[Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone? - RWL part 2.

[Ron Larson]

List members:   Kurt said today:

1.   "There are those who say the earth is cooling and they also have plausible reasons why this is so."
    Please cite just one such plausible reason.  I absolutely believe there is no plausible reason for such a belief.  This was my reason for the last posting, using the word "lie".

2.  You also said:  "I believe that TP is useful...."  
        [RWL:  I assume close to 100% agreement by the list on this.  The questions we need to answer are how useful, how costly, when not useful, why it works, etc.  I look forward to hearing from people who aren't yet convinced on likely utility.]

3.  "....and may be of help with either result, but only time will tell which will come to pass."   
        [RWL:   Kurt's "either" refers to warming or cooling.   I write again to make these assertions:
        1.    that world temperatures are rising at an annual pace never previously observed  - we do not need more time to know the direction.
        2.    that this temperature change is primarily because of anthropogenic CO2 and that scientific theory only predicts this direction
        3.   that this unprecedented rate of temperature change is of crisis economic proportions in misery and dollar terms
        4.   that biochar/TP can only act to lower atmospheric CO2 and therefore lower temperatures - never the converse
        5.   that support and funding for biochar R&D, introduction, and benefits should not and will never come from those who believe in global cooling
        6.   that those who believe world temperatures are falling are slowing down the study and introduction of biochar/TP and the work of this list
        7.   that deniers of global warming owe it to this list to cite their sources of information, so we can know how to argue with you on a matter of extreme importance to the vast majority of us
        8.   that those who believe all of the above have an obligation to confront both deniers and doubters.

   So in order to get back soon to item #2 above,  I ask Kurt and any others who think there is a "may" here,  which of these above assertions do you disagree with - and why?]

   4.  Kurt lastly said:  'The problem is, that if warming should come to pass, we need to be on it right now to help reduce that, and vice versa."
        [RWL:  It is only the "vice versa"  with which I am disagreeing.  That option is illogical and discussing it is slowing this list's work down.  If you find "vice versa" to be logical. please cite reasons and authorities.  
    My own reasons are given above.  My favorite authority is James Hansen - who has fortunately finally (not yet published) endorsed biochar.  Tim Flannery is another authority of big importance to me, because of his combined biochar enthusiasm and world reknown on environmental matters.  Unfortunately, many climate experts still have not yet even heard the word - and they will wonder how we can possibly be talking about "vice versa" when they get to this site. 
        I'll wager that warming deniers will also soon deny the utility/efficacy of biochar as well.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080426/1f600f4f/attachment.html