[Terrapreta] Soil test and CEC

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean

You indicate below:
"There are 1500+ scientists, global climatologists, having done 
thousands of research projects and written thousands of peer reviewed 
articles where they are in COMPLETE CONSENSUS that global warming is 
caused primarily by humans."

"Consensus Science" is an oxymoron. If it is science, it does not need 
"consensus." If it is Science, then it is proven or disproven by facts. 
The fact that there is a need for "consensus" suggests that  at the very 
best, it is a "work in progress."

The mere fact that there is a need for "consensus Science" is proof that 
the statements and conclusions are not scientific fact. If it can't be 
proven or disproven, then it is not Science. It is still at the level of 
"belief" or "conjecture."

I would therefore suggest it could be that  our present situation of 
Global Warming was NOT caused by Man, industrialization, and fossil fuel 
use, and that it could indeed be a natural phenomenon, which Man is 
powerless to stop or reverse.

The World has had global warming in the past, long before 
Industrialization, and it certainly was not caused by Man.

The issue of "Global Warming" is a complex matter. It may very well be 
that the Scientists have not found the right hypothesis, or that if they 
have, perhaps they simply do not have enough data to prove or disprove 
the hypothesis in an absolute and Scientific manner. Given the 
importance of the issue, that does not stop Man from taking some sort of 
action. I personally favour a "No regrets" policy, where action is taken 
to support a belief, BUT where these actions have merit on their own, 
and provide a known real benefit.

For example, insulating ones home reduces the need for heating fuel, and 
therefore reduces the impact of heating fuel on Global Warming. Most 
people could accept that. However, when someone suggests raising the 
price of gasoline to reduce use, many people scream bloody murder. 
Cheney was wrong... the American Way of Life IS negotiable. If a "new 
view" on gasoline pricing and use is not developed soon in an orderly 
manner,  reality will force the ugly truth  upon us, in a way that is 
much less than orderly and convenient.

Terra Preta seems to be such a "No Regrets" option. It presently seems 
to be "close" to being economically advantageous for agricultural 
reasons alone. How close it is to economic soundness based on 
agricultural benefits is certainly open to discussion, in that the 
Science and technology is not yet here to permit proving or disproving 
its economic worth. To me, however, it appears that there are already 
certain "niche circumstances" where TP would be very attractive for 
Agricultural benefit alone, and that there are other circumstances where 
TP would be a waste of good money.

I would suggest that the best interests of the Terra Preta Community are 
served if we work toward understanding how it works, how to make it, and 
where to use it.

Best wishes,

Kevin

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>  
> Wow!?  Human are causing air pollution?  Is that what you are saying?
>  
> Green House Gases are the bulk of that air pollution you speak of and 
> they have a greater impact on temperatures in the troposphere than any 
> other mechanism, including current and historical solar activity and 
> cosmic rays (which are completely unaffected by solar activity).  The 
> resulting climatic changes, including global warming, increased 
> incidence and severity of droughts, 3 category 5 hurricanes in one 
> annual seasons, are a direct result of human activities which 
> introduce ~6 billion tons of new carbon into the atmosphere each 
> year.   This is not an issue which politicians seem willing to address 
> (unfortunately).
>  
> There are 1500+ scientists, global climatologists, having done 
> thousands of research projects and written thousands of peer reviewed 
> articles where they are in COMPLETE CONSENSUS that global warming is 
> caused primarily by humans.  There has never ANY CRITICISM of even one 
> peer reviewed article, written by any scientists in the past ten 
> years, which stated that global warming was caused by humans.   This 
> is no longer conjecture.  It has not been conjecture in the scientific 
> community for a very long time.
>  
> We humans must BEAR the cost of fixing this or we will suffer the 
> consequences.  We are the only living beings that can do ANYTHING to 
> change the world.  Even if we do something to mitigate the problems in 
> our environment, we will have to adapt.  The ball is already rolling.  
> It's a big ball with lots of inertia.  The hysteresis lag in the 
> response of the environment to activities that we do is on the order 
> of a 100 years.  We are now seeing the effects of what we did 100 
> years ago.  In 100 years more we will still be seeing the effects of 
> what we are doing now, even if we try to make amends for it.  We will 
> absolutely be required to adapt before then!
>  
> Regards,
>  
> SKB
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Jim Joyner <mailto:jimstoytn at yahoo.com>
>     *To:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>     <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:40 AM
>     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Soil test and CEC
>
>     From: Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
>      
>     I would like to mention again  . . .
>      
>     Sean,
>
>     While I think carbon sequestration is probably a good bet,
>     anthropogenic causes are still something of a conjecture (I
>     realize I may be somewhat politically incorrect here). While
>     global climate change may be a given, there are more better and
>     reasons to believe climate change is due to solar activity and
>     their effect on cosmic rays.
>
>     I bring this up, not to start an argument about climate change and
>     causes but to point out that carbon sequestration will have an
>     attendant cost and someone will have to bare it. The reason why I
>     think carbon sequestration is still a good bet is because much the
>     expense for it can be borne by the cost of cleaning up the Earth's
>     air of pollution -- we know who is causing that and roughly who
>     should pay for it.
>
>     My other concern is that if humans are not causing climate change,
>     we have an even bigger problem: adapting. We will need disparately
>     to find better ways to feed people in a changing environment. We
>     need to grow crops with better moisture and nutrient retention.
>     So, I would put soil improvement on at least an equal footing with
>     carbon sequestration if not a higher priority.
>
>     Jim
>
>     __________________________________________________
>     Do You Yahoo!?
>     Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>     http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________
>     Terrapreta mailing list
>     Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>     http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>     http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>     http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org