What Do We Think About Climate Change

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

There are places where real trees don't survive very well, or where the water is used for crops or other purposes. Whether the artificial trees we're talking about will ever be practical or cost-effective is an open question. But they're an interesting possibility, and an example of people thinking of ways to use technology to help solve the problem, rather than being Luddites and proclaiming technology is the problem.

I've personally never met anyone who wants to take the world back to pre-Industrial Revolution days, you know. I'm sure they exist, but they aren't the ones shaping the debate.

Grow cactuses, or bamboo, or water chestnuts. Xeriscape.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Stop rewriting history. They sure as Hell weren't starving because they were set up as a 'little socialist state.' They died of starvation, scurvy, cold and disease - because they didn't get there until November, and had to survive an entire New England winter before they could even plant a crop.

Where do you get this nonsense?

Again, from William Bradford:
First harvest (1621) NOT 1620
They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was a great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck a meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to the proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports.
Private and communal farming (1623)
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Grow cactuses, or bamboo, or water chestnuts. Xeriscape.

So you think we can hook up pipes and compressors to the cactus, like we would the artificial collectors? Never the mind the fact that as soon as a cactus dies, it starts giving its CO2 back up as it decomposes....

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

So you think we can hook up pipes and compressors to the cactus, like we would the artificial collectors? Never the mind the fact that as soon as a cactus dies, it starts giving its CO2 back up as it decomposes....

If you make it decompose fast enough you can call it fuel. Get it?

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/p...96/v3-133.html

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Again, from William Bradford:
First harvest (1621) NOT 1620
They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was a great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck a meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to the proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports.
Private and communal farming (1623)
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

So let me see: they got there in November or December of 1620. More than half of them died before the spring of 1621, because they were living on what they brought.

They didn't get a crop until the fall of 1621; they basically lived large off the land all summer. That first crop saw them nicely through the winter, until the spring of 1622. And their communal experiment was ended by 1623, so they had... what? One year of communal farming? Two, at the most. It may not have worked for them, but your claims that their starvation and deaths were due to a failed socialist experiment are completely bogus.

Learn to actually read your history, Hoyt, instead of blindly swallowing someone else's interpretation of it. I've googled the subject, and your version is all over conservative websites and blogs. It's part of a massive rewriting of history being undertaken by people who consider themselves conservatives.... along with other nonsense like Mussolini and Hitler, and all the other dictators of history, being leftist liberals.

edit: if you had simply said they tried communal farming for a year or two, and it didn't work well so they parceled out the land to individual families instead, I'd have agreed with you. But I object to the melodramatic and completely false claim that communal farming was somehow responsible for starvation and deaths that happened the winter before they even planted a crop.

Also, the fact that a handful of transplanted English families didn't make a go of communal farming is hardly a drastic indictment of it; there are cultures all over the world where some sort of communal farming or division of land and labor is common. It isn't the way I personally would like to do things, but it works for a lot of people in a lot of places.

And you'll notice that the eventual division of land was done on communal principles: the amount given was based on the number of people in the family, rather than simply giving each man an equal share. A primitive version of 'to each according to his needs...'

Seriously, that's the way most communal farming I'm aware of is done to begin with: the land belongs to all, but is split up into family plots that are reshuffled as necessary. The ancient Incas are an example: the land belonged to the ayllu (basically a clan), rather than to individuals, and was divided up according to the number of people in the family. The labor-intensive parts of farming, such as plowing and harvesting, were often done as a group going from plot to plot, kind of like an extended barn-raising. In between, each family was responsible for its own irrigation, weeding, thinning, keeping birds away, etc. However, the ayllu as a group also worked the land provided to widows and the elderly, and gave them the harvest.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

If you make it decompose fast enough you can call it fuel. Get it?

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/p...96/v3-133.html

If you started harvesting fuel or any other crop off that thin desert soil, Hoyt, it would be depleted in no time. Why are you so blindly bent on insisting that no one ever even try the CO2 collectors? Is it against your religion, or something?

