Harvey,
I don't disagree at all about having to find another source of energy other
than fossil fuel. Hyman Rickover talked about this over 50-years ago. He
talked about "Peak-oil", but nobody seemed to listen....even now. The fact
is, oil is the biggest "American Interest" that we have in the middle east.
If there is some other reason of why we would be so involved there, I am
willing to listen.
I have a question about a point that the video brought up; what about the
third world countries? What is their fate? While all of us live comfortably
with electricity, connected to the internet, typing email to each other,
driving our SUV's, what about at least one third of the people in the rest
of the world? Do they continue to burn wood and dung, then die earlier of
respiratory disease because that is the only way they can cook food and heat
their homes without generating energy from a fossil fuel power plant? Why is
it okay for the industialized countries to have fossil fuel plants but not
the third world?
I just wish that this issue wasn't so political. Because I don't think any
of us are getting the whole truth. We're being influenced by the politics of
fear...
-Steve Gregory-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harvey Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [EN] FW: FW: ek[EN] Global Warming, another point of view...
> Chuck and all
>
> A parallel link to the Youtube video is--
> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/arguments_5.html
>
> In this reference the case against human causation is laid out without the
> histrionics and personal animus. I am impressed with the case. It is
> indeed plausible. But I am not convinced. The word "swindle" is not
> justified. Everyone agrees that GW is a fact; it's the decisive cause or
> causes that are in question.
>
> So I googled "lomborg global warming" because Bjorn Lomborg has made such
> a good case against knee-jerk environmentalism often with unintended
> anti-environmental consequences. I found in the reference below that he
> believes that human CO2 contribution to the environment is an important
> element that should be reduced.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2001/.../warming.pdf
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Finally, I went to Nathan Lewis of CalTech whose ultimate justification
> for moving to Solar is cutting back fossil fuel because of its resulting
> carbon intensification. In his presentation, included in the link below,
> he produces a graph of the quotient carbon emissions/ GDP for many
> countries with GDP/person on the abscissa. The regression line slopes up
> to the right. The difference between Congo and the U.S might scare some
> people because it shows how much carbon intensification potentially lies
> ahead, if nothing is done.
> _________________________________________________________________-
> http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> Before Gordon calls me a consensus thinker, I hasten to say again that I
> don't pretend to know the real science. But this I know, fossil fuels
> have to go. I do not believe that our oil companies mind-- they've lost
> control of the supply anyways, and that's an independant reason for
> beginning the long process away from oil. G.E.is prepping for the shift
> with investments in wind and solar on top of nuclear.
>
> Of course, that won't stop people like Greg Beck ranting against Al Gore.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Charles Dolci <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> All:
>> I am surprised that no one has mentioned (did I miss something???) the
>> recent documentary broadcast on BBC last week, called "The Great Global
>> Warming Swindle" . If you didn't have access to BBC TV you can watch
>> the documentary on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
>>
>> I watched it and thought it was pretty impressive.
>>
>> BTW, let me clear up some misinformation that the media and the GW
>> crowd have been spreading. A month or so ago many newspapers were
>> spreading a "story" that first appeared in the Guardian. The headline
>> read "Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study." According to
>> the Guardian, scientists and economists "have been offered $10,000 each
>> by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to
>> undermine a major climate change report."
>>
>> LIke so much about GW the story was misleading (basically a lie). The
>> so-called "lobbyist" was the American Enterprise Institute. The AEI is a
>> think tank, not a lobbyist group. The AEI, like many think tanks, gets
>> contributions from many sources. Oil companies contribute less than 1%
>> to AEI's total budget. The oil companies' contributions are general in
>> nature and do not fund specific activities. The thing that triggered
>> this latest outburst of false outrage was that the AEI had planned a
>> roundtable discussion of global warming, to be attended by people with
>> differing views on the subject. As is very common among all think tanks
>> they would compensate those who wrote scholarly articles to be
>> presentted at the roundtable.
>> The reality is that no on, oil companies or otherwise, was paying
>> scientists to create papers or do research to challenge the GW
>> boogeyman. See http://www.aei.org/doclib/20070209_demuthreply.pdf and
>> http://www.nowpublic.com/scenes_from_the_climate_inquisition
>>
>> If the GW crowd is so convinced of the righteousness of its cause why
>> does it constantly have to rely on lies and halftruths?
>>
>>
>> Chuck Dolci
>>
>>
>>
>> "Davy, Gordon" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Brian,
>>
>> I have looked over your email exchange with Steve Gregory and from your
>> comments you give the impression that you believe in truth by the
>> numbers. Whichever position has the predominant number of adherents is
>> the truth. We have discussed this before. That is not the way science is
>> done, and you know it.
>> ***
>> Gordon Davy
>>
>
|
