[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LNT & Global Warming
Title: Re: LNT & Global Warming
From: xrftom <tom@XRFCorp.com>
I followed the link and found this statement
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic
heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is
substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many
beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "
Hmmm... Well I wouldn't put 'global warming' in the same sewer as the "LNT Figment," but if the frost line moves a few degrees north, and 100 m up, and the growing season 2 weeks longer, along with the increased growth south of the frost line, it would seem like vast quantities of carbon would be sequestered. I don't know what the balance would be, but the statement above is not a lot more dubious than the opposite, which seems brought to you by the same people who brought you "Limits to Growth" computer model nonsense in the '60s. We're still waiting for Ehrlich to be right about one prediction. (OTOH, I wouldn't discount local climate effects from fossil fuel heat and pollution which could have destabilizing effects in severity of catastrophic storms, etc.)
If anyone reading this, who does not have a vested interest in hydrocarbon thinks it is true, there is a bridge in Brooklyn NY I would like to sell you.
No vested interest. So, what's the price? Delivered!
Tom Hazlett
Regards, Jim
==========
Jerry Cohen wrote:
It is unfortunate that the general public is largely technologically
illiterate and therefore
incapable of evaluating concepts on scientific merit. Accordingly,
decisions are
not based upon a consideration of the scientific aspects of a subject, but
on the
degree of trust given to those who are either for or against it. In this
regard,
I see a lot of similarity between the global warming and LNT controversies.
In both cases there is a lot riding on whose view prevails, and public
acceptance
largely depends upon which side is more politically adept in advancing
their case.
IMHO, the technical rationale behind global warming is as much nonsense as
is
that behind LNT. Both concepts have little if any scientific merit, are
driven by the
vested interests of their adherents, and are inimical to the best public
interests.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Cooper
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:00 PM
Subject: [Fwd: [OEM] Re: UN Panel Predicts Global Warming]
I'm forwarding this not because it is related to power generation issues but
because it is related to scientific credibility, which has been under some
scrutiny lately.
Bernard Miller wrote:
Ferdinand Engelbeen wrote:
At this moment, there is a petition going around against the questionable
science behind the UN/IPCC predictions. See:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/ That web site contains a lot of interesting
information.
That petition is already signed by over 17,000 scientists. Signers of this
petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists,
meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists.
The OISM Petition to which Mr. Engelbeen refers is one of many petitions
produced by or at the request of petroleum producers, the chlorine industry
(for which Mr. Engelbeen speaks) and their various PR and trade
organisations
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.