Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
"If you have...what the freak is all this "Show me the data!" stuff?" It's a simple crucial request. Give us reason to believe what is claimed. Demanding sufficient evidence is not a “gun.” It is a positive creative contribution most fundamental to good understanding conciliation. Data is critical; we can’t operate without it. And, the burden is necessarily upon the one who makes the claim to provide sufficient evidence. To say that evidence isn’t applicable is ridiculous and gets us nowhere. If you think Bob is being unreasonable in regards to the definition of sufficiency, then specifically question debate that. E.g.: How much data is sufficient?, Why?, What type of data is sufficient, Why?, Why is this particular data set not sufficiently trustworthy?, How should we operate when evidence is so limited?, Do our standards for data vary with application or circumstance?, How do the interests behind these studies affect the data?, etc. Demanding sufficient evidence is critical to working from our common rationality in order to create something useful. This creative process is easy if you try. All it takes is a shedding of emotional attachment to any proposition and dedicating yourself to understanding our world, whatever it takes. We will never best manage our situation until we best understand it, and employing a standardmethod of investigation based on evidence is absolutely crucial to that end. And, if we want a shared sense of reality humanity, this is it. Nothing connecting every single one of us is so in our control. If we are to work togetherin making sense ofthe complexities, uncertainties,and differences we face, then what we need more than anything is a common fabric from which to acknowledge, communicate, negotiate, understand, compromise, and create. Nothing can provide this other than a commitment to reason standards of knowledge. Our rationality is somethingwe all share, indispensably depend upon, and with which can relate to one another. To abandon this common thread is to abandon peace, because without it we have 6 billion irreconcilable realities. If youcan't support why such such is so interms tangible to another's sense of reality, then there is no method by which to reach agreement, no matter what the issue is.Without data, you are depending upon chance by way of whatever inclination happens to posses you or another, and that's no way to create peace. Mike - Original Message From: MK DuPree [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Friday, November 3, 2006 12:47:54 AMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Keith...thank you. List...required reading. That includes you too Bob, if you haven't already read. If you have...what the freak is all this "Show me the data!" stuff? But that's all wrong of me...or is it? Yeah, I understand some of it. But some of it, maybe it's that "gun" Joe Street referred to elsewhere that you seem to brandish all too easily along with your requests. I don't know. Whatever it is, it's indicative of the great need we all have today. From the article: "The capacity for global destruction has the effect that it puts us all in the same lifeboat...What is needed now is a new psychology that is commensurate with the realities of political interdependency...a shared enough sense of reality and humanity. A shared sense of humanity and reality, the prerequisites to any sort of problem-solving, however, can not be taken for granted simply because all the parties are human beings, communicate with each other directly or through translators, and appear to use reason. A shared sense of humanity and reality is a complex personal and social process that, at present, has only been achieved to a limited degree...we have not yet developed a psychological paradigm to deal with the realities of global interdependency." So here we go folks...who will jump on board and become a part of the development of this new paradigm? I'm suggesting we start with a prayer, the reasons for which are stated in another postto this thread to D Mindock and Mary Lynn Schmidt, and restated here: In peace and light I journey through forever. Come on, Bob. "It's easy if you try." Mike DuPree - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Hi D., Mike and all Mike,I am glad you liked the article. We need to be agents of change, totransform theplanet into one where peace and caring prevail. As individuals we need tobecomepeaceful within ourselves, then we can radiate peace everywhere. Have you read this? http://journeytoforever.org/rrlib/greenspan.html Toward a Psychology of Interdependency Greenspan and Shanker If not I'm sure you'll enjoy it. There's more to be said and further to explore than they've done, eg they don't examine how people who have not been brought up in the kind of
Re: [Biofuel] Closed-Mindedness(WasHypnosisasAnesthesiaWasTestimonials asEvidence)
Hallo Bob, Thursday, 02 November, 2006, 12:41:43, you wrote: ba Howdy Gustl ...snip... It's worse than that Joe. He demands data on the efficacy of homeopathic products stating that the work to falsify homeopathy has been done but provides zero data to falsify homeopathy as a legitimate method of treatment. ba so your saying that because I can't prove that it doesn't work, means ba that it does? If your reading comprehension leads you to that kind of conclusion from my words above then it is small wonder you are still here bickering. But then I don't think that's what's going on. I think you just don't care about anything but winning an argument regardless of whether others may be right or wrong. Personality flaw which makes for a dishonest intellect. You would make a good scientist for the tobacco companies. That bit of mine means that you demand data of others to prove their claim for which they have only