Nothing good about Ethanol

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.


Hogwash!


http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

http://talk.ocregister.com/showthrea...&mode=threaded

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html

The debate still rages. Because there is so much money to be made in this
and every endeavor, it's hard to be sure what is correct. It's more a matter
of choose a belief and then find the evidence.

Just 20+ years ago Newsweek was running stories about the impending Ice Age
which was upon us. The worry was Global Cooling. The "scientists" read the
same archival data and came to the conclusion that the Earth was cooling at
an alarming rate.

Where I sit was once a jungle. It also was once covered by thousands of feet
of ice. Isn't it just a bit presumptuous for us to think, "Ok, *I'm* here
now, so all you little natural processes can just stop." Why should we
expect that the temperatures today are the same as yesterday? "It's a
right!." "I'll sue!" "We'll see what the ACLU has to say about this!"

What about the measurements that show the sun is hotter the past few years
than it was before?

The OP's comment about money is right on. There's plenty of money out there
for those who read the tea leaves to see "global warming," with extra bonus
points if my SUV is responsible. There is nothing for someone who argues
that there is no warming, or that other natural processes are responsible.

The discourse has been so poluted by ideology and money that I think the
science is almost worthless.

wrote in message
news:Y0ugg.2384$9f2.1277@trnddc04...

On 2-Jun-2006, Roger wrote:

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.


Hogwash!

-Elliott Drucker

"LWG" wrote:

Just 20+ years ago Newsweek was running stories about the impending Ice
Age which was upon us. The worry was Global Cooling. The "scientists"
read the same archival data and came to the conclusion that the Earth was
cooling at an alarming rate.

Magazines such as Newsweek are in the business of pumping up subscriptions
to sell ad copy. What they said 20 years ago--or yesterday--has nothing to
do with scientific consensus.

Where I sit was once a jungle. It also was once covered by thousands of
feet of ice. Isn't it just a bit presumptuous for us to think, "Ok, *I'm*
here now, so all you little natural processes can just stop." Why should
we expect that the temperatures today are the same as yesterday? "It's a
right!." "I'll sue!" "We'll see what the ACLU has to say about this!"

What's all that got to do with science?

What about the measurements that show the sun is hotter the past few years
than it was before?

A red herring used by ideologues.

The OP's comment about money is right on. There's plenty of money out
there for those who read the tea leaves to see "global warming," with
extra bonus points if my SUV is responsible. There is nothing for someone
who argues that there is no warming, or that other natural processes are
responsible.

Then why do energy industries lobby so hard for those ideas and against
massive scientific consensus against them?

The discourse has been so poluted by ideology and money that I think the
science is almost worthless.

In the popular media, yes. Real science is much drier and harder to
understand, so most people don't bother with it.

--
Dan

'Gut feeling'

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any rational
thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well known.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"LWG" wrote:

Just 20+ years ago Newsweek was running stories about the impending Ice
Age which was upon us. The worry was Global Cooling. The "scientists"
read the same archival data and came to the conclusion that the Earth was
cooling at an alarming rate.

Magazines such as Newsweek are in the business of pumping up subscriptions
to sell ad copy. What they said 20 years ago--or yesterday--has nothing
to do with scientific consensus.

Just so you know, _consensus_ is a political term, not a scientific one.
(IOW, your ass is showing...oh, get real indignant now!!!)

Politics vs. Science:

Science Method
1) Gather all pertinent FACTS
2) Analyze
3) Reach conclusions

Political Method
1) Establish pre-ordained conclusions
2) Cherry pick "facts" that (maybe) pertain to predetermined conclusion (or
spin the hell out of them)
3) Draft press release or Congressional testimony
4) (Optional) Loudly and shrilly condemn critics as fascists an racists.
5) (Optional) Bury data sources and data streams

"Matt Barrow" wrote:


Just so you know, _consensus_ is a political term, not a scientific one.
(IOW, your ass is showing...oh, get real indignant now!!!)

Oh, please, Matt. I ain't Green Peace.

Politics vs. Science:

Science Method
1) Gather all pertinent FACTS
2) Analyze
3) Reach conclusions

Political Method
1) Establish pre-ordained conclusions
2) Cherry pick "facts" that (maybe) pertain to predetermined conclusion
(or spin the hell out of them)
3) Draft press release or Congressional testimony
4) (Optional) Loudly and shrilly condemn critics as fascists an racists.
5) (Optional) Bury data sources and data streams

I have no argument with any of that. The former is what real scientists do;
the latter is what I hear on talk radio and TV every day. But I am a layman
with a business to run; at some point, I have to decide: shall I return to
university and become thoroughly educated on climatology, or shall I judge
by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed science has concluded?

What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change? Why?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:


Just so you know, _consensus_ is a political term, not a scientific one.
(IOW, your ass is showing...oh, get real indignant now!!!)

