Truce declared in War on Science

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/11/science-under-obama/

This is, for me, one of the most important changes we will see with the Obama Administration.

"But let’s look in a little more detail about what American science can expect from president Obama. First, Obama’s answers to ScienceDebate2008 show that he will not allow the “war on science” perpetrated under George W. Bush to continue. Scientists—especially those in the government’s employ—can look forward to an administration that will not be beset by recurrent scandals over political meddling with research. In fact, Obama has specifically pledged to protect scientist whistleblowers and make sure his administration avoids political interference with scientific reports released to the public."

I believe the relentless pursuit of Truth (scientific or otherwise) is an integral part of good stewardship of God's Creation.

Here is another example that might not be as controversial as medical research is for some.

"The agricultural industry continues to lobby very hard for ethanol. While, this is understandable, the (Union of Concerned Scientists)stated that “when issues such as fertilizer use, energy for processing, and land use are taken into account, gallon for gallon, current production methods for corn ethanol could actually create more global warming pollution than today’s gasoline.” In addition it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than is obtained from it’s use.

Hopefully, more efficient and actually green forms of fuel will be pursued by President Obama. There are operational compressed air cars (Spain) as well as water powered vehicles (Japan) that would assist in decreasing dependency on oil, but the American public has no such technology available to them. Why?"

Ethanol comes from corn, corn is the primary product of Iowa, Iowa is the first state to hold a caucus during primary season. Can we expect Obama to change anything?

Well apparently the scientists who are alluded to are optimistic.

Time will tell.

But I doubt Obama is too concerned about the Iowa caucuses of 2012.

I doubt Obama is too concerned about the Iowa caucuses of 2012.

That surprises me to hear from you. I'll bet he thinks about it often.

Speaking of Iowa, isn't it about time for John Edwards to make his first visit to the Hawkeye state for his 2016 candidacy? I figure he'll start early just in case Obama fails miserably and then Edwards might possibly launch a 2012 campaign.

Glenn Beck, whose new program is on Fox at 5 pm, stated yesterday that there was a School District in Minn. that decided to "go green" and contracted for biodiesel fuel for their School Busses for this school year.

Everything was looking good and running fine and they were being so "green" up until this recent "killer" Arctic blast of cold air decended upon them.

That biodiesel fuel ....... gelled up on them and the Busses stopped, stalled and refused to run ........ and the kids on them were freezing and suffering from hypothermia.

So, they decided not to shut the busses off, even keep them running all night, to solve some of the problems.

Now how is that for "saving on the green".

.

That- keeping diesel engines running 24 hours a day- has been a common practice for as long as there have been diesel engines, in extreme cold weather conditions.

Well doesn't the story say we need to concentrate on really green technology?

Not corn derived fuel?

I think it was on the Republicans' watch that we fell for the ethanol scam, but I would like to know more about the history of it. Does anyone know of pertinent sources for information on the topic?

Incidentally, I went to my first country auction today. The six bucks I spent were well spent if only for entertainment value. I got this giant hayknife for 2 bucks. I suppose I can sell it to a farmer when any kind of power reapers are made extinct by the Obama administration (joking!)

Mike, good investment,
they are worth from $20 up to http://cgi.ebay.com/Hay-knife-used-in-the-1800s-and-early-1900s_W0QQitemZ7398563051QQcmdZViewItem

Another example....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/govjindalfollowupwhatisvolcanomonitoring

This is what we got the last time there was a truce in the war on science:

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/19/new-mechanical-chiropractor/

Well OC do you agree with Jindal that it is dumb to monitor volcanic activity?

Or should that be left to the "private sector"?

(Isn't he one of your top guys?)

I bet Sarah Palin feeling her oats now that they snubbed her for him and he blew it so bad, dont you?

No, I don't. I think this thread is bogus anyway. When Obama says he has a truce with science it means he intends to allow the flesh of aborted babies to be used in stem cell research. He'll then convince the weak that this constitutes "science" somehow. If you want to gloat about that, I have to wonder why.

Well sodtaster do you agree with Obama that this constitutes economic "stimulus"? Is this what we had to rush through the Congress before anybody had a chance to read in order to save our way of economic life? If you want to pretend it is science, why is it in the stimulus bill?

I bet Hillary is feeling her oats now that they snubbed her for him and he flim-flammed the Congress, don't you?

ziggy wrote:That- keeping diesel engines running 24 hours a day- has been a common practice for as long as there have been diesel engines, in extreme cold weather conditions.

YUP, in extreme cold weather conditions that persist for long periods of time, ..... like all winter long.

But the smart truck drivers didn't buy Texaco fuel in the winter time and/or during short periods of extreme cold weather conditions, ..... they just added a gallon or two of pure kerosene to their fuel tanks.


.

sodbuster wrote:Well OC do you agree with Jindal that it is dumb to monitor volcanic activity?

Or should that be left to the "private sector"?

(Isn't he one of your top guys?)

I bet Sarah Palin feeling her oats now that they snubbed her for him and he blew it so bad, dont you?

There you go again Shermmy, ...... paraphasing a quote to make it sound like you want it to.

Jindal was implying that it was dumb for Obama and the Democrats to budget an ADDITIONAL $180 million to monitor volcanic activity ..... because it won't create any jobs or prevent this depression from getting worse.

GEEEZUS, they probably get twice that much now.

.

Well OC do you think monitoring volcanic activity is a legitimate gvt. function?

It\'s not like you to duck questions and throw up a strawman argument like that.


Thursday, February 26, 2009; Page A17

Jindal vs. the Volcanoes


Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) raised eyebrows when he complained Tuesday night that President Obama\'s economic stimulus package includes \"$140 million for something called \'volcano monitoring.\' \"

While he may mock, the U.S. Geological Survey says the money is needed, our colleague Alec MacGillis reports, to upgrade potentially lifesaving seismic monitoring equipment that is too slow in providing data.

\"One of the biggest challenges we\'ve got is that a lot of our aging equipment isn\'t able to deliver information in real time,\" said the agency\'s David Applegate, senior science adviser for earthquake and geologic hazards. \". . . Minutes and even seconds matter here.\"

Better monitoring could help those who live near volcanoes in America, as well as at military bases around the world -- not to mention operators of volcano-adjacent hydroelectric dams and airline travelers flying over volcanic regions (a 747 nearly crashed over Alaska in 1989 when it flew, without warning, into a volcanic cloud). The USGS will use only a portion of the stimulus-provided $140 million on the volcano projects; the rest will be spent on such things as efforts to better map topography in flood-prone regions.\"

In light of the fact that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens killed nearly sixty and cost billions of dollars, yes, it is a proper expenditure of government. But not in an emergency economic stimulus bill. It is emphatically not economic stimulus.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/090225-jindal-volcano-monitoring.html

a trage"After President Obama's speech on the economy last night, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal criticized government spending in the stimulus bill, citing examples including "$140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.'"

The $140 million to which Jindal referred is actually for a number of projects conducted by the United States Geological Survey, including volcano monitoring. This monitoring is aimed at helping geologists understand the inner workings of volcanoes as well as providing warnings of impending eruptions, in the United States and in active areas around the world where U.S. military bases are located.

Most of the money from the stimulus bill earmarked for monitoring (only about a tenth of the total going to the USGS) will go to modernizing existing monitoring equipment, including switching from analog to digital and installing GPS networks that can measure ground movements, said John Eichelberger, program coordinator for the USGS's Volcano Hazards Program. Much of the expense of this technology comes from the manpower required to make and install it, he added.

"Ultimately most of this creates jobs or saves jobs that would have been lost" to recent budget shortfalls Eichelberger told LiveScience.

When he heard Jindal's remarks, Eichelberger said he "was frankly astonished" that the governor would use this particular example, given his own state's recent brush with a catastrophic natural disaster.

Among the scenarios in which the USGS’s monitoring can assist — the catastrophic eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, which killed 57 people (including a geologist monitoring the mountain) and was the deadliest and costliest volcanic eruption in U.S. history ($2.74 billion in 2007 dollars). This event was preceded by thousands of earthquakes in the two months before the volcano blew its top; some of these prompted the governor of Washington to declare a state of emergency and many residents were evacuated from a designated danger zone.

"This is a hazard we can do something about," Eichelberger said. "We can spend a modest amount of money and prevent dy."

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:That- keeping diesel engines running 24 hours a day- has been a common practice for as long as there have been diesel engines, in extreme cold weather conditions.

YUP, in extreme cold weather conditions that persist for long periods of time, ..... like all winter long.

But the smart truck drivers didn't buy Texaco fuel in the winter time and/or during short periods of extreme cold weather conditions, ..... they just added a gallon or two of pure kerosene to their fuel tanks.

.

The addition of pure kerosene helps alleviate the problem of diesel fuel jelling in cold weather- whether the engine is either stopped or running. But it does nothing to promote cold weather starts of diesel engines whose engine oil and cylinders are as cold as the surrounding air.

This ain't the 1970's anymore Ziggy. Due to emissions standards, you can't burn kerosene in the diesel engines.

ziggy wrote: The addition of pure kerosene helps alleviate the problem of diesel fuel jelling in cold weather- whether the engine is either stopped or running. But it does nothing to promote cold weather starts of diesel engines

What next you gonna tell me, .... that one needs to use special "winterized" spark plugs to insure their starting.

ziggy wrote: whose engine oil and cylinders are as cold as the surrounding air.

DUH, did you figure that all out by yourself?

.

Aaron wrote:This ain't the 1970's anymore Ziggy. Due to emissions standards, you can't burn kerosene in the diesel engines.

Wanna bet?

You " can't " drive 90 MPH either. But it happens every day.

Yeah, I'll take your bet Ziggy but it's not gambling for me because I know you're dead wrong.

Due to emission requirements and the number of times emissions are recycled throuhg the engine, Keresone will severly damage a 2007 engine up.

And if they ever design a working model that will meet the emission standards for the 2010 engine, it will likely lock that engine up.

Like I said, this ain't the 70's and you don't know what you're talking about.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: The addition of pure kerosene helps alleviate the problem of diesel fuel jelling in cold weather- whether the engine is either stopped or running. But it does nothing to promote cold weather starts of diesel engines

What next you gonna tell me, .... that one needs to use special "winterized" spark plugs to insure their starting.

Well now maybe you are trying to be cute. But actually about 50 years ago and more there were diesel engines that "started" on gasoline ignited by spark plugs. Then, once "started", switched over to compression firing of diesel fuel via fuel injection. And I'm not talking about "pony motor" starting either, but about an engine that would "run" on either spark plug fired gasoline or compression fired diesel fuel. That was in the days of 6 volt starter motors, which often didn't crank over fast enough to create enough compression to start the diesel firing cycle.

http://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=35585

whose engine oil and cylinders are as cold as the surrounding air.

DUH, did you figure that all out by yourself?

Elementary, my dear Watson.