make it less than it is currently. Finally, by adding a bunch of new weather stations, and marking their highs as 'highest ever for this station'.
Adding weather stations = more information = good. Combining that info with the old info in such a way to skew the results predictably = not so good.
I will also note that the other planets in our solar system are increasing in temperature. Gee, our global warming is so powerful it's heating Mars!
I dunno. Data does get doctored, but one doesn't need a data bank to feel and know that the vast heat waves engulfing the US of the past few decade or so are MUCH warmer than the decades of the 80s, 70s, 60s, and so on. Heck, Aroostook County in Maine is several degrees warmer these past several years compared to half a century ago and believe me, Aroostook, with its population loss, has not had any growing city engulf *anything* up there. I was born in 1962 and from things like watching when the apple tree my grandfather planted when I was a child blooms now, compared to 30 years ago, I can see regional warming, if nothing else. Is it man made? Who knows, but please don't tell try to tell me the US hasn't warmed in 15 years or that all the data was doctored by one or two scientists. The 1930s were very warm, but there may be a whole range or reasons that have nothing to do with the present warming.
As for Mars, the discussion raises a good point....The warming may very well be the superposition result of several inputs, some man made, many probably not. But I've also seen recent data showing that the other planets aren't warming as much as the anti-warming-talking-point web sites have been touting.
As for grapes in Newfoundland... grapes do indeed grow there these days...Google can show one that and as for Greenland being so unglaciated 1000 years ago...perhaps, but I have my doubts as to how extensive was Greenland's open land back then and I say that based on some well-known data on sea level in the southern New England area for the past several thousand years. Basically, sea level has been rising rather steadily over the past few thousand years. The Boston Harbor islands and backwaters all have submerged coasts, plants, and even human settlements that were above the water line in those time frames after the last glacier pulled back. If Greenland was so de-iced 1000 years ago, it strongly implies that sea level was higher then compared to now, (have to put all that melted ice somewhere) and yet no data I've seen supports anything other than the idea that Boston area sea levels are currently at their highest since the last glaciation retreated circa 16000 years ago.
Best,
Stephen B.
Several oceanic scientist, notably one named Morner have also documented and claim that sea levels have not changed in over 50 years at all. In many instances areas that show a noticeable change in geography are cases of land mass sinking and normal erosion.
Any coastline from even a smallish lake to a Nordic Fjord will change over the years. specially as the water element works it's magic and breaks the land apart.
Coal Guy:
Measuring "warming" and "global temperature averages" I would imagine would be a pretty tough nut to crack.
Measuring new "record hot days" and "record cold days" should come in 1 for 1. They are coming in 5 to 1 or better (from Stuart Staniford's earlywarn blog).
I am not much of a climatologist... but my math is pretty good, and I will be writing something soon about what I understand the math to be - you fellows may feel free to poke holes in it. As of right now, after an extended period of noodling, I am of the opinion that the Climate Change folks are spot on.
I reserve the right to change my mind on a freaking dime.
That said:
Let's not debate whether each of you believe or think. Let's use a given scenario.
What if the physics departments at the overwhelming majority of the world's universities were on the same page along with NASA, Russia, and Japan, and the other sci/tech leads were of the opinion that X scenario was being caused by Y input from mankind, and that X scenario was a completely unacceptable risk.
I have invited a more than several exceedingly bright Left leaning people to tell me how the Climate Change issue and the Nanny State are not mutually exclusive events.
So far, none of these folks seems willing to discuss this. Go figure.
Greg,
As long as the short term mean temperature (say the last decade) is above the mean of recorded temperatures, the number record highs will exceed the record lows, even if, over the short term, the temperature has been stable or begun to drop. Simple statistics.
The world is warmer than it used to be, but the temperature is not correlating with the models. If things were really happening as the Lefty guys say they are, there would be no need to destroy source data or fudge the analysis. Why would you lie about the truth? I can only conclude that things must not be as they say they are.
Regards,
Coal Guy
I bet Amish also have informal financing so the are able to avoid banks.
