cc: "David Viner" <d.viner@uea.ac.uk>, "'Briffa Keith Prof \(CRU\) f023'" <K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk>
date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:51:33 -0000
from: "Alan Kendall" <A.Kendall@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Fossil Fuels
to: <ENV-2E07@uea.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
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 
slots.

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

AlanK 

</x-flowed>
