The Sky is Falling

[oldgrowth]

Roger - after my post to Jay (Don’t read it) I logged off this site to shut the computer down and just got the following email from Professor Osheroff.

Dear David:

The body of the ET was covered with environmentally friendly foam, only the attach points and other complicated surfaces were covered using a freon blowing agent. I suspect that information is in the final CAIB report. Have you looked there? If not, contact me again and I will then send your not on to Scott Hubbard, who was on the board and also director of NASA Ames Research Center. I suspect he might know how where the information can be found.

Doug

My email to him

Dr. Osheroff - my apologies for taking your valuable time with such a trivia mater.

I have a friend (Roger Bumgarner) a faculty member with the University of Washington. He recently emailed you requesting information about the Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster. You were kind enough to answer him which cleared up the debate he referred to in his email.

My request for you is, can you point me to where I may find the documentation, which shows the builder of the external tanks used Freon in the insulation on the foam ramps.

If you can it would be greatly appreciated, if not I thank you for your time anyway.

Dave

Just wanted to let you know, you were right about him.
I am embarrassed now because I see several typos in my letter to him. But then he also made one, so maybe I am in good company.
________
Dave

 

[ryder]

Dave wrote,

Jay - the problem is most of the people (out there and in here) will not read it.

Well I read it. You know what it says, It says some guy from a business college that is not a scientist disagrees with Gore. Big friggin deal...I spotted your partisan agenda in your first post and it hasn't changed a bit.

Regards

Jim D

 

[starcrafttom]

When I first moved to Seattle, I took the same approach to salmon fishing - I found people who knew what they are doing, and listened.

Roger, Does this mean that you are tossing those damm scotty release????

Dave , nice article

 

[pdoe]

Tyboo Mike,

After voting in the poll I woke up and realized that the two choices are not mutually exclusive. Yes, there is a valid concern that the climate is "changing" globally. However the hysteria generated by the movie and the politicians is overwhelming.

I enjoy following the discourse between Dave and Roger and don't have anything to offer that hasn't been stated by Lloyds and Jay. I prefer not to get into scientific arguments with professors and certainly I don't want to get into any arguments with a person who cut his boat in half!

Can you please send Jim D back to his corner as he is in violation of the only rule on this site, BE NICE!?!

 

[Anonymous]

There's something missing in this windy debate! The book of Revelation makes it real clear that the earth will not be distroyed by water this time but with FIRE. Maybe it just needs to be dried up a bit. Don't put too much stock in any man's opinion on this even if they are professors!

 

[ryder]

Ok I apologize for my last post. I need to stay out of topics that even hint of politics. Dave I am sorry.


I won't be posting nor reading in this area any more.

Jim D

 

[rogerbum]

As Osheroff points out there is a very extensive NASA report - I haven't been able to find it online but it's available somewhere.

There are also a number of very detailed and fairly comprehensive reports on global warming put out by the National Academy of Sciences that can be purchased at their site here. A summary of their reports written for a lay audience can be downloaded for free using this link. It's a pretty good read and does a reasonable job of summarizing what is known. If anyone wants help trying to understand what is written the summary or needs more detail, I would be willing to help but to really understand the science and the primary sources of data will require a lot of effort on the part of both parties. For now, I'm done posting on this topic. I've devoted a lot of time to this "public education effort" and have science to do for awhile....

 

[rogerbum]

When I first moved to Seattle, I took the same approach to salmon fishing - I found people who knew what they are doing, and listened.

Roger, Does this mean that you are tossing those damm scotty release????

Dave , nice article

No - the consensus of people that I have talked to who know a lot about fishing is that Scotty releases work quite well. There are some (like you) who hate them and swear by the more complicated Pro-Release devices, but there are many more who like the Scotty's and have had fish broken off on the Pro-Release. So again, I go with both "conventional wisdom" and my own direct experiences (about 5 years now) on this one. :lol:

 

[dotnmarty]

What I get from all this is, the sky has indeed, well, fallen. Respectfully,

 

[oldgrowth]

I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone that contributed to this thread. I want to thank Roger for his well thought out responses. We are truly fortunate to have such a learned and wise member to this group. I also want to thank Bill and Mike for allowing us to have a section on their site to discuss issues like this amongst friends. I especially want to thank those that gave me encouragement and support with my side of this debate.

Jim D, you are a fairly new member to this group and it will take time to fully understand the make up of the group. Mike and Bill (the administrators of this site) has only one policy and that is on the home page every time you log on. That policy is “No Rules – Just be nice”. I really appreciate your apology and wish you all the best. At the same time I don’t want you to feel bad about being passionate with your responses. When I first became active on this site, I made the same mistakes as you, only I did it more than once and on several different threads. I had my wrists slapped by Bill and Mike as well as the members on the site more than once.