And it's definitely warmer where I live. In the '70s and '80s the water in the ditches would freeze over so that I could walk on them. Now no ice, never. My Korean friend said that before the Han river would freeze enough so that NK tanks could drive over them on the way to the south, now no way.
There are always people playing with data on any side of a controversial issue. I don't think one can say that all of the manipulation is being done by the Warmers. There is lots of cherry picking of data being done by Denialists as well, it's just that since those on the right are basically lay people to begin with, it isn't as newsworthy when somebody at the Greening Earth website, etc. does it (an old Denialist website) as when some UK scientist does it.
Also, regarding James Hansen, assuming for a moment that the comments about him doctoring data are correct, when I referred to the most of the last 10 or 15 years being way warm, I was referring to National Weather Service Data. Hansen, as far as I know, has nothing to do with this NWS data as he is a NASA person using a different data set. With all due respect, this is an example of the data switching that I speak of being performed by the Denialists.
I assume most everybody here has seen the new data imagery Staniford posted yesterday? http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2013/03/to-boldly-go-where-none-have-been-before.html
Best,
Stephen B.
While it does appear true that we have yet to totally break clear above the climatic Optimum of 8000 or so years ago, and while it is of course *possible* that natural forces are to explain the amazing data spike at the end of the data set Staniford referenced, to my mind, given the scientists' predictions and explanations, an explanation based on solely natural forces at this point seems unlikely.
Of course climate has always been and always will be the superposition of many inputs, most of them natural, some not, though at some point non-linearity may come into play, which complicates super-positional analysis quite a bit. The challenge we face is honestly separating the natural ones from the anthropogenic.
Best,
Stephen B.
How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vpTHi7O66pI
Heat always flows from areas of higher concentration to areas of lower concentration. So, if there is a global warming I would expect the lions share of the heat to flow to the poles and leave us alone- at least initially. The evidence of warming at the poles is the ice loss and it is HUGE! We have only had accurate data, satellite photos, etc since the late 70s. However at the turn of the century countless explorers lost their lives in the race to the poles and today the north pole is an open ocean for much of the year. Extending the trend we are looking at an ice free artic ocean in a couple of years. I know extending the trend is a logical fallacy but I don't see any for it to change before the ice is gone, if anything it looks likely to accelerate. After the ice is gone we may see some clouds in the polar desert blocking summer isolation but until then nothing.
Dan 1/2
To get an ideal of how big this is consider a couple of definitions:
A ton of cooling is 12,000 Btu/h and is the energy required to freeze one ton of water in a 24 hour period with out changing the temperature. e.g. from 32°F water to 32°F ice so the Heat of Fusion of ice is 144Btu/lb. The heat fusion is the same either way. e.g. putting energy in to melt water or drawing it out to make ice.
A Btu is the amount of energy required to raise one pound of water 1ºF at sea level
Simply put the same energy required to melt one pound of ice is also the energy needed to raise that pound of water from 32°F to 176°F or raise 10 lbs of water from 32°F to 46.4°F
Given how profound the current loss of ice is; it seems to me that is is not possible that we have had an ice free arctic in human history or we would know more about the place since it wouldn’t have so cold and foreboding. It also means the loss ice once it's gone the loss will likely be permanent. Finally all of the models measure air temps so they are all junk. Any heat model that doesn’t consider the worlds great heat sinks is garbage.
As for whether man has caused this, I know not. I tend to think the amount of carbon I release is miniscule. A drop in a bucket. On the other hand 7 billion drops is about a third of an acre-foot of water.
Best,
Dan 2/2
I tend to think the definitions Liberal and Conservative have become meaningless. I used to be a conservative but there is nothing left to conserve. My sentiments haven’t changed but today I am more aptly described as a radical! Also, the neo-cons have tarnished the word in the same way homosexuals tarnished gay. Today conservative has come to mean war mongering liberal with an authoritarian bent. As if there is anything conservative about half baked adventures, with emotions standing in for sound strategy. Given the realities of today I wouldn’t describe myself as gay when I mean happy so I won't describe myself as conservative when I mean traditional. I think I’ll describe myself as a traditionalist; it's more descriptive and hasn't been ruined yet.
