Applegater Winter 2017
17
OPINIONS
Real climate change versus
fake climate change
BY ALAN VOETSCH
I see we’re starting to have the same old
political propaganda show up here again.
I had originally decided to let it slide as I
have been having great fun responding to
ridiculous alarmist articles on Yahoo daily,
but I now know that a response is needed
here also. Why? Because this subject is
being used to alarm voters into electing
politicians who are willing to raise taxes on
everyone who lives in the Applegate Valley
based on bad computer models, lies, and
confusion.
Alarmists seldom define the version
of “climate change” they’re referring to.
Why? They want to take advantage of our
perceived ignorance of the subject, and
they believe that if something is repeated
often enough, it will be believed.
Alarmists believe that global warming
has happened only recently and only
because humans burn fossil fuels. This
is untrue, and anyone who says this is
ignorant. Global warming (or cooling)
can happen for a variety of reasons and
has happened many, many times without
our help. This excludes human-caused
greenhouse gasses as the only culprit.
Let’s define climate change by giving an
actual example that most of us should be
familiar with. There have been several ice
ages over the last million years, separated
by warm interglacial periods. Ice ages last
80 to 100 thousand years, interglacial
periods from 15 to 20 thousand years.
Until about 12,000 years ago, we were in
an ice age with ice sheets thousands of feet
thick where Chicago is now.
What happened, you may ask? Real
climate change happened. Our planet
warmed and melted the ice, which raised
sea levels over 400 feet. Ice sheets receded,
and we were left with a welcoming climate
and a beautiful continent, all without an
increase in CO 2 from fossil fuels.
Since then there have been many smaller
warmings and coolings, including the
Roman, Medieval and Modern warmings,
with the last two separated by the Little
Ice Age. The Dark Ages coincided with a
global cooling period. These were difficult
times for many. This is real climate change
that happens due to natural variability that
humans can never control. Milankovitch
cycles are the major driver of ice ages.
These are variations of our orbit, including
eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of
Earth’s orbit that result in cyclical variation
in the solar radiation reaching the Earth.
Then there are many various solar cycles
that also help to drive our climate. CO 2 is
not a major climate driver, just an essential
trace gas and mild greenhouse gas.
Fake climate change information is all
around: on the internet daily and from
the mouths of people who call the other
side “science denier” or “climate deniers.”
And they like to say that 97 percent of
scientists believe blah, blah... That lie is
easily refuted—just do a quick online
search. Or they ask, “Do you believe in
climate change?” This is not only idiotic,
but it’s also a trick question.
Most of our politicians do not
understand this subject well enough to
answer intelligently. What the alarmists do
understand is how to make the other side
look bad because they know how to take
advantage of political theater: if they attack
first, they hold the advantage. I know real
climate change happens, and only a fool
would swear that there is no way we have
zero impact on our surroundings.
My point: If this subject is important
enough to you to make it a deciding
point in whom you will vote for, then it is
imperative that you do your own research
and not listen to anyone with an agenda.
Alarmists have an agenda: increase
taxes, regulations, and government power,
and attack corporations in general and
fossil-fuel companies in particular. The
belief that CO 2 is a primary driver of global
temperatures is ludicrous. It starts losing
effectiveness above 100 parts per million
(ppm). We are slightly above 400 ppm,
and each additional unit loses even more
effectiveness. We do, however, have a larger
impact locally than globally, and we must
be thoughtful with farm and agricultural
methods.
My agenda is to get as many people as
possible to do their own research, so they
can form their own opinions independent
of those who like to bully others into
“believing.”
Please recycle and leave every place you
visit cleaner than you found it.
Good read: Lukewarming: The New
Climate Science that Changes Everything
by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C.
Knappenberger. Covers every base.
Note: Be prepared for an avalanche
of new propaganda blaming fires and
hurricanes on climate change.
