[Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve Verhey)

[David]

Randy,

On 7/21/2011 6:03 AM, Randy Mott wrote:
>
> Actually greenhouse gases have been 10 to 20 times higher in earth's 
> history with NO CORRELATION to climate change. This empirical 
> evidence destroys the whole premise of the alarmists. Thus, "/major 
> past climate changes were either uncorrelated with changes in CO2 or 
> were characterized by temperature changes that preceded changes in 
> CO2 by hundreds to thousands of years/." Testimony of Richard S. 
> Lindzen, MIT, former chairman of NAS Climate Change Panel, before 
> the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on May 2. 2001. 
> [Citations from peer-reviewed studies available on request].
>

It would be wonderful indeed if your first statement were true. 
Unfortunately-- at least as I read it-- the data don't support such a 
simple conclusion. Paul's statement about the matter, for example, was 
accurate, or at least as far as I understand the science. That is, we 
have put everything we understand about the various processes that 
pertain into models, as created by a number of groups of researchers-- 
what, for example, does the best science tell us about radiative 
forcing? Put it in the model. What have we found out about the effect 
of cloud cover and the impact of sunspots? Put it in the model. And 
where effects which we might expect from the increase in the 
concentration of CO2 are left out of such models, all of them predict 
a cooler climate than long-term averages of the actual weather offer. 
When such impacts are allowed in the models, the fit is far better. 
(But of course this is merely one of a very large set of such 
indicators...) Further, Lindzen himself is known for work regarding 
atmospheric tides that in part relied on a similar demonstration, i.e. 
where a model was built, and when it more closely matched the observed 
variations, it was taken as further evidence that the model was 
correct, the understanding more complete.

As well, you may be familiar with Lord Christopher Monckton, who has 
worked hard to support the position you've advocated, unless I've 
misunderstood it. (For example, there is a video of one of his talks 
linked here <http://bit.ly/cCIX6n>.)

His efforts inspired a detailed rebuttal by Dr. John Abraham from St. 
Thomas University, which is found here 
<http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/>. In part because of 
the wide-ranging nature of Monckton's talk, Abraham's response is 
likewise wide-ranging, and thus stands as a kind of survey of the 
relevant science, where the accumulating evidence exists in so many 
disciplines. (Of course, science is only rarely "finished". It is 
rather more a process of successive approximation.)

What I particularly appreciate about Abraham's response is the tone, 
which is even-handed, respectful even while critical, and calm. By 
contrast, although it does not pertain directly to the core issues 
involved, Monckton's reaction to Abraham's response-- here 
<http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/monckton-at-last-the-climate-extremists-try-to-debate-us-pjm-exclusive/>-- 
was shrill, insulting, and (at least in the portion I had the patience 
to read) missing any relevant citations.


> There are dozens of good reasons for diversifying the energy supply 
> and reducing the dependence on fossil fuels.
>

Agreed. Absolutely spot on. This is the thing which really should gain 
far more attention than it does, which is that many of the changes we 
would make in response to AGW would be of benefit to society and the 
earth regardless, and in the best instance mankind as a whole should 
be about agreeing on those things which will make for a brighter future.


Finally if I might say: For my part, I don't mind the discussion-- in 
the proper context, which this may well not be. What bothers the hell 
out of me is the /argument/, as illustrated by Monckton's response to 
Abraham. Why on earth does it make sense to cloud the issues with 
personal attacks? I have a dear friend, someone I greatly respect, who 
agrees with your first statement, and we have had a number of 
discussions about this issue. I think the science is on my side, and 
he begs to differ. But we agree on any number of other things, and 
most pertinently, we agree that there is a large set of changes we 
should make in our societies that will be of some benefit to all of us.



d.
-- 
David William House
"The Complete Biogas Handbook" |www.completebiogas.com|
/Vahid Biogas/, an alternative energy consultancy |www.vahidbiogas.com

|
"Make no search for water.       But find thirst,
And water from the very ground will burst."
(Rumi, a Persian mystic poet, quoted in /Delight of Hearts/, p. 77)

http://bahai.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110721/b8f46e8c/attachment.html>