[Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.

Sun Jan 7 11:41:06 EST 2007

Ah,
	There is the Debating Brad I know.  Well I'll agree on the religious
aspects but it works on both sides as many in the other camp maintain that
somewhere in the bible Jesus wants us all to be rich consumers and if you a
rich consumer than ipso facto he must love you.  Also the whole dominion
over nature and go forth and multiply has its vociferous adherents.  Bummer
about the lead in the 100LL fuel but if it is doing harm to people than why,
morally, is it ok to keep using it? Doesn't more oil consumption strengthen
the radical fundamentalists of the ilk you so fear?

 I still do not agree that the majority of scientists will add 2 + 2 and not
only maintain it is 5 but so will all other scientists.  The only group that
consistently does these things are ones hired by certain big businesses like
the Tobacco industry and oil industry and when their findings are reviewed
by non company scientists from many different countries and affiliations
they poke holes in the conclusions.  Anyone can poke holes in a conclusion I
suppose, but to have 98% of the scientists in basic agreement is far more
powerful to me than the one or two percent that are affiliated with
companies that stand to gain or loose great amounts of money and who
"disputed" the other 98%.  Hey if I'm wrong, and I go without a big car or
other internal combustion toy, then gee, maybe my life wasn't quite as ego
satisfying as it might have been.  On the other hand if you are wrong and do
continue doing what you are doing (you in the sense of all the interest
groups who find financial advantage in not responding to the problem) then
we have millions of people starving, even more natural resource wars, and
social and political upheaval and turmoil.  Me, I'd rather be wrong and not
have some toys than be wrong and kill people.  

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Brad Haslett
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 4:02 AM
To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.

Chris,

Ok, I'll give this one more stab after I haven't been to a bowl game
(Liberty Bowl).

Most of the scientists working on global warming theories work in academia
with a few in government.  The current funding stream favors findings that
support global warming.  I've listened to enough geophysics professors bitch
over dinner about finding grant money to understand how the system works.
And yes, most are very, very liberal and that just might affect their
judgement.

Your comment about politics affecting how I fly an airplane is precisely
what I worry about.  Politics does influence how I fly to a great extent.
We've got cockpits crammed full of various "bitchin Betty boxes", some good,
some distracting, and all expensive.  We have security rules hastily put in
place that are nothing but an inconvenience, and other procedures that
haven't been initiated because of PC. Everytime there's an accident,
Congress gets involved with a knee jerk reaction.  The aviation industry is
very political.

What is so interesting about this topic is the quasi-religious aspects it
has taken on.  Global Warming has its patron saints (scientists) and
spiritual leader (Al Gore).  Those of us who choose to be agnostic get
threatened with fire and brimstone, or in this case seawater, if we don't
convert and save ourselves.  I prefer that my neighbors have a little
religion, especially if the tenets of their faith disallow siphoning fuel
from my gas tank, seducing my wife, or chopping off my head. I can agree
with the behavioral modification aspects of their faith and still question
its validity.  Same with Global Warming, I think a little faith and fear is
probably good for us but when the talk turns to political action I start to
get scared.

Here is one example:  my personal airplane was designed years ago to run on
leaded 80 octane.  Only 100 octane low lead is now available.  The 'Tree
Huggers' (and I say that affectionately) have gone after the General
Aviation fuel market to get the lead out of 100LL.  That will kill my little
engine and seriously hamper the GA industry.  Why go after us?  Because they
are big and we are small.  Who's next?

Ironically, I'd like to see Congress raise our CAFE  standards, fund more
public transportation, and modernize our ATC system to cut down on wasteful
air delays.  These are all things that should make the Global Warming crowd
happy.  But please, let me go to hell in my own way without a sermon
everyday about my evil ways.  I rather enjoy internal combustion engines.

Brad

On 12/29/06, Geankoplis <napoli68 at charter.net> wrote:
>
> Brad wrote:  The bulk of the 'scientists' are of the same political ilk
> and
> are hardly objective.
>
> Come on Brad, you cannot be a scientist and maintain something that is not
> based on fact.  You can provide a theory (careful, note this word has a
> different meaning in science than in common vernacular, the same as "gas"
> a
> state of matter- and "gas something you put in your car). A theory must be
> based on facts and legitimate data and it must have a predictive
> value.  If
> you have a stock broker do you keep him because he is a political ally or
> do
> you keep him because he consistently predicts which stocks are winners and
> losers?  Saying politics influences 99% of scientist is like saying
> politics
> determines how you fly your plane, and what laws of physics apply to you
> and
> not someone else.  Based on the predictive abilities of the politicians
> who
> denied the existence of global warming "nothing will happen, there will be
> no increase in temps, no increase in weather disruptions, and no change in
> glaciers, v.s. the mainstream scientist who accurately predicted what
> would
> happen.  With the accuracy of their data and technology increasing their
> predictions and models are even better, I'll put my trust in the
> scientist.
> I don't give a damn what their politics are, if the vast majority of
> scientist are in basic agreement then I'll be willing to listen and act.
> You ask what we can do and then offer an absurd suggestion of abandoning
> everything to the radical Muslims. Come on this is America, we can solve
> almost anything if we really want to and work together not to just protect
> our special privileges and not to always expect someone else to give up
> something so we don't have to.
>
> Chris G
> -----Original Message---- have to-
> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces@
> des22.org] On Behalf Of Brad Haslett
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:25 AM
> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.
>
> Rummy,
>
> This sort of thing has been happening for eons.  If a scientist from
> mainstream academia points this out he/she will be booed off the lectern
> because it doesn't fit into the current funding stream.  It may have
> happened due to global warming, or not.  Global warming may be real, or
> not.  If it is real, it may be caused by man or nature. It could be a
> natural cycl-a state  (remember the Ice Age?). The whole issue is so
> clouded
> by the
> political climate that rational discussion of the subject is difficult if
> not impossible.  The bulk of the 'scientists' are of the same political
> ilk
> and are hardly objective.
>
> Let's assume global warming is real, and the cause is mankind.  What to
> do?
> Maybe we can just let the radical Muslims have their way and move the
> whole
> planet back to the 7th century.  There's always the issue of donkey gas to
> deal with but maybe it is easier to handle than the 5.9 liter engine in my
> Dodge pickup.  I dunno, and neither do these "experts".
>
> Perhaps I've hung around educated idiots too much.  I'd be a lot more
> impressed if they could pour piss out of a boot without reading the
> instructions printed on the heel.
>
> Brad
>
>
> On 12/29/06, R22RumRunner at aol.com <R22RumRunner at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > _http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16390346/_
> > (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16390346/)
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list