testimonials because the scientific community has dismissed their claims out of hand without using the scientific method while at the same time you verbally sneer at them while you pronounce they are wrong without providing them the exact data you demand which would falsify their claims. If you demand data to prove something you must provide data to disprove that thing. If testimonials are not sufficient proof without experimentation then scientific opinion without experimentation is not sufficient. And concerning that bit of yours below. I am old enough to remember when it was a scientific FACT that there was nothing smaller than the atom, but then along came an whole new breed of microscopes and, gee whiz, it seems that there are particles smaller than the atom. You may hypothesize that there is nothing left but any proofs you may have may be short lived because of the limitations of science and the accompanying technology. Like the microscope we may not yet have instrumentation sensitive enough to accurately measure such miniscule amounts. And, if it were you doing the measuring I would be skeptical at any rate given your propensity to misdirect, dodge and weave, twist words, etc. And finally, again, I have no investment in homeopathy, don't use the remedies and am skeptical enough myself to not spend my money on them. But, I do have an investment in fair, honest and accurate discourse and debate. The folks speaking for homeopathy have been using testimonial evidence which is only that and nothing more, testimonial evidence and that seems to satisfy them which is all well and good. You do not seem to be satisfied with saying, Well, I don't believe that and it hasn't been scientifically proven. and letting it go at that, but demand satisfaction from them in the form of experimental data from experiments which have apparently not been done to affirm the efficacy of homeopathic medicine while simultaneously exempting yourself from presenting experimental data falsifying homeopathy by citing current scientific theory. Sorry, that doesn't wash. Ask Einstein. Everything isn't readily apparent. You have your beliefs and they have theirs. Ego shouldn't have a place in the debate on either side of the question. Happy Happy, Gustl ba here is what I can prove: the dilutions employed in homeopathy are ba such that there is nothing left of the agent (the duck liver for ba example) in the final product. Logic alone would suggest then that ba the duck liver has no effect on the outcome of the use of the ba product, unless you accept that the water remembered the duck ba liver, and this was transfered to the filler in the capsule taken. ba One, I would think, has to suspend any connection to reality to ba believe that the water remembers what was in it. ba toodles -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. We can't change the winds but we can adjust our sails. The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Straße liegen, daß sie gerade deshalb von der gewöhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Data has always existed .. it exists in every single living thing .. it exists in the changing of the seasons and it has existed for all time. The problem, as I see it is that a few have said .. This data and only this data will be allowed .. all other data needs to be ignored because that data doesn't fit into the parameters this particular community has established. Precisely which data will you allow and which ones will you discount and discard as not worthy of consideration? Mary Lynn Rev. Mary Lynn Schmidt, Ordained Minister ONE SPIRIT ONE HEART TTouch . Reiki . Pet Loss Grief Counseling . Animal Behavior Modification . Shamanic Spiritual Travel . Behavior Problems . Psionic Energy Practitioner . Radionics . Herbs . Dowsing . Nutrition . Homeopathy . Polarity . The Animal Connection Healing Modalities http://members.tripod.com/~MLSchmidt/ http://allcreatureconnections.org From: Michael Friebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:56:16 -0800 (PST) If you have...what the freak is all this Show me the data! stuff? It's a simple crucial request. Give us reason to believe what is claimed. Demanding sufficient evidence is not a gun. It is a positive creative contribution most fundamental to good understanding conciliation. Data is critical; we cant operate without it. And, the burden is necessarily upon the one who makes the claim to provide sufficient evidence. To say that evidence isnt applicable is ridiculous and gets us nowhere. If you think Bob is being unreasonable in regards to the definition of sufficiency, then specifically question debate that. E.g.: How much data is sufficient?, Why?, What type of data is sufficient, Why?, Why is this particular data set not sufficiently trustworthy?, How should we operate when evidence is so limited?, Do our standards for data vary with application or circumstance?, How do the interests behind these studies affect the data?, etc. Demanding sufficient evidence is critical to working from our common rationality in order to create something useful. This creative process is easy if you try. All it takes is a shedding of emotional attachment to any proposition and dedicating yourself to understanding our world, whatever it takes. We will never best manage our situation until we best understand it, and employing a standard method of investigation based on evidence is absolutely crucial to that end. And, if we want a shared sense of reality humanity, this is it. Nothing connecting every single one of us is so in our control. If we are to work together in making sense of the complexities, uncertainties, and differences we face, then what we need more than anything is a common fabric from which to acknowledge, communicate, negotiate, understand, compromise, and create. Nothing can provide