RE: [biofuel] FWIW: Spectator (UK) Article Prepare for the Big Chill
Thankyou Kirk, that's just what we needed. That gives us a clear comparison between sincere doubt and mere denial. There's more to denial (or less), or surely the deniers would also see the precautionary principle as proper and prudent, as you do. But I've never seen them doing that - instead they usually want their doubts to serve as a reason (?) to stop all further investigation, which defies all logic. The debating style, so to speak, is usually pretty much the same. They claim to invite open discussion but what you get is a choice between capitulation and revilement. If you reject that then they usually say you're attacking them for their views. It's either benighted or less than forthright, IMO. Whatever, it's not sincere doubt. Questioners, doubters, sceptics, are vital to crucial issues such as these, deniers - naysayers - contribute nothing but confusion and discord. Lomborg is a good example - The Sceptical Environmentalist indeed. He's not a sceptic, he's a spin merchant. Well, I've said it before, I'm still a doubter, I think you have to be, the court's still out - in fact the jury hasn't even left the room yet, the case is still being presented, with quite some distance to go. I do accept ozone layer damage and CFC's role, though I'm sure there's more to come. I also accept climate change, and human cause, I'm persuaded by the case for global warming but not yet convinced. There's certainly global warming but it's not yet certain what the outcome will be - probably a lot more global warming. What I'm completely convinced by is the case for the precautionary principle, now long overdue, IMO. Should have been 10 years ago, at least. The Kyoto Protocol is better than nothing, but it certainly isn't due precaution. It's a start. Regards Keith It appears that most public information is of one camp or the other. The Spectator article is a classic example of spin and misinformation. Lest anyone wish to now place me firmly in the other camp let me go on record as stating it is my considered opinion that the CFC ban was political and made lots of bucks for duPont (Bronfman) and Imperial Chemical. It also killed lots of 3rd worlders who could not afford to replace equipment instead of much less expensive repairs and thus lost refrigeration facilities for vaccine and other products let alone foodstuffs. HOWEVER!!! The ban on CFC products was proper and prudent. If you have doubt -- and you have an alternative-- you should employ the alternative. The lost facilities in the 3rd world should have been part of the cost of changeover. Not nice to take money from the poor and then declare their investment obsolete. Likewise, in the absence of definitive CO2 proof, why should we take the risk? We should be concentrating on solar thermal, wind, tidal, wave and what have you. Especially we should be concentrating on distributed generation. Cogeneration can double efficiency of installations yet we act as though we are unaware of it. Biodiesel cogeneration is a natural for a farm. Nukes are a big money maker for some few people. Even if benign--and they are far from it-- they are socially inferior because they are part of the centralised paradigm of big business. As for the nuke data it is too good. I think they claim 600 reactor years of operation and not one fatality. In the real world someone would have slipped on a wet spot in the hall or stepped on a dropped pencil and cracked their skull by now. Statistics that seem too good to be true usually are. Kirk -Original Message- From: Christopher Witmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 6:37 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuel] FWIW: Spectator (UK) Article Prepare for the Big Chill Cover story from The Spectator: Prepare for the big chill A new ice age is due now, says Andrew Kenny, but you won't hear it from the Greens, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make us believe in global warming http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=oldsection=currentissue=2002 -06-22id=1977 It seems like too long an article to reasonably request point-by-point interaction, but I'd like to hear people's opinions on 1) what are the article's weakest points, and 2) if any, what are the article's redeeming or strongest points (in other words, do you feel the author has any valid points?) -- Chris Witmer Tokyo Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] FWIW: Spectator (UK) Article Prepare for the Big Chill
Just a point of clarification: Prior to anyone submitting comments for your review, perhaps you should first declare your purpose for requesting comment. Seems that first you wished to chew up and spit out the global cooling theory and anyone who may (have) subscribed to it. They you attempt to chew up and spit out anyone who may subscribe to global warming theory. Such corrosive duality would lend to a belief by anyone who has read your recent responses that there would be no safe ground for comment on the matter unless it fell in line with your own reasoning. This would further lead to the consideration that the purpose could easily be two fold: A) to provide opportunity for further caustic commentary and B) seek out like minded individiuals with whom you could more easily find solace. Conclusion? Sounds more as if yours could be an invitation to an arguement rather than a discussion. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 8:37 AM Subject: [biofuel] FWIW: Spectator (UK) Article Prepare for the Big Chill Cover story from The Spectator: Prepare for the big chill A new ice age is due now, says Andrew Kenny, but you won't hear it from the Greens, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make us believe in global warming http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=oldsection=current issue=2002-06-22id=1977 It seems like too long an article to reasonably request point-by-point interaction, but I'd like to hear people's opinions on 1) what are the article's weakest points, and 2) if any, what are the article's redeeming or strongest points (in other words, do you feel the author has any valid points?) -- Chris Witmer Tokyo Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] FWIW: Spectator (UK) Article Prepare for the Big Chill
