[Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no future.

Tue Mar 4 13:43:09 CST 2008

When I look at the Volstok ice core data; I see four distinct peaks over the
past 400,000 years.

Two huge questions loom:

1).  Which came first the temps or the CO2?

2). Which dropped first the Temps or the CO2 and why? 

When I look at the alarming forecasts in the rise of the oceans, I ask
myself, 'will Maine's Coast be covered like it was at the end of the last
ice age? Then when I consult the tidal data taken at the PORTLAND HEAD light
over the past 141 years, I am relieved to find a steady increase in the
ocean's level at an average rate of 0.07mm a year, and stop reading.

There is increasing evidence that long lost species are emerging to feed on
the CO2...perfectly natural blooming of flora to feed on this plant
nutrient; perhaps we'll have a return to the age of plants and they'll die
and create more fossil fuels.   

Maine is having a very cold winter...over 1,000 degree days above
average..brrrr!!

Frank J. Heller, MPA
KATAHDIN ENERGY WORKS
12 Belmont St.
Brunswick, ME 04011-3004
207.729.6090
http://mysite.verizon.net/fjheller/

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Kenn Johnsen
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:29 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order,
no future.

The CO2 got nothing to do with temperature, that is a lie......anyone  
can convince himself of that, with just look at the ice core. Beside  
where is the global warming......right now we have record cool winter.

Den 04/03/2008 kl. 16.15 skrev Bob Stuart:

>
> On 4-Mar-08, at 8:51 AM, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
>> Dear Kenn
>>
>> I think you shot yourself in the foot, big time, in a most
>> unprofessional and amateurish manner.
>>
>> "Consensus Science" was employed to conclude that Global Warming was
>> real, yet you are implying that Global Warming is a scam.
>>
>> Then, "...with almost all knowledgeable people...", you are drawing
>> upon
>> a "Consensus Science" format to conclude that Peak Oil is a scam  
>> also.
>> You can't have it both ways. Is Consensus Science valid or not??? You
>> are inferring that Consensus Science was wrong in the case of Global
>> Warming, yet, in the very same breath,  you are inferring that
>> Consensus
>> Science is right in the case of Peak Oil.
>>
>> (I think that even you will have to admit that the calibre of the
>> Consensus Science employed  in the IPCC Report is very much more
>> credible than an unknown body of "...almost all knowledgeable
>> people..")
>>
>> Making definite, strong, somewhat demeaning, hurtful and insulting
>> statements based on mere inference, and an evaluation protocol that  
>> is
>> internally flawed, is not Professional, is not Scientific, and is
>> neither polite nor gentlemanly.
>>
>> What it is, is ignorant, boorish, and incompetent behaviour.
>
> I think that people who insist that any uncomfortable predictions are
> manipulative lies are just revealing their own relationship to
> truth.  Perhaps we should just offer bets and get paid for our
> efforts to separate wheat from chaff.  Anyway, I'd like to share
> another perspective on the problem, featuring easy-to-see evidence.
>
> At 92 pages long, this document from Friends of the Earth is not a
> quick read, but it sure got my attention.  However, a synopsis may be
> in order:
>
> Last fall, there was so much open water in the Arctic ocean that the
> predictions about global warming are clearly too optimistic.  We now
> have proof that .8 degrees C is enough to progressively melt the
> polar ice, which leaves a relatively warm, solar-absorbing ocean
> beside the Greenland ice cap, which has also started to melt
> quickly.  That melting would raise sea levels by many meters, and
> probably doom the West Antarctic ice sheet, which rests on the sea
> bottom.  And, even if we stopped all burning tomorrow,  another .6
> degree of warming is already in the system.   Coastal cities would
> need massive dikes and, too often, desalinization of their water  
> supply.
>
> Clearly, there is already too much carbon dioxide in the air, and
> some will have to be removed as soon as possible to avoid runaway
> effects from melting permafrost releasing carbon and other
> unrecoverable disasters.  There has been talk of aiming to wind up
> with the earth 2 degrees warmer, or maybe 3, but both those figures
> lead to major disasters and extinctions, and could flip to even
> warmer conditions.  We are already taking chances with the planet far
> more reckless than those we accept on a public road.  Loosing it is
> Not An Option.
>
> The good news is  that by putting the economy on an emergency basis,
> as was done for WW II, we still have time to create a modern,
> sustainable technology while drawing carbon out of the air.  One low-
> tech method is to produce a stable soil enhancement - terra preta.
> Business as usual is headed, lemming-like, for a perfect crash.
> However, determined regulation guided by hard science can easily
> transform industries without loss of employment or even profit.
> Waste, however, will have to become prohibitively expensive, before
> the next generation winds up with most of the bill.  Companies are
> only a product of the laws that form them, so we must change the
> rules, and with all haste.
>
> http://www.carbonequity.info/climatecodered/index.html
>
>
> Best,
> Bob Stuart
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org