Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] are you a global warming deniers?

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Sam White <cedarrockcsa AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Market Farming <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] are you a global warming deniers?
  • Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:43:19 -0700 (PDT)

I shouldn't have changed the subject on this topic, so
I'm posting the science part of what I wrote earlier.
We do know why the phenomenon takes place today:

---
The thing is, all you have to do is look at the carbon
isotopes found in tree rings, the atmosphere, ice
caps, and glaciers. In each of these time records,
the CO2 levels were in a cycle, rising up and down in
the last 1 million years(that's as far back as we can
go, so far). When the temperature rose or fell, so
did CO2, when CO2 rose or fell, so did the
temperature. They have a partnership.

So, with the advent of the steam engine on a massive
scale in the first half of the 1800's, something odd
happened. Each element has two commonly found, and
stable, isotopes. In Carbon, they are c-12 and c-13,
and when everything is hunky-dory, c-13 is the
dominant isotope. C-12 becomes the dominant isotope
when the earth's crust splits open, or when we burn
fossil fuels.

And sure enough, with the burning of more fossil
fuels, c-12 began it's rise as the dominant stable
isotope. It's a chemical record, proven through
several investigations, that the burning of fossil
fuels is causing this global climate change.

And as CO2 levels worldwide, rise, so does the global
atmospheric temperature. The Princeton models
forecast a 20 to 30% soil moisture loss during the
summer months in the United States in 45 years, 40 to
60% 40 years after that.

But, with several million dollars, conservative think
tanks can buy off 5 to 10 of the 2000 Atmospheric
Science Ph.d holders in the world, who can boggle the
science, and confuse the masses.

Sam
Cedar Rock Farm
Mt. Savage, MD


--- Heirloom Grower <heirloomgrower AT gmail.com> wrote:

