Go for it man, you are a member in good standing here, I like to read your
stuff.
Rascal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Pindell, Tim
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 4:08 PM
To: dml@dakota-truck.net
Subject: RE: DML: RE: DML Gas Prices
I hate vacation sometimes. I leave for 2 weeks only to come back to 4
weeks of work to do to catch up. Looks like you fellas have been busy.
I always enjoy reading my DML backlog.
At the risk of dredging up old business, I'd like to reply.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net [mailto:owner-dakota-
>truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Rick Barnes
>Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 5:07 PM
>To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
>Subject: RE: DML: RE: DML Gas Prices
>
>
>Funny, I could say the very same for the environmentalists...
Ah...the good 'ol "But-He-Started-It-First" argument. That >is< a
pretty funny, but weak position, Mr. Barnes, and better left on the
playground. Are you intending to defend propaganda? I should have
denounced the propaganda on both sides rather than making it appear that
I believed it was a one-sided problem. Propaganda is bad, as it insults
the reader and does little to further the discussion among discerning
individuals. I sincerely apologize and prostrate myself before you in
humble supplication, begging your mercy.
>did you read
>his footnotes or just grade his fiction?
Literature minor. That's one of the things that can happen when an
individual starts reading books with no pictures. Based on Crichton's
past performance, I'd give it a B-.
>I would dare say as a Harvard
>trained Doctor, his ability at research is expert.
Yes, he's got his MD. I often go to my family doctor for her views on
climatology. Nowhere did I say he wasn't a smart guy, however, he did
the work that any college student does when completing a good term
paper. He researched the existing literature and assembled a document
using those resources in order to support his position. There's nothing
wrong with that in itself. If you could kindly point out where I
attempted to refute his research, I would be grateful. (I would,
however, like to see a survey of the literature in the area of
climatology indicating the number of articles appearing in major
peer-reviewed professional journals. Anybody can write a paper, but
only a few actually make it through peer-review and into a mainstream
journal like "Nature", "Science", "The Cell", "JAMA", or "Circulation",
just to name a few. If a paper is released without peer-review, it
lacks the methodical, critical dialogue essential to science.) My major
malfunction revolves around Crichton as a demagogue. He's usually able
to rise above that base and vulgar strategy (or at least hide it well).
> He went into the
>project
>as an environmentalist and "awakened himself", as he said in an
interview.
>I am not saying it is good to intentionally harm the environment, quite
the >opposite,
So it sounds like we are both basically on the same page. I figured
that this was the case, but I was worried for a few moments. Perhaps
our agreement is only a matter of degree.
>but global warming, for one thing, is only an unproven theory and
>nothing more.
I agree that the global warming issue is incomplete, but often,
scientific neophytes are far too glib with the term "theory" and go
without understanding its scientific significance. Many principles we
live with today are theories. I think you're oversimplifying the term
and equating the word "theory" with "guess". I'm not sure what else I
can assume when one uses the phrase "only an unproven theory and nothing
more". It's not like picking lotto numbers. Remember 8th grade science
class? Allow me to elucidate. A scientific theory is a collection of
principles that we use to explain observable phenomena, especially
principles that have been repeatedly tested and then accepted by the
mainstream scientific community. These principles are then used to make
predictions about other phenomena. So, to call something "an unproven
theory and nothing more" is to equate the space shuttle with a Cessna
152. After all, it's just a big airplane and nothing more.
Here is where I think I should attempt, again, to make my position
clear. I have a tendency to get wordy, so bear with me. Recognizing that
theories are incomplete, including the one under discussion here, I
don't particularly support the theory of global warming one way or the
other in an ideological sense. I'm planted firmly on the fence until
there is a scientific consensus that no longer supports the existing
theory. When faced with two options, both if which are in dispute and
perhaps un-knowable for quite some time, the wise choice is to pick the
option that could do the least harm. I'm not particularly inclined to
let anybody gamble by doing otherwise. To put it simply, don't pee in
the pool until we more fully understand the nature of the pee and the
pool. It's a fairly pragmatic approach to a question that could be
unanswerable for quite a while. I had no idea that this would cause
such conservative panty-twisting. I thought I was fairly moderate on
the subject.
