[Digestion] Digestion Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16
Jones, Robin (TWP)
RJones at twp.co.za
Fri Jul 22 03:32:29 CDT 2011
Something I have been thinking about for quite some time now.
I understand that the whole argument surrounding global warming is that temperatures etc. have changed proportionately to CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere. The hypothesis is that CO2 forms a thermal blanket through which the transmission of heat waves to outer space is retarded.
For most heat to be created the primary starting point is combustion which in most cases produce CO2. Therefore the level of CO2 in earth's atmosphere is proportional to the heat generated by the primary energy source (i.e. Combustion). If this is the case, can't we conclude that global warming is also proportionate to the thermal energy produced worldwide.
Considering this hypothesis, shouldn't we be focusing more on conserving energy before we look at alternatives to produce more? There are hugely inefficient processes that continue operating on a global scale. The Kyoto protocol has assisted in quantifying, regulating CO2 footprints as well as reducing them. Is the world moving towards regulations on kWhs utilized against output capacity for each specific industry (e.g. a maximum of XkWh's per ton cement, food, mineral etc. produced) failing which these entities would face fines or closure until they comply?
I know my thinking is very simplistic; however it would be great to see what the rest of this forum can add to this topic. The consequences of not debating or sharing new ideas on this topic would be dire to all that live on Earth.
Robin Jones
-----Original Message-----
From: digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of digestion-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:00 PM
To: digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Digestion Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16
Send Digestion mailing list submissions to
digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
digestion-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
digestion-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Digestion digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve Verhey)
(Paul Harris)
2. Re: TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve Verhey)
(Awadhoot Bapat)
3. Re: TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve Verhey)
(Randy Mott)
4. Re: TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve Verhey) (David)
5. Re: TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve Verhey)
(Randy Mott)
6. Re: TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve Verhey)
(Steve Verhey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:07:15 +0930
From: "Paul Harris" <paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au>
To: "'For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion'"
<digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve
Verhey)
Message-ID: <001c01cc4770$a205a550$e610eff0$@harris at adelaide.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
G'day Marc,
I have not read the first post yet (only your quote) but am replying to you off list as I think your response in this case is a bit personal and harsh (But I welcome your other contributions!). I realise it is easy to fire off an e-mail without fully realising the implications, or audience.
In our local weather there are long term trends of higher temperatures and lower rainfall, so I am fairly sure the climate is changing. Modelling shows that nature on its own would not have caused this, so I am fairly sure that man is contributing.
But my real argument is that "climate change" is a distracting symptom and the real need is to rapidly reduce our use of "natural" resources like fossil fuels and minerals while we still have the option so that our grandchildren will have the means to exist. If we don't slow down our "Growth" there will a catastrophe that makes the Global Financial Crisis pale into insignificance.
All the best,
HOOROO
Mr. Paul Harris, Room 202 Charles Hawker Building, Faculty of Sciences, The?
University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, PMB 1, Glen Osmond SA 5064 Ph??? : +61
8 8303 7880????? Fax?? : +61?8?8303?4386 mailto:paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au??
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/paul.harris
CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information that may be confidential and/or copyright.? If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. No representation is made that this email or any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.
-----Original Message-----
From: digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of F. Marc de Piolenc
Sent: Wednesday, 20 July 2011 8:29 AM
To: digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve Verhey)
An invitation to mental masturbation.
Manmade global warming is a lie. The liars have been caught lying. Get over it. There are plenty of real problems in desperate need of the kind of focus this message is intended to elicit.
Marc
On 7/20/2011 3:00 AM, digestion-request at lists.bioenergylists.org wrote:
> When it comes to energy and global climate change, most Americans can
> be loosely grouped into 3 tribes, each well-meaning in its own way:
>
>
>
> Global climate change deniers;Entrepreneurs and others who believe we
> can
innovate our
> way out of any problems, and that new energy sources will be found to
replace
> existing ones as needed, soon;Citizens who are quietly concerned,
> hoping
and trusting
> that someone else has the situation under control; some of these
> citizens
are
> making personal changes in response to their concerns.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What if all three tribes are wrong? Wouldn't it be a good idea to
> practice thinking about it?
