[Terrapreta] What is so bad about global warming?

[Richard Haard]

Hello Dan

Assuming you are not just throwing out another straw man, here are  
some links for good reading on this climate change issue. If you  
looked at the files sent by Folke Gunther you will see why charcoal in  
soil is a key element in reducing global atmospheric cloud. We have no  
other reason to be here at this site. Can you explain to me any other  
reasons to be here discussing terra preta?

http://climateprogress.org/

This is a blog that is well written, sometimes humorous and notice on  
the lower right side of the page additional links.

One of those links is real climate

http://www.realclimate.org/

This is written by mainstream climate scientists and is a very good  
set of information to get past the spin that is constantly put out by  
the deniers.

Following is a  collection of articles in Grist mill on how to talk to  
a climate skeptic.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

You may find answers to your questions in the section titled

Climate change is natural
It happened before
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
Global warming is nothing new!
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
It's part of a natural change
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The CO2 rise is natural
We are just recovering from the LIA

On Mar 10, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Dan Culbertson wrote:

> ...from a planetary perspective I mean.  Didn't all that carbon used  
> to be in the atmosphere long ago?  So, other than making us humans  
> extinct (probably a very good thing for the planet) wouldn't  
> releasing all stored carbon back to the atmosphere just return the  
> environment to the way things used to be long long ago?  Can someone  
> explain why we are supposedly making the planet uninhabitable for  
> all species if all we are apparently doing is making it alternately  
> habitable for the types of species that used to exist pre-carbon  
> sequestration in fossil fuels?  Is there something else that needs  
> to be sequestered other than carbon that wasn't around long ago  
> making planetary catastrophe imminent?  Or is all our concern  
> centered around us humans not liking a planet no longer habitable by  
> us?  Not that I personally want to become extinct don't-ya-know.  I  
> am just curious about it.  Will roachasaures take over after it is  
> too hot for us?  Or will Earth just be a hot sterile rock?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080310/dc333f0c/attachment.html