I posted this on another thread some time ago and still mean it.

Jim D - I am glad you are finally getting your boat. You don’t need a boat to be a C-Brat but it certainly makes you feel more like one.

I hope I have the pleasure of crossing wakes with you sometime in the future. Enjoy your boat and try to make the Friday Harbor gathering.

As for the poll, I finally voted today for Hysteria. I did so reluctantly because the way the question is phrased, it makes it appear you do not believe that the climate is changing unless you voted valid concern. I believe the climate is changing and man is having an affect on it, so that is a valid concern, but Al Gore does not have the solution for it and his “an inconvenient truth” and the media coverage of global warming causes (in my opinion) much of the hysteria. As we study this issue more in a rational and reasonable way, we may find mans contribution to the climate change, at this point, is more beneficial than harmful.

One other thing, just because Roger does not have the time to continue with this thread does not mean the rest of us have to quit discussing it.

________
Dave

 

[DaveS]

When the C-Brat site was first created, it was (and still is, I think) affectionately referred to as the C-Brat "Pub". A place where all members could enter, pull up a "bar stool", consume a :beer or beverage of their choice and talk about any subject (within reason) that they desired. The one common bond that we all had was our C-Dorys, but just as when we go to our C-Brat gatherings we don't JUST talk about C-Dorys we discuss other topics and get to know each other as "pub" friends and even get to know the families of each member.

This thread has been a prime example of those "other topics" that on occasion gets discussed at our gatherings. We are fortunate to be involved in a community of very diverse individuals with a common love of C-Dorys.

Over the years I have thoroughly enjoyed this diversity and as I observed this interchange taking place, I perhaps was one of a few that knows that Dave and Roger have the utmost of respect for each other and have shared lunch together and possibly even a few beers.


My observation has been that we welcome all who enter the swinging doors of the pub and encourage them to stay and join in. If at sometime we happen to offend someone, I don't feel that we do so purposely, but realize our differing opinions and then shake hands, buy each other another beer, resume our "boat talk" and enjoy each other. :wink

P.S. I've been quietly sitting on the "bar stool" next to you guys as you've discussed this and I've thoroughly enjoyed your thoughts and comments on this subject. (On top of that these beers have sure gone down easily!..... :roll: )

 

[Hunkydory]

Roger, thanks for taking the time you put into this discussion. I appreciate it and really do respect your opinions on this subject and others which you have made contributions..

Dave, thanks for starting this thread and the thought and work you've put into it. I've enjoyed and learned from it.

Alasgun, I’ll try to refrain from being to windy.

What struck me today from the entirety of this debate is why did I in the past and still now believe man is not the primary cause of global warming with me being in a minority position and there being very good data and people like Roger on the other side. So I spent most of the day at work mulling this over. Fortunately I have the kind of job that it is possible to do just that.

This is what I come up with.

1 The hypocrisy of the environmental movement leaders causing lack of trust in most of what they say.

2 The exaggerated claims of problems resulting from global warming again causing lack of trust.

3 Unanswered questions regarding recent past rapid temperature changes resulting in major climate changes similar to what appears to be happening now and known not to be caused by man. (viking era in Greenland and Iceland)

4 Political bias on both sides resulting in not knowing if man caused global warming is a reality or a platform that they can use to get there constituents behind them to work there preferred agenda.

5 Greed—at stake is a tremendous amount of world wide future money and to who and where is it going to go. $$$ directing the science or science directing the $$$.

So bottom line until I can further sort whose data and opinions can be trusted and more clarification is given on past warming and cooling periods that didn’t result from man I will hold to my present opinion.

This trust thing seems not to be a determining factor for many or possibly to most due to their already trusting in the views of their environmental leaders and or their political affiliations. My faith in these two groups would diffenently not move mountains and the faith that some do show in these groups to me borders on the religious in a scientific matter.

Personally I wished Dr Bob would have given his opinion and why. He is a person I have tremendous respect for and feel I could trust not only his personal opinion, but the sources from which he drew them. Though I entirely understand is reluctance to do so. I have no idea where He stands politically and that would have made it all the better.

Jay

 

[ryder]

Dave

Thanks for accepting my apology. Now that I've calmed down I will try and explain my position.

I am not in the least an Al Gore fan or a democrat ( i am canadian) and further more I am on the fence with the global warming issue. I only listen to scientists regarding the issue. No one else's opinion is relevant including mine.