this other than a commitment to reason standards of knowledge. Our rationality is something we all share, indispensably depend upon, and with which can relate to one another. To abandon this common thread is to abandon peace, because without it we have 6 billion irreconcilable realities. If you can't support why such such is so in terms tangible to another's sense of reality, then there is no method by which to reach agreement, no matter what the issue is. Without data, you are depending upon chance by way of whatever inclination happens to posses you or another, and that's no way to create peace. Mike - Original Message From: MK DuPree [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, November 3, 2006 12:47:54 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Keith...thank you. List...required reading. That includes you too Bob, if you haven't already read. If you have...what the freak is all this Show me the data! stuff? But that's all wrong of me...or is it? Yeah, I understand some of it. But some of it, maybe it's that gun Joe Street referred to elsewhere that you seem to brandish all too easily along with your requests. I don't know. Whatever it is, it's indicative of the great need we all have today. From the article: The capacity for global destruction has the effect that it puts us all in the same lifeboat...What is needed now is a new psychology that is commensurate with the realities of political interdependency...a shared enough sense of reality and humanity. A shared sense of humanity and reality, the prerequisites to any sort of problem-solving, however, can not be taken for granted simply because all the parties are human beings, communicate with each other directly or through translators, and appear to use reason. A shared sense of humanity and reality is a complex personal and social process that, at present, has only been achieved to a limited degree...we have not yet developed a
Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Hello Bob Um, other list members, if you don't feel like wading through this, there's some interesting info on homeopathy and new findings on the nature of water down towards the end. Keith Addison wrote: Keith Addison wrote: Ah yes, Deepak Chopra, promoter of Ayuvedic medicine, where it is thought that the consumption of your urine is medically beneficial. Nothing like a warm cup of piss to start the day...:0 Uh-huh, Bob, where's your data that it's not beneficial? Everybody knows that, do they, no need for data? Aryuvedic, homeopathic, herbal, alternative-whatever, it seems it's all just a crock of worse-than-useless shit in your view unless it's modern industrialised allopathic Western medicine, which has the *data* to back it up, eh? wouldn't you agree that having data is better than not? Depends what you mean by data. good bad or otherwise, data provides the tools to make decisions, right? So next time you yell Show me the data you'll be quite satisfied if somebody gives you lousy data just as long as it's data? no, only if it is shown to me can I judge its value. But you just said that having good bad or indifferent data is better than having none. I don't think bad data is better than none. Anyway, make up your mind, will you? Anyway data is just one of many tools for making decisions, and the decisions that work out for the best might not always be those indicated by the available data. Actually, to be strict about it, if you have to make a decision that means you don't have enough data, all it can be is an aid to decision-making, not really a tool that does the job. Decisions are by definition uncertain, a matter of judgment, which has many more elements to it than merely applying the data. for instance I know form the data presented below that I am putting myself at risk by visiting a hospital, so I do my best to stay out of them. But, and here is the relative risk part, I also know that if I get run over by a truck and am seriously injured, that all of a sudden the equations change, and I would seek out a hospital. Yes, that's what people have been saying, it can be useful for treating injuries. With this result, among many others: Re iatrogenic illness, there's at least a 1 in 500 chance of getting killed by medical treatment in the US, 1.8 million people per year pick up infections in US hospitals, 20,000 of them die, it contributes to an additional 70,000 deaths, at a cost of $4.5 billion, according to the CDC; other reports have found much higher rates. [225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes - JAMA. 2000 Jul 26;284(4):483-5] See, eg: http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=1677 - lots more at Rachel's. The argument against this is usually that the system isn't working properly but if it did there wouldn't be a problem. I would say it this way: less errors mean less risk. For example any surgical procedure is risky and if no surgery was done then there would be no risk, but how much shorter would life be or how would the quality of life reduced. Not much, in a real healthcare system that's soundly based, such as this, eg: The Medical Testament: http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#medtest You seem to suggest that I am defending unhealthy western medical practices such as over prescribing antibiotics, or what ever- I'm not. No? But you attack everything else with your mantra except your own true religion, which is apparently an abstraction of science that doesn't exist. Indeed science has its lofty principles and codes of conduct and ethics, just the same as journalism does, and education, law, accountancy, politics, religion and just about everything else too, and it's just as bankrupt as they are, just as bought and sold, with widespread prostitution on one side and mere mediocrity on the other. Science routinely ignores