>Another good book is "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
He
>was the former Director of Greenpeace...and his book has over 2900
>footnotes. IT is not fiction.
Ah...but is it fact or accepted by a vast majority of the scientific
community? I know of Bjorn Lomborg, but I was not aware of his
connection to Greenpeace. I looked at his bio on his website and it has
no mention of his connection to Greenpeace (that may not really be
germane to the discussion anyway), but it does mention that he has a
Ph.D. in political science. Like Crichton's book warned us, we need to
be careful when we mix science and politics.
http://www.lomborg.com/biograph.htm
Although I have not read that particular book (I will see if I can track
down a copy), I have read the English translations of the Dutch articles
that started the debate. It is good reading. If his position is accepted
by the public, what would we do then? I think this is the key question
underlying my worry. Would a truly regressive conservative regime then
receive pressure to relax all pollution controls in general? Hopefully
this is not the case. At least it isn't right now.
>It's the environmentalist movement that is
>propaganda and stifling all of us.
Come on now. You can do better than that, Mr. Barnes. You're a smart
guy. Don't give us the "I-know-you-are,-But-what-am-I" schoolyard
taunt.
>
>Yawn, this is so easy...
And how, exactly, is that supposed to contribute to the discussion, Mr.
Barnes? With all of the respect due to you as a man of your age and
stature, I expect better.
>
>Rascal
It's quittin' time. Have a good weekend. I'm going to crack open a
frosty adult beverage.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
>[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Pindell,
Tim
>Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 3:21 PM
>To: dml@dakota-truck.net
>Subject: RE: DML: RE: DML Gas Prices
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net [mailto:owner-dakota-
>>truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Rick Barnes
>>Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 7:53 PM
>>To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
>>Subject: RE: DML: RE: DML Gas Prices
>>
>>
>>You should read, "State of Fear" by Michael Creighton, it would make
>you
>>change your thinking about those "environmental concerns"...hogwash.
>>
>>Rascal
>>
>
>Of course caring for the environment is "hogwash" if one's source of
>understanding is in the form of a fictional work of literature! There
>is a vast body of scientific work supporting both sides of this issue,
>and to subscribe to only one viewpoint, like Crichton does in "State of
>Fear", is to be intellectually dishonest. If those of us who would
like
>to use our resources responsibly are wrong about our ability to harm
the
>planet, then what have you lost? Maybe a few bucks. If the
>pave-the-planet conservatives are wrong, and we do actually have a
>grievous impact on the environment, then what have we lost? I can't
put
>a price on that. The damage could be irreparable. When experts
disagree,
>the wise decision is the cautious decision. I'm proud of this country.
>I want it to look like we respect the land that made us great.
>
>I bought the book when I was on a business trip. I had a
>longer-than-expected layover, so I bought the book in the gift shop
>expecting something like "Sphere", "Jurassic Park" or the classic
>"Andromeda Strain". All of these novels by Crichton deal with the
>thrill of scientific discovery. He puts enough scientific information
>in his story to make it interesting and believable for the scientific
>neophyte. Unfortunately, early in this novel, it becomes clear, in a
>literary sense, that this isn't Crichton's best work. However, I can
>almost always find something worth remembering from a novel. Once one
>digs beneath the clumsy, disappointing veneer of anti-environmentalist
>propaganda, one can find some universally good principles: 1) a
>preoccupation with safety can be crippling. 2) Organizations can use
>fear to control the populace. 3) Blind belief is dangerous.
>
>We would all do well to remember those concepts, as they cut both ways.
>
>
>Tim
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 01 2005 - 12:50:23 EDT