Anyone else stocking up?

[shokidq]

It might not be perfectly carbon neutral. It is better than dialing up a supplier for another deliver of heating oil. Having him deliver old carbon that was trapped below the surface long ago for reasons not readily apparent to us at this time.

That is unless you are ordering completely carbon neutral BD from your supplier AND the phone company uses 100% of its electricty from sustainable resourses.

I am more worried about depleting our oxygen supply by using fossil fuels by reintroducing old carbon to the atmosphere. Using 5-6 gallons of fuel to cut, process and transport the wood needed to heat your home for a month is better than the 60 - 100 gallons of FF that would be required otherwise to get the same heat.

I don't disagree but they shouldn't say carbon neutral.

 

[KsWoodsMan]

I don't disagree but they shouldn't say carbon neutral.

Ahhhh, point well taken.

 

[jerry wayne]

same people were saying ice age

This is not directed at any specific person.

I am amazed at all the people I hear lately, both on the Internet and in my own life talking about the issue of climate change like its some kind of hoax. Credible scientist's that disputes the fact that we are changing earths climate are all but nonexistent yet many people insist on believing otherwise. Its like a "don't try to confuse me with facts and truth I've already made up my mind ahead of time" mentality and I believe this close mindedness is what got us into this predicament in the first place. Furthermore it is what has kept us in this perpetual state of environmental quandary.

Why do people who disagree with the "rhetoric" of thousands of the worlds most credible scientists feel the need to be so dismissive of these claims as well as make frequent attempts to belittle anyone who shares those beliefs. Is it so hard to comprehend that after a century of the worlds population, currently over six billion people burning as much fossil fuels as they can possibly dig out of the ground and subsequently releasing greenhouse gasses that we have changed the climate a little bit?

At the risk of overgeneralizing I most often find it is the forty and older crowd that is critical of the belief in this matter and it's existence. I wonder why? perhaps it is because the action or inaction of this generation is part of what created this mess. ignoring early warning signs and the few radical "cook" scientists years ago. Is it because admitting there is a problem would mean accepting blame for their part in this mess at a time in life when it is too late for them to help fix it. Maybe it is none of the above. Either way most likely it is not them who will still be here in fifty years to see how wrong they are, and that no amount of denying a problem exists will fix it or its consequences.

look it up,but i was around and these same smarties were saying we were going to freeze the planent out,coffee was bad for you,eggs were gonna kill us ect...ect...ect... When in science you only have a concensus,its not factual,and when they are pluggin computer models with selected data to keep job security,and some countrys have already started to [charge] citizens for carbon footprints[?],which in reality is just another way to tax our azzes some more......well you do some reserch into global cooling and lemme know k been around a while

 

[MATTYB11]

look it up,but i was around and these same smarties were saying we were going to freeze the planent out,coffee was bad for you,eggs were gonna kill us ect...ect...ect... When in science you only have a concensus,its not factual,and when they are pluggin computer models with selected data to keep job security,and some countrys have already started to [charge] citizens for carbon footprints[?],which in reality is just another way to tax our azzes some more......well you do some reserch into global cooling and lemme know k been around a while

sooooooo in what way does one unrealized prediction from 35 years ago disprove the concept of global warming? And if you do some research the hypothesis "never had significant scientific support" (wikipedia) You simply heard about it in the news because it was good for ratings. furthermore these "taxes" you eluded to are commonly known as cap and trade programs which issue carbon credits to businesses. The idea is to provide financial incentive for business to emit less carbon because excess credits can be sold to other businesses. I have never heard of a country taxing individual citizens for carbon footprints. If this is so I agree with you on this point. it's another excuse to tax individuals and it will not help solve anything.

 

[super3]

So what's warming the other planets up? We are causeing that also huh?

 

[November Wolf]

Let's face it! Global Warming is very real. It is called SPRING!

 

[mini14]

oils now 1.79 a gal here looked at my, its now at 05 prices here...but ill still burn wood to f-the arabs.