> It's obvious from the geographical record that the
> earth has gone
> through such cycles in the past. No one knows why.
> And no one can say
> for sure why the phenomenon is taking place today.
> We can all
> speculate, but we won't know until it all comes out
> in the wash. And
> all of us will be dead before that happens.
>
> It's also obvious that the "first world" is
> immensely wasteful, and
> that our personal individual ecological footprints
> are larger than 30
> to 50 individuals in third world countries. We, even
> the most
> conscientious of us, are thoughtless, selfish, and
> self-centered.
>
> It, likewise, is obvious that we are thoughtless
> polluting our
> environment in many, many ways.
>
> It's clear to see that we should all do everything
> possible to live
> cleanly, healthfully, and unselfishly, and remember
> that "we didn't
> inherit the earth from our parents; we are borrowing
> it from our
> children". It goes without saying that we should
> love our kids enough
> to leave them the best.
>
> I believe the love of big money is the root of it
> all.
>
> On the topic of Al Gore and his ilk: They all live
> hypocritically.
> Examine his recommendation for the rest of us in the
> light of how he
> lives his own life. He makes me SICK. I have no
> regard for either him,
> or for his message. Oh, yeah, he purchases his
> "green"...at the
> expense of others. If I ever come face to face with
> him, I will demand
> to know how he sleeps at night.
>
> Elise
>
> On 9/14/07, STEVE GILMAN <stevegilman AT verizon.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Climate change has been called the Mother
> of All Externalities.
> > That's the polite term for the unpaid pollution
> costs generated by
> > business as usual. The fact is -- ALL those fossil
> fuels, products
> > and by-products used by industrialized humans that
> were once stored
> > deep in the earth have been released/pumped into
> the Ecosystem --
> > air, atmosphere, soil, streams, rivers, oceans,
> etc. as pollutants of
> > one type or another.
> >
> > But humans also have the cognizant ability
> to create and utilize
> > viable alternatives that can dramatically curtail
> pollution, reduce
> > energy use and reverse the generation of
> greenhouse gases (and even
> > sequester/nullify existing greenhouse gases in the
> soil by a major
> > shift to organic farming, for example). However,
> the Vested Interests
> > and their governmental minions in almost every
> industry stand to have
> > their pecuniary oxen gored by such shifts -- hence
> the huge degree of
> > obfuscation, disinformation and denial so widely
> generated today.
> >
> > So, even in the face of over-whelming
> scientific consensus there's a
> > lot of unverified opinions about Climate Change
> flying around these
> > days. Some people seem to believe Denial is de
> river that flows by
> > Egypt... So, you have to consider the source.
> Here's one of our top
> > Climate scientists who is routinely slammed by
> Deniers and Public
> > Relationists -- but his work and views are
> constantly upheld by
> > scientists. And, he shows that he bottom line of
> Climate Change is
> > this is really a political problem ...
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > This article can be found on the web at
> > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/hansen
> >
> > Why We Can't Wait
> >
> > by JAMES HANSEN
> >
> > [from the May 7, 2007 issue of The Nation]
> >
> > This is an adaptation of a talk delivered February
> 26 at the National
> > Press Club. Comments relating to policy are Dr.
> Hansen's personal
> > opinion and do not represent a NASA position.
> >
> > There's a huge gap between what is understood
> about global warming by
> > the relevant scientific community and what is
> known about global
> > warming by those who need to know: the public and
> policy-makers.
> > We've had, in the past thirty years, one degree
> Fahrenheit of global
> > warming. But there's another one degree Fahrenheit
> in the pipeline
> > due to gases that are already in the atmosphere.
> And there's another
> > one degree Fahrenheit in the pipeline because of
> the energy
> > infrastructure now in place--for example, power
> plants and vehicles
> > that we're not going to take off the road even if
> we decide that
> > we're going to address this problem.
> >
> > The Energy Department says that we're going to
> continue to put more
> > and more CO2 in the atmosphere each year--not just
> additional CO2 but
> > more than we put in the year before. If we do
> follow that path, even
> > for another ten years, it guarantees that we will
> have dramatic
> > climate changes that produce what I would call a
> different planet--
> > one without sea ice in the Arctic; with worldwide,
> repeated coastal
> > tragedies associated with storms and a
> continuously rising sea level;
> > and with regional disruptions due to freshwater
> shortages and
> > shifting climatic zones.
> >
> > I've arrived at five recommendations for what
> should be done to
> > address the problem. If Congress were to follow
> these
> > recommendations, we could solve the problem.
> Interestingly, this is
> > not a gloom-and-doom story. In fact, the things we
> need to do have
> > many other benefits in terms of our economy, our
> national security,
> > our energy independence and preserving the
> environment--preserving
> > creation.
> >
> > First, there should be a moratorium on building
> any more coal-fired
> > power plants until we have the technology to
> capture and sequester
> > the CO2. That technology is probably five or ten
> years away. It will
> > become clear over the next ten years that
> coal-fired power plants
> > that do not capture and sequester CO2 are going to
> have to be
> > bulldozed. That's the only way we can keep CO2
> from getting well into
> > the dangerous level, because our consumption of
> oil and gas alone
> > will take us close to the dangerous level. And oil
> and gas are such
> > convenient fuels (and located in countries where
> we can't tell people
> > not to mine them) that they surely will be used.
> So why build old-
> > technology power plants if you're not going to be
> able to operate
> > them over their lifetime, which is fifty or
> seventy-five years? It
> > doesn't make sense. Besides, there's so much
> potential in efficiency,
> > we don't need new power plants if we take
> advantage of that.
> >
> > Second, and this is the hard recommendation that
> no politician seems
> > willing to stand up and say is necessary: The only
> way we are going
> > to prevent having an amount of CO2 that is far
> beyond the dangerous
> > level is by putting a price on emissions. In order
> to avoid economic
> > problems, it had better be a gradually rising
> price so that the
> > consumer has the option to seek energy sources
> that reduce his
> > requirement for how much fuel he needs. And that
> means we should be
> > investing in energy efficiency and renewable
> energy technologies at
> > the same time. The result would be high-tech,
> high-paid jobs. And it
> > would be very good for our energy independence,
> our national security
> > and our balance of payments.
> >
> > But a price on carbon emissions is not enough,
> which brings us to the
> > third recommendation: We need energy-efficiency
> standards. That's
> > been proven time and again. The biggest use of
> energy is in
> > buildings, and the engineers and architects have
> said that they can
> > readily reduce the energy requirement of new
> buildings by 50 percent.
> > That goal has been endorsed by the US Conference
> of Mayors, but you
> > can't do it on a city-by-city basis. You need
> national standards. The
> > same goes for vehicle efficiency. We haven't had
> an improvement in
> > vehicle efficiency in twenty-five or thirty years.
> And our national
> > government is standing in court alongside the
> automobile
> > manufacturers resisting what the National Research
> Council has said
> > is readily achievable--a 30 percent improvement in
> vehicle
> > efficiency, which California and other states want
> to adopt.
> >
> > The fourth recommendation--and this is probably
> the easiest one--
> > involves the question of ice-sheet stability. The
> old assumption that
> > it takes thousands or tens of thousands of years
> for ice sheets to
> > change is clearly wrong. The concern is that it's