Alan Voetsch
alan_voetsch@yahoo.com
Appreciate the Applegate life
BY SANDY SHAFFER
I first read about the Northern California
wildfires in October as we were driving
home from a week-long vacation on the
Washington coast. I was rendered frozen
and mute. Hubby and I had both spent
our working years in the San Francisco
Bay Area, and we have many friends who
still live in that area. We discovered wine in
the Napa-Sonoma regions. I worked with
several clients building new businesses in
Napa. An architect friend from Calistoga
visited Buncom to help us design our home
in the Applegate in the late 1990s.
I still chill at the thought of the
damages, the loss, the enormous change
in so many people’s lives that a single
weather event caused. Powerful winds were
throwing power lines around like cooked
spaghetti—so ferociously that multiple
fires sparked and spread in minutes. Ten
days later the count was over 100,000
acres burned and at least 8,700 structures
destroyed, most being single-family homes.
I was reminded of the Oakland Hills
Firestorm in 1991, listening to the news
coverage while painting a fence at home
in the East Bay (not that far from the
fire). Again, grieving for our friends who
we knew lived in that part of town. At the
time I thought it couldn’t get any worse.
Sonoma proved me wrong.
I’ve continued to read about the
Sonoma fires to try and see if there are any
lessons to be learned. Could something
like this happen here in the Applegate? I
started comparing the two areas physically.
We have a lot more natural fuels, and our
elevation is much higher than Sonoma’s is
at barely above sea level. However, their
annual rainfall is very similar to ours!
After more research, I decided that
the differences between Sonoma and the
Applegate were more social than physical.
An example: land-use regulations and
ownership have spread our population out,
with 20- to 100-acre parcels intermixed
with federal lands.
Sonoma had historically set aside state
parklands, nature preserves, and designated
open spaces. However, after massive fires
in 1964, things changed. The townsfolk
began rebuilding, extending the city
limits, and developing all lands. Vineyards
were sold off despite protests from old-
timers! Local land-use rules (such as an
ordinance prohibiting building on hilltops
surrounding the Santa Rosa Valley) were
ignored as residents, builders, and county
officials all embraced the development of
their city’s new economic life.
Decades later neighborhoods were
packed, two-story homes were “crowded
on 60-by-100-foot lots” (1) and vegetation
was overgrown everywhere. When the
winds came up this August, conditions
were ripe for disaster.
Here in the Applegate our land-use
development codes address parcel sizes as
a way to control population density and
to protect federal lands. They also require
we keep vegetation thinned and managed
around the home and along access routes.
So, we can’t do what Sonoma did way
back then, even if we wanted to, without
bucking county government! As a result,
we continue to have high rates of defensible
space in the Applegate.
In August when the Miller Complex
was burning in our area, our Fire Chief
McLaughlin worked alongside three
different Incident Commanders (ICs) on
the numerous fires. Every one of the ICs
commented on our defensible space efforts!
One of them told Chief McLaughlin
that “I have never seen a community
have such defensible space around their
residences as I have seen here in the
Applegate, and it sure saved us a lot of
work, not to mention freeing up resources
to fight the fire instead of prepping
properties.”
Friends and neighbors, this compliment
is something we all should be proud of.
We have learned from past fires and we’ve
taken advantage of lessons learned from
other communities, not to mention the
grants made available over the years! We
appreciate the environment in which
we live. As a result, doing annual fuels
maintenance has become second nature
to us here in the Applegate.
In my opinion, the Sonoma fires in
October were the result of many combined
social and physical changes over time
that ripened the landscape for fire. I truly
hope Sonomans can and will change as
they begin to rebuild their lives and their
neighborhoods.
To you, my neighbors in the most
beautiful place in the world, I say
“Pat yourselves on the back!” We are
extraordinary here in the Applegate—let’s
keep it that way!
Sandy Shaffer
sassyoneor@gmail.com
(1)
The Washington Post, October 18, 2017,
Opinions: “Santa Rosa ignored nature’s
warning” by Gaye LeBaron, columnist
for The Press Democrat in Santa Rosa,
California.