Maybe we should stop using natural gas to heat our homes, while we're at it. We could force everyone to put woodlots in their back yards, and send inspectors around to ensure their wives are making soap with the ashes.

[wardd]

he's (right)ious

[Boston]

in the first winter the so called pilgrims were pitied and supported by the native americans ( specifically the Algonquians ) by the first summer most of the single European men had been had by the native woman and the short supply of European woman were pissed off. By the end of that first summer the European woman were selling small pox riddled blankets to the native in "thanks" of there help and affections. Shortly thereafter the "bounty" of the new land might have been a tad more evident based on the diminished populations taking advantage of it.

to me thanksgiving only commemorates the slaughter of roughly 90% of the native population and these pilgrims of which you speak were no better than the biggest mas murderers of any other century you could think of

B

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Boston

in the first winter the so called pilgrims were pitied and supported by the native americans ( specifically the Algonquians ) by the first summer most of the single European men had been had by the native woman and the short supply of European woman were pissed off. By the end of that first summer the European woman were selling small pox riddled blankets to the native in "thanks" of there help and affections. Shortly thereafter the "bounty" of the new land might have been a tad more evident based on the diminished populations taking advantage of it.

to me thanksgiving only commemorates the slaughter of roughly 90% of the native population and these pilgrims of which you speak were no better than the biggest mas murderers of any other century you could think of

B

You stop rewriting history too, Boston. The Pilgrims never sold smallpox-riddled blankets to the local Indians the first year they were there; where would they even have gotten any? There was no smallpox among them.

There were only 102 Pilgrims to begin with - man, woman and child. By the time spring came there were only 47 of them left, and a disproportionate number of those were children (probably because mothers starved themselves to give their children food).

For you to blame the plight of the American Indian on those battered 47 survivors is just as bogus as Hoyt blaming communal farming the next spring for the 55 deaths over the winter.

[hoytedow]

The Redcoats did it.

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal...lord_jeff.html

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

The Redcoats did it.

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal...lord_jeff.html

I've heard it was done more than once, but that's the first detailed account I've seen citing who, when and where. Thanks for the link.

It's a little more believable than Boston's fanciful account of cuckolded Pilgrim women setting out to exterminate the Indians because Pilgrim men couldn't keep their pants buttoned....or tied, or whatever they did with them.

And of course, I could counter with a long list of the ways some Indians in that part of the country amused themselves by torturing captives - which might have a little to do with the low esteem the whites held them in. Not to mention that Indians had been killing Indians for centuries before anyone else got there; the whites just turned out to be more numerous and more efficient at it.

But why don't we settle for just agreeing there was enough of 'man's inhumanity to man' to go around on both sides, and let it go at that? It happened generations ago, and anyone worth getting mad at over it has been dead for a long time.

[Boston]

not so sure about that Troy

Smallpox in the New World:

African slaves were used on the sugar plantation of the West Indies, and with them came smallpox. The first of these slaves were brought by Columbus. In 1495, fifty-seven to eighty percent of the native population of Santa Domingo and in 1515, two-thirds of the Indians of Puerto Rico were wiped out by smallpox. Ten years after Cortez arrived in Mexico, the native population had been reduced from twenty-five million to six million five hundred thousand a reduction of seventy-four percent. Even the most conservative estimates place the deaths from smallpox above sixty-five percent (Bray).

Prior to the arrival of Europeans, various sources estimate native population in North and South America at ninety to one hundred million. In the fifteen hundreds, the American Indian population in North America has been estimated at approximately twelve million, but by the early nineteen hundreds, the population had been reduced to roughly four hundred and seventy-four thousand. It is impossible to arrive at a number for the millions of American Indians killed during this period by European diseases with smallpox the deadliest by far.

Smallpox reached what was to become the United States either from Canada or the West Indies. The first major outbreak of an infectious disease recorded on the northeastern Atlantic coast was 1616-19. The Massachusetts and other Algonquin tribes in the area were reduced from an estimated thirty thousand to three hundred (Bray). When the Pilgrims landed a year later in 1620, there was few Indians left to greet them. Many observers believe this infectious disease was smallpox.

