[NSRCA-discussion] What a difference a year makes

Wed Mar 20 14:59:41 AKDT 2013

OK guys, lets end this.  Back to discussing toy airplanes and what constitutes a snap!

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill's Email <silentav8r at cox.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] What a difference a year makes

This is where we have a huge      ideological schism. You appear to think that science and data have      political leanings. I do not. Certainly there is biased science,      as is evidenced by the tobacco companies that found smoking to be      harmless. And as a scientist you certainly understand that there      is always disagreement, but one need to look at the preponderance      of research and data when drawing a conclusion. In this instance      that body of evidence comes down squarely in favor of global      warming/climate change. To attempt to dismiss it on a political or      ideological basis is less than what I would expect from a trained      scientist.

      FWIW, I agree about the irony of MTBE, as well as the whole host      of other fuel oxygenates, causing unforeseen consequences. Yet I      draw a completely different conclusion. Fuel oxygenates have been      unequivocally proven to reduce emissions and lessen pollution. To      say that the decision to implement their use is flawed because of      that unforeseen consequence to me is not a valid conclusion.      Clearly the issue was improper containment systems which were      addressed in the requirement to replace all USTs with either      Plasteel or double-walled fiberglass. The problem is not MTBE in      fuel. The problem is leaking tanks. The new regulations have      resulted in a drastically reduced number of unauthorized releases.

      On balance I think it can be argued that the environmental damage      caused by MTBE is significantly less that the impact of severe air      pollution. So I guess it is a lesser of two evils argument in a      way. However, the point remains that what was done is far better      than having done nothing. Certainly MTBE has caused significant      impact, especially to the water supplies of particular cities such      as Santa Monica. But again, the widespread and chronic negative      effects of air pollution in my mind still justify that decision.

      I agree that we must always examine science with a critical eye,      but at some point the evidence is clear. Where politics comes into      it is when we try to determine what to do about it. But if we      continue to dismiss science and make people distrust it based on      politics or dogma then I think that is a huge disservice to      society. As I have said before. I'm willing to debate all dat long      about what we can or should do about global climate change, but if      we try to address the issue by pretending it is a hoax then I      think we are all in trouble.

      BTW - ice cores are very cool indeed, FROZEN in fact ;~}

      Bill

      On 3/20/13 3:23 PM, Dave Lockhart wrote:

Hi            Bill,

I            can only claim to be a geologist by education, having spent            my career in the environmental field.  And I am honestly            envious of your experience with the Antartic ice cores…very            cool stuff.

There            is no doubt that specific data sets with specific analyses            can show not only increasing temperatures, but even linkage            to human activity.  Skeptical Science is well known left            leaning website.  We can disagree on the politics.

If            I were not rather busy (to say the least) at the moment            building a 43” long foamy with contra system at a target            weight of 85 grams for ETOC, I’d dig up a number of links            that are neutral or contrary to the specific topics you            (Bill) noted.

And            as I stated before, I’m not advocating all environmental            regulations be canned, but the big picture and a balance of            data and perspectives should be considered.  I spent much of            my professional career cleaning up MTBE, which was forced on            the petroleum industry despite warnings it would do more            harm than good.  Just one example of a politically driven            knee jerk reaction that despite intentions of helping the            environment ended up harming the environment.

Dave            

From:                nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org                [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On                  Behalf Of Bill's Email
                Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:44 PM
                To: General pattern discussion
                Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] What a difference                a year makes

Every good rant deserves a rebuttal.            Here's mine.

            On 3/20/13 1:17 PM, Dave Lockhart wrote:

The              reason for that is some of the same “scientists” that              (wrongly) touted global cooling in the 1970s are the same              ones now (wrongly) preaching global warming.

          Which ones are those?? Got any examples?? I think you may have          a mistaken impression of the state of scientific thought at          the time as well as today. This is a good graphic.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=43

The            simple change of language from “global warming” to “climate            change” should be proof enough that global warming is not            happening. 

This is not only wrong, but it is kind of a          silly "proof". The main reason that the term has been changed          was due to fact that many deniers made silly comments like          "well it snowed here today, so much for global warming". The          more precise term is in fact global climate change. That is          being fueled by the increase in average global temperatures          which are drastically affecting the climate. It is also worth          understanding the difference between climate and weather.  

However,            the politicians and greenies that used “global warming” as            justification for bigger government and more government            control of the private sector do not want to lose that            traction as the fraud of global warming is being disproven.

Again, this so wildly misunderstands the          issue that it is hard to know where to start to respond. It is          an example of the thinking that Al Gore invented global          warming to take away your SUV.

             So they (the politicians and greenies) are now using            “climate change” in a desperate attempt to tie any naturally            occurring climate condition to human influence.

No, they are          using climate change for the reason I stated above.

          Here are a few nice graphics for people to look at. 

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php

          I'm sorry, but the inability of any one person (or group of          people) to understand something does not mean that the          something is wrong. For instance, there are still people today          who think the Earth is flat.

          Anthropomorphic influence on global warming/climate change is          undeniable. I will grant that there is still much debate about          what, if anything, we can do about it. But to deny its very          existence will render that important debate nearly impossible.

          BTW - for those that wonder. I am a geologist by education and          profession. Way back in 1983 I helped in some of the early          research on the deep ice cores from the Antarctic. This is not          a recent science.

          End of Rant for me.

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20130320/763e77ce/attachment.html>