what it senses is contrary to the interests of its paymasters, sound data or not. scientists, yes, science no. Sure, Bob, same as the media cleaves resolutely to its role as the 4th Estate, defending the public against injustice and exploitation and unfailingly providing the community with the true and accurate information on current events that it deserves and requires - it's only the journalists and newspapers, TV and radio stations that fail to do so, right? LOL! Your church is empty, or rather it's full of money-lenders, a pawn-shop. Serious people make their own arrangements. Media schmedia, science schmience. The majority of scientists are just replicators, regurgitators, and what they regurgitate is often wrong. Studies in the late 80s found that more than 30% of the references quoted in papers published in major peer-reviewed journals were wrongly cited; other studies found that up to 25% were the wrong
Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
LOL! The other true believer in the Temple of Science - what exactly are you on about Mike? The messages you're replying to have nothing to do with data. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is suffering from emotional attachments and doomed to darkness? That's the road to peace eh? If you have...what the freak is all this Show me the data! stuff? It's a simple crucial request. Give us reason to believe what is claimed. Er... You should be prepared to substantiate what you say, or to acknowledge it if you can't. -- List rules: http://snipurl.com/mx7r Demanding sufficient evidence is not a ìgun.î That is not at issue - what IS at issue is the narrow and biased criteria being used to judge which evidence is acceptable and which not. It sure is taking you time to hoist that aboard. It is a positive creative contribution most fundamental to good understanding conciliation. Data is critical; we canít operate without it. And, the burden is necessarily upon the one who makes the claim to provide sufficient evidence. To say that evidence isnít applicable is ridiculous and gets us nowhere. If you think Bob is being unreasonable in regards to the definition of sufficiency, then specifically question debate that. E.g.: How much data is sufficient?, Why?, What type of data is sufficient, Why?, Why is this particular data set not sufficiently trustworthy?, How should we operate when evidence is so limited?, Do our standards for data vary with application or circumstance?, How do the interests behind these studies affect the data?, etc. You haven't been been paying attention. Demanding sufficient evidence is critical to working from our common rationality in order to create something useful. This creative process is easy if you try. All it takes is a shedding of emotional attachment to any proposition and dedicating yourself to understanding our world, whatever it takes. We will never best manage our situation until we best understand it, and employing a standard method of investigation based on evidence is absolutely crucial to that end. And, if we want a shared sense of reality humanity, this is it. Nothing connecting every single one of us is so in our control. If we are to work together in making sense of the complexities, uncertainties, and differences we face, then what we need more than anything is a common fabric from which to acknowledge, communicate, negotiate, understand, compromise, and create. Nothing can provide this other than a commitment to reason standards of knowledge. Our rationality is something we all share, indispensably depend upon, and with which can relate to one another. To abandon this common thread is to abandon peace, because without it we have 6 billion irreconcilable realities. If you can't support why such such is so in terms tangible to another's sense of reality, then there is no method by which to reach agreement, no matter what the issue is. Without data, you are depending upon chance by way of whatever inclination happens to posses you or another, and that's no way to create peace. Goodbye cultural diversity, LOL! I think a few billion Indians, Chinese, Africans, indeed Japanese and others might be reluctant to abandon their rather rich heritages and accept the limitations of Western-style rationality as the standard road to world peace. Maybe you should consign it to the same place US democracy exports are ending up, along with other forms of imperialism. Best Keith Mike - Original Message From: MK DuPree [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, November 3, 2006 12:47:54 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Keith...thank you. List...required reading. That includes you too Bob, if you haven't already read. If you have...what the freak is all this Show me the data! stuff? But that's all wrong of me...or is it? Yeah, I understand some of it. But some of it, maybe it's that gun Joe Street referred to elsewhere that you seem to brandish all too easily along with your requests. I don't know. Whatever it is, it's indicative of the great need we all have today. From the article: The capacity for global destruction has the effect that it puts us all in the same lifeboat...What is needed now is a new psychology that is commensurate with the realities of political interdependency...a shared enough sense of reality and humanity. A shared sense of humanity and reality, the prerequisites to any sort of problem-solving, however, can not be taken for granted simply because all the parties are human beings, communicate with each other directly or through translators, and appear to use reason. A shared sense of humanity and reality is a complex personal and social process that, at present, has only been achieved to a limited degree...we have not yet developed a psychological paradigm to deal with the realities of global interdependency.
Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Well, IMHO, I think Western medicine has its uses: trauma surgery, occasional child - birth intervention (yes, I think c-sections are WAY over-performed). Recently I managed to pick up a bronchial infection I just couldn't shake no matter what. I finally would up on a five day course of antibiotics, which I try to avoid at all costs, but they did work, white count went down and I recovered. But mostly I try to maintain a health-positive lifestyle and avoid the Western diet and sloth. Keith Addison wrote: Hello Bob Um, other list members, if you don't feel like wading through this, there's some interesting info on homeopathy and new findings on the nature of water down towards the end. Keith Addison wrote: Keith Addison wrote: Ah yes, Deepak Chopra, promoter of Ayuvedic medicine, where it is thought that the consumption of your urine is medically beneficial. Nothing like a warm cup of piss to start the day...:0 Uh-huh, Bob, where's your data that it's not beneficial? Everybody knows that, do they, no need for data? Aryuvedic, homeopathic, herbal, alternative-whatever, it seems it's all just a crock of worse-than-useless shit in your view unless it's modern industrialised allopathic Western medicine, which has the *data* to back it up, eh? wouldn't you agree that having data is better than not? Depends what you mean by data. good bad or otherwise, data provides the tools to make decisions, right? So next time you yell Show me the data you'll be quite satisfied if somebody gives you lousy data just as long as it's data? no, only if it is shown to me can I judge its value. But you just said that having good bad or indifferent data is better than having none. I don't think bad data is better than none. Anyway, make up your mind, will you? Anyway data is just one of many tools for making decisions, and the decisions that work out for the best might not always be those indicated by the available data. Actually, to be strict about it, if you have to make a decision that means you don't have enough data, all it can be is an aid to decision-making, not really a tool that does the job. Decisions are by definition uncertain, a matter of judgment, which has many more elements to it than merely applying the data. for instance I know form the data presented below that I am putting myself at risk by visiting a hospital, so I do my best to stay out of them. But, and here is the relative risk part, I also know that if I get run over by a truck and am seriously injured, that all of a sudden the equations change, and I would seek out a hospital. Yes, that's what people have been saying, it can be useful for treating injuries. With this result, among many others: Re iatrogenic illness, there's at least a 1 in 500 chance of getting killed by medical treatment in the US, 1.8 million people per year pick up infections in US hospitals, 20,000 of them die, it contributes to an additional 70,000 deaths, at a cost of $4.5 billion, according to the CDC; other reports have found much higher rates. [225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes - JAMA. 2000 Jul 26;284(4):483-5] See, eg: http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=1677 - lots more at Rachel's. The argument against this is usually that the system isn't working properly but if it did there wouldn't be a problem. I would say it this way: less errors mean less risk. For example any surgical procedure is risky and if no surgery was done then there would be no risk, but how much shorter would life be or how would the quality of life reduced. Not much, in a real healthcare system that's soundly based, such as this, eg: The Medical Testament: http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#medtest You seem to suggest that I am defending unhealthy western medical practices such as over prescribing antibiotics, or what ever- I'm not. No? But you attack everything else with your mantra except your own true religion, which is apparently an abstraction of science that doesn't exist. Indeed science has its lofty principles and codes of conduct and ethics, just the same as journalism does, and education, law, accountancy, politics, religion and just about everything else too, and it's just as bankrupt as they are, just as bought and sold, with widespread prostitution on one side and mere mediocrity on the other. Science routinely ignores what it senses is contrary to the interests of its paymasters, sound data or not. scientists, yes, science no. Sure, Bob, same as the media cleaves resolutely to its role as the 4th Estate, defending the public against injustice and exploitation and unfailingly providing the community with the true and accurate information on current events that it deserves and requires - it's only
[Biofuel] Global Warming Costs
