[Terrapreta] Catalyst: Carbon Bigfoot

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Duane,

Read as much as you can from this site -> www.ipcc.ch<http://www.ipcc.ch/>  ... Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing>

This will cover most of the current thinking, conclusions, and findings of the research done by the best professional Global Climatologists that there are (the Nobel prize winners).  Why you think that repeating the words of people who would know better is a problem, I don't know?  I do not exaggerate.  I think that if you read what is written on those sites you will see that what I have stated is relatively conservative thought on this.  I think I know a lot more than most about climate change, because I take the time to research it.  I'm not hiding, squatting, and shitting myself in fear and confusion about any of it.

Healthy skepticism is one thing.  Belligerant ignorance and name-calling against people who do read and value the work of others is altogether another.  Good academic research papers, where people study works by others and summarize their findings gleaned from that research, are written with cites to other researchers.  The kind of claims that are solely authored are the ones that lack credibility.

Regards,

SKB

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Duane Pendergast<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org> 
  To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; 'lou gold'<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com> 
  Cc: 'Terrapreta'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 10:17 AM
  Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Catalyst: Carbon Bigfoot


  Sean, Lou



  If it turns out CO2 has little influence on climate change, then what limits on atmospheric concentration would we look at next?



  I read and hear expressions of impending climate catastrophe as a result of CO2 emissions incessantly. Most of the loudest voices know very little about climate change and are just repeating and even expanding on the exaggerations of others. It's arousing my skepticism and I suspect that of many others. The over-inflated hype will not likely be taken seriously. Little of significance will be done. Isn't that the story of the boy and the wolf? 



  Duane



  -----Original Message-----
  From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com] 
  Sent: December 8, 2007 3:54 PM
  To: still.thinking at computare.org; 'lou gold'
  Cc: 'Terrapreta'
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Catalyst: Carbon Bigfoot



  Hi Duane,



  You say:



  One point that is rarely brought out is that if all the estimated quantities of fossil fuel were to be burned, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be increased only a few times - and would be far below the amount considered to be a direct health hazard. 



  Well, I think this is a pointless and specious argument.  There is a magnitudes higher concentration of CO2 in every breath you exhale, than even 1000 parts per million (that is ~3 times the current atmospheric CO2 concentration).  That is not even DIRECTLY hazardous to human health!  If you think the health concern is personal (and direct) death by asphyxiation from too high of CO2 concentrations in the air, then you missed the message on what the real danger of CO2 and other GHG in the Earth's atmosphere is.  The indirect effects on Global Climate caused increased GHG concentrations effect the living ecology for all living things on the planet (not just humans or animals, but plants too!).




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071209/31301608/attachment-0001.html