<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Yeah! According to Jerry, we don't really do a stall during our snaps and we're supposed to demonstrate a stall.<div><br></div><div>Ron</div><div><br><div><div>On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:59 PM, Jon Lowe wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><font color="black" size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<div><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: transparent;">OK guys, lets end this. Back to discussing toy airplanes and what constitutes a snap!</font></div>
<div></div>
<div style="clear: both;"><font color="black" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="black" face="arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Jon</span></font></font></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Bill's Email <<a href="mailto:silentav8r@cox.net">silentav8r@cox.net</a>><br>
To: General pattern discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
Sent: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 5:49 pm<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] What a difference a year makes<br>
<br>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_2_4cfa9aa7-346c-4927-b276-a2a3ef9cdc3c">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
BTW - ice cores are very cool indeed, FROZEN in fact ;~}<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/20/13 3:23 PM, Dave Lockhart wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;">Hi
Bill,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;">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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;">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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;">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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;">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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;">Dave
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div style="border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) currentColor currentColor; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:; font-size: 10pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:; font-size: 10pt;">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Bill's Email<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:44 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] What a difference
a year makes</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">Every good rant deserves a rebuttal.
Here's mine.<br>
<br>
On 3/20/13 1:17 PM, Dave Lockhart wrote:</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;">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.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=43" target="_blank">http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=43</a><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;"> </span>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;">The
simple change of language from “global warming” to “climate
change” should be proof enough that global warming is not
happening. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">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. <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;">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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">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.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:; font-size: 11pt;">
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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">No, they are
using climate change for the reason I stated above.<br>
<br>
Here are a few nice graphics for people to look at. <br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php" target="_blank">http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php</a><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
End of Rant for me.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_2_4cfa9aa7-346c-4927-b276-a2a3ef9cdc3c -->
<div id="AOLMsgPart_3_4cfa9aa7-346c-4927-b276-a2a3ef9cdc3c" style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<pre style="font-size: 9pt;"><tt>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a>
</tt></pre>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_3_4cfa9aa7-346c-4927-b276-a2a3ef9cdc3c -->
</div>
</font>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>