Mac Cool wrote:

A lot of crap gets passed off as peer reviewed science. It happens in a
great many different fields. Take medicine for instance. Manufacturers
are required to do drug trials and then publish the results, and then
label the drug accordingly. But none of that has anything to do with
reality, which is that 99% of the drugs on the market don't treat the
cause of the illness. So you have to ask yourself what good all of that
peer reviewed science did anybody. If you don't like that example,
think about all of the research grants funded by government to study the
effects of pink light in poultry houses or the relative buoyancy of
green balloons, or whatever nonsense they come up with next week. Sure,
it's science. But what does it really mean?

The funny thing about this discussion is that I'm not a stereotypical
"conservative" who wants to say that humans can't possibly affect the
environment (as in the George Carlin quote). Obviously that would be
ridiculous. Humans are systematically destroying the ecosystem with all
kinds of toxic chemicals. Why get excited about CO2? Hydrocarbons are
the most politically charged substance on the planet. Can you really
take politics out of the science of global warming, especially when
there is so much evidence that the climate is on its own highly
unpredictable roller coaster anyway? The existence of ulterior
political motives is so obvious that it seems ridiculous to disagree.

Robert Reynolds:

I don't know anything about drug trials so I don't know if they are
peer reviewed or not but I disagree with your blanket statement that a
lot of crap is passed off as peer reviewed science. It's possible that
a peer reviewed study can be wrong, no doubt about it. Scientists make
their best educated guesses with the data and knowledge available. If
that data or knowledge changes in some profound way then science
sometimes takes a leap forward. Consider how many times science has had
imperfect or even incorrect understanding of physics, chemistry, and
biology, yet each new discovery allows us to build on the past, not
erase it and start over.

Who cares? They are basically pork projects that are passed year in and
year out by both political parties. But occasionally one of them pays
off and makes a discovery that is important to that industry or
sometimes an unrelated industry. Hell, several studies have been done
to figure out that chicken soup makes you feel better when you have a
cold. We all knew that as kids. What's really important is now they
know why. They weren't learning about chicken soup, they were learning
about the human body.

You make a good point but I think the issue is actually becoming less
devisive among politicians. It is the ratings seeking media, liberal
and conservative alike that are beating the drums hardest and even then
it isn't always clearly a left/right issue. I think most people are
quite poorly educated on the issue and they don't know who to believe.
Most people put more faith in the 'free press' than the press
deserves, especially now that it is almost all corporately owned and
news is as much manufactured as reported.

Here is something of a misunderstanding. Again, the science isn't
saying 'it's our fault'. Obviously the planet is warming with or
without us. The question is whether humans are accelerating that
warming and 600+ scientists, after seven years of study, have stated
there is 90% or better chance that we are. What is at stake is how
reliable our predictions of the future environment will be and what
planning we need to make and when.

Are you going to believe a majority opinion, with checked and cross
checked data; or a minority fringe whose reports cannot pass the peer
review process because of the high rate of errors? I mean I suppose
it's feasible there is some mass global conspiracy to deceive the
public into believing that humans are accelerating global warming but
to what end? I'm saving my tinfoil hat for another day.

In the end, hydrocarbon fuels can't last forever. Sooner or later we
will have to change. It would better for our country (and the
environment) if we started changing now to renewable sources such as
biodiesel and spend those billions of dollars we export, here instead.
The only businesses who will suffer are those who refuse to change with
the times. Who's making buggy whips now?
--
Mac Cool

Mac Cool wrote:


Biodiesel? I thought you didn't like burning carbon.

Robert Reynolds:

I think you have me confused with someone else. When you burn biodiesel,
you are recycling carbon from our environment. When you burn fossil fuels
you are releasing carbons that have been absent for millions of years,
adding them to the current carbon in the environment and the environment
must change to accommdate them.

The diesel engine was designed to burn what we call biodiesel fuel, it was
a quirk of history perhaps that we ended up using fossil fuel instead. It
would be relatively easy and painless to gradually switch our country to
biodiesel which could reduce our petro based diesel consumption by 80%. A
combination of incentives could be used to encourage both car companies
and individuals to choose diesel engined cars over gasoline. Think of the
billions of dollars that could stay in this country instead of being
exported to South America or the Middle East. Biodiesel, by significantly
reducing our dependence on foreign oil would strengthen national security.
The only people who stand to lose out are foreign oil producers. While
biodiesel isn't perfect, it is the perfect short/medium term solution to
oil based fuels. It isn't just an environment solution, it's an economic
and national security solution.
--
Mac Cool