What do we get for our money?
(M)-adman
More then 30 years latter we still have an oil problem that is not causing
inflation and is crippling the economy.
Has science helped our nation fix this oil crisis during in all that time?
What has science given us for our research money in more then 30 years?
Junk science and the study of old bones.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Boikat
> America had it's first oil crisis in 1973.
>
> More then 30 years latter we still have an oil problem that is not causing
> inflation and is crippling the economy.
Actually, the durrent "oil crisis" contributed to recent inflation to
a fair extent. The largest part of the current economic crisis is
more due to financial investment bankers gone wild.
>
> Has science helped our nation fix this oil crisis during in all that time?
What has "creationism", or whatever in hell it is that *you* are
pushing done to help during all that time?
> What has science given us for our research money in more then 30 years?
Higher fuel efficiency, cleaner burning gas, more durable engines and
control systems requiring less tuneups, synthetic lubrication
oil..... That's just for cars.
But, here again, you seem to think that "science" is pulling the
strings. The fact of the matter is that without money, no large scale
research is accomplished. The available money is determined by
varuios economic factors. Research funds for any major search for
alternative fuel for vehicles dried up as fast as the 70's oil
crisis. Who wants to invest what could have amount ed to billions of
dollars into a field that no longer appeared to be a mojor problem?
Don't blame "science" for the lack of funding.
> Junk science and the study of old bones.
Thanks for tht totally meaningless platitude.
Meanwhile:
http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/news/news_releases/release.sfe?id=667
Boikat
Rick
Rick
Science can't overcome politics for some reason. Its like rock paper
scissors, and science is the pasta.
Rock can squish pasta, scissors can cut pasta, and paper can cover the
pasta up.
Mitchell Coffey
Science has made internal combustion engines, as well as central coal,
oil and gas-burning power plants, considerably more thermally
efficient than thirty years ago, while making them less polluting.
The same might be said about most major industrial processes. Science
has developed drilling and pumping methods allowing oil companies to
bring up oil that, thirty years ago, could not have been accessed.
Science has developed methods of converting a larger fraction of crude
oil into gasoline.
There's more, but that a start for you.
Mitchell Coffey
chris thompson
Funny you should mention 1973. That was the year Konrad Lorenz shared
the Nobel Prize with von Frisch and Tinbergen. Here's the opening of
Lorenz' Nobel lecture:
"In the course of evolution it constantly happens that, independently
of each
other, two different forms of life take similar, parallel paths in
adapting themselves
to the same external circumstances. Practically all animals which move
fast in a homogeneous medium have found means of giving their body a
streamlined shape, thereby reducing friction to a minimum. The
“invention” of
concentrating light on a tissue sensitive to it by means of a
diaphanous lens has
been made independently at least four times by different phyla of
animals;
and in two of these, in the cephalopods and in the vertebrates, this
kind of
“eye” has evolved into the true, image-projecting camera through which
we
ourselves are able to see the world.
Thanks to old discoveries by Charles Darwin and very recent ones by
biochemists,
we have a fairly sound knowledge of the processes which, in the
course of evolution, achieve these marvelous structures. The student
of evolution
has good reason to assume that the abundance of different bodily
structures
which, by their wonderful expediency, make life possible for such
amazingly different creatures under such amazingly different
conditions, all
owe their existence to these processes which we are wont to subsume
under the
concept of adaptation. This assumption, whose correctness I do not
propose
to discuss here, forms the basis of the reasoning which the
evolutionist applies
to the phenomenon of analogy."
You have a nice day, now.
Chris
Boikat
You forgot to ask admonkey "And what has creationism done to solve the
"oil crisis"?
Boikat
Robert Carnegie
You don't "still" have an oil problem. You have a new oil problem. I
haven't checked the review of oil price over time on the web page I'm
about to mention, but it seems about right:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/oil/
(Are those U.S. or Canadian dollar prices?)
As for what science has been doing in the last thirty years, well, I
guess the catalytic converter came in then. That's one improvement.
Not really an improvement in performance but what the hecck.
David Canzi
\(M\)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> America had it's first oil crisis in 1973.
>
>More then 30 years latter we still have an oil problem that is not causing
>inflation and is crippling the economy.
>
>Has science helped our nation fix this oil crisis during in all that time?
>What has science given us for our research money in more then 30 years?
>
>Junk science and the study of old bones.
When I look at the traffic around me I'm amazed at how many people
are driving around in personal tanks. Science can't miraculously
prevent the predictable consequences when tens of millions of
people behave thoughtlessly. Science can't force people to be
more thoughtful.
--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
(M)-adman
So since the focus has been on conservation of fuel and finding more fuel
there is not an energy crisis worth moving to new energy technologies?
(M)-adman
The problem is not "new".
1973 was a wake up call and science has not done much. BUT we do know a lot
about old bones and meteors hitting Jupiter.
heekster
wrote:
> America had it's first oil crisis in 1973.
