[Terrapreta] scramble or blueprint

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Kevin,

As usual, I do not think you know what you are talking about when you say that because the IPCC reached a "consensus" agreement among the 1500+ active participating scientific members, that they did not effectively prove AGW.  The US Supreme Court makes reports and findings based on much weaker "consensus", of only 5 out of 9 jurists all of the time.  The supreme court made a 5-4 "consensus" decision, that let GW Bush steal the election and ousted the candidate (Al Gore) with largest popular vote.  They did that based on political bias.  No such bias exists or would even be functional in the IPCC.  They DO NOT make policy.  They DO NOT enforce carbon emissions reductions, DO NOT levy "carbon taxes", or pay out "carbon credits" to anyone.  The IPCC is a consulting scientific body.  Period.

You give the IPCC more power than they have.  I'm not sure why you would do this, given your disdain for it.  Maybe you do this out of your personal fear, that you could be wrong in your small assessment of the problems, which they have been addressing for many years more than you and with people who's competence to analyze the issues better than yours.

The evidence of AGW does speak for itself.  It just doesn't speak to you or convince you.  So what!?

Do you think acting in a way that sequesters carbon, harvests usable energy from biomass, and reduces overall fossil fuel consumption and emissions of GHGs will exacerbate the perceived problems of rising concentrations of GHG's in the atmosphere?

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> 
  To: lou gold<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com> 
  Cc: terra pretta group<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] scramble or blueprint


  Dear Lou

  These Scenario package ASSUME that we are entering a period of Climate 
  Change that the Actions of Man are able to change.
  If there was Global Warming, and if it was indeed caused by Man, Science 
  should be able prove it. As it stands now, the best teh IPCC could do 
  was credit a decision to "consensus science." The phrase "consensus 
  science" is an admission that the decision is not based on science, but 
  rather, on opinion. Going by the opinion of the majority can have 
  serious consequences. "A million lemmings can't be wrong."

  We are asked to "believe" in Anthropogenic Global Warming. If there was 
  adequate science, truth, and fact, we would not have to "make the big 
  leap and believe it to be so." The evidence would speak for itself.

  At this point in time we have two options:
  1: To do nothing
  and
  2: To do something

  The Shell Study examines two possible action scenarios from the second 
  option only. The best we can say about the Shell Study is that it is 
  interesting but incomplete.

  Is not the purpose of the Terra Preta List to seek an understanding of 
  the use of charcoal in Agriculture? Can we focus on learning more about 
  TP, rather than diffusing our efforts with climate change issues? There 
  are many venues where GW can be discussed, but few where TP can be 
  discussed. It is patently obvious that if you bury carbon in the ground, 
  you will sequester carbon. There is no need to discuss that any more, in 
  that the case is already proven.

  I would suggest that when on the TP List, we should focus on answering 
  the basic question:
   "How can char additions to the soil help a Farmer make more money?"

  Does that make sense for the TP List?

  Best wishes,

  Kevin

  lou gold wrote:
  > Interesting discussion starting up at DOT.earth
  >
  > Seems relevant to one of the major discussions here.
  >
  > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  > http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/looking-forward-an-energy-scramble-or-a-blueprint/index.html?hp<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/looking-forward-an-energy-scramble-or-a-blueprint/index.html?hp>
  >
  >
  >  April 18, 2008,  12:42 pm
  >
  >
  >     Looking Forward, an Energy Scramble or a Blueprint?
  >
  > By Andrew C. Revkin <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/arevkin/<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/arevkin/>>
  >
  >
  >
  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  >
  > _______________________________________________
  > Terrapreta mailing list
  > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
  > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
  > http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>



  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
  http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080419/ff144ee9/attachment-0001.html