By the end of the sixteen hundreds, smallpox had spread up and down the eastern seaboard and as far west as the Great Lakes. Stearn and Stearn estimated there were approximately one million one hundred and fifty thousand Indians living north of the Rio Grande in the early sixteenth-century, but by 1907, there were less than four hundred thousand (Bray). This decline was not due to smallpox alone. Other diseases played a role, as did intertribal warfare and conflicts with the United States.

It was inevitable that when Europeans came to America that European diseases were going to run rampant through the indigenous populations of the Americas. The native populations of North and South America had no immunities, or genetic tolerance, to any of the European diseases, and not all white Americans had immunities to them either. It is commonly believed that syphilis spread from Native Americans to Europeans. There is developing DNA evidence that suggests syphilis (Yaws) was in Europe prior to Columbus's time. Like every other disease there is growing evidence that Europeans brought syphilis to America.

it is the contention among the native americans that it was the "pilgrims" who first introduced small pox to the native tribes in aprox 1620

The Pilgrims' Real First Thanksgiving

By Pete Skirbunt
Special to American Forces Press Service
FORT LEE, Va., Nov. 22, 1999 – Harvest festivals are as old as civilization itself, but our Thanksgiving is much more than an annual festival. It is a national day of expressing thanks, according to every individual's personal beliefs.
There were many "thanksgivings" in the early days of American colonization, when life and travel were so difficult that people were always giving thanks for safe journeys, favorable weather and good crops. Spanish colonists held such feasts in Texas in the 1500s, as did English colonists in Virginia from the 1600s.
The thanksgiving we commemorate every November, however, was the one held by the Pilgrims of Plymouth, Mass., in 1621. Although it definitely wasn't the "first" thanksgiving in the New World, it holds a special place in American tradition because of its association with the ideals of religious freedom, self-reliance and the mutual friendship of settlers and natives.
The Pilgrims -- a name not actually applied to them until 170 years later -- were 102 people who sailed from England on the ship Mayflower in September 1620. Of these, only 35 were actually seeking religious freedom. They were "Separatists" from the Church of England. The others, called "Strangers," simply wanted to leave England for a variety of reasons and start life over in America.
For 12 years, the Separatists had lived in Holland, where the Dutch tolerated religious differences. But these Englishmen didn't want to desert their heritage, customs or language. They decided to go to America -- to Virginia, specifically. Establishing a colony there would allow them to remain English. If they went elsewhere, to Dutch colonies, for instance, they would have had to renounce their English citizenship.
King James I, eager to be rid of them, gave them permission to establish a colony, so long as they remained loyal and didn't cause him trouble. The Virginia Company of London agreed to let them settle in "Virginia," which at that time extended north to modern New Jersey. Merchants calling themselves "Adventurers" agreed to finance the expedition in return for seven years of shared profits from whatever the colonists were able to produce and send back.
In August 1620, the first Separatists sailed with 67 "Strangers" on the Mayflower and a second ship, the Speedwell. After the Speedwell twice sprang leaks and forced returns to port, everyone crammed aboard the 90-foot-long Mayflower and left the Speedwell behind.
Aboard ship, the voyagers ate bread, biscuits, pudding, cheese, crackers, and dried meats and fruits. Instead of water, they brought barrels of beer -- a standard practice in the days before refrigeration, because beer remained potable longer than water.
The 3,000-mile voyage took 66 days, meaning the ship averaged 2 miles per hour. On the way, one baby was born, and his parents named him "Oceanus." Two people died, and the ship nearly sank in a storm.
They finally arrived, badly off course, at Cape Cod in November. This was a problem. The season and location made planting impossible, and winter hunting would be difficult. Since their agreement with the Adventurers specified they would settle "in Virginia," they ordered the captain to head south. The wind was contrary and the coast was dangerous, however, so they turned back and found safe harbor at Cape Cod.
It was then the Strangers announced that because they hadn't been delivered to Virginia, they weren't bound by the contract and would take orders from no one! In fact, the Separatists feared all their agreements with the company, the Strangers and King James were completely useless. But they knew if there was division, there was little hope in anyone surviving.