_______________________________________________
Digestion mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address Digestion at bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergyli
sts.org
for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:43:10 +0530
From: Awadhoot Bapat <abjobapat at gmail.com>
To: paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au, For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion
<digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve
Verhey)
Message-ID:
<CAEOg0r0CBvyx8RtbCtnFd+g8iYcX5nYYskdok8vgB+d-oMu=AA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Very well said Paul. Couldn't agree more Avadhut
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Paul Harris
<paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au>wrote:
> G'day Marc,
>
> I have not read the first post yet (only your quote) but am replying
> to you off list as I think your response in this case is a bit
> personal and harsh (But I welcome your other contributions!). I
> realise it is easy to fire off an e-mail without fully realising the implications, or audience.
>
> In our local weather there are long term trends of higher temperatures
> and lower rainfall, so I am fairly sure the climate is changing.
> Modelling shows that nature on its own would not have caused this, so
> I am fairly sure that man is contributing.
>
> But my real argument is that "climate change" is a distracting symptom
> and the real need is to rapidly reduce our use of "natural" resources
> like fossil fuels and minerals while we still have the option so that
> our grandchildren will have the means to exist. If we don't slow down
> our "Growth" there will a catastrophe that makes the Global Financial
> Crisis pale into insignificance.
>
> All the best,
> HOOROO
>
> Mr. Paul Harris, Room 202 Charles Hawker Building, Faculty of
> Sciences, The
> University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, PMB 1, Glen Osmond SA 5064 Ph :
> +61
> 8 8303 7880 Fax : +61 8 8303 4386
> mailto:paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au
> http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/paul.harris
>
> CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
> This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains
> information that may be confidential and/or copyright. If you are not
> the intended recipient please notify the sender by reply email and
> immediately delete this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this
> email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
> prohibited. No representation is made that this email or any
> attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is
> the responsibility of the recipient.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of F.
> Marc de Piolenc
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 July 2011 8:29 AM
> To: digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve
> Verhey)
>
> An invitation to mental masturbation.
>
> Manmade global warming is a lie. The liars have been caught lying. Get
> over it. There are plenty of real problems in desperate need of the
> kind of focus this message is intended to elicit.
>
> Marc
>
> On 7/20/2011 3:00 AM, digestion-request at lists.bioenergylists.org wrote:
>
> > When it comes to energy and global climate change, most Americans
> > can be loosely grouped into 3 tribes, each well-meaning in its own
> > way:
> >
> >
> >
> > Global climate change deniers;Entrepreneurs and others who believe
> > we can
> innovate our
> > way out of any problems, and that new energy sources will be found
> > to
> replace
> > existing ones as needed, soon;Citizens who are quietly concerned,
> > hoping
> and trusting
> > that someone else has the situation under control; some of these
> > citizens
> are
> > making personal changes in response to their concerns.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What if all three tribes are wrong? Wouldn't it be a good idea to
> > practice thinking about it?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digestion mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Digestion at bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioen
> ergyli
> sts.org
>
> for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas
> http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
> and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digestion mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Digestion at bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioen
> ergylists.org
>
> for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas
> http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
> and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110721/0803aaf5/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:03:19 +0200
From: "Randy Mott" <randymott at ceeres.eu>
To: "'For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion'"
<digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve
Verhey)
Message-ID: <005f01cc47a6$8ffc6d90$aff548b0$@ceeres.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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].
We should never confuse our business with the contentious policy debate on this subject. If we do, we will be discredited. There are dozens of good reasons for diversifying the energy supply and reducing the dependence on fossil fuels. Unless you are a lobbyist, you really don't need to address them one way or the other.
We are in a green business, but it is still a BUSINESS. That's why they call me the "Gordon Gecko of biogas." J
Randy
Randy M. Mott
President
CEERES Sp. z o.o.
Ul. Postepu 1
02-676 Warsaw
+48 22 843 11 22
<mailto:randymott at ceeres.eu> randymott at ceeres.eu
<http://www.ceeres.eu/> www.ceeres.eu
From: digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Awadhoot Bapat
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:13 PM
To: paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au; For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion
Subject: Re: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve
Verhey)
Very well said Paul. Couldn't agree more
Avadhut
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Paul Harris <paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au>
wrote:
G'day Marc,
I have not read the first post yet (only your quote) but am replying to you off list as I think your response in this case is a bit personal and harsh (But I welcome your other contributions!). I realise it is easy to fire off an e-mail without fully realising the implications, or audience.