Cover story from The Spectator: Prepare for the big chill A new ice age is due now, says Andrew Kenny, but you won't hear it from the Greens, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make us believe in global warming http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=oldsection=currentiss ue=2002-06-22id=1977 It seems like too long an article to reasonably request point-by-point interaction, but I'd like to hear people's opinions on 1) what are the article's weakest points, and 2) if any, what are the article's redeeming or strongest points (in other words, do you feel the author has any valid points?) -- Chris Witmer Tokyo Mr Witmer ... the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time magazine??? Well, that's about what I'd expect from Mr Kenny. He likes writing this sort of stuff - Africans were better off under colonialism, and so on. And it's easy, much easier than doing a real job. He too would benefit from Mark Twain's advice that Ramjee quoted, but that's not how he makes his living. Kenny's not a scientist, nor even a science writer, just a hack. Anyway, I don't think we want any further posts from you on this subject until you've dealt with the trail of unfinished business you've left in your wake. Try some point-by-point interaction yourself instead of snipping anything that gives you indigestion and then returning to it later like this when you think the dust has died down. It has already been pointed out that: - The difference between an ice age and global warming might seem rather large, but the difference between the two sets of factors which might cause them is rather slight. - By far the major part of the 70s thesis was that climate change with human industrial cause promised catastrophe, which is also the major claim today. - That the excerpt you quoted from Newsweek (not Time magazine?) of April 28, 1975 stands up well today. I also said: I don't think the ice-age scenario has yet been finally disproved, it's just become more and more unlikely as the evidence has mounted overwhelmingly on the side of warming. The inconsistency you keep pointing to just isn't there. So in fact the substance of the Kenny article has already been posted, without the shit-stirring - if you didn't see fit to respond to that, then why are you posting this? Now go back into the archives, like you've just made me do, find the full references and respond to them. That or forfeit any claim to presenting an honest argument (which is the only kind acceptable here). More questions - why are you now presenting an article that supports the Ice Age when previously you sneered at such predictions as well as those of global warming - as well as the article linking pollution and drought? Because it doesn't matter to you perhaps? This is what you're on about, isn't it? ... the Greens, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism... You'll commandeer anything that highlights that. Well, sorry, but we dealt with that too, right back at the beginning, and you didn't respond to that either. Stop these sneak attacks Mr Witmer. Discuss honestly and openly, or not at all. I'll have a point-by-point response from you please, to this and the other responses you've ignored, before you post anything further on this subject. Include full references for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration study and the NASA study you cited, as well as a reference for your quote from Alton Chase, and his references. Keith Addison Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] FWIW: Spectator (UK) Article Prepare for the Big Chill
It appears that most public information is of one camp or the other. The Spectator article is a classic example of spin and misinformation. Lest anyone wish to now place me firmly in the other camp let me go on record as stating it is my considered opinion that the CFC ban was political and made lots of bucks for duPont (Bronfman) and Imperial Chemical. It also killed lots of 3rd worlders who could not afford to replace equipment instead of much less expensive repairs and thus lost refrigeration facilities for vaccine and other products let alone foodstuffs. HOWEVER!!! The ban on CFC products was proper and prudent. If you have doubt -- and you have an alternative-- you should employ the alternative. The lost facilities in the 3rd world should have been part of the cost of changeover. Not nice to take money from the poor and then declare their investment obsolete. Likewise, in the absence of definitive CO2 proof, why should we take the risk? We should be concentrating on solar thermal, wind, tidal, wave and what have you. Especially we should be concentrating on distributed generation. Cogeneration can double efficiency of installations yet we act as though we are unaware of it. Biodiesel cogeneration is a natural for a farm. Nukes are a big money maker for some few people. Even if benign--and they are far from it-- they are socially inferior because they are part of the centralised paradigm of big business. As for the nuke data it is too good. I think they claim 600 reactor years of operation and not one fatality. In the real world someone would have slipped on a wet spot in the hall or stepped on a dropped pencil and cracked their skull by now. Statistics that seem too good to be true usually are. Kirk -Original Message- From: Christopher Witmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 6:37 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuel] FWIW: Spectator (UK) Article Prepare for the Big Chill Cover story from The Spectator: Prepare for the big chill A new ice age is due now, says Andrew Kenny, but you won't hear it from the Greens, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make us believe in global warming http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=oldsection=currentissue=2002 -06-22id=1977 It seems like too long an article to reasonably request point-by-point interaction, but I'd like to hear people's opinions on 1) what are the article's weakest points, and 2) if any, what are the article's redeeming or strongest points (in other words, do you feel the author has any valid points?) -- Chris Witmer Tokyo Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
