[Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.

Sun Jan 7 17:39:06 EST 2007

Bravo Chris!  Nice rant!  That 2% of scientists working for corporate
interest groups,  aren't they those confronting The Inconvenient Truth:
that, if a man's salary depends upon him not undertanding something then
it's very hard for him to undertand that thing?

PT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Geankoplis" <napoli68 at charter.net>
To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.

> 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
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list