What upsets me is issues of importance that get side tracked because of partisan ship or a political agenda. General statements like "all enviromentalists are after money" or some other agenda is absurd. Most enviromentalists care deeply about the planet. I am sure there are one's with ulterior motives, but to use that to justify ignoring the science is ridiculous.

People like Rush Limbaugh , Anne coulter, Oreilly etc are hate spewing propogandists that unfortunatley have a large following of non thinkers.

I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin that said " a half a lie is far more dangerous than a complete lie" A good propogandist always basis mis information on part truth, that in fact is what makes them so dangerous.

Possibly I am overly sensitive , but then again I have seen the destruction half truths have caused.

Some people make the argument that man isn't capable of affecting the earth that much. I would like to remind you we can wipe out most life on this planet with a few buttons pushed. Is it illogical to believe other actions by man can cause great harm to the earth if not quite as drastic?

Regards

Jim D

 

[dotnmarty]

Jim- If we ever invade Canada I hope we surrender real quick. It sounds like a great place populated by great people. Best regards, Marty

 

[ryder]

Marty

Thankyou,,,,You are always welcome up here.

Jim D

 

[starcrafttom]

like Rush Limbaugh , Anne coulter, O’reilly etc are hate spewing propagandists that unfortunately have a large following of non thinkers.

You see its statements like this that really get me. Do I listen to rush, yes. Can I think Yes. rush is wrong on a lot of things but so are most people. To state that listening or liking rush means that I can’t think is just mean and stupid. You say you listen to the scientists, well which ones? Despite what al gore thinks or says not all scientists agree on what is causing global warming. Not even half agree on it. Many of the scientists that have their names on the report that al quotes have asked that their names be removed. That aside I find that people have their minds made up and just go looking for information that supports their ideas, I have been guilty of this myself and a man that says other wise is lying to you and himself.

So here is a question that I heard discussed last week, not on rush even thou he covered it later in the week, I believe it was on NG tv or another channel. Some researchers are starting to believe that global warming is not a product of co2 build up, but that co2 build up is a product of global warming and may very well be the planets own cure for the warming and cause a cooling trend. I would like to hear more on this subject and if I have time I well try looking it up. Now just to let you all know I listen to rush, have a little collage, read a LOT and prefer to work on my own engines, cars, house and don’t take my doctors word for anything, trust and verify.

Also roger and others keep bringing up that MOST or a consensuses of a group believe one thing or another. As I read more on history and science I realize that the majority is seldom right, case in point, the world is round. Also most of what we learned in school was wrong when we learned it or soon after but the system is slow to react. Read as much as you can from all sides.

One last thing, is the earth warming to a temp it has been at before a bad thing??? Longer growing seasons in northern countries. Folks, the world changes all the time and always has, so far it has not been the end and I doubt it will be anytime soon.


Roger guess what you are getting for xmass??

 

[ryder]

Thomas ,

I'll give you something to think about.

When someone's career such as Rush , Coulter etc is based on getting you to dislike a group of people you can sure they arent worth much. And if you get off on listening to that trash then that's your problem not mine.


Regards
Jim D

 

[oldgrowth]

Jim D - thank you for your post. Talking about politics and religion can be a very difficult and frustrating experience. We make decisions on those two things based on our core beliefs and values more than any other thing. Sometimes people with the same values/beliefs can be miss lead by others.

As I said before, I listen to Rush Limbaugh when I get a chance, unfortunately it is seldom and for short periods of time unless I am on the road. Then I get a chance to listen for a longer period of time. I find most people that don’t like him or thinks he spews hate, do not listen to him. They get their information from other sources. I am not going to take the time to defend him or try to convince you that you are wrong, because I believe I would be wasting my time. If you really want to know what he says, listen to him like the other 20,000,000 people do.

Ann Coulter is a very provocative lady. She does attack the Left as viciously as they attack her. She has admitted to stirring the pot when it comes to her articles and books. I have heard her on a few shows and read a couple of her articles and did not get the sense that she spews hate.

Your comments about Bill O’Reilly surprises me. Of all the major news anchors of all the major networks, I find him to be the least biased and as the Fox Network says, Fair and Balanced.

It is amazing that we can be in the same house, looking out the same window and see two entirely different views.

________
Dave

 

[Alok]

I've been following this thread with great interest...

As someone once said:

If something is believed to be true, it will have consequences whether it is true or not...

BUT ALSO

If something is true, it will have consequences whether it is believed to be true or not...


Time will tell.

 

[dotnmarty]

"everyone in my book accuses everyone else of being crazy. Frankly, I think the whole society is nuts - and the question is: What does a sane man do in an insane society?" Joseph Heller on his book, 'Catch 22'