Before going ashore, the travelers drew up the "Mayflower Compact." One of the most significant documents in U.S. history, the statement was the first by any settlers that they intended to abide by the will of the majority. The 41 adult males who signed the document agreed they and their families would obey laws set up for the general good. They also set the precedent that only adult males would have a voice in government -- a precedent followed until 1920, exactly 300 years in the future.
In December, a scouting party went ashore, and tradition says they first set foot upon the stone known today as "Plymouth Rock." This may or may not be true, but the rock is so large that they probably at least used it as a landmark when rowing ashore.
The men in this first group ashore feared a possible confrontation with unfriendly Indians, but soon they discovered the local Indians were all dead of smallpox. They took this as divine providence and assumed God had cleared their way by killing off the natives.
They established their colony with little but faith and courage and named it "Plymouth" in honor of their final port of departure. The Mayflower remained offshore, but most of its provisions were needed for its crew's return voyage. Meanwhile, the settlers couldn't plant crops, and they didn't have enough supplies to last until spring. They'd lived in cities while in Holland, so they didn't know how to fish or hunt. In their first month they caught exactly one fish and shot no game at all. For awhile, it seemed they'd go down in history as the world's most inept hunters and fishermen.
They suffered from cold, starvation and disease, and half of them were dead by spring. The survivors were in danger of suffering the same fate without much delay. But everything changed in the spring, when a lone Indian walked into the settlement and said, in English:
"Welcome, English. I am Samoset. Do you have beer?"
The Pilgrims were astonished. Of all the places in America they could have come ashore, they'd been found by a friendly Indian who somehow spoke their language -- and knew about beer. Once again, they were sure this was a sign of God's personal intervention.
Samoset explained he'd learned English -- and the fact that ships routinely carried beer -- from having had contact with English fishing vessels. Unfortunately, one of the vessels had apparently also brought smallpox, which wiped out some of the local tribes. Samoset had survived.
Soon, he introduced the Pilgrims to other Indians, including Squanto, the only living member of the Patuxet tribe. Squanto spoke even better English than Samoset and said he'd been shanghaied by an English ship and taken to England, where he found work in London as a "living curiosity" and one-man carnival side show. Eventually, other fishermen took him back home so he could show them the best fishing spots. Upon his return, he discovered smallpox had wiped out his tribe during his absence. Later the Wampanoags adopted him.
Now more than ever, the Pilgrims believed God had guided them to this place of friendly, English-speaking natives. According to their view, God let Squanto be kidnapped so he would miss the smallpox epidemic, learn English and arrive at Plymouth just in time to save them.
The Pilgrims also befriended the Wampanoag chieftain, Massasoit, and his personal ambassador, Hobomok. The tribe taught them to catch fish, lobsters and eels; to harvest clams and oysters; to plant corn and other vegetables; to fertilize by placing a small fish into the ground with each seedling; and to trap and hunt game.
The settlers eventually became good enough marksmen to provide fresh game. They also had a good autumn harvest, including 20 acres of corn.
Meanwhile the Mayflower returned to England, and two other ships arrived. The first brought no supplies, but did deliver more men and some mail, including a nasty letter from the Adventurers, complaining that they had sent no marketable products back with the Mayflower. The second brought more settlers and, fortunately, lots of provisions. This was a good reason to celebrate, so in October 1621 the settlement and 91 Indians held a thanksgiving feast.

and this

by Patrick Henry

(Mat 3:8-10 KJV) Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: {9} And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. {10} And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

These are the words of John the Baptist, who was sent here by God to prepare us for the Kingdom of God. He preaches from the arid wasteland to those religious city folk who came out to question him. He tells them that the evidence of true faith doesn't consist in their parentage, or their race, or their religious affiliation, or how they were baptized. Rather, John insists that the evidence of their salvation consists in the fruits of their repentance -- fruits such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness -- goodness -- benevolence. These lacking, the "tree" is not only chopped down, but destroyed in the bonfire, making room for the fruitful.

