[Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?

Sean K. Barry sean.barry at juno.com
Sun Apr 27 18:34:27 CDT 2008 

Hi Kevin,

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. 

Another OPINION piece, Kevin?  Why am I not surprised that you repetitive diatribe lacks any reference to anyone else's thinking than your own.
Back it up with supporting references from peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.  Otherwise, it lacks credibility.  The more you repeat it, the less credible it becomes.

The IPCC is NOT a political organization.  See their charter at http://ipcc.ch<http://ipcc.ch/>

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.

We can only pray for this, right?

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> 
  To: Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> 
  Cc: Jim Joyner<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net> ; 'terra pretta group'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 1:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?


  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<about:blank> 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/<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<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.

        

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080427/2f5a3a53/attachment.html

More information about the Terrapreta mailing list