cc: "David Viner" <d.vineratXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "'Briffa Keith Prof \(CRU\) f023'" <K.BriffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:51:33 -0000
from: "Alan Kendall" <A.KendallatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Fossil Fuels
Dear all, I trust you enjoyed the seminars yesterday. I certainly did, and
from those of you who came to talk with me afterwards I gained the
impression that you found it informative and stimulating. Perhaps you
learned more about how academic argument occurs and have formed your own
opinions about this. If so, then the entire idea of having these seminars
has been worthwhile.
Because the final minutes were taken up by an unscheduled "presentation" I
was unable to make certain remarks, hence this e-mail.
1. Next week's lectures will be given by Dr. Congxiao Shan who will speak
upon fuel use and transport, and upon the hydrogen economy (using fossil
fuels) as well as using China as case histories.
2. Wednesday week 12's lecture will be given by Dr. Kieth Tovey, who will
discuss carbon trading. I will finish up the lectures the next day with one
reviewing the entire contents of the unit with perhaps something rather
political - watch this space. I will of course be seeing you in the seminar
3.Next week's seminars are upon 1) clouds and landuse changes influencing
climate change, 2. the deficiencies of climate models, and 3.other causes of
climate change, in particular solar changes. I have given advice to
individual members of all three groups but if you need help with references,
websites &c. please contact me by e-mail and I'll try to help.
4. Peter Brimblecombe will sit in on next week's seminars, but Dave Viner
and Kieth Briffa have "threatened" to come as well. Is this because they
were stimulated by the idea of these seminars or because you need to be "put
right" after being subjected to undue influence by your's truely?
Regardless, they are very welcome.
5. Finally can I emphasize that you are being asked to present the evidence
for the proposition that evidence exists that is contrary to the commonly
accepted "consensus" and to answer questions from this particular
viewpoint. You are not being asked yourselves to assume any particular
stance. In this regard it might be better for you to quote material from
"reputable (?)" sources rather than assume these views yourself. Following
on from this, you should know that I thought some of the criticisms directed
at members of yesterday's presenting groups was perhaps unwarrented and
unjustified. I was very impressed with some of you who stood up to such
comments extremely well. To be absolutely fair, David Viner made some of
the same points and commented favorably about some of the responses you
made. I think you made a very creditable showing