We, the people of God present this evening, desire to be fruitful. We know in our hearts that Jesus will come quickly and set up his Kingdom right here on earth. And that if we are fruitful trees, we shall reign with him forever.

The Pilgrims believed this, too. They considered themselves to be the spiritual descendants of John the Baptist, setting forth from a hostile England to set up the Kingdom of God in the Americas, in hopes that Jesus might join them there. It's their story that tonight I will tell.

Who Were the Pilgrims?

In the early years of the 17th century, there was a sect of religious folk in England. They were called "Puritans" because they desired to purify themselves from anything and anyone which didn't fit into their slant on the Bible. They believed that their destiny was to be fulfilled in the prophecies of the Revelation. They understood their time to be the end-time, and that they alone were God's last hope for the world. Through them, God spoke damning judgment against England; and through them, Jesus was establishing the New Jerusalem. Our group of 101 Puritans, whom we know as "The Pilgrims," set sail for America in September, 1620 to do just that -- to establish the eternal Kingdom of God right here on earth.

When the Mayflower landed on Plymouth's rocky shore November 21, we can only imagine what the Indians might have thought. Regardless of their fearsome appearance, the Indians' religion taught them to help all strangers in need, so they treated the newcomers with courtesy. Had this not been so, the Pilgrims would have expired soon after landing.

And Who Were These Indians?

These Indians were the Wampanoags, a tribe of the "The Delaware League." They were a civilized people who lived in round, wooden wigwams gathered into villages along the seacoast. They wore deerskin clothing and moccasins, and bearskin coats. They wore braided hair; the men adorned with a single feather. Like us, these Indians farmed. During hunting season, they moved with their prey.

And they worshiped one god, "The Lord of Heaven." Their faith taught that charity was to be extended to the needy and hospitality to the helpless. They believed in the Creation and respected all creatures as equals. The Indians practiced the Golden Rule.

Squanto

One of these Indians was a Christian who spoke English. His name was Tisquantum. We know him as "Squanto." Long before the Mayflower, Squanto had met Christ, was discipled by an English explorer, and taken to Europe. While there, he met another coastal Indian named Samoset, a freed slave. After 15 years in Europe, Squanto and Samoset decided it was time to go home -- back to Squanto's village of Patuxet in Massachusetts.

When the Indians arrived home, they found their village deserted (except for the skeletons). Slave traders had been there; they captured the strongest to sell, and killed the rest will smallpox. Squanto's family was dead or gone. He and Samoset left in horror. When they returned to Patuxet a year later, they were surprised to find a tiny encampment on the very site of their village. The camp was the Pilgrims' New Jerusalem.

Contact!

For several days Squanto and Samoset watched from a hiding place. Finally, they ventured out. Samoset said one word to the Pilgrims: "Welcome." Now, the Pilgrims were surprised. Two Indians who spoke English! Unbelievable! And the Pilgrims were very glad.

For, by this time, God's Chosen were in bad shape. Half had died the first winter. Now they were living in dirt huts with no food. So Squanto decided to stay for a few months to teach the Pilgrims how to survive their Apocalypse. He hunted deer and beaver for their food and clothing. He taught them how to plant vegetables and how to build wigwams. He taught them the difference between medicine herbs and poison plants, how to dig and steam clams, how to tap maple trees, how to use fish for fertilizer, and dozens of other things.

The First Thanksgiving

By harvest time, life was much better for the Pilgrims. God had saved them through his Indian servant, Squanto. The Pilgrims had accumulated enough food to last the winter. They were living in cozy wigwams. They had even build a little church. So thankful were they for their preservation, they decided to throw a Thanksgiving feast.