In our local weather there are long term trends of higher temperatures and lower rainfall, so I am fairly sure the climate is changing. Modelling shows that nature on its own would not have caused this, so I am fairly sure that man is contributing.
But my real argument is that "climate change" is a distracting symptom and the real need is to rapidly reduce our use of "natural" resources like fossil fuels and minerals while we still have the option so that our grandchildren will have the means to exist. If we don't slow down our "Growth" there will a catastrophe that makes the Global Financial Crisis pale into insignificance.
All the best,
HOOROO
Mr. Paul Harris, Room 202 Charles Hawker Building, Faculty of Sciences, The
University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, PMB 1, Glen Osmond SA 5064 Ph : +61
8 8303 7880 Fax : +61 8 8303 4386
mailto:paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/paul.harris
CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information that may be confidential and/or copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. No representation is made that this email or any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.
-----Original Message-----
From: digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:digestion-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of F. Marc de Piolenc
Sent: Wednesday, 20 July 2011 8:29 AM
To: digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve Verhey)
An invitation to mental masturbation.
Manmade global warming is a lie. The liars have been caught lying. Get over it. There are plenty of real problems in desperate need of the kind of focus this message is intended to elicit.
Marc
On 7/20/2011 3:00 AM, digestion-request at lists.bioenergylists.org wrote:
> When it comes to energy and global climate change, most Americans can
> be loosely grouped into 3 tribes, each well-meaning in its own way:
>
>
>
> Global climate change deniers;Entrepreneurs and others who believe we
> can
innovate our
> way out of any problems, and that new energy sources will be found to
replace
> existing ones as needed, soon;Citizens who are quietly concerned,
> hoping
and trusting
> that someone else has the situation under control; some of these
> citizens
are
> making personal changes in response to their concerns.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What if all three tribes are wrong? Wouldn't it be a good idea to
> practice thinking about it?
_______________________________________________
Digestion mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address Digestion at bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergyli
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergyl
ists.org>
sts.org
for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
_______________________________________________
Digestion mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address Digestion at bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergyli
sts.org
for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110721/35baf822/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:13:38 -0700
From: David <david at h4c.org>
To: For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion
<digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: Randy Mott <randymott at ceeres.eu>
Subject: Re: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve
Verhey)
Message-ID: <4E285032.3000509 at h4c.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
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-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:23:39 +0200
From: "Randy Mott" <randymott at ceeres.eu>
To: <david at h4c.org>, "'For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion'"
<digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve
Verhey)
Message-ID: <001801cc47ca$ee3c0ae0$cab420a0$@ceeres.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:01:51 -0700
From: Steve Verhey <verheys at hotmail.com>
To: <digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve
Verhey)
Message-ID: <BAY151-W262514716FFEC1811B3CD9A94F0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
If anyone finds this discussion off-topic or annoying, my apologies for igniting it. That was not my intent. Someone on another list pointed out that my use of the word "deniers" is emotionally charged, and I should have used more neutral language. Maybe that explains some of the testiness we've seen here; again, my apologies.
Science is the management of uncertainty, and there's plenty of uncertainty in the area of climate change research. Honest scientific assessments have to be respected and considered, whether or not they agree with the dominant hypothesis. (I do think it would be best if no one cited Al Gore in discussions of the science, particularly since his film is over 5 years old.)
Actually, my original post doesn't require global climate change to be caused by humans, or even to really be happening. The idea is, imagine that global climate change is happening, and that there is little or nothing that we can or will do to stop it. Then what? Wouldn't it be a good idea to practice thinking about it?
Effectively everyone -- even, I think, Lindzer -- in the scientific world accepts that change is happening. The disagreements start with discussions of possible causes of and/or efforts to slow or stop the change. But, considering how large the effects of climate change will be (if it is happening) it only makes sense to spend some time thinking about those effects. I trust no one here objects this goal.
Other comments are accumulating at the blog. Feel free to move this discussion over there, if the list prefers not to continue it here.
Thanks,
Steve
From: randymott at ceeres.eu
To: david at h4c.org; digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:23:39 +0200
Subject: Re: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve Verhey)
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.)
His efforts inspired a detailed rebuttal by Dr. John Abraham from St. Thomas University, which is found here. 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-- 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/
_______________________________________________
Digestion mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address Digestion at bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110721/70b55449/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Digestion mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address Digestion at bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
End of Digestion Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16
*****************************************
More information about the Digestion
mailing list