Best,
Dan
Coal Guy:
Of course that could be the explanation if that were the data set. Now that you mention it, I will go back and check the time frame. And while it is only a "could" it would be one hell of a coincidence.
Greg:
This was a great piece that was thought provoking. The “Simple Life” was never so simple, and with less than one percent of the US population feeding more than 100% of this country, it is for the special few. Like every other industry from manufacturing to big box retail, economies of scale have come into play, and it is hard for the small independent to compete with the mega-company whether it is a bank or a farm. Nearly 37% of our population was needed to feed the country in 1900 and it dropped to 3.7% by 1970, and as previously stated less than 1% today. While this is due to science (making more unhealthy genetically grown food), it is also mergers and acquisitions, and squeezing the little guy out. This is all industries. A parallel example of this is our government’s efforts to lower the total percent of business of the top five banks from 50%. Unfortunately, the left’s unintentional consequences have now raised that number to 70% for the top five banks. It does not matter what our government touches, they screw it up.
Back to farming: I have alacrity with you regarding your zeal for the simple life, and you do a darn good job at it. However, I don’t have enough information regarding the DMCEWK's you site that have not achieved your level of success. Many prospects and customers I call on think that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, and “wish” they could do what I do. I have watched many make the move, but only a sliver of them make it. This by no means is an assertion that I am better, but truly better prepared, better at execution, and having the drive to get the job done over and over again. Farming is not an easy life, but rewarding for the fortunate few. We grew up in suburbia, and were not groomed for your position, and neither were the DMCEWK's.
As for the Amish, while we can argue their prowess at living the simple life, I suspect that you have calculated how much money you would need to live if you could shed yourself from FICA and insurances alone, the simple life becomes a far more attainable goal. I was told that the fundamental definition of slavery is when you are required to pay more than 10% of your wages to a higher level, and we are well past that number with no end in sight.
In the true sense of the statement, “Climate Change” is real. It has to be because we have never seen the same climate from year to year in any city, or country. The problem with the indictment is that no plan has shown any way to move the needle, and you point out the hypocrisy of those above us that tell how we should live our lives, but can’t lead by example, discrediting the cause.
The problem with the left is their strategy of running from one crisis to another. In your previous columns, you have done a great job articulating the fallacy of cause of each of the lefts agenda, and once again, the unintended outcomes that are the result of their policies whether it be Women’s rights, or fossil fuels
When you look at the Democratic Party, it certainly appears to be a house of cards with a bunch of splinter groups glued together. When you get beyond the trial lawyers, it is dumb-founding to me that you can amalgamate these groups, because they all hate each other openly, but block vote for the same person to represent their cause. I site groups such as feminists, blacks, union members, gays, Jews and the list goes on. I can promise you that when union members get off work, they don’t work for gay causes, or blacks working for Jewish causes. Look at all of these groups, and you will see that they all hate each other.
Tom B.
Lefty admirals?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/09/admiral-samuel-locklear-commander-pacific-forces-warns-that-climate-change-top-threat/BHdPVCLrWEMxRe9IXJZcHL/story.html
In any case, the oppression that would be necessary to stop fossil fuel use would make Orwell blush. I'll take the climate disaster, thank you.
Regards,
Coal Guy
Nice comment Tom B.
If I maybe so bold. Your last question is an easy one. The Liberal/Feminist conglomerate glues itself together with one cause, the hatred of White Men. Each group sees itself getting what they want from that one group. Many of them see their own social value increased dramatically with every decrease of White Male status.
It really is that simple.
Tommy B.
The left in the US is led by a group called the Democratic Socialists of America. Here is a link to their purpose:
http://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand
In Congress DSAUSA members are called The Progressive Caucus. It is quite a list! The DSAUSA and Progressive Caucus used to link each other's web sites, but that became politically damaging. But, they are the same folks.
Find the Progressive Caucus here:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/
They'll support the social agenda of anybody that feels victimized and will support their economic agenda. I don't believe that they are quite as socially liberal as they claim to be. If they are ever ascendant, I'd expect them to be as prudish and rigid as most others Socialist regimes have been. Most of their constituency will be in for a BIG surprise.
Regards,
Coal Guy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html
Post a Comment