>
>More then 30 years latter we still have an oil problem that is not causing
>inflation and is crippling the economy.
>
>Has science helped our nation fix this oil crisis during in all that time?
>What has science given us for our research money in more then 30 years?
Well, then, you must not want that computer that you are using to post
your imbecilities here.
I know it's difficult for you to understand, but science produced it.
Science has no sway over politics. Had the politicians decided to
fund the scientific research necessary, it is likely that there'd be
no oil crisis.
Lee Jay
> America had it's first oil crisis in 1973.
>
> More then 30 years latter we still have an oil problem that is not causing
> inflation and is crippling the economy.
>
> Has science helped our nation fix this oil crisis during in all that time?
> What has science given us for our research money in more then 30 years?
The oil crisis was a warning shot that we'd better do something to get
sustainable. Unfortunately, politicians and the public both have very
short attention spans, and thus very short time horizons on what
they're willing to invest in. So when the oil crisis ended, so did
efforts to find a replacement energy system. Instead, research went
forward at a very low level, with wildly fluctuating budgets that
never amounted to a concerted national effort. Now, we're finally
starting to go forward again, but still with very small budgets. We
had most of the technology we needed to solve this problem in the 70s,
but it needed a massive, national program for development and
deployment. We didn't get that.
> Junk science and the study of old bones.
They're called "fossil fuels."
Lee Jay
Mark Evans
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> America had it's first oil crisis in 1973.
>
> >> More then 30 years latter we still have an oil problem that is not
> >> causing inflation and is crippling the economy.
>
> >> Has science helped our nation fix this oil crisis during in all that
> >> time? What has science given us for our research money in more then
> >> 30 years?
>
> >> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > You don't "still" have an oil problem. You have a new oil problem. I
> > haven't checked the review of oil price over time on the web page I'm
> > about to mention, but it seems about right:
> >http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/oil/
>
> > (Are those U.S. or Canadian dollar prices?)
>
> > As for what science has been doing in the last thirty years, well, I
> > guess the catalytic converter came in then. That's one improvement.
> > Not really an improvement in performance but what the hecck.
>
> The problem is not "new".
>
> 1973 was a wake up call and science has not done much. BUT we do know a lot
> about old bones and meteors hitting Jupiter.
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
n
> ·.¸Adman¸.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
But, alas, we have yet to find a practical, legal solution to mentally
impaired people insistio
(M)-adman
Yours is a voice of reason in a sea of insanity.
>
>> Junk science and the study of old bones.
>
> They're called "fossil fuels."
>
> Lee Jay
--
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
> America had it's first oil crisis in 1973.
>
>More then 30 years latter we still have an oil problem that is not causing
>inflation and is crippling the economy.
>
>Has science helped our nation fix this oil crisis during in all that time?
>What has science given us for our research money in more then 30 years?
>
>Junk science and the study of old bones.
Translation: "Knowledge is useless; only application of
knowledge matters."
Er, what will we be applying if we don't learn anything?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Mitchell Coffey
> MitchellCoffeywrote:
1. I responded to the question you asked.
2. I did not say that "the focus has been on conservation of fuel and
finding more fuel," neither did my choice of examples imply that -
unless you are so limited in your knowledge of the subject that you
actually think the few examples I gave were exhaustive.
3. I could have added examples of research and development into new
energy technologies but answering your question did not require an
exhaustive list, neither would there be time or reason to write one.
4. I neither said nor implied that as a result of the several examples
I gave "there is not an energy crisis worth moving to new energy
technologies." Again, I responded to the questions you asked.
5. It does not follow that because technical developments have so-far
by only partly dealt with our energy problems that science has not
"helped our nation fix this oil crisis during in all that time," as is
implied by your original post and your reply to my post.
6. You assume that the mere existence of "new energy technologies"
would cause them to be introduced, regardless of public policy, and
regardless of the price of the energy they would produce, relative to
the price of energy produced by existing energy technologies. This is
a peculiar assumption your part.
7. Your implication that the problem is mostly technical, that for
instance economics and politics are not major issues regarding the
introduction of what you call "new energy technologies," is false.
8. Your evident belief that the our energy-related problems, and the
solutions thereof, are mostly technical in nature is debatable.
9. The same goes for your apparent belief that our energy problems
constitute an "energy crisis."
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
Your statement that science has not done much is untrue. Your
assumption that "science" is somehow responsible for developments in
economics, politics and public policy is bizarre. Your summation of
_all_ scientific development as merely learning "a lot about old bones
and meteors hitting Jupiter," referring to the period of time when,
for instance, computer technology revolutionized international
economies, is astoundingly ignorant.
Mitchell Coffey
(M)-adman
Retoric when solutions are needed.
(M)-adman
Rationalization. There is a bigger fish to fry
Boikat
Write your congressman/woman, twit.
Boikat
Boikat
No. Your claims are baseless, your grasp of science is non-existant,
and you are a troll.
