[NSRCA-discussion] What a difference a year makes

Wed Mar 20 16:17:45 AKDT 2013

Jerry's right:  if the airplane don't stop forward motion, it ain't a 
stall.  And our planes don't stop in a snap roll...

Phil Spelt, KCRC Past President
AMA 1294 Scientific Leader Member
SPA 177 Board Member
(865)435-1476v, (865)604-0541c

On 3/20/2013 7:06 PM, Ronald Van Putte wrote:
> Yeah!  According to Jerry, we don't really do a stall during our snaps 
> and we're supposed to demonstrate a stall.
>
> Ron
>
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:59 PM, Jon Lowe wrote:
>
>> 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 <mailto:silentav8r at cox.net>>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>> <mailto: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  <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>> <mailto: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/20130321/4cabcc89/attachment.html>