[Terrapreta] the most terrifying video...climate change

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Gerald

Gerald Van Koeverden wrote:
> If Svensmark's hypothesis holds up over time from many different 
> approaches to the problem, then it will eventually become the accepted 
> explanation by scientists.
The thing that concerns me is that we are told, on the one hand, that 
Climate Change will be a disaster to mankind if we don't do something 
about it. With something this significant, the sensible thing to do 
would be to get our facts straight, and figure out a plan that will work.

Svensmark's Hypothesis is rational, and if correct, it explains a lot of 
things about trhe Earth's Past History. Yet, the "Mainstream Science" 
won't go near him, apparently because they have too much invested in 
their anthropogenic theories of Global Warming. Why would they want to 
shoot themselves in their feet? "Consensus Science, and "Belief Science" 
approaches are all to common now. What has happened to the necessity of 
truth and fact?
>
> But until then, the prevailing scientific explanation for it has to do 
> with our pollution of the atmosphere, of returning the atmosphere to a 
> condition many millions of years ago when there was a much higher 
> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"Prevailing Science" is another term for "We really don't know."
>   By releasing all that carbon from those very long term "sinks" - 
> coal/peat/oil deposits - we are re-creating a pre-historic climate of 
> extremes...
True, but regardless if CO2 is contributing to GW, we should be 
conserving resources, so they don't run out.
>
> Just like the idea of continental drift, it took many years for the 
> greenhouse thesis to go from a being the idea of only one person to 
> that of accepted orthodoxy.  It is possible that Svensmark's will go 
> this same route, though 99% of new theories in science are eventually 
> abandoned.
There was very little at stake with the Continental Drift Theory. Life 
as we know it will cease unless we find the real cause of GW, and 
implement EITHER a plan to control it, OR a plan to live with it.

Most Communities have local laws preventing building on flood plains. If 
there is nothing that Man can do to control GW, then the only solution 
is to find ways to live with it. The solutions to live with GW are very 
different from teh solutions to control GHG Emissions.

If the Scientific Community is looking for answers in a scientific 
manner, they would put massive funding into Svensmark's work. What good 
Scientist can resist an anomaly, an outlier, or a non-sequitor? The 
Consensus Science People seem more anxious to quash Svensmark, rather 
than prove him either right or wrong.
> So do we act on what we believe with what we already know, or do we 
> wait until we're sure from hindsight - when it's probably too late??
Acting on a belief is good if that is ones only option.  However, the 
outcome depends on chance. Get the Science right and then we can proceed 
with virtual certainty. Why isn't Big Science looking at ALL 
possibilities? By not looking at all possibilities in a rational manner, 
they are setting themselves up for potential disaster.

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
> Gerrit
>
>
>
>
> On 8-Dec-07, at 12:42 PM, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
>> Deasr LewisMMBTUPR at aol.com wrote:
>>>      from   Lewis L Smith
>>>
>>> If I have understood the video correctly, the overwhelming reason 
>>> for doing something about GW is that the penalty for doing nothing 
>>> and being mistaken is so much greater than the penalty for doing 
>>> something and being mistaken.  >
>> Yes, that is a very good way to put it. However, the fatal flaw in 
>> his presentation is the assumption that Man can undertake activities 
>> which will significantly improve on the outcome.
>>
>> If we assume, for the sake of discussion, that Global Warming is 
>> caused by Cosmic Rays, and their effect on cloud cover, then we are 
>> worse off  implementing the present "generally accepted" corrective 
>> actions, ie, basically, reducing greenhouse gases. We would be "doing 
>> an excellent job of doing the wrong thing." If GW was indeed being 
>> caused by cosmic rays, and if Man is presently powerless to control 
>> the cosmic rays that cause cloud formation, then Man should be 
>> looking for ways to counteract cloud formations caused by cosmic 
>> rays, OR, in finding ways to live with GW.
>>
>> I have read the URL on Svensmark's work, and it is a credible 
>> presentation. I can find no flaws in it.
>> (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=) 
>>
>>
>> Can you, or any other List Members see any serious flaws in his 
>> conclusions?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Kevin
>>>
>>> ###
>>>
>>>
>>> **************************************
>>> Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products.
>>> (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) 
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Terrapreta mailing list
>>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/ 
>>>
>>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>
>
>