Boikat
Mark VandeWettering
I'm anxious to see how your creationist-fuel-cell technology works out.
chris thompson
The advanced Babel Fish adman translation unit returns this as
"Dammit! Stupid logic! Stupid facts!"
Chris
Robert Carnegie
Well, reforming the spelling of English isn't going to help.
As I write I am awaiting delivery of a new bicycle, so I am doing my
bit. It is being flown in specially for me. ...What?
Frank J
>
> More then 30 years latter we still have an oil problem that is not causing
> inflation and is crippling the economy.
>
> Has science helped our nation fix this oil crisis during in all that time?
> What has science given us for our research money in more then 30 years?
Not nearly as much as they would have if anti-science forces didn't
get in the way.
In '73 I naively thought that R&D would skyrocket. By '83 we had a
Secretary of the Interior saying that the world was going to end soon.
Even if he was joking, those sound bites sell better than R&D.
>
> Junk science and the study of old bones.
Yes, that's one way to characterize creationism.
Kermit
> America had it's first oil crisis in 1973.
>
> More then 30 years latter we still have an oil problem that is not causing
> inflation and is crippling the economy.
>
> Has science helped our nation fix this oil crisis during in all that time?
> What has science given us for our research money in more then 30 years?
>
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Off the top of my head, evolutionary sciences in themselves have given
us:
Improved, pest-resistant and disease-resistant crops.
Better understanding of ecosystems and management of wilderness areas
(when the politicians listen to the scientists).
Better anticipation and management of plagues - like the ever-
threatening avian flu.
Better vaccines, faster production, and more accurate forecasting of
which strain will dominate in the following year.
*Much better treatment of cancers.
Indentification and treatment of genetic diseases.
Better understanding and treatment of auto-immune diseases.
Other sciences (they all interact and contribute to each other) have
provided:
Personal computers, including the internet.
GPSes.
Cheaper and healthier manufacturing techniques.
Space exploration is going to open up tremendous resources (with no
natives that have to be killed off).
Early (unheeded) warnings of the global climate change, and are
developing ways to deal with it.
Materials technology.
My mother-in-law fell two weeks ago and broke her hip. Thanks to
medical science developments, she had a joint replacement that
afternoon, and took short walks in the hospital the next day. She has
since moved back into her apartment.
Her arthritis is being treated with medicines that didn't exist
before.
My son had his near-sighted eyes fixed surgically.
Are you really so dense that you are clueless about scientific
advances made in the last generation? This list is the tip of an
iceberg.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Oct 9, 11:36 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
> > America had it's first oil crisis in 1973.
>
> > More then 30 years latter we still have an oil problem that is not causing
> > inflation and is crippling the economy.
>
> > Has science helped our nation fix this oil crisis during in all that time?
> > What has science given us for our research money in more then 30 years?
>
> Not nearly as much as they would have if anti-science forces didn't
> get in the way.
>
> In '73 I naively thought that R&D would skyrocket. By '83 we had a
> Secretary of the Interior saying that the world was going to end soon.
> Even if he was joking, those sound bites sell better than R&D.
James Watt, yes. He wasn't joking; like many fundamentalists, he
thought the End Times were near, and therefore there was no need to
protect the Earth, or America's resources for the future.
If Palin becomes president, we will have an administration that not
only thinks the End Times are nigh, but that Jesus needs our special
help in starting Armageddon, in order to establish the Kingdom of God
on Earth. this should concern everybody, not just us colonials.
>
>
>
> > Junk science and the study of old bones.
>
> Yes, that's one way to characterize creationism.
>
> > --
> > A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> > ·.¸Adman¸.·
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
Q: How much energy does it take to destroy a nation forest?
A: One Watt!
Kermit
Mitchell Coffey
> MitchellCoffeywrote:
Rationalization of what? You've consistently gotten your facts wrong
in this thread and, when called on it, responded with evasions and
unsupportable insults.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
He's also ignorant of economics.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
And yet you offer no solutions, only an illogical and ignorant attack
on science for not providing a full solution, independent of public
policy, to problems you have made no effort to understand. Your
responses to my replies have been evasive.
You attacked science based on your ignorance of science, economics,
the relevant history of the problem and the nature of the problem you
claim you want fixed. Yet there is no way to treat the problems you
identify without understanding them and the nature of potential
solutions and of obstacles to those solutions. Meanwhile, you suggest
no solutions yourself.
You have shown yourself throughout your history of postings on this
newsgroup to be ignorant of science, technology, economics, history
and religion; to have no interest in educating yourself on these
topics; to evade honest discussion; to misrepresent the content of
texts; to be a consistent liar, plagiarizer and hate-monger.
Mitchell Coffey
John Wilkins
<energy crisis>
> Well, reforming the spelling of English isn't going to help.
>
> As I write I am awaiting delivery of a new bicycle, so I am doing my
> bit. It is being flown in specially for me. ...What?
Well, if they rode it over from China, it would be used, and not new,
when you got it, right?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre