FW: [Consciousness-Online] Global warming

[Philip Benjamin]

general...@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] Global warming

 

[Philip Benjamin]

     Hoping and trusting that Serge and his family are safe and sound.  Unconscionable politicians—PAGANS—with dead consciousness – zombies—are exploiting apocalyptic pseudoscience, mostly for pagan Marxist utopian propaganda and conveniently for funding props for academics.

         The forest fires (minimum 1,500 annually worldwide) had already produced < 78 trillion tons of CO2 for about 5.000 years of recorded history and still safe! Fifty years of PAST and projected 100 years of FUTURE petroleum burning can produce > 33 trillion tons of CO2. What then is the threshold of  “apocalypse” of the “goldilocks” of CO2?

           It is as WAMP-the-Ingrate loving the Sabbatical (and the two-day Sabbath weekend) and hating  Sola Scriptura, the one and only source of Sabbath!!

 Philip Benjamin

Non-conformist

  

From: 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online <general...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 6:14 AM
To: general...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Consciousness-Online] Global warming

 

This video was placed on my recommendations list and as we have Michael both on the website and as a video I watched it. I think, because you are a group that are open minded and do listen, you will find this fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwNgKX-yCS4

 

I don't know who the interviewer is but he must be the rudest, most objectionable man I have ever seen interviewing a placid, well informed, tactful, but firm Dr Crichton.

 

 

Despite the fact the interviewer interrups everything Dr Crichton says, implies he is mad because he has another view, and says the equivalent of you stand alone, aren't you going to give in, I for one am extremely glad he didn't.

 

Dr Crichton gently mentions consensus science and how dangerous it is

'consensus science is not science, it is all about politics'

 

Shows how dangerous the allocation of money is to favoured causes in distorting research and its findings.

 

And also explains how many men appear to be obsessed with finding apocalyptic endings, and that those who say actually there is no apocalypse, but there are things happening we could take into account and plan for - in a measured, non knee jerk way - are ignored by the media and hence people because there is no 'story'.

 

Having searched through the news outlets every morning trying to find actual news of Ukraine and finding nothing except speculation and lies, I have taken to asking Serge directly, as not a single report has been correct, ever.

I gather the newspaper/news outlets pay journalists peanuts. We should hardly be surprised at the result.

I hope you enjoy the video. Dr Crichton is a breath of fresh air.

rosie

 

--

[Jesse Mazer]

This is an apples-to-oranges comparison, you didn't give the source of your numbers but you seem to be giving an estimate for the *total* amount of carbon dioxide contributed by forest fires over the last 5000 years (not the average annual amount over that time period), and comparing it with the amount of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels *each year*.

According to the estimate at https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/9/697/2017/ forest fires contributed an average of 2.2 billion metric tons of carbon per year (not carbon dioxide) over the period of 1997-2000, and the mass of a carbon dioxide molecule is about 3 and 2/3 that of a carbon atom, so that'd correspond to about 8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year from forest fires. Multiply that by 5000 and you get about 40 trillion tons of carbon dioxide per 5000 years, in the same ballpark as your estimate of < 78 trillion tons. According to https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels totaled about 37 billion tons in the year 2021, which is a lot larger than the 8 billion tons from forest fires in an average year.

Another point is that in preindustrial times, the Earth was in a sort of dynamic equilbrium where the CO2 added to the atmosphere from various sources was on average almost exactly equal to the amount of CO2 pulled from the atmosphere each year by various processes like photosynthesis (see the illustration of the global carbon cycle at https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1019 with preindustrial carbon flows shown as black arrows, human-caused flows in red). So even if there are some natural CO2 sources which contribute more each year than human activity (like the CO2 in the exhalations of all animal life on the planet, or diffusion of carbon from the ocean into the atmosphere), the significance of human emissions is that they throw off this preindustrial equilibrium and cause significantly more CO2 to be added to the atmosphere each year than is taken out by natural processes. And direct measurements show the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has dramatically increased over the last 60 years (from just under 320 parts per million in 1960 to just under 420 parts per million today)--you linked to the Crichton interview from 2007, did you notice the part right at the beginning where he said he agreed CO2 in the atmosphere had increased by about 30% in the last century?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SJ0PR14MB5264F0138DEE67A41994F780A8E69%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

[Lawrence Crowell]

Arguing with Philip Benjamin is about like arguing with a MAGA type. There is no point to it. Ben makes this statement about forest fires, but cites no credible reference and makes a quote of 78 trillion tons with no qualification of a time frame or anything else.

Crichton was anti-AGW, and he objected to what might be called big science. It is an unavoidable aspect of science that putting the next big space telescope at the L1 point, or the next higher energy collider, or a comprehensive model of Earth climate with ground data all require a large science labor-pool and lots of money. 

I am not politically involved with environmental issues. The problem is that those who run things are out to make a profit no matter what, and if the world ends --- so be it. The average intelligence of people does not help much. and too many people are committed to various propagandistic nonsense, which is usually of some strange nationalism or religious agenda. Ben is a bit of an outlier, but he is in the mix. He is also a sort of religious lunatic who probably has some idea of becoming a kind of prophet or guru who gathers followers. The situation is screwed.

Do not worry. In 20 million years life will be doing just fine on Earth. Our engineered mass extinction will be in the past and we will be gone --- just one more failed experiment on the Darwinian game table.

LC