 

[chainsawaddict]

Let's face it! Global Warming is very real. It is called SPRING!

Spring? what is this lovely sounding term you speak of??:greenchainsaw:

 

[Booshcat]

sooooooo in what way does one unrealized prediction from 35 years ago disprove the concept of global warming? And if you do some research the hypothesis "never had significant scientific support" (wikipedia) You simply heard about it in the news because it was good for ratings. furthermore these "taxes" you eluded to are commonly known as cap and trade programs which issue carbon credits to businesses. The idea is to provide financial incentive for business to emit less carbon because excess credits can be sold to other businesses. I have never heard of a country taxing individual citizens for carbon footprints. If this is so I agree with you on this point. it's another excuse to tax individuals and it will not help solve anything.

Look it up Matty.
The Polar Ice mass is it's largest since 1979 when measurements were first recorded.
The polar bear population is also quite large, no matter what that loser Noah Wylie says.
The internet is not just a tool for spreading drivel, it is also a great source of research material.
True research, not the opinions of unknown contributors (wiki ).

 

[splittah]

To get back on track here..

I have over 11 full cord of wood, cut and split here at the house. I am in the process of constucting a 14' x 24' shelter to house about 2 years worth of wood and a section will be walled off to lock up the log splitter and saws in.

 

[Mister Twister]

Nice job that will be a great asset to you.

 

[splittah]

Nice job that will be a great asset to you.

Thank you.

And yes it will.

If this thread is still active in a few weeks I will post the job finished pictures.

 

[Dalmatian90]

At the risk of overgeneralizing I most often find it is the forty and older crowd that is critical of the belief in this matter and it's existence. I wonder why?

Because they've seen the government make more out of something in order to push an agenda enough times to recognize B.S. when they see it. Those over 40 simply have more life experience to recognize it easier.

It's not just a failed prediction from 35 years ago. It's a failed prediction from 35 years before that, and 35 years before that, etc. We live in a world were a lot of people like to hold signs of "Repent, the End of the World is Near!" and that has been going on for generations if not all eternity.

Our weather patterns have always included dramatic swings. Whether we're talking the Little Ice Age, or 1816 (Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death -- Connecticut had snowfall in June and had killer frosts in spots every month of summer). The Great Plains historically have alternated between being some land of bread and honey (Lewis & Clark, the 1880s, the 1960s) and being either the Great American Desert (1820s) or the Dust Bowl (1930s) -- dramatic swings caused by cyclical weather patterns outside the influence of man.

There are undoubtedly problems with releasing the carbon stored underground, returning us more towards an prehistoric climate with higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Some of these effects can be documented well -- for instance the impact on acidifying ocean water and damaging corals. Some can't -- for instance what it's impact on climate is or will be. We may have those models in the future, we don't today. What we have is a very vocal group who is making theories fit the data, and that's a poor way to set public policy -- whether it's going to war over Iraq or it's global warming...both are to use Rahm Emmanuel's word's "not letting a good crisis go to waste." So when people over 40 see yet another crisis that looks to be manufactured, they have reason to be skeptical.

Besides, I love in the end after having liberal friends get worked up in a frenzy over it...reminding them that I have a fraction of the carbon foot print they do

 

[Edmccabe]

Zodiac;

I remember my uncle Maurice who lived on the St. John's River within the Micmac Reservation referring to wood often used to build local canoes used by Downeast guides as what I understood to be Hackmatack - but I never saw it spelled out before.

Ed

 

[danrclem]

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

It is normal for the earth to warm and cool. It is cyclical. The sky is falling mentality is for the people who can't think for themselves.

It does make people like Al Gore super rich though.

 

[spike60]

This is not directed at any specific person.

I am amazed at all the people I hear lately, both on the Internet and in my own life talking about the issue of climate change like its some kind of hoax. Credible scientist's that disputes the fact that we are changing earths climate are all but nonexistent yet many people insist on believing otherwise. Its like a "don't try to confuse me with facts and truth I've already made up my mind ahead of time" mentality and I believe this close mindedness is what got us into this predicament in the first place. Furthermore it is what has kept us in this perpetual state of environmental quandary.