$7-trillion warning on global warming Leading economist says climate change will cost more than two world wars and Great Depression combined ALAN FREEMAN Global climate change will cost the world economy as much as $7-trillion in lost output and could force as many as 200 million people out of their homes because of flood or drought unless drastic action is taken by governments worldwide, a report to the British government says. Prepared by Sir Nicholas Stern, the World Bank's former chief economist, the report is not due out officially until today, but publication of its highlights during the weekend has already created shock waves. Commissioned by Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, it is considered significant because it is the first such contribution to the international debate on global climate change that comes not from a scientist but an eminent economist. But it is sure to spark criticism from climate-change skeptics. A group of nine British economists, including former British cabinet minister Nigel Lawson earlier described the Stern study as a misdirected exercise. In the 700-page report, Sir Nicholas warns of the cost of uncontrolled climate change caused by soaring greenhouse gas emissions. Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century, Sir Nicholas writes. Canada signed up to the Kyoto agreement and agreed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent below its 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Instead, those emissions are up considerably and the Conservative government has conceded it won't come close to meeting those commitments. The report suggests that 1 per cent of global domestic product be spent immediately on dealing with climate change, to avoid higher costs later. Failure to act would lead to a drop of 5 to 20 per cent of global GDP and make large swaths of the Earth's surface uninhabitable. Even if the pace of growth of emissions did not rise beyond current levels, the level of gases in the atmosphere would double preindustrial levels by 2050 to 550 parts per million. And based on current trends, average global temperatures will rise by two to three degrees Celsius within the next half century compared with where they were prior to 1850. It also warns that the developing world will be hit first and hardest and that the richer countries have a responsibility to help them adapt. Sir Nicholas argues that spending money now on measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will pay for themselves many times over. But he concludes that even with this spending, the world cannot escape all the damaging consequences of climate change. In an effort to control the growth of greenhouse-gas emissions, radical action is required, including reducing the carbon emissions of the electric-power sector of the world economy by 60 to 70 per cent and an end to all deforestation. The report estimates that deforestation already accounts for 18 per cent of global emissions. Britain's Environment Secretary, David Milband, said that until now the debate on global climate change has been dominated by moral and scientific arguments. Now it is being joined on economic grounds. Up to 20 per cent of GDP of industrialized countries like this -- think of the enormous economic impact that would have, Mr. Milband said. The science tells us that we have got 10 to 15 years to radically change the way in which we produce energy and fuel, he added. Reports say that the British government is considering a series of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including a carbon tax, and higher gasoline taxes. -- Darryl McMahon It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy (now in print and eBook) http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Alberta Wind Cap
In Ontario and Alberta, how much wind power is too much? RICHARD BLACKWELL Wind power has become a key part of Canada's energy mix, with the number of installed wind turbines growing exponentially in recent months. But the fact the wind doesn't blow all the time is creating a potential roadblock that could stall growth in the industry. Alberta and Ontario, the two provinces with the most wind turbines up and whirling, face concerns that there are limits on how much power can be generated from the breeze before their electricity systems are destabilized. Alberta recently put a temporary cap on wind generation at 900 megawatts -- a level it could reach as early as next year -- because of the uncertainty. And a report in Ontario released last week says that in some situations more than 5,000 MW of wind power, stable operation of the power grid could be jeopardized. Warren Frost, vice-president for operations and reliability at the Alberta Electric System Operator, said studies done over the past couple of years showed there can be problems when wind contributes more than about 10 per cent of the province's electricity -- about 900 MW -- because of the chance the wind could stop at any time. Each 100 MW of wind power is enough to supply a city about the size of Lethbridge, Alta. If the power disappears on you when the wind dies, then you've got to make it up, either through importing from a neighbouring jurisdiction or by ramping up generators, Mr. Frost said. But Alberta is limited in its imports, because the provincial power grid has connections only with British Columbia and Saskatchewan. And hydroelectric plants with water reservoirs, which can turn on a dime to start producing power, are limited in the province. Coal-fired plants and most gas-fired plants take time to get up to speed, making them less useful as backups when the wind fails. There can also be a problem, Mr. Frost noted, when the wind picks up and generates more power than is being demanded -- that potential imbalance also has to be accounted for. There are a number of ways to allow wind power to make up a greater proportion of the electricity supply, but they require more study, Mr. Frost said. First, he said, the province can develop more sophisticated ways of forecasting the wind so the power it generates is more predictable. The province could also build more plants that can quickly respond if the wind dies down during a peak period, for example. But building new gas-powered plants merely to help handle the variability of wind is certain to raise the ire of environmentalists. The province could also increase its connections to other jurisdictions, where it would buy surplus power when needed. Alberta is already looking at links with some northwestern U.S. states, including Montana. Over all, Alberta is committed to adding as much wind as feasible Mr. Frost said. What we're balancing is the reliability [issue]. Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, which represents companies in the wind business, said he prefers to think of Alberta's 900 MW limit as a speed bump rather than a fixed cap. We have every confidence they'll be able to go further than that, Mr. Hornung said, particularly if the industry and regulators put some effort into wind forecasting over the next year or so. That's crucial, he said, because we have projects of many, many more megawatts than 900 waiting to proceed in Alberta. In Ontario, the situation is less acute than in Alberta, but the wind study released last week -- prepared for the industry and regulators -- shows some similar concerns. While wind power could be handled by the Ontario grid up to 5,000 MW -- about 320 MW of wind turbines are currently in operation with another 960 MW in planning stages -- the situation changes at higher levels, the study suggests. Particularly during low demand periods when wind makes up a relatively high proportion of the power mix, stable operation of the power system could be compromised if backup systems can't be ramped up quickly to deal with wind fluctuations, the report said. But Ontario is in a better position than Alberta because it has far more interconnections with other provinces and states, where it can buy or sell power. And it also has its wind turbines more geographically dispersed than Alberta, where most wind farms are in the south of the province. That means the chance of the wind failing everywhere at the same time is lower in Ontario. Don Tench, director of planning and assessments for Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator, said he thinks better wind forecasting is the key to making the new source of power work effectively. If we have a few hours notice of a significant wind change, we can make plans to deal with it, he said. = Makes you wonder what the Danes are doing wrong, as they can have over 50% of the power being generated on their grid coming from wind, and
[Biofuel] Climate-change report has a political history - National Post - 2006.10.31
Climate-change report has a political history: Document predicts huge economic losses, makes Blair look like a leader on issue National Post Tue 31 Oct 2006 Section: News Byline: Joseph Brean The British government's report on the economic effects of climate change, which pegs the cost of inaction at up to 20% of the global economy each year now and forever, had several immediate effects when it was released yesterday. It drew faint praise from the White House, which called it a contribution but failed to endorse its conclusions. It drew scorn from some corners of the energy industry, with one spokesman calling it fun with numbers. Prominent economists threw their influence behind it. Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel laureate in economics, said, The world would be foolish to neglect this strong but time-bound practical message. It gave British Finance Minister Gordon Brown the ideal moment to announce that Al Gore, the former U.S. vice-president turned climate change champion, would be his new environmental advisor. And it cast British Prime Minister Tony Blair into the role in which he is most comfortable, that of the high-minded international statesman cajoling the United States to do the right thing. But it also had climate change skeptics wondering: Is US$9.6-trillion -- which is what 20% of global GDP amounts to -- the new hockey stick? When it was presented in 1999, the hockey stick -- a graph developed by U.S. scientist Michael Mann that purported to show a steep spike in global temperatures starting around 1900 -- grabbed the world's attention. By 2001, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) promoted the graph as a reason why governments must act quickly against carbon emissions, it had become a rhetorical trump card, a club with which believers could beat back skeptics. And if the hockey stick was not completely wrong, it was at least deeply flawed. Last year, a report to the U.S. House of Representatives concluded that Prof. Mann's claim that the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium, and 1998 the hottest year, cannot be supported by his analysis. As the figure of US$9.6-trillion was trumpeted around the world yesterday, it had that same feeling of an instant truism -- alarming, easily grasped and impossible to disprove. It also has weaknesses of its own. What's striking is that when [Sir Nicholas Stern, the report's author and former chief economist at the World Bank] went to the available literature in the economics journals, he didn't find support for some of the extreme