Oh, please, Matt. I ain't Green Peace.

Politics vs. Science:

Science Method
1) Gather all pertinent FACTS
2) Analyze
3) Reach conclusions

Political Method
1) Establish pre-ordained conclusions
2) Cherry pick "facts" that (maybe) pertain to predetermined conclusion
(or spin the hell out of them)
3) Draft press release or Congressional testimony
4) (Optional) Loudly and shrilly condemn critics as fascists an racists.
5) (Optional) Bury data sources and data streams

I have no argument with any of that. The former is what real scientists
do; the latter is what I hear on talk radio and TV every day.

Really? The second is what I hear in the MSM and news releases from
academia.

As for 4) and 5), I think you're "stretching".

But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to decide:
shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on
climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed
science has concluded?

The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW.
Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained
conclusions".

I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and
more diverse than yours, but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue
and one side is psychopatically stunted.

Guess which side.

(Hint: see the latter method above)


What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change?
Why?

In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down at
the level of "noise".

I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of things
conveniently cherry-pick around the data.

Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for that
is FRAUD.

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to
decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on
climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed
science has concluded?

The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW.
Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

If that is true, (where'd you get that number?) what does that mean to you?

I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained
conclusions".

You, of course, are utterly objective. I can only aspire to reach that
level of critical clarity some day.

I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and
more diverse than yours,

Dear me--I'm in awe!

but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue and one side is
psychopatically stunted.

I can't tell if you're talking about scientific papers or political
journals. It sounds like the latter.

Which side are most--and I mean a large majority--of scientists currently
on? Are they all deluded leftists doctoring the data to suppress the truth?
Do you think real scientists actually get away with that sort of thing on a
large scale? I will remind you that that is exactly what the creationists
claim about biologists.

Guess which side.

Depends on where you look. If you want political bias on a scientific
subject, it certainly is to be found across the ideological spectrum. Or
are you claiming one side is free of such spin doctoring?

(Hint: see the latter method above)


What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change?
Why?

In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down at
the level of "noise".

I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of things

Now there's a real scientific term for you.

conveniently cherry-pick around the data.

Are you seriously claiming that rightists aren't doing exactly the same?
And, again: are you speaking of scientific papers or political journals?

Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for that
is FRAUD.

Indeed. But you have made the definite assertion that human influence on
climate is down at the level of "noise". What's peer reviewed studies are
you basing that on?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to
decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on
climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed
science has concluded?

The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW.
Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

If that is true, (where'd you get that number?)

The IPCC report on Climate
The Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climate Science was Distorted to Support
Ideological Objectives , Dr. Fred Singer


Statement Concerning Global Warming

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology

Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July 10,
1997 (He refers to the same source).

Facts about CO2 , L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana

I have about 30 of these documents stored, should I send you a ZIP file so
you can read them at your leisure?

what does that mean to you?

Like I said in the original, such "consensus" is bogus.


I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained
conclusions".

You, of course, are utterly objective. I can only aspire to reach that
level of critical clarity some day.

I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and
more diverse than yours,

Dear me--I'm in awe!



You have no prblem making up your mind on half-baked data, so your "awe" is
evidently aimed at the "authorities" that tell you what you want to hear.



but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue and one side is
psychopatically stunted.

I can't tell if you're talking about scientific papers or political
journals. It sounds like the latter.

You still don't get it that in todays world, the two have been *******ized.


Which side are most--and I mean a large majority--of scientists currently
on?

You still don't get it either that the (real) scientifc world doesn't work
that way.



Are they all deluded leftists doctoring the data to suppress the truth?

Well, when each and every report DOES use a lot of doctored data, made up
"facts", etc., what would YOU think?


Do you think real scientists actually get away with that sort of thing on
a large scale?

Yes.

I will remind you that that is exactly what the creationists claim about
biologists.

I notice, too, that creationists are pretty flakey (to say the least)
"data".

Okay, Dan, here's the clincher and it pertains to the original topic: ****
the claims, show me the data, and anyone with even high school
science/physics can make a proper assessment. I do have time to peruse
articles that persent DATA, but not time to give you lessons in epistomology
or critical thinking.



If you want to rely on press reports, have at it.

Again, get past the notion of claims, especially the ones using the logical
falacy of "Arguments from Authority".



oss the ideological spectrum. Or
are you claiming one side is free of such spin doctoring?

(Hint: see the latter method above)


What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change?
Why?

In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down
at the level of "noise".

I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of
things

Now there's a real scientific term for you.

conveniently cherry-pick around the data.

Are you seriously claiming that rightists aren't doing exactly the same?
And, again: are you speaking of scientific papers or political journals?

Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for
that is FRAUD.

