[Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.

Mon Jan 8 06:25:46 EST 2007

Points taken Brad but neither one of us it seems is going to convince the
other, but I enjoy the exchange.

Chris G

-----Original Message-----
From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Brad Haslett
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 7:34 PM
To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.

Chris,

Let's keep things in perspective.  How much lead does GA's 100LL release to
the environment and how much are we putting the worlds population in harms
way?  Don't know?  Neither do I, but the eco-harrasment industry thinks they
do. Most of these pin-heads have never been out of their own county, much
less to a third world country, but they have all the answers!  Not polluting
is common sense, but this crowd needs a target.  You don't like 'Big Oil',
fine, let's go back to killing whales for lamp oil.  Scientists chase
funding the same way crack-whores chase everything they do  here on the
coast - post Katrina.  That doesn't mean they're not good honest people,
they just have vested interests.  I like doing business with people who let
you know up front that they're out to get in your wallet, they are
much easier to deal with.  It is the people who are show up and represent
themselves from the government, or quasi-government institutions, and "are
here to help you" that scare me. Come down to the 'hood' where we fight
every day and I'll show you around.  This ain't about theory, this is
reality. I have no interest in Eurotopia or any other fantasy.  Right now,
we're addicted to oil and there's no easy way out.  Hubbert was part of the
2% who wasn't dependent on academic public welfare (he worked for big oil),
and his theory has been proven to be correct. We'll solve this inconvenient
truth one way or the other, and I'll put my money on those capitalistic pigs
finding the solution before the self-righteous crowd does.

Brad

On 1/7/07, Geankoplis <napoli68 at charter.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list