Re: OT: U.S. airstrike kills al-Zarqawi

Steven Fowler wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Steven Fowler wrote:
<SNIP>

I am unwilling to support policy that is *known to cause harm* to human interests
to support action that *may* prevent *possible but undemonstrated* harm centuries
into the future. When real data arrives, I'll adjust my worldview as needed.

How can we discuss science? There's no science in your post. Just
Yes there is - I cited to recordings of science. One by Milloy who is
not a scientist but who is documenting the results of what scientists
have done. The other by two people, Ballings and Michaels, who *are*
scientists. It is likely that none of them (or any of the people you
like to listen to) are entirely correct. The discussion is quite complex
and far from clear. But I *have* cited science. You sidestepped it and
went into your religionists argument that "the data can't be right because
I don't trust the speaker" line of rhetoric.

Still no science.

So what would satisfy you? I've cited the results of *some* scientific
research. Your answer is not to provide countervaling evidence, it's to
stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" at the top of your lungs.

statements of "fact" by you, who seems to get information from (based
on earlier posts) biased sources. Oh, and I forgot to include your
obligatory name-calling. It ain't guilty by association. It's using
unreliable sources to support your position.
Please demonstrate they are unreliable by refuting their claims.

The science is clear on this issue. It's now a public policy debate.
It is most certainly not or there would be *no* contrary positions
being published in the refereed journals. Last I looked there were indeed
still contrarians being publcished. Science is hardly done here.

What journals do you subscribe to? It's very difficult to read science
journals unless you live near a research institution or subscribe. If
I Google Scholar search, I get abstracts at best unless the study is
old.

Are you serious? There is a wealth of data and detail available for
the asking in any number of places far away from "research institutions".
Now you show your real colors I think. You're not interested in the
science or the debate. It would seem you want your environmentalist
religious beliefs confirmed regardless of fact. I will thus leave
you to your superstitions and withdraw from this subthread with one
thought: If human action as a cause of GW is proven tomorrow
AND it is shown to be harmful AND a viable alternative exists, I will
be the first in line demanding the relevant policy changes. OTOH, will
you be ready to acknowledge you were dead wrong in your superstitions
when in, say, 20 years, not much has changed? I am willing to be
lead by data, you seem to be led by the high priesthood of the greenie
movement.


Do we do what we *can* to reduce the human contribution to global
warming, or do we do nothing? Do I assume you advocate for the latter?
At what cost? Even assuming you're right and GW=Badness=Human Action
(far from demonstrated), what are you willing to give up? I say, let's
start will the Clinton, Kennedy, Moore fleet of private jets that produce
far more emissions than any 10 of our SUVs do. Like all self-anointed
saviors of mankind the environs want to impose policy *on other people* first.
It is a typical religion in that regard.

First, we pursue alternative energy sources. In my research class, one

Like which ones? Can you name one that has the same energy density
as petroleum and can be widely distributed in a safe and economically
viable fashion without creating a consequent pollution problem greater
than petroleum. I can't - and I've done a fair bit of reading on the matter.
"Alternative Energy" is mostly a fantasy, at least for the moment (if you
don't include nuclear).

girl fermented her family's *garbage* and then distilled enough alcohol
to support her family's fuel needs for a year. Another student

I don't believe it. Can you arrange for me to get a copy of the paper
and the data? If so, she's about to become a multi-billionaire and I
want to buy stock in her company.

converted his diesel car to run on alcohol. If high school students
can do this, what could publicly supported research do? Why do we want
to be dependent on Middle East oil?

Ahh, now it's coming clearer. You're in high school. Are you a teacher
or a student? It could explain a lot about your POV. And yes, since
it's so obviously easy, I recommend your highly innovative students/classmates
*Start A Company* to displace all that evil petrolium. Oh, by the way,
just so you know, when you burn alcohol, it um, produces, well ... *emissions*.


Next we could mandate better fuel efficiency. Time traffic lights in

That's right. The physical universe obeys Congress. All we need to
do is pass a law demanding better fuel efficiency and it will happen
like magic. The laws of physics do not apply. The tradeoffs between
mass, energy density, safety, and utility are irrelevant. Let's all
just pass a law. Why didn't all those idiot engineers at GM, Ford,
Toyota, et all think of this? They could have saved themselves years
of useless schooling.

