[ RadSafe ] Climate Change, physics and intelligent design

Tue Nov 2 15:09:19 CDT 2010

Howard, Intelligent Design is a intellectually dishonest attempt to get
Creationism taught in science classes.  Almost all the major players in
ID were involved in "Scientific Creationism" before it got shot down by
the courts.  In its most basic form ID replaces "God" with "Unknown
Designer (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink)".  I don't claim to understand the
math behind the models of the Big Bang, nor do I claim to know how life
started, but I do know that "God did it" is not a scientifically
verifiable statement.  Adding it in doesn't help any model.

As for Sarah being right on market control, if it were true it would
only be so due to blind luck.  Based on an admittedly incomplete
sampling of her statements, she has no idea about market theory.  I
would bet that if you asked her what condition are necessary for a self
sustaining free market to exist, she would freeze like a caribou in a
snowmobile's headlights.  I understood market theory better than she
does before I went through my MBA program, and by the time I was done I
knew the best current answers to things she doesn't even understand are
questions.  

>The market grows investment and jobs better than political command -as
you can see with current collapse of a planned economy.

The US has a regulated market economy with a fair amount of government
involvement in infrastructure, but it is by no means a "planned
economy."  Much of the current collapse comes from decades of management
decisions (theoretically for the benefit of the stock holders, but in
reality for the benefit of the managers themselves) to ignore the wisdom
of people like Henry Ford, and use (usually) non-market conditions to
produce product without paying labor enough to create markets that could
afford those products.  Much of the rest of the collapse is from the
economic costs of trying to fight two wars, without expending enough
resources to bring either to a desirable conclusion.  

> Can you see where central planning gets us, vs what private investors
do to protect their reputations and investment in nuclear reactors?  

This statement shows a lack of understanding that I despair at trying to
explain.  

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Long
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:40 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change, physics and intelligent design

Mike, is the "Big Bang" more comprehendable than "Intelligent Design"?
I believe God's "day" is more likely a billion earth orbits of the sun
than a single revolution, thus integrating much-translated scriptures
with evolving knowledge of physics. 

Am I a Sarah syncophant? She's also right on kitchen economics ( market
controls). The market grows investment and jobs better than political
command -as you can see with current collapse of a planned economy. The
latter has led to LNT dictates to enable easier command. Can you see
where central planning gets us, vs what private investors do to protect
their reputations and investment in nuclear reactors?  

Howard Long 

On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:21 AM, "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)"
<Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV> wrote:

