<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Georgia"><br>
<br>
Randy,<br>
</font><br>
On 7/21/2011 6:03 AM, Randy Mott wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:005f01cc47a6$8ffc6d90$aff548b0$@ceeres.eu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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:"Arial Black";
panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
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;}
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";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">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></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/"></a>
<blockquote cite="mid:005f01cc47a6$8ffc6d90$aff548b0$@ceeres.eu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: black;"><o:p></o:p>There
are dozens of good reasons for diversifying the energy
supply and reducing the dependence on fossil fuels. <br>
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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.<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div style="font:Georgia" ;=""><span style="font-size:110%;">David
William House<br>
</span>
<div style="padding-left:3em;font-size:80%;">"The Complete
Biogas Handbook" <code><a href="www.completebiogas.com">www.completebiogas.com</a></code><br>
<em>Vahid Biogas</em>, an alternative energy consultancy <code><a
href="www.vahidbiogas.com">www.vahidbiogas.com</a><br>
<br>
</code></div>
<div style="padding-left:2em;">"Make no search for water.
But find thirst,<br>
And water from the very ground will burst."
<div style="padding-left:2em;font-size:80%;">(Rumi, a Persian
mystic poet, quoted in <em>Delight of Hearts</em>, p. 77) <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bahai.us/">http://bahai.us/</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>