<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
code
{mso-style-priority:99;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I am not relying on anyone’s opinion, but on data. The historical record COMPLETELY contradicts the models and opinions of the “grant seekers.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Randy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> digestion-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:digestion-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>David<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:14 PM<br><b>To:</b> For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion<br><b>Cc:</b> Randy Mott<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Digestion] TEDx crowdsourcing/call for abstracts (Steve Verhey)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Georgia","serif"'><br><br>Randy,<br></span><br>On 7/21/2011 6:03 AM, Randy Mott wrote: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>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, </span><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>“<i>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</i>.” 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]. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>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.<br><br>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 <a href="http://bit.ly/cCIX6n">here</a>.)<br><br>His efforts inspired a detailed rebuttal by Dr. John Abraham from St. Thomas University, which is found <a href="http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/">here</a>. 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.)<br><br>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-- <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/monckton-at-last-the-climate-extremists-try-to-debate-us-pjm-exclusive/">here</a>-- was shrill, insulting, and (at least in the portion I had the patience to read) missing any relevant citations.<br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>There are dozens of good reasons for diversifying the energy supply and reducing the dependence on fossil fuels. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>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.<br><br><br>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 <i>argument</i>, 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.<br><br><br><br>d.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.0pt'>David William House</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:9.5pt'>"The Complete Biogas Handbook" </span><code><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><a href="www.completebiogas.com">www.completebiogas.com</a></span></code><span style='font-size:9.5pt'><br><em>Vahid Biogas</em>, an alternative energy consultancy </span><code><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><a href="www.vahidbiogas.com">www.vahidbiogas.com</a></span></code><span style='font-size:9.5pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>"Make no search for water. But find thirst,<br>And water from the very ground will burst." <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.5pt'>(Rumi, a Persian mystic poet, quoted in <em>Delight of Hearts</em>, p. 77) <br><br><a href="http://bahai.us/">http://bahai.us/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>