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

[David Neeley]

By positing those who are skeptics as "deniers" you immediately
emotionalize the issue.

An extremely good resource is the Cambridge Conference Network
newsletter, which contains articles and commentary on all sides of the
issue.

One problem in the discussion is that there are actually very few
scientists actually qualified to discuss climate change. For example,
there are only about 80 individuals in the U.S. (and a similar number
elsewhere worldwide) who actually have Ph.D. degrees in climatology.
Quite a few of these, in fact, are people much more skeptical than you
may imagine.

"Global Warming" is presently very much in the status of a
religion--we are asked to accept much by faith that cannot be
conclusively proven, and even that subject to other factors that may
in fact describe the problem far better.

I have found no links between carbon concentrations and warming, for
example. In fact, rising carbon levels generally come after
significant warming measurements, not before. The only direct
correlations that have been found thus far are between sunspot
activity and warming, from what I can determine.

However, intelligent discussion of these issues is very hard to find
on most fora. Many people simply accept what they are told is
"scientific consensus" as some sort of holy writ without challenge.
That, I'm afraid, is not scientific method.

My position is simple: I don't accept at face value many
unsubstantiated claims--especially the hysterical ones such as Al
Gore's over the top predictions based upon nothing I can find except
his own investments in carbon offset brokers. His dire warnings of
"twenty foot sea level rises" for example far exceed even the most
pessimistic forecasts of those who are proposing global warming
catastrophe--by a factor of ten or more, in fact.

David



On 6/19/07, Geoff  Thomas <wind at iig.com.au> wrote:
> 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
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioconversion mailing list
> Bioconversion at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion_listserv.repp.org
>