[Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.

[Geankoplis]

God, Bill you are good!

-----Original Message-----
From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Bill Effros
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:02 AM
To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.

Brad hangs out mostly with Christian Scientists.

Bill Effros

Ronald Lipton wrote:
> I hang out with a many scientists from all over the world, and I echo 
> Chris's
> comments.  Scientists, as any set of people have their
> political beliefs.  But any good scientist places experiment and
> evidence before political considerations.  Science is a human
> endeavor, and there is bias in many interpretations. However
> he only way to really succeed as a scientist (that is, produce good,
> lasting, science) is to try to honestly evaluate the evidence and
> follow where it leads. You know that the correct theory or
> interpretation will eventually come out - the quality of the
> scientific tools advances so rapidly that screw-ups or even outright
> dishonesty do not last very long.
>
> Brad, do you hang out with many current scientists?
>
> Ron
> On Dec 29, 2006, at 6:38 PM, Brad Haslett wrote:
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> You don't hang out with many current scientists.  Do you?
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list