Indeed. But you have made the definite assertion that human influence on
climate is down at the level of "noise". What's peer reviewed studies
are you basing that on?


Aside from the fact that "peer review" is bogus on any issue that has been
taken over by politics .



Here's a good summary:

The climate change doomsayers are always quick to point out that the IPCC
climate change report was signed by more than 2,000 scientists. That's true,
as far as it goes, but, there are scientists, and then there are scientists.
In the case of the IPCC report, the vast majority of the scientists were, in
fact, political representatives of their countries, with degrees in social
sciences. While social sciences might be an important field of study, they
do not provide the holder of doctorates with any particular expertise about
global warming. And, of those representatives who signed the report, only 78
of them were even involved in the 1996 IPCC conference that produced the
report. As James Hogan relates in his book:

[T]he world was told there was a virtually unanimous scientific consensus on
the existence of a clear and present danger. On July 24, 1997, President
Clinton held a press conference at which he announced that the catastrophic
effects of man's use of fossil fuels was now an accepted scientific fact,
not a theory. To underline this, he produced a list stated as being of 2,500
scientists who had approved the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) report preparing the ground for Kyoto. That sounded
conclusive, and most of the world at large accepted it as such.

However, upon further delving, things turn out to be not quite that simple.
For a start, by far the majority of the signers were not climate scientists
but political representatives from their respective countries, ranging all
the way from Albania to Zimbabwe, with degrees in the social sciences. Their
listing as "contributors" meant, for example, that they might have been
given a part of the report and asked to express an opinion, and even if the
opinion was a negative one they were still listed as "reviewers." 162 Only
seventy-eight of the attendees were involved in producing the document. Even
then, to give it even a hint of supporting the global warming position, the
executive summary, written by a small IPCC steering group, was purged of all
politically incorrect skepticism and modified-after the scientists had
signed it!-which caused an uproar of indignation from the qualified
atmospheric specialists who participated.

[Atmospheric scientist] Fred Singer later produced a paper entitled "The
Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climatic Science was Distorted to Support
Ideological Objectives," which couldn't have put it much more clearly. 164
The IPCC report stated the twentieth century to have been the warmest in six
hundred years of climate history. Although correct, this avoided any mention
of the Little Ice Age that the twentieth century was a recovery from, while
going back just a little further would have brought in the "medieval
optimum," which was warmer than today. Another part of the report told that
increases in carbon dioxide in the geological past were "associated with"
increases in temperature. This is disingenuous in that it obviously aims at
giving the impression that the CO2 increases caused the temperature rises,
whereas, as we've seen, the temperature rises came first. If any causation
was involved, there are stronger reasons for supposing it to have been in
the opposite direction.

These are just two of twelve distortions that Singer's paper discusses, but
they give the general flavor. Two phrases edited out of the IPCC report
were, "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases
in greenhouse gases" and "When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be
identified? . . . [T]he best answer is, 'we do not know.' "

Frederick Seitz, former head of the National Academy of Sciences and
Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote (Wall Street Journal,
June 12, 1996), "But this report is not what it appears to be-it is not the
version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title
page. . . . I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the
peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." Yet a
year later it was being cited as proof of a consensus by the scientific
community.

So how did atmospheric physicists, climatic specialists, and others with
scientific credentials feel about the issue? To find out, Dr. Arthur
Robinson, president and research professor of the Oregon Institute of
Science and Medicine, also publisher of the newsletter Access to Energy, in
February 1998, conducted a survey of the professional field by circulating a
petition calling for the government to reject the Kyoto agreement of
December 1997, on the grounds that it would harm the environment, hinder
science, and damage human health and welfare; that there was no scientific
evidence that greenhouse gases were or were likely to cause disruption of
the climate; and on the contrary there was substantial evidence that such
release would in fact be beneficial. After six months the petition had
collected over seventeen thousand signatures.

At about the same time the German Meteorologisches Institut Universitat
Hamburg and Forschungszentium, in a survey of specialists from various
branches of the climate sciences, found that 67 percent of Canadian
scientists rejected the notion that any warming due to human activity is
occurring, while in Germany the figure was 87 percent, and in the US, 97
percent. Some consensus for Kyoto!

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952



So, do you want the ZIP file? It has the links to the originals so you can
follow up?




--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 08:34:49 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote:

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.

Cite for the latter, please?

I'll have to hunt for it, but there is a group of scientists that have
formed a group. There is a web site with a listing of their
outstanding members. Now as to how many of them are "real
scientists"? I don't know.

However when even our current leader aknowledges it and our
contribution, it must be serious. :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 05:16:40 GMT,
wrote:


On 2-Jun-2006, Roger wrote:

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.


Hogwash!

Hog wash what? Ur a wee bit vague there. Hogways GW doesn't exist,
or there is a camp that say it ain't so?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

-Elliott Drucker