[Vision2020] Amazonian Deforestation and Global Warming:Was:Ed theViking, Greenland, and Global Warming

[lfalen]

Ted
I agree with most of what Paul has said and am in the same boat as far as time to spend on this issue. I will retire on June 30. I may have more tine spend on this after that. There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about the environment aside from the world coming to an end due to global warming. Oil is a finite resource. It makes sense to work on alternative sources of energy, in addition to developing all available sources of oil to reduce our dependance on Middle Eastern Oil. Air pollution is a health hazard  in some ares particularly for those with asthma. developing more fuel efficient cars and some regulation to control pollution would be in order. Most of the studies you have posted are good, so is the one on water vapor. One of your post indicates that global warming started with thefirst  humans. So we appear to be the problem. The data is out there on global warming.  The effect on it by man may be somewhat questionably, particularly in regard as to what can be
reasonably done about.it. You have presented a lot of information as to the potential problem. What are your solutions. 

I for one am unwilling to: reduce the human population by stopping research on medical advances; Soylent Green type solutions; mandated birth control; signing the Kyoto accords(which would hurt the economy of the US); government control of all industry; or ridged controls that would bankrupt most industries or drive prices though the roof( this would be catastrophic to middle income and lower people);ban all animal production( methane is of minor significance) Livestock are not the only source of menthane. It is produced by plant products also. Six or seven years ago two Soil Science Majors I knew were killed by methane in a spud cellar at Pasco. I have inquires out  for a listing of products produced from livestock. There are a lot of medical and health products that come from livestock. A vast aray are also  used in industry. When I get this located I will post.

Things I am willing to do; promote new technology for enery sources in the way of tax incentives and research funding.
This would be for wind geothermal, nuclear energy etc;  promote fuel efficiency; car pooling; tax credits for energy saving devices in the home and business. there are many other things that can be done to find new sources of energy, reduce waste and in general improve the environment. I am in favor of any of these with in the free market system . I am not in favor of curtailing civilization, imposing overwhelming government controls or socializing industry. 
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:52:21 -0700
To: "Paul Rumelhart" godshatter at yahoo.com,  lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Amazonian Deforestation and Global Warming:Was:Ed theViking, Greenland, and Global Warming

> Paul wrote:
> 
>    Were it not for the pressures from the left to frame the argument in such
> > a way that it supports environmental restraint *and* the pressures from Big
> > Oil and other nominally conservative groups to deny Man's overall importance
> > as a cause the scientific community would eventually hash all this out using
> > the scientific method.
> >
> 
> What is laughable about the reference to "pressures from the left" regarding
> greenhouse gas emissions (restraint?  ha, ha, ha!) is how little has been
> done in the USA to reduce these emissions.  If the so called environmental
> "left' had any substantial power, we'd have CAFE standards at 40 mpg, coal
> fired plants would be forced to use CO2 sequestration technology developed
> with millions if not billions of dollars of government investment to solve
> this problem, and wind and solar power would already be adopted widely
> across the USA, solar panels on roof tops everywhere.
> 
> The fact that the USA continues to increase its CO2 output in absolute
> levels, while we generate the highest per capita CO2 output of any nation on
> Earth by a large margin, as we speak, is testament to the failure of the
> environmental movement, or the "left," whatever that is, to influence the
> overpowering forces at play in our society that thumb their collective noses
> at the idea that human induced global warming is a serious problem that must
> be addressed.  Paul's attempt at a balanced view of the political pressures
> slanting the debate and action on greenhouse gas emissions in the USA might
> be well intended, but fails to consider, it appears, that the debate and
> action on this issue has so far been won by those who act to continue huge
> CO2 atmospheric outputs.
> 
> The issue of human induced global warming has been investigated by
> scientists world wide, using the scientific method, and a consensus has been
> reached, not "eventually," but now.
> 
> The scientific consensus is clear that environmental restraint is now
> required regarding human sourced greenhouse gas emissions to offset the
> impacts of these emissions on global warming, and not just because of fossil
> fuel depletion or dependence on unstable and unfriendly regimes in the
> Middle East.  This is not a matter of "pressures from the left," as you
> phrased it.  The continuing depiction of the human induced global warming
> issue as a matter of substantive scientific debate with the issue still so
> uncertain (scientists will "eventually hash all this out?????") that action
> to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions to offset human induced global
> warming is not now necessary, is flat out irresponsible and unscientific.
> 
> Paul and Roger have both not responded to credible scientific sources I have
> presented to this list that questioned some of their claims on scientific
> issues regarding global warming.  Paul once indicated he would respond to my
> exposure of the junk science on global warming he presented to this list,
> yet he never responded.  Roger conveniently ignored the Science magazine
> article I posted to this list which offered evidence for the scientific
> consensus on global warming, referencing 928 published papers on climate
> science,
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
> 
> and did not respond to my questions about the bottom line on increasing CO2
> levels in our atmosphere related to human impacts.
> 
> If human CO2 outputs result in a carbon loading of the atmosphere of double
> or triple pre-industrial levels, the scientific consensus is clear that
> radical climate change will occur.
> 
> Oh well, it's only Vision2020.  How can logical factual debate with sincere
> intentions to find the truth on an issue be mandated?  It can't.
> 
> I hope what the scientific consensus on global warming and human impacts
> indicates is wrong.  Because it appears nearly certain that humanity will
> not address this problem soon enough, and thus the future we will offer to
> the generations following will not reflect kindly on our negligence.
> 
> Ted Moffett
> 
>