Here's a clue: Large mass improves safety to humans in vehicles. It does
so at the cost of energy efficiency. Modern vehicles are incredibly
efficient in their use of the (relatively) high energy density found in
gasoline. Can it be better - yes, incrementally, no in any big step
function kind of way. Unless you can come up with an ultra-light
material that is stronger than big chunks of steel to protect the
precious human cargo in cars and trucks, you're going to have to live
with this reality. And, no, Congress passing more laws won't change it.


major cities. Increase public transportation. A total overhaul of our

You betcha, because "public transportation" is free, efficient, doesn't
use any form of energy, and we can trust government officials more than
we can those eeeeeevvvilll corporate monkeys. We have proof of this.
Look at how well the publicly owned and run Amtrak rail system has
been. Let's do lots more of this.

energy policy, one not run by oil companies.

Yeah, those big eeeeevvvvill oil companies - the ones that will or
already do have your money in them (in the form of retirement and
pension money) should be punished for their forward investement
and be made to be break even or less. Then when no one has anything
left in their 401ks, IRA,s and union pensions, let's punish them again
for failing to deliver the magic that keeps folks like you afloat.



Work with developing nations to encourage efficient energy policy. Have

Yes, because our diplomacy is *soooo* effective in other areas, this
ought to work real well too. That's how we got terrorism erradicated,
the oppression of minority tribes around the world stopped, and
the sharing of wealth, power, and food widely accepted as a model in
various "developing nations". You are living in a particularly
vile (albeit entertaining) corner of policy Fantasy Land. You need to
do just a slight reading of history to grasp how the rest of the world
operated when faced with our formidable policy "encouragement".

you read anything about Brazil's energy policy? We'll (the US) be more
affected by thugs like Chavez than Brazil.

You, of all people, should be rejoicing. He got rid of the Eeeeevvvil Biiiig
Oiiiil Companies and collectivized it. That's more or less what you want
here if I understand you correctly.


Oh there's lots we could do.

Yes there is. And let me help you understand it:

1) Regulate energy markets only insofar as needed to ensure safety.
2) Remove all impediments beyond 1) for the initiating of any source
of energy, new- or old, but especially nuclear.
3) Start drill in ANWR *now*
4) Tell the world that we intend to be 100% nuclear for electricity within
a generation and that anyone who builds good electric cars for local
commuting is going to make a fortune.
5) Quit underwriting energy wet dreams like solar and wind
6) Let prices fall where they may. Quit whining about "gouging" and "over pricing"
and other similar collectivist fantasies. The sooner energy reaches its
natural market price, the better. Price is a measure of scarcity and
serves to encourage efficient distribution. If gas is $10 a gallon here,
it encourages oil producers to ship their product here over places where
it will only yield $1.
7) Cease all foreign aid and prohibit any US charity money from flowing into
any oil producing nation that wants to do business with us. They already
get our money in the oil markets, we ought not to have to subsidize them.




Steven



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The reality of entity
    ... Boyd, Philip Gasper and J.D. Trout, eds., _The Philosophy of Science_ ... I have no trouble with inferring unobservables. ... realism as being merely a dimension, ... they do die and their energy ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)
  • =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_=22The_bottom_line:_science_at_NASA_is_disappearin?= =?Windows-1252?Q?g
    ... investigation of the dark energy that seems to be ripping the universe ... bringing a sample of Mars back to Earth and exploring for life ... wellsprings of new science and new scientists. ... BUCKETS of money at Nasa. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • FMA: Conqueror of Shamballa Pt 1 Revisited
    ... energy. ... development and application of science. ... The inventor heads to a console with levers. ... Edward leaps toward Huskisson with an alchemic-created blade on his ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... > of energy U and momentum. ... > unit area per unit time. ... per unit time' when in fact it is well known the energy an momentum of EM ... So the honors degree I have in science is all in my imagination then. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... > of energy U and momentum. ... > unit area per unit time. ... per unit time' when in fact it is well known the energy an momentum of EM ... So the honors degree I have in science is all in my imagination then. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)