The ethanol scam

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Really ?

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy IPCC case.

I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming
that
is disputed, and rightly so.

I should have said anthropogenic global warming of course.

Graham

Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure.

Here is something to chew on:


Climate Change Science? National Academy of Sciences Global Warming Report
Fails to Live Up to Its Billing

by Gerald Marsh

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of
human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise."

Thus begins the summary of the June 2001 National Academy of Sciences report
"Climate Change Science," which made headlines across the world for
(supposedly) providing additional "proof" that mankind is causing global
warming.

But the headline writers didn't read the fine print.

This often quoted, categorical statement is not supported by the rest of the
NAS report - or the scientific report of Working Group I of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body
frequently cited as a key authority on global warming.

Two sentences later in the NAS summary, readers are told that "The changes
observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human
activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these
changes are also a reflection of natural variability." "Likely mostly due to
human activities"? "Some significant part"? Given these qualifications, and
the very large uncertainties in the science, how could the National Research
Council (NRC) - the research arm of the NAS - approve such a categorical
opening sentence?

The NAS report is a summary rather than a critical review of the IPCC
reports. It was prepared and approved in less than a month after the White
House submitted its formal request. NRC reports, to quote Richard Lewontin
of Harvard University, "always speak with one voice. Such reports... can
produce only a slight rocking of the extremely well gyrostabilized ship of
state, no matter how high the winds and waves. Any member of the crew who
mutinies is put off at the first port of call."1 In other words, there is a
forced consensus, one that tends to provide an oversimplified picture of the
state of scientific research and of the uncertainties.

One must dig carefully through the report to discover that water vapor and
cloud droplets are in fact the dominant cause of greenhouse warming. We are
not told, however, what fraction of the greenhouse effect is due to water
vapor and clouds.2 Nor are we told that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse
gas - one that accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect -
whose ability to absorb heat is quite limited.3 Adding more carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere only increases greenhouse warming very slowly. Similarly,
decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only decreases
greenhouse warming very slowly.

Thus, the relatively small changes in the emission of carbon dioxide agreed
to in the Kyoto Protocol would have an insignificant impact on global
warming. The provisions of the Protocol seem singularly innocent of this
fact.

The NAS study also notes that increased radiation from the sun could be
responsible for a significant part of climate change during part of the
industrial era. But the study does not tell us that the warming due to the
increase in solar output4 is comparable to that alleged to be a consequence
of the 25% rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since the end of
the 18th century. Because carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, and
increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere does not
proportionately increase its greenhouse effect, this rise has had only a
minimal impact on the earth's temperature.

Most people assume that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to
human activity. However, our understanding of the carbon cycle is so poor
that we cannot be certain this is the case.5 Nonetheless, deforestation and
the burning of fossil fuels (which, on a yearly basis, comprises only some
three-and-a-half percent of the two-way exchange of carbon between the earth
and its atmosphere), most likely does contribute to the increased
concentration of this gas.

In 1976, when the earth had been cooling for some three decades, "mainstream
scientists" believed that we were sliding into a new ice age. There has been
significant improvement in modeling the ocean and atmosphere since then, but
the predictions of these models still do not form a sound basis for public
policy decisions. As put by Ahilleas Maurellis of the Space Research
Organization Netherlands, "Until we understand the full picture, perhaps the
best reaction to global warming is for everybody to just keep their cool."6

# # #

Gerald Marsh, a physicist, is a member of the National Advisory Board of The
National Center for Public Policy Research. He served with the U.S. START
delegation and was a consultant to the Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations on strategic nuclear policy and technology for many years. He is
on the Editorial board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Comments
may be sent to .

Eeyore wrote in
:



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Really ?

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in
the flimsy IPCC case.

I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's
the allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global
warming that is disputed, and rightly so.

I should have said anthropogenic global warming of course.

Oh of course. Anything les would have lessened your delusion that
attempting to take a suoerior tone weakens your status.

Netkkkkop


Oh, and congrats on finding a new ISP


Bwahawhawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhh!



Bertie

Graham

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Burns" wrote:
Yep, it was the BBC... I actually got the link from Jay. It looks
like U-Tube pulled it due to copy right concerns.. see
http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/progview.asp?ID=11

It was NOT a BBC production. It was a production of Channel 4 in the UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

It looks like there are several versions still on-line. Here is one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...47519933351566

J. Severyn

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
Much of the "climate change"
"science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.

So how many computational models have you written?

Quite a few. How about you, jim?


What are your qualifications that make your opinion worth considering?