Why do people who disagree with the "rhetoric" of thousands of the worlds most credible scientists feel the need to be so dismissive of these claims as well as make frequent attempts to belittle anyone who shares those beliefs. Is it so hard to comprehend that after a century of the worlds population, currently over six billion people burning as much fossil fuels as they can possibly dig out of the ground and subsequently releasing greenhouse gasses that we have changed the climate a little bit?

At the risk of overgeneralizing I most often find it is the forty and older crowd that is critical of the belief in this matter and it's existence. I wonder why? perhaps it is because the action or inaction of this generation is part of what created this mess. ignoring early warning signs and the few radical "cook" scientists years ago. Is it because admitting there is a problem would mean accepting blame for their part in this mess at a time in life when it is too late for them to help fix it. Maybe it is none of the above. Either way most likely it is not them who will still be here in fifty years to see how wrong they are, and that no amount of denying a problem exists will fix it or its consequences.

Sure Matty, and don't forget to "save the whales" while your at it. And don't forget "No Nukes!!!" either.

The reason many of us in the "over 40 crowd" aren't as worked up about this as you is that we've seen similar unwarranted hysteria before, such as the global cooling scare from the seventies that was already mentioned.

It's nice that you have embraced the latest cause du jour, and that you are passionate about the planet. The problem arises however when people get so passionate that an issue takes on a religious zeal and threatens the freedoms of those who don't share the fervor of the torch bearers like yourself. "Carbon Footprint" and "Carbon Neutral" have become the buzz words for the intolerant green-nazis whose dogma has gone to the extreme of suggesting that Humans are akin to a virus infecting the earth.

It's pretty easy to set something in motion, but not so easy to see where it will end or how far it will go. It is in the nature of political movements for people to band together, galvanize legislative action, and thereby force others to conform to their definition of the common good. This action will in most cases impact the freedoms and or lifestyles of those who disagree, but are forced to comply.

I recently had a conversation with a "weekender" from NY City, who had volumes of opinions of what people should be allowed to do and what they should be allowed to drive. Naturally, none of his edicts would have impacted his life at all. I then suggested that it would be a great idea to outlaw second home ownership. All that gas driving back and forth to the city. Thousands upon thousands of gallons of heating oil and propane to keep all of these houses warm all winter when there isn't even anybody in them. What could be more wasteful than a second home? The poor guy started stuttering about how draconian such a measure would be, but my point was made.

There is more than one shade of green, and anyone doing something to help the planet deserves some credit. I've always been fairly green. I hate waste and I respect the planet. But I'll never be so green that I'll feel guilt every time I blow my nose or go to the bathroom. And I don't take kindly to self annointed zealots directing me to curb my activity to their reality.

And that is really the unfortunate part, because the more radical the green movement becomes, the more it will lose the support of reasonable people. You simply can't be radical and reasonable at the same time.

 

[woodchopper]

Look it up Matty.
The Polar Ice mass is it's largest since 1979 when measurements were first recorded.
The polar bear population is also quite large, no matter what that loser Noah Wylie says.
The internet is not just a tool for spreading drivel, it is also a great source of research material.
True research, not the opinions of unknown contributors (wiki ).

Core sample taken from polar ice areas can give data dating back 30,000 to 40,000 years. I'm not an Al Gore follower but I can only wonder where you got the 1979 date.
I'm sure the polar bears are doing fine but the ice they usually use to get to their hunting grounds hasn't been forming in the past few years. That's never happened before. I don't know personally if man is adding to global warming but even George Bush has said many times that it's a real occurrence. Are you saying he's a quack too?

Thank you.

And yes it will.

If this thread is still active in a few weeks I will post the job finished pictures.

Nice woodshed !!! Can't wait to see the pictures of it when it's finished.