[Gasification] CO2 aka more global warming

Tue Oct 9 14:36:08 EDT 2007

My skepticism goes way back to my policy research on the impact of air
pollution control laws on cities, and the subsequent discovery that
'pollution' depends on where you set up your monitoring stations and what
you measure.

When I read the first KYOTO studies, I was struck by how N. European-Centric
the analysis was; and the dominant political bias against those 'evil'
western capitalist corporations spewing pollutants into the air; with the
consequent reliance on point source emissions data---yup, just take what you
can get your hands on and run with it.

Vast areas in the globe were omitted; i.e. S. Hemisphere oceans; upper
atmosphere emissions by aviation; etc.

Now that environmentalism has reached the status of a quasi-religion; there
are certainly other grounds to be even more skeptical of the messianic drive
to sequester CO2 every which way. 

I'd love to see more data linking grant funding with stated objectives in
the funded proposal and those of the funding agencies; before I make a
blanket claim that grantees don't bite the hand that feeds them....see if
you can find anyone cataloging the many benefits of GLOBAL WARMING; or why
warming is still increasing in Europe despite exceeding KYOTO CO2 reduction
goals. 

Raise these questions and you're treated like a heretic!

Frank J. Heller, MPA
KATAHDIN ENERGY WORKS
12 Belmont St.
Brunswick, ME 04011-3004
207.729.6090
http://mysite.verizon.net/fjheller/

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Max Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:26 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] CO2 aka more global warming

GF

Unfortuneately, not understanding processes and not taking the time to
understand them is what creates Pariah's.  For example, the allusion to R12
and the implied conspiracy because a patent had expired, implying reduced
profit potential etc. ignores several factors.  R12 though heavier than air
is broken down, biologically and physically through proceses such as
photolysis, and the resulting lighter than air compounds bring the key
Fluoride containing compounds into the high atmosphere.  These compounds are
then carried by high altitude winds to both poles where "ozone holes"
occure.  The South american one recieved the most attention because some of
it was centered over the southern part of S. America and was visibly
impacting people, animals and plants.  The Northern hole does exist however
with it's not being over any landmass the effects are not as "newsworthy"
and it's presence/abscence would not significantly affect the northern
lights, a
 completely unrelated phenomenon.  This is of course a very cursory
description of the mechanisms and interactions that brought about the
banning of CFC's as a class.  Reality is far more complicated but needless
to say not considering these interactions would make a resonable action, the
banning of CFC's, seem to be a "conspiracy".

This being said your implication of research bias based on who is providing
the research funds is justifiable.  It should be a part of publishing
results of any scientific investigations.  It would not necessarily mean
research paid for by an "interested party" would be discounted however such
research could be expected to be scrutinized more vigorously.  Cynical
sceptecism can be a valuable viewpoint but only if it is an INFORMED
sceptecism.  As for the concensus of scientific opinion being manipulated I
would suggest that one look at who doesn't benefit, big oil!  If anyone has
the resources to manipulate a scientific consensus they would.  This alone
suggests the consensus is real, not manipulated!

MK

----- Original Message ----
From: "gfwhell at aol.com" <gfwhell at aol.com>
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2007 9:21:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] CO2 aka more global warming

The NEW scientist is a publication for new scientists,? Like a scientists
trade union manifesto.
Of course the editors are going to re-in force the "man made" CO2 theory, as
being responsible for global warming. because that is where the money is.
Perhaps they should clear the air a little, by publishing Who researched
what, On which grant , Provided by who?
They are trying to turn any one, who has reservations on man made global
warming , into a Pariah.
The consensus of scientific opinion is being being carefully manipulated in
order to present the problem as being something, that, We , the general
public can correct, by Joyfully allowing corporate swindlers to get there
hands deep into our pockets.
Just like the banning of one of our most stable refrigerant compounds, R12.
Much heavier than air , but some how managed to get from the northern
hemisphere ,where it was used in abundance, traveling down into the Southern
Ant Arctic Where it climbed up and up and did in the OZONE layer. All
because it's Patent had expired.? Iv always wondered why it didn't screw up
the northern lights, WHERE is? the "northern hole"in the arctic Ozone? We
don't hear to much about this now. (small potatoes).
I am a cynical sceptic and believe that people are greedy, especially
corporations who have magnificent think tanks armed with the best brains and
technology, Which is used 
ruthlessly to milk the general public.? If you cant' beat em join em.

GF

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Haard <richrd at nas.com>
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 8:33 pm
Subject: Re: [Gasification] CO2 aka more global warming

>
Editorial in New Scientist on manipulative behavior of climate change  
skeptics.

Editorial: Climate change sceptics employ dubious tactics
06 October 2007
>From New Scientist Print Edition.
WE NEED climate change sceptics. Not because they are right - at  
least not on the big issue of human culpability in recent warming -  
but because they ask hard questions that lead to deeper knowledge.  
What we do not need from them is misrepresentation and cynical  
trashing of scientists' work.

Take the latest claims attributed to Fred Singer, arch-exponent of  
the idea that solar cycles explain everything about climate change,  
and economist Dennis Avery from the Hudson Institute, a think tank in  
Washington DC. They made headlines with their list of 500 scientists  
who they say have refuted "at least one element of current man-made  
global warming scares". The list, says Avery, "makes a mockery of  
recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the  
primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850".

There is sleight of hand in here, and the words "at least one  
element" and "since 1850" leave plenty of wriggle room. Sadly, some  
members of the press have chosen to interpret the release as saying  
that 500 scientists are "doubtful" that present global warming is  
down to human activity.

Now some of the 500 are demanding that their names be removed from  
the list. Leading the field is Joanna Haigh of Imperial College  
London, an investigator of possible solar influences on climate via  
cosmic rays. She says: "I believe that changes in the sun influence  
climate, but I have never claimed that solar forcing is responsible  
for recent global warming. It is mendacious of them to include me in  
a list of those refuting human activity as the major cause." Another  
on the list, climatologist Michael Mann of Penn State University,  
adds: "This is a dishonest and cynical misrepresentation of my  
findings and views, and those of many of my colleagues."

Singer responded with a note saying: "I was not involved in this  
exercise - or consulted." Avery explained his interpretations,  
helpfully telling Haigh: "I carefully avoided saying that you agree  
with our interpretations."

Once research findings are published they, of course, become public  
property, available to be contested and reinterpreted by all. But  
researchers do have a right not to be blatantly misrepresented.  
Sadly, the spin doctors of climate scepticism have a history of  
mangling research and traducing the integrity of climate scientists.

Another absurd recent claim attributed to Singer is that "the widely  
touted 'consensus' of 2500 scientists on the UN Intergovernmental  
Panel on Climate Change is an illusion: most of the panelists have no  
scientific qualifications". This stuff is bad not only for science,  
but also for the sceptical cause. No one wants to silence sceptics:  
we need scepticism. We just wish they were better at it.

>From issue 2624 of New Scientist magazine, 06 October 2007, page 5

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
http://mail.aol.com
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org

      ____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your
favourite sites. Download it now at
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org