[Bioconversion] Conserve -- Even the Air Force Wants to Cut Oil's Role

[Geoff Thomas]

hi David, I have found having a debate on Global Warming on sites that are mainly composed of
people interested in doing something about it to be usually quite destructive, people get upset,
as their good work is dismissed, global climate deniers have a strong emotional attachment to
denying, so as your arguments are the usual ones, I would suggest visiting a site,
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
then after that if you still felt you had a case, rather than burden everyone with it, perhaps
you could post a site where your point of view was argued and anyone interested could look at
both sites and make up their own minds without hysterical stuff coming our way.
Just a suggestion.
Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.

> In my study thus far, I find the evidence of Man's contribution to
> global warming far from a sure thing if we are to take the more
> hysterical pronouncements as representing any sort of true scientific
> consensus.
>
> To me, a far more compelling case can be made regarding solar activity
> as the primary driver in climate change, as the world continues to
> warm up from the Little Ice Age--a warming which has been proceeding
> for about three centuries now.
>
> Personally, I am quite willing to accept that human activity may play
> a part--but by no means a critical one in that process.
>
> If we were to accept that we must take immediate corrective action, I
> would suggest that carbon dioxide is by far not the most pressing
> concern. By far the most prevalent "greenhouse gas" is water vapor,
> and the impact of methane is on a volumetric basis far more serious
> than that of CO2.
>
> If, then, we were to seek to have the maximum impact upon the
> greenhouse effect, it would make far more sense for humans to go vegan
> and dispense with all those nasty methane-producing meat animals as
> well as the 80% of grain production (consuming fossil fuels for
> farming, processing and transport) which goes to feed those animals.
>
> However, the greenhouse effect itself is somewhat suspect as usually
> presented. If it were a major driver of climate change, for example,
> we would expect temperatures in the troposphere to be far warmer than
> they appear to be. This, in turn, would lessen the difference in
> temperatures between the ground and the atmosphere, which would also
> lessen the severity of hurricanes and typhoons...quite the opposite of
> the doomsayers.
>
> I am against squandering petroleum resources but not because of global
> warming fear. I simply don't think that is the highest and best use of
> it, and that increasingly costly supply will continue to be a problem
> until it is exhausted. Burning petroleum simply seems the worst use of
> a diminishing resource.
>
> I am extremely interested in bioremediation in sewage treatment that
> also will create biomass for generation of fuels. That seems to me to
> be a far better approach than the mechanical one used in most places
> today.
>
> David
>
> On 6/19/07, Philip Anderson <solarphil at comcast.net> wrote:
>> In response to Geoff's discussion of the carbon cycle and renewable energy:
>>
>>
>>
>> Some factors I like to consider in the issues of the carbon cycle -both
>> natural and human-induced- is time travel and overpopulation:
>>
>> >   It's the ancient carbon from fossil fuels -which has no natural place in
>> today's world- which that is overwhelming the biosphere which is made to
>> handle today's carbon.
>>
>> >   And overpopulation (in addition to our naive use of fossil fuels) is
>> reducing the biosphere's machinery for handling both the ancient carbon and
>> today's carbon, through our destruction of the green mantle, and further
>> exacerbated by too many of us doing this.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioconversion mailing list
> Bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion_listserv.repp.org
>