Actually, feasting is quite out-of-character for Puritans, because the English Church, against which they were rebelling, obligated the people to observe certain holidays. The Puritans saw holidays as pagan, including Christmas and Easter. Observance of such was blasphemy. For them, Thanksgiving meant a long fast, not a feast!

On the other hand, the Wampanoag Indians held six thanksgivings every year honoring the "Lord of Heaven" for his creation, including the maple dance, the strawberry festival, the harvest feast and the new year. The Pilgrims' first thanksgiving of the year was the Indians' fifth!

Captain Miles Standish, the Pilgrim leader, declared the feast open, and invited Squanto, Samoset and Chief Massasoit to come. As the meal proceeded, Indians just kept coming -- twenty little, thirty little, forty little Indians -- until there were 90 little Indians. Seeing the dab of food the Pilgrims offered, the Chief ordered his men to go get more. They brought back five deer, turkeys, fish, beans, squash, soups, corn bread and fruit.

When all was ready, Captain Standish held down one end of the long, long table, and Chief Massasoit the other. This was the first time the Wampanoags sat to eat rather than recline on furs. The Pilgrim men sat with the Indian men and women as though they were equals. The Pilgrim women, however, had to stand aside. That was the rule.

Thus the first Thanksgiving was a time of peace and friendship; here Chief Massasoit gave the Pilgrims Patuxet village as a sign of friendship. But the friendship didn't last. You see, the Pilgrims considered these native Americans to be Philistines in their Promised Land -- a godless race to be subdued -- sinners to be purified or destroyed.

True Colors

You see, Pilgrim evangelism was not based in charity, but in fear and judgment and punishment. Despite their aid, the Pilgrims saw the Indians as instruments of the devil; and Squanto as merely the means by which God insured the survival of His chosen people, the Pilgrims. Because the heathen Indians were powerful, they were also dangerous; the Pilgrims would bide their time only until more Pilgrims arrived to shift the balance of power.

In the meantime, they threatened God's wrath if the Indians wouldn't quit their way of life and customs to become Puritans. The Indians had to submit to be saved. Such coercion and threat is far from the biblical model; it in itself is godless and full of pride. Legalism never leads to conversion, but to a breakdown of relationship; and ultimately, to war. Soon, more Pilgrims migrated to Plymouth, and the holy war began. After years of musket and smallpox, the few Wampanoags left were captured and sold as slaves -- some payback for their hospitality and help.

It's sad to recount the third Thanksgiving prayer in 1623, but it exemplifies Pilgrim-brand religion. The Pastor, Elder Mather, began the feast by giving thanks to God for sending the smallpox that had wiped out the Indians during the last two years. He praised God for killing "chiefly young men and children, thus clearing the forests to make way for a better growth" -- a "better growth" of Puritans, of course. But Elder Mather should have known that it wasn't God who brought the smallpox; it was the Pilgrims. The same white-washed Pharisees that the Pilgrims had fled, they had now become.

[Boston]

NASA reports hottest January to September on record

Hottest September in UAH satellite record, Spencer puzzled by "stubborn" temperatures
October 14, 2010

Last month, NASA reported it was the hottest January-August on record. That followed a terrific analysis, “July 2010 — What Global Warming Looks Like,” which noted that 2010 is “likely” to be warmest year on record.

This month continues the trend of 2010 outpacing previous years, according to NASA:

It seems all but certain we will outpace 1998, which currently ties for fourth hottest year in the NASA dataset (though it is technically described by NASA folks as tied for the second hottest year with 2005 and 2007).

Outpacing 2005, the hottest year on record, will be closer. In NASA’s surface-based dataset, we are unlikely to set the record monthly temperatures for the rest of this year; last month wasn’t close to the hottest September for NASA. We have entered a moderate to strong La Niña, which NOAA says is “expected to last at least through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2010-11.”

NASA’s surface-based temperature record appears to be the most accurate, as I’ve noted many times (see Finally, the truth about the Hadley/CRU data: “The global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming”).