damage estimates, so he developed a whole new model, said Ross McKitrick, a University of Guelph economist who was instrumental in debunking the hockey stick model. From what I've seen, what it does is put a lot of weight on extreme outcomes and potential disasters and downplays the ideas that were behind some of the earlier estimates, which is that climate change doesn't really affect most sectors of the economy -- just the outdoor, resource-based production sectors -- and that a lot of sectors would find climate change as much of a benefit as a cost. In his report, Sir Nicholas acknowledges that the economic predictions must rely on sparse or non-existent observational data at high temperatures and from developing regions. This is more than just a minor methodological weakness, however; it represents a new and untested style of economic forecasting. Previous analyses -- which looked at effects on agriculture, forestry, energy, water, etc. -- pegged the cost of climate change at between zero and 2% of global GDP. Some have even projected positive effects. But those analyses, according to the Stern report, failed to address the more remote catastrophic possibilities. And so his report is presented as an investment case study. Invest 1% of global GDP each year to combat climate change, and by stabilizing atmospheric carbon at between 450 and 550 parts per million (today it is 430), you will lower the risk of economic damage as bad as the Great Depression or the World Wars. We do not have to rein back growth. We can grow and be green if we pay 1% more for what we buy, Sir Nicholas said. Economically speaking, mitigation is a very good deal. Business as usual, on the other hand, will eventually derail growth. With all the hype yesterday over the US$9.6-trillion figure, and with Mr. Blair's declaration that this is the most important report on the future published by this government, it was easy to forget that the Stern report is not a global document, like the IPCC's was. It was prepared in Whitehall for the British Treasury by a government economist and comes with a revealing political history. Mr. Blair's Cabinet was embarrassed last summer by a report on this same topic from the economics affairs committee of the House of Lords. It raised concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process and noted that IPCC literature downplays the positive aspects of global warming. The government should therefore
[Biofuel] Canada Violating UN Climate Pacts
CHECK OUT: http://www.foecanada.org/ MEDIA ADVISORY Climate Justice Programme / Friends of the Earth International 31st October 2006 CANADA VIOLATING UN CLIMATE CHANGE PACTS OTTAWA, CANADA, 31st October 2006 -- The Canadian Environment Minister has today been informed that Canada is violating the Kyoto Protocol and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), thus legally requiring action under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Compliance Committee of the UN Kyoto Protocol climate treaty was also informed of the alleged violations [1]. The warning came just one day after the release of a ground-breaking report by Sir Nicholas Stern in the UK on the global economics of climate change. The report shows that governments can afford to act - and must do so urgently - to avoid disastrous economic costs. According to last month's report by the Canadian Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development [2], the gap between Canada's GHG emissions and its Kyoto commitments is growing: Canada's GHG emissions in 2004 were 26.6% above 1990 levels, resulting in a gap of 34.6% from Canada's Kyoto target of a 6% reduction by 2008-2012. Per capita, Canadians are amongst the highest emitters in the world, with the production and consumption of fossil fuels accounting for 80% of these emissions. In an opinion by international climate change lawyer Dr. Roda Verheyen [3], submitted today to the Compliance Committee and the Canadian Environment Minister by Friends of the Earth Canada and Friends of the Earth International, with the support of the Climate Justice Programme, she points out that: (1) Canada is violating the UNFCCC in 3 respects, by not having established measures to reverse emissions trends, or to adapt, and in not reporting; (2) Canada is violating the Kyoto Protocol in 2 respects, by not having made demonstrable progress by 2005 towards its 6% Kyoto Protocol objective, and in not reporting on progress; (3) Canada is likely to violate Article 3.1 of the Kyoto Protocol by not achieving its 6% reduction target during the 2008-2012 period. Canada's emissions of GHGs, their contribution to air pollution as defined in CEPA, and Dr. Verheyen's findings, indicate that the three triggers for the legal duties to control international air pollution under section 166 of CEPA are met [4]. Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada said: With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, we have long felt Canada has demonstrated illegal behaviour on the world stage. Receiving the documentation from lawyer Dr. Roda Verheyen is a giant step toward getting our government to do the right thing and regulate greenhouse gas emission reductions. Christine Elwell, Friends of the Earth Canada's Senior Campaigner described a letter sent to the Canadian Environment Minister as one which, Established that the Government not only has the