Why should I accept your opinion over the statements of, say, Nobel prize
winner Frank Sherwood Rowland (or Stephen Hawking) - or other
climatologists?

How about 30+ years writing missile simulation models and bumping them
against observed phenomena? I know the drill.

I have seen others make incorrect conclusions from data that, on further
investigation, showed opposite conclusions.

BTW, Stephen Hawking is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
Much of the "climate change"
"science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.

So how many computational models have you written?

Quite a few. How about you, jim?

Not many. A while back I wrote a simple program in C and Python that used
the staggered leap-frog algorithm (CTCS) to simulate the time-dependent
Schrodinger equation. Used it to "experiment" with particles passing
through various potentials - it also generated mpeg videos of the
results. Here's a proto-web page I did a few years ago that was supposed
to be the start of a series of web-articles for a web-based magazine
(that I never got around to finishing) that demonstrated the difficulty
of applying nanotechnology to fusion:

http://www.lugoj.com/NanotechFusion/nanotechfusion.html

I also have done a couple simple plasma simulations (one was a simple 1-d
model of the Farnsworth fusor!) and a CFD model (a minor variation on one
of the algorithms extracted from Laney's "Computational Gasdynamics"
text).

In my youth I wrote some rocket-trajectory simulations and rudimentary
iterative solid rocket design programs in high school (circa 1974; first
version on HP 2000 BASIC; used "Rocket Manual for Amateurs" by Capt.
Bertrand R. Brinley as my source of equations). I tried to build the
resulting rocket in shop class but only ever got to the point of
machining the nozzle. So I didn't confirm whether my programs were giving
reasonable results!

All of the above computational models (with the possible exception of the
QM simulation, which was started by a query from a magazine editor) were
done for my own edification.

However, I admit none of the above is anything to write home about these
days since I expect most physics undergrads are expected to know and have
used various numerical analysis techniques and know the limitations of
numerical analysis.

All that said, there is no value in asking me that question since you are
the one voicing an opinion. Carefully note that I haven't claimed any
opinion - I was asking for your credentials. I am extremely skeptical, to
say the least, that your opinion is both informed and unbiased.

What are your qualifications that make your opinion worth
considering?

Why should I accept your opinion over the statements of, say, Nobel
prize winner Frank Sherwood Rowland (or Stephen Hawking) - or other
climatologists?

How about 30+ years writing missile simulation models and bumping them
against observed phenomena? I know the drill.

I have seen others make incorrect conclusions from data that, on
further investigation, showed opposite conclusions.

That's great. Unfortunately all you posted was an opinion. Since you
neglected to be specific about the problem(s) I don't have much to go on.

BTW, Stephen Hawking is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.

I know that well - and can't help noting that you consider your opinion
both more informed and unbiased than Rowland's - and other
climatologists.

(As an aside, growing up in the 60s I read a fair amount of SF and it was
evident "way" back then that the greenhouse effect of CO2 was well known
enough to find its way into SF stories - some of them written in the 50s
and I think possibly earlier.)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Really ?

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy
IPCC case.


I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming that
is disputed, and rightly so.

You are mistaken.
There is a remarkable cooling since 1998 in global temperature data
due to increasing cosmic ray flux.

http://www.umweltluege.de/images/LT52GT.jpg

Human activity might contribute to GW somehow on a very low level,
but it is neglegible and has no effect to the whole system.

You can read the whole article he
http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm

Write your Congress Critters.

To tell them I rely on nutball loners like this tiny website for my
facts? Not bloody likely.

Nice come back, Stella -- but not up to your usual standards, I'm
afraid.

Frankly, I haven't seen another source with actual facts that dispute
the figures in this "tiny website". If you have something to refute
the facts, let's see it. Until you do, your comments are, well,
sorry...stupid.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
...
Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the
better.


What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?

"Maxwell" wrote:
"Whata Fool" wrote in message
...
Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the better.

What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?

A pro knows it is best not to drink it! ;-)
(At least not lab grade, which I believe will have some methanol in it.)

Invest in pond scum futures! Remember you read it here first! :-)

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:36:33 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Really ?

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy
IPCC case.

I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer.

No one except people that don't think averaging temperatures
from different locations is meaningful.

It's the
allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming that
is disputed, and rightly so.

Human activity is causing heat islands, even by doing
things the "scientists" don't consider, like making so many "dry" areas
which are not constantly cooled by evaporation.

And adjusting or modifying data sets is silly, but a
necessity in order to try to maintain the meaningless averaging of
temperatures.

Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the
better.