Interestingly, while the disinformers have been breathlessly touting the La Niña as sure to cool things down rapidly, global temperatures have held up, even in the satellite datasets, which are typically sensitive to the El Niño Southern oscillation (ENSO). The more trustworthy RSS data found that it was the hottest September in satellite record.

Remarkably, even Roy Spencer’s much rejiggered UAH data for the lower troposphere shows September 2010 as the hottest on record — a full 0.15 C higher than September 1998. The UAH anomaly actually jumped from its August level (+0.51 C), baffling Spencer, who wrote:

Despite cooling in the tropics, the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly has stubbornly refused to follow suit: +0.60 deg. C for September, 2010.

Ironically, Spencer anthropomorphises average global temperature — calling it “stubborn” — while refusing to accept the reality of dangerous anthropogenic global warming. The only thing more stubborn than scientific reality is Spencer’s refusal to accept it (see The Great Global Warming Blunder: Roy Spencer asserts, “I predict that the proposed cure for global warming – reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses”).

Spencer then quickly posted an article on falling sea surface temperatures, but his graph of UAH temperatures shows unmistakable decadal warming:

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_10

Before this month, I thought 2010 might not be the hottest year in the satellite record, but now it seems like there is a good chance it will — if global temps remain as stubborn as they’ve been (and unrejiggered). Spencer writes:

For those following the race for warmest year in the satellite tropospheric temperature record (which began in 1979), 2010 is slowly approaching the record warm year of 1998. Here are the 1998 and 2010 averages for Julian Days 1 through 273:

1998 +0.590
2010 +0.553

The UAH anomalies for the last three months of 1998 were:

1998 10 0.416
1998 11 0.192
1998 12 0.277

So that leaves a lot of room for global temperatures to drop in October through December and still have 2010 beat 1998.

Finally, it bears repeating that the record warmth we are seeing this year is all the more powerful evidence of human-caused warming “because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance is having its maximum cooling effect,” as a recent must-read NASA paper noted:

* NASA: The 12-month running mean global temperature has reached a new record in 2010 — despite recent minimum of solar irradiance: “We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade” and “there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s.”

It is just hard to stop the march of human caused global warming — other than by sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[Boston]

Carbon dioxide controls Earth's temperature

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane
, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth's greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth's greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect.

Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth's greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth's greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

Provided by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (news : web)

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Boston

not so sure about that Troy



it is the contention among the native americans that it was the "pilgrims" who first introduced small pox to the native tribes in aprox 1620

How does that work, Dan? Your own post clearly says, [t]he first major outbreak of an infectious disease recorded on the northeastern Atlantic coast was 1616-19. The Massachusetts and other Algonquin tribes in the area were reduced from an estimated thirty thousand to three hundred (Bray). When the Pilgrims landed a year later in 1620, there were few Indians left to greet them. Many observers believe this infectious disease was smallpox.

Explain to me how your mythical pissed-off Pilgrim wives managed to kill off 30,000 Algonquins between 1616 and 1619, when they didn't even land until December of 1620. Are you telling me they handed out infectious blankets in 1621, and those blankets traveled back in time four years and started killing Indians?

Obviously, the epidemic was a tragedy of epic proportions; it essentially wiped out an entire people. But regardless of later episodes, there's absolutely no evidence that anyone deliberately infected and eradicated the Patuxets (not the Algonquins).

The fact of the matter is that Indians from that coastal area were already well-acquainted with whites; some of them had even shipped on fishing and whaling vessels. The first words ever spoken to the Pilgrims by an Indian were uttered by Samoset, an Algonquin chief, and they were in flawless English: "have you got any beer?"

The second Indian they met was one of the few surviving Patuxets. His name was Squanto, and he had returned from living nine years in England to find his entire tribe gone. So he pretty much adopted the Pilgrims instead, and took them under his wing.

http://www.theparacast.com/forum/thr...u-Got-Any-Beer