[Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Ron

Thank you for your professional and respectful reply.

As nearly as I can define my position, it would be as follows:

1: Global Warming and Global Cooling have always been with us
2: An episode of GW is always followed by an episode of GC, and vice versa.
3: We are in a period of GW now. (or at least, we have been at least 
until very recently)
4: Recent temperature data seems to suggest a decrease in the rate of 
rise of GW
5:The IPCC Report is termed "consensus science", rather than "science", 
which means it is not  "science", and bet rather " a chosen belief."
6:  For me to "believe" or accept, or support the IPCC report,  most of 
the objections being presented should be addressed in a reasonable and 
rational manner.
7: There are Several aspects to the IPCC report that concern me:
    7:1 There is the basic temperature data on which the conclusions are 
based. Some aspects of the data have been challenged.
    7:2 There are the models that have been used to interpret and 
project results from the data. These have been questioned because of 
non-transparency, and unavailability for independent review.
    7:3 The Report was prepared by an Editorial Board that reviewed the 
work of various Scientists. There is concern that the actual work of the 
Scientists has been modified, massaged, and smoothed out to make it more 
Politically Acceptable, and as such, it does not necessarily reflect the 
views of the Scientists whose Science it has chosen to accept..
    7:4 There are the dissenting Scientists, who seem to have been 
dismissed from the Panel, rather than having their reasons for dissent 
addressed.
    7:5 The Conclusions of the report basically credit the Activities of 
Man as having brought on Global Warming. They do not seem to address the 
fact that all GW is followed by Global Cooling, and vice versa, and that 
a Global Warming Trend seems to have been started before the Industrial 
Revolution, and the increased use of fossil carbon by Man.
    7:6 They make projections of the consequences of Mans Activities 
from the present. They do not seem to acknowledge the possibility of 
natural phenomena that could exaggerate or neutralize present trends.
8: The opposite of Global Warming is Global Cooling. History guarantees 
that a period of Global Warming will be followed by a period of Global 
Cooling. It is very important to Mankind that we know how far we are 
away from a period of GC before we attempt to put the brakes on Global 
Warming. This issue does not seem to have been addressed.
9: CO2 is a "Greenhouse Gas", as also is Water Vapor. The GHG effect of 
water vapor is much greater than the GHG effect of CO2
10: The consequences of Global Cooling are far worse than the 
consequences of Global Warming. Some are suggesting that we are now 
entering a stage of Global Cooling. If this is indeed the case, then 
perhaps we should be doing everything possible to increase the effect of 
GW, to delay the onset of GC
11: Global Warming per se is perhaps not so much the problem as is 
Global Climate Change
12: In this day and age very little information gotten from teh Internet 
can be taken at face value. I certainly do not have the personal 
resources to evaluate the quality of what is posted

In my opinion, there are these, and many other questions, loose ends, 
and "non-sequitors" that make the IPCC Report and Recommendations 
anything but a "slam-dunk" case to justify any particular course of 
action at this point in time. The Report is being promoted with 
messianic enthusiasm. Attempts are being made to put down dissent and 
disagreement, rather than dealing with it out in the open. These would 
seem to be the hallmarks of a Political Report to serve the interests of 
a few.

As a consequence, I am leery of the IPCC Report and the course of action 
it is advocating. A few people could have an opportunity to make alot of 
money at the expense of the majority of Mankind.

So, thats where I am coming from. Ignorance, uncertainty, and doubt. 
That is why I cannot support the IPCC Report at this time.

In my opinion, the discussion of GW, GC, the IPCC Report, etc, is 
inappropriate for the Terra Preta List, in that there are other superior 
forums and venues where such discussions would be very much more 
appropriate. It distracts from the advancement of TP per se. Because 
such discussions on this list are not the best way to advance the 
widespread use of TP, I will cease participating in such discussions in 
the future.

Best wishes,

Kevin




Ron Larson wrote:
> To the Denier-type Terra Preta List Members (those who believe in 
> global warming, read on only for your education):
>  
>     1.  Kevin last night said:  /I am saying that there is a valid 
> basis to question some of the data. (See below.) /and then said: /For 
> balance, see:
> //http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2007/11/ipcc-dissent-by-roger-helmer-mep.html// 
> When you have both sides of the story, chances are you can have a 
> better understanding of the problem.  /
>     There were no other references cited, but I apparently missed two 
> earlier citations from Kevin. I will not now go back to either, unless 
> there is a request I do so.
> // 
> /    /2.  I have visited maybe 20-30 such sites.  This citation led me 
> to the least scientific denier-site I have found yet.  Roger Helmer is 
> a Member of the European Parliament, with a background in business, 
> none that I could see to qualify him on global warming (see 
> http://www.rogerhelmer.com/).  The above site contains a short 
> warming-denier letter from Helmer, with nothing scientific in it.   I 
> did not find anything scientific on the climatescience site.
>  
>     3.  The Helmer site showed me that he is the honorary chair of the 
> The Freedom Association, which covers a number of Conservative Party 
> causes and a small amount on climate from the warming-denier 
> perspective.  Going there, I found one 3-page fact sheet 
> (http://www.tfa.net/pdfs/cc001.pdf  ) on climate  -  no references, no 
> author.  The last two sentences (which are typical) state: /- 
> Statistically, global temperatures have been static or falling since 
> 1998.  //-Between 2003 and 2005 the oceans suddenly cooled, losing 20% 
> of the heat they had gained in the previous 50 years./
>  
> /   /4.   I ask that warming-deniers on this list send me any source 
> which you feel scientifically substantiates either of these last two 
> sentences.  Repeating the claim won't count as scientific.
>  
>   5.    This web-exercise was a perfect example of this list's big lie 
> problem (which lie I am not attributing to Kevin).  I remain hopeful 
> that I can get something serious to debate.
>  
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080427/94c3df7b/attachment.html