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

[Randy Mott]

Linzer is the real thing. The historical data do not support the modeling,
which   - when you examine it -  is goofy to say the least. Most of the
warming effect is from assumptions about water vapor that have been
contradicted by actual studies. Al Gore's famous ice core graphic is
DELIBERATELY misleading, in that he uses 100,000 intervals that mask the
fact that the temperature changes observed came before the GHG increases by
900 years on average.

 

I am not relying on anyone's opinion, but on data. The historical record
COMPLETELY contradicts the models and opinions of the "grant seekers."

 

Randy

 

From: digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:14 PM
To: For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion
Cc: Randy Mott
Subject: Re: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve
Verhey)

 



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/20110721/2a846731/attachment.html>