Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>]

Again, tho I have my views we allow others for a simple reason. The cause
and what to do about it is way beyond the scope of a list like this. We're
just dealing with food production, regardless of the cause of warming (or
climate change if you prefer). We're anticipating wild weather and trying
to cope with the looming freshwater crisis, topsoil loss, food shortages
and rising prices, and all the rest related to it. I just don't know of
another list that's willing to deal with this combination of factors, but
somebody has to.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 12/11/2007 at 10:06 PM trinity.red wrote:

>There are a number of reasons to question this summary of the
>peer-reviewed research article:
>
>1) The source of the summary article, OneNewsNow.com:
>
>"Whether it's a story about prayer in public schools, workplace
>restrictions on Christians or battles for biblical truth within our
>denominations, the American Family News Network (AFN) is here to tell
>you what the newsmakers are saying....
>
>At OneNewsNow.com, you will get your news from reporters you can trust
>to give the latest news without the liberal bias that characterizes so
>much of the "mainstream" media."
>
>(source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/about.php)
>
>2)  The contrast between the content of the actual peer-reviewed
>article and that of the popular press piece purporting to summarize
>it.  Here are the title and abstract of the peer-reviewed article:
>
>"A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
>David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
>
>Keywords
>climate trend • troposphere • observations
>
>Abstract
>We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate
>of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with
>the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the
>satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in
>disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by
>more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5
>km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above
>8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These
>conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based
>on essentially the same data. Copyright (c) 2007 Royal Meteorological
>Society"
>
>(source: International Journal of Climatology online,
>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRET
RY=1&SRETRY=0)
>
>Note that a) the research compares climate models' predicted
>temperatures to the observed record in low- and high-altitude layers
>of the atmosphere in the tropics (where temperatures are generally
>predicted to increase least), and b) no cause of temperature increases
>(either human or solar) is mentioned in the title, abstract, or
>keywords.  (These may be discussed in the full article, which I
>haven't accessed as it's behind a paywall.)
>
>3)  Solar activity's role in global temperature has been evaluated in
>many other peer-reviewed scientific publications, and while it has
>been found to have a definite influence, it appears not to be great
>enough to explain recent observed increases in global temperature,
>particularly within recent decades.
>
>(See, for example,
>http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRel
eases/2004/pressRelease20040802/)
>
>4)  One of the authors (Christy) of the study summarized in the
>earlier email has publicly stated that he believes it is
>'scientifcally inconceivable' that human activity has not changed 'the
>natural course of climate,' and is skeptical only of the degree of
>warming that other scientists have forecast.
>
>(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy)
>
>Another author (Singer), the only one quoted in the popular summary
>from the earlier email, is on record as being skeptical not only of
>the connection between human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, but also
>of other scientifically well-documented links between CFCs and ozone
>depletion, UV radiation and skin cancer, and tobacco smoke and lung
>cancer.
>
>(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer)
>
>In light of the foregoing points, my opinion (as a Ph.D. scientist
>with background in global carbon cycles) is that the popular article
>from the earlier email was an extremely poor and biased summary of a
>single piece of research that in itself contains nothing to challenge
>the established and growing scientific consensus that human activity
>is playing a very real and large role in global climate change.
>
>Wylie Harris
>
>
>On 12/11/07, TradingPostPaul <tradingpost@riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>> Certainly there are two sides to it. Here's mine.
>>
>> documented evidence on the corruption of S. Fred Singer.
>> http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
>>
>> 1993 and 1994 were busy moments in the life of S. Fred Singer. During
>this
>> period of time Singer was using offices  provided by Sun Myung Moon
>> ("moonies") moving his "Science and Environmental Policy Project"
>("SEPP")
>> to George Mason University -- Institute for Human Studies, orchestrating
>> the "Heidelberg Appeal" to counter the Union of Concerned Scientists'
>> "Appeal to Humanity", organizing two corrupt science reports published
by
>> Alexis de Tocqueville Institution attacking the EPA, participating in
the
>> Tobacco Institute "Whitecoats Project", and co-hosting two fraudulent
>> science gatherings.
>>
>> One of these science gatherings called "Scientific Integrity in the
>Public
>> Policy Process", was co-sponsored by International Center for Scientific
>> Ecology ("ICSE") and SEPP, both which were S. Fred Singer front
>> organizations, held May 24-25th, 1993, at the Madison Hotel in
>Washington,
>> D.C.
>> http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502284041-4042.html
>> -------------------
>>
>> Much documentation here on Singer's work for big tobacco and his
>> connections to right wing moneymen like Richard Mellon Scaife and Sun
>Myung
>> Moon.
>> entire article at http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
>>
>> also http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65
>>
>>
>> paul tradingpost@lobo.net
>>
>> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
>>
>> On 12/11/2007 at 7:12 PM Ken Hargesheimer wrote:
>>
>> >Study says humans not heating up the planet
>> >  Jim Brown
>> >OneNewsNow.com
>> >December 11, 2007
>> >
>> >
>> >  A new peer-reviewed study disputes the claim of former Vice President
>Al
>> >Gore and other green activists that global warming is caused by human
>> >activity and constitutes a "planetary emergency."
>> >  The study -- conducted by climate scientists at the University of
>> >Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia --
>> >finds that atmospheric warming patterns, or "fingerprints," over the
>last
>> >30 years are not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The report is
>> >published in the December issue of the International Journal of
>> >Climatology. Results from the study greatly contradict the findings of
>the
>> >United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
>> >  Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at
the
>> >University of Virginia -- and president of the Science and
Environmental
>> >Policy Project -- says he is "fairly" sure that the current warming
>trend
>> >is due to changes in the activities of the sun. "The sun is constantly
>> >active, emitting particle streams that carry magnetic fields; and they
>in
>> >turn have an influence on the climate of the earth," he says.
>> >  Singer says he and other global warming skeptics have grown
accustomed
>> >to claims that they are beholden to the oil and gas industry. "Of
course
>> >that's not only untrue, but it's completely immaterial," says Singer.
>"In
>> >other words, we are using the data that is furnished by the IPCC. They
>are
>> >published, we use only published work. What we are basically doing is
to
>> >make a comparison of model results and observations."
>> >  The report concludes that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and
>> >therefore "attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and
>pointless
>> >-- but very costly."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >---------------------------------
>> >Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try
>it
>> >now.
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Livingontheland mailing list
>> >Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Livingontheland mailing list
>> Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland