Lillie,
I accept that the Global Warming phenomena is a true and serious risk, but I am quite sure that all the factors that causes it are not counted for. It is a far more complex situation than only the CO2 pollution. I also think the CO2 pollution should be looked at as tracer of a far larger pollution problem and particulate pollution at ground surface and especially in water, probably have larger influence. The over fertilization of our waters by pollution, could be more influential than CO2. I also belive that it is manmade and very serious. This is something that I have said for a long time now, the few times that I said anything about global warming. Therefore I have looked at Kyoto as positive, because if you take actions that reduces the amount of tracer, the underlaying causes in an emission/storage model, will also be reduced. I think that the article sends some important warning shots in front of our bow. As such, it is very important. If the scientist who talks about CO2 as a sole cause and not as a tracer, does not change soon and start to look at a more complex chain of events, they all take a large risk of being debunked and will loose in confidence and respect. For a long time I had the feeling that the CO2 model as cause, was too easy and not logical, if it was not a tracer of other and more powerful causes. I could not really consolidate the numbers. In earlier postings, Michael Allen did point out the risks of the loss of confidence in the scientists, which I had not thought about and did not really considered. The more I think about his points and the more I follow the debates, the closer I get to share his worries. In September last year a very interesting report was published and that supported the view that I have, The Study of World Oil Resources and the Impact on IPCC Emissions Scenarios, Anders Sivertsson, Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group, Uppsala University, Sweden http://www.isv.uu.se/UHDSG/OilIPCC/Thesis.pdf (large and first page in Swedish, but rest of report in English) Where they show, that even if we burned all available oil and natural gas. It is not enough CO2 available to create any of the global warming scenarios, that are assumed. It is even a big question marks around it, if we add all the coal reserves. We do have too much indicators who verifies the global warming phenomena and it is time to build models that also considers emission/storage influence. From that perspective, the article about the changes in the water energy storage are very interesting and alarming. One thing is clear, our stewardship of the world is failing and will have big consequences for coming generations. Our wasting way of doing things, are suicidal. US current energy politics and lack of respect for the rest of the world, is worse than any WMD risks. If you only study the part of depletion scenarios of the Uppsala report, it will have enormous and dramatic economical, social and environmental consequences anyway. Hakan At 01:46 28/02/2004, you wrote: >Would anybody care to debunk this article? ><http://www.techcentralstation.com/022404D.html>http://www.techcentralstation.com/022404D.html > > > >Lillie ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
