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

[Les Blevins]

David,

Tell us about your study and about your background.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Neeley" <dbneeley at gmail.com>
To: <bioconversion at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Bioconversion] Conserve -- Even the Air Force Wants to 
CutOil's Role


> 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
>