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: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 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 [email protected] 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/
_______________________________________________ Digestion mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] 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/
