The bulk of your comment is directed at the broad range of the various issues of this near infinitely complicated subject, and only in the beginning did you express concerns about what I'm saying. This is good, I want you and other readers to pick apart the details of the material I explore, ask questions, offer opinions about potential solutions. Better yet explain solutions in progress that panned out as promised, or if they didn't pan out help explain why.

I DO NOT expect to be attacked if I don't agree with someone, nor will I personally attack someone I don't agree with. I will as you well know complain pointedly if anyone else is attacked if they don't agree. It's very much about free speech and open debate, while also respecting common courtesy.

I can be as diplomatic as the next guy, and also dish it out as well as the next guy too.

For nearly two years I've run this debate / exploration on my own page with great success and pretty darn good quality "conversations", and that "common courtesy clause" was the only real rule. A lot of folks haven't agreed with me on various issues, yet most in the end also said I make at least some sense.

Carrying on.....

First and foremost I'm pleased if your wife is reviewing my offerings (our exchanges). As you've suggested she's "in the business". This being the case we have built in peer review, at least behind the scenes. I have a couple of post Doc level readers, one formerly with the EPA, one with NOAA who review my writing already. I can assure you they would let me know if I get too far out of line and venture into flat out false territory. They also have asked for clarification of what Ive said, which helps me fine tune when I get too vague.

One thing we need to clear up is I am absolutely NOT anti-environmental. I've earned a living one way or another in the environmental management business since the early 1980's.

I am ABSOLUTELY anti environmental-fanatic. Which is to say I am actually a cheerleader for easily 90 percent of the folks who care about the discussion.

One of my methods when I explore this material is to try and break specific sub-components out of the broad range and try and address them as stand alone narrowly bounded discussions.

For example, our the state of our National Energy Grid, and sustainable building efforts.

The broad range is sufficiently controversial and (I assert) certain parts of it less than sure things, that we will endlessly be stuck in the mud arguing about the big picture if we don't try and consider little pieces at a time.

Given the high level of inflammatory rhetoric from both sides, Joe average voting American has no chance to digest the massive inter-related problems, let alone begin to understand potential solutions, and VOTE based on common sense and accurate information.

In conclusion, I posted my "Middle Ages Weather" history reference as a Forum to draw attention to what Mother Nature does on her own without the help of mankind. In no way was it to "debunk" current climate change theory in relation to man's part of the cause but to illustrate the nature of the beast that as far as I'm concern has been quietly sleeping for the last couple hundred years.

I'm not comfortable with the idea we caused all of the change, nor am I comfortable with the idea we caused none of it.

It's easily somewhere in the middle, but the folks who vehemently suggest the two extremes are the one who have a beef with my efforts.

One might ask why folks would "assume" I was trying to debunk anthropogenic discussions?

It might be more useful to begin thinking in terms of a synergistic relationship between what Mother Nature is capable on her own, coupled with what "help" mans has introduced to the Earth's weather and climate system.

If you go back and look carefully at my former posts and comments, you will begin to understand why I prefer and "Man influenced climate" and also notice I strongly think Mother Nature is doing what she does naturally.

BOTH at the same time.

The "Greek Words" post curretnly posted explores at length "Synergy". I think that's what our climate is doing, and I think the "weather observations" from the Middle Ages are VERY likely to happen again, soon.

Recent "Tipping Point" discussions about certain historic rapid change to regional climate are too important to ignore.

This being the case, talking about investing trillions in potential (speculative) benefits a couple hundreds of years out will leave millions of citizens vulnerable in the near future. We need to figure out what the middle ground common sense actions are.

Onward thru the fog.