> In your desire to ridicule the Apostil of Al, make sure you don't
become
> a Sycophant of Sarah.  Most of the people speaking most loudly against
> the idea that humans can and are effecting climate in larger areas
than
> previously acknowledged (city heat islands have been well documented
> since at least my childhood) are not doing it from a basis of sound
> personal research.  A fair check is to find out where they stand on
the
> teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes.  
> 
> As I have stated before, I don't particularly care about the whole
> climate change debate; I remember when the some scientists predicted
> that we were about to enter another ice age.  There are, however, a
> number of things that are proposed as useful in reducing our impact on
> the climate that are worth doing in their own right.  For example,
> whether you care about CO2 or not, almost everything that is burned
puts
> other stuff into the air, too.  In most cases, a little bit isn't a
> problem, but a lot is.  I would submit that when things burned in
China
> contribute noticeably to air pollution in LA, it would be a good idea
if
> there was less burning going on.  
> 
> There is an interesting article here:
>
http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/greener-battlefields-wo
> uld-be-safer-for-troops-24716/.  The short of it is that after years
of
> rejecting ideas because they were "green", the military is realizing
> that acting on some of these improves their ability to carry out their
> mission, and saves vast amounts of money (how many businesses would
like
> a change that saves two million dollars per day, with a pay-back time
of
> less than two months?).  
> 
> Those who believe in climate change because of slanted reporting by
> biased sources are not using a good decision making process.  Those
who
> do not believe in climate change because of slanted reporting by
biased
> sources are not using a good decision making process, either.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:59 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
> 
> Not to be indelicate, but Mr. Al's disciples should probably try to do
> something about their methane emissions as well ...
> 
> Jim Hardeman
> 
>>>> "Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)" <gyf7 at cdc.gov> 11/1/2010 18:23
>>>> 
> That's great Ed. I also "don't do hockey sticks..." It might be worth
> the effort for ALL of Mr. Al's disciples to hold their breath for a
> long, long, time.
> 
> Regards,
> John Dixon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Edmond
Baratta
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 5:45 PM
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
> 
> Larry:
> 
> I'm not a 'Disciple' of Al Gore's climate change.  My recommendation
was
> for 
> those who subscribe to it.
> 
> Ed
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Jess L. Addis III" <ajess at clemson.edu>
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:27 AM
> To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List'" 
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
> 
>> Great idea!  Do us a favor Ed, you go first.
>> 
>> Larry Addis
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Edmond
> Baratta
>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:31 AM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
>> 
>> Jerry:
>> 
>> We must first stop breathing for at least one hour of a day.  Think
of
> how
>> much CO2 we will save.  First start with the Governments.  However
the
>> trees, plants, grass will not appreciate this.
>> 
>> Ed Baratta
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Rosen, Jerry C" <jcrosen at pitt.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:23 PM
>> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>> List"
>> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
>> 
>>> 1. The Green House Effect is a recognized scientific fact.
>>> 2. It is recognized that CO2 contributes to the phenomenon.
>>> 3. Modern technology, automobiles, power plants etc. generate CO2.
>>> 4. The green house effect results in warming of the atmosphere which
>>> directly effects climate.
>>> 
>>> Therefore, CO2 and man's actions contribute to climate change.
>>> 
>>> One can argue the degree of contribution but not whether the
> phenomenon
>>> exists.
>>> 
>>> 4. Fact: CO2 is not the only green house gas that is generated by
> man's
>>> activities.
>>> 
>>> 5. Fact: sun spots don't contribute to ocean acidity.
>>> 6. Fact: There has been a significant change in ocean acidity in the
> last
>>> 150 years.
>>> 7  Fact: CO2 is the major contributor to ocean acidity.
>>> 8. Fact: There is already recognizable damage to coral reefs from
> ocean
>>> acidity.
>>> 
>>> Ocean acidity is not far below the level that will result in
> dissolution
>>> of reefs and prevent shell fish from forming shells.
>>> 
>>> So completely ignore climate change but don't plan to go scuba
diving
> on
>>> reefs or eat oysters in the future.
>>> 
>>> The potential impact goes far beyond what I've described.
>>> 
>>> Don't worry about that either because we can't afford to make the
> changes
>>> to limit the problem and the full effect may not happen in our life
> time.
>>> 
>>> Let me get personal. My father-in-law will turn 100 next year. He
has
> a 5
>>> year old grandson. This has caused me to rethink my attitude about
> many
>>> things. Mostly, I make decisions which might affect people on a
> century
>>> scale not my projected and somewhat limited life span.
>>> I worry about bankrupting my children, grandchildren and potential
>>> succeeding generations with the national debt. So do a lot of
people.
>>> The people who scream the most about the debt tend to be many of the
>>> climate change deniers.
>>> 
>>> Because of the debt, my great grandchildren may not be able to
afford
>>> food, shelter or clothing, but I don't worry about this because the
> earth
>>> won't be inhabitable anyway.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
>>> [radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Quastel
>>> [maay100 at bgu.ac.il] 
>>> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 4:13 PM
>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>>> List
>>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
>>> 
>>> I have been concerned to hear during the past year or so, even  from
>>> this otherwise informative and properly skeptical group, statements
>>> that findings of climate warming- or more properly climate change-
is
>>> some sort of fraud, scam or conspiracy. The geologic and
>>> oceanographic evidence so far really does seem to support that
>>> climate change is taking place in our own lifetime. Whether it will
>>> turn out to be man made, a natural cycle, some sort of solar
>>> phenomenon, temporary or cumulative in the long run remains to be
>>> seen. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical -  indeed, that is
>>> the proper scientific approach -  but in view of the potentially
very
>>> serious global consequences, it would be wise to keep an open mind
on
>>> the subject and most definitely not rule out the possibility of
human
>>> causation.
>>> 
>>> Mike Quastel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu