Horace, I appreciate what you're saying,and I agree that open discussion is the only way to go. In fact its the irrationality and bullying rampant in what passes today for "rational discussion" which is what made me say what I said; I don't say things just to be spectacular. The end result of losing energy resources is, as you know, major unemployment, and a catastrophic decline in lifestyle. On the other hand, as I mentioned (something that was, of course, completely ignored) there are human beings - our neighbours, so to speak - who would benefit greatly from the employment offered from coal mining and processing, the alternative to sending money out to the Middle East; money that's often used for dubious purposes.
Having said all that, I really don't want to open this ugly letter for all to read. From my standpoint, Mr. Palmer, who contributes regularly here, obviously has his own problems to contend with without our adding to them. And I'm not easily bullied. P. ----- Original Message ---- From: Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 2:44:39 AM Subject: Re: [VO]: Economic models On Nov 17, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Nick Palmer wrote: > Philip Winestone ranted > <<The main problem, as I believe we all know, is that the "green > crowd" don't want us burning ANYTHING, so the proposal to dig up > coal and use if for ANYTHING will be met with fierce resistance, > mostly by bigmouths.>> > > See the very latest report from the IPCC released a day or so ago. > The scientists are feeling more free to speak almost the full truth > now that the politically inspired (translation: insane stupidity) > watering down and sabotage is weakening. Fear for your future. > Consider who the truly smart people are - those like you who keep > on coming out with an irresponsible, irrational viewpoint decades > after the clever people realised the forthcoming problems and the > obvious solutions and let the rest of the world know. I really have > had it up to here with this public display of intransigence, > obstructionism and inability to realise who is at fault. While I probably agree with many of your viewpoints, I find your attitude with regard to free speech troubling. > > BTW, I sent the uncensored version of this posting directly to > Winestone - it was rather a lot stronger... I think we ought to see this email. Bullying emails attempting to squelch free speech, if that is indeed the kind that was sent to Philip Winestone, are not something that should not be either kept quiet or tolerated. On Nov 17, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Nick Palmer wrote: > Whether you turn coal into syngas or methanol or whatever, you are > still desequestrating fossil carbon. If you think this is a good > idea then you don't understand the situation. If you don't > understand the situation we are in, it is your duty to humanity to > shut up! Discussion of these issues is the only way consensus building can ever occur. Though my personal preference is to discuss how to solve energy issues, rather than why, it strikes me as both on topic and useful for those who wish to engage in discussions of energy policy to do so freely. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