> a very nonlinear
> > process that could accelerate. The west Antarctic
> ice sheet in
> > particular is very vulnerable. If it collapses,
> that could yield a
> > sea-level rise of sixteen to nineteen feet,
> possibly on a time scale
> > as short as a century or two.
> >
> > The information on ice-sheet stability is so
> recent that the
> > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report
> does not adequately
> > address it. The IPCC process is necessarily long
> and drawn out. But
> > this problem with the stability of ice sheets is
> so critical that it
> > really should be looked at by a panel of our best
> scientists.
> > Congress should ask the National Academy of
> Sciences to do a study on
> > this and report its conclusions in very plain
> language. The National
> > Academy of Sciences was established by Abraham
> Lincoln for just this
> > sort of purpose, and there's no reason we
> shouldn't use it that way.
> >
> > The final recommendation concerns how we have
> gotten into this
> > situation in which there is a gap between what the
> relevant
> > scientific community understands and what the
> public and policy-
> > makers know. A fundamental premise of democracy is
> that the public is
> > informed and that they're honestly informed. There
> are at least two
> > major ways in which this is not happening. One of
> them is that the
> > public affairs offices of the science agencies are
> staffed at the
> > headquarters level by political appointees. While
> the public affairs
> > workers at the centers are professionals who feel
> that their job is
> > to translate the science into words the public can
> understand,
> > unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case for
> the political
> > appointees at the highest levels. Another matter
> is Congressional
> > testimony. I don't think the Framers of the
> Constitution expected
> > that when a government employee--a technical
> government employee--
> > reports to Congress, his testimony would have to
> be approved and
> > edited by the White House first. But that is the
> way it works now.
> > And frankly, I'm afraid it works that way whether
> it's a Democratic
> > administration or a Republican one.
> >
> > These problems are worse now than I've seen in my
> thirty years in
> > government. But they're not new. I don't know
> anything in our
> > Constitution that says that the executive branch
> should filter
> > scientific information going to Congressional
> committees. Reform of
> > communication practices is needed if our
> government is to function
> > the way our Founders intended it to work.
> >
> > The global warming problem has brought into focus
> an overall problem:
> > the pervasive influence of special interests on
> the functioning of
> > our government and on communications with the
> public. It seems to me
> > that it will be difficult to solve the global
> warming problem until
> > we have effective campaign finance reform, so that
> special interests
> > no longer have such a big influence on
> policy-makers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 14, 2007, at 10:40 AM, market-farming-
> > request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
> >
> > > Message: 6
> > > Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:00:43 -0400
> > > From: "Sharon and Steve" <shopkins AT tdstelme.net>
> > > Subject: Re: [Market-farming] are you a global
> warming deniers?
> > > To: "Market Farming"
> <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > > Message-ID:
> <003e01c7f6d7$a5ddda50$1a0e8045@your4dacd0ea75>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;
> charset="iso-8859-1";
> > > reply-type=original
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Are you denying the objective data showing the
> world's temperatures
> > >> are getting warmer?
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > No,and I am sure enjoying it, but the increase
> is minimal and the
> > > effect is
> > > more in the area of moderation in my area, I am
> getting a month
> > > frost free
> > > at each end of the season here.
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >> Are you denying the objective data that the
> world's ice packs are
> > >> rapidly disappearing?
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > No, an activity that started over 150 years ago,
> half of the ice
> > > fields were
> > > gone by the early 1900's.
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >> Are you denying the data showing the effects of
> burning massive
> > >> amounts of coal?
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > Sure the main effect is a hell of a lot of
> electricity.
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >> Are you denying the effect of humans running
> hundreds of millions of
> > >> atmospheric heaters (automobile engines) each
> and every day?
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > Here again the main effect is that a lot of folk
> get to and from
> > > places they
> > > want to go. as far as the heat generated: a year
> of it is less energy
> > > generated that a few minutes of a sunny day.
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >> Are you denying the objective data that thew
> world is significantly
> > >> warmer where humans exist in concentration
> (cities) as opposed to
> > >> where they aren't as concentrated?
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > See above.
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >> Are you denying that the human population has
> doubled in our (well at
> > >> least my) lifetime with the concomitant
> increase in heating, food
> > >> production, transportation, clothing, housing
> needs?
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > Not in the least, and I think we are doing a
> fine job of feeding,
> > > clothing
> > > and feeding them. It is just too bad that so
> many have to live under
> > > opressive left wing governments that choose to
> steal the resources
> > > rather
> > > than let all prosper.
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >> Are you denying the millions of tons of exhaust
> from the massive
> > >> engines needed to transport the millions of
> large aircraft that are
> > >> in the worlds skies at any moment?
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > Nope, have not flown in years, dont plan to.
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >> Are you denying the effect of the hundreds of
> millions of tons human
> > >> biological waste that are dumped into the
> worlds oceans and rivers
> > >> every hour?
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > No, it is a damn shame.
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >> Are you denying the effect of human activity
> that that modifies the
> > >> worlds ecosystem by
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > Far enough right there, are you denying that it
> takes a hell of an
> > > ego to
> > > think that man can significantly (your word so
> assign the value of
> > > your
> > > choice)
> > > alter the climate of this planet? I will bet it
> even takes a
> > > bigger ego
> > > that lets one think thay have a way to fix it.
> > >
> > > If you intend for me to think that man has much
> to do with the
> > > recorded one
> > > half of one degree C increase that has occured
> in recent decades I
> > > will need
> > > a few answers:
> > >
> > > Why has energy recieved from the sun increased
> more than the
> > > heat generated by man?
> > >
> > > Why has the temperature on other planets in the
> solar system (where
> > > we have
> > > the facility to measure) increased?
> > >
> > > If earths temp increase is primarily due to
> natural cycles (and it
> > > is) in
> > > the earths way of doing things what gives Algore
> followers the
> > > right to mess
> > > with it, I dont want eco dreamers designing my
> weather.
> > >
> > > MAsteveINE
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Market-farming mailing list
> > Market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >
>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/market-farming
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Market-farming mailing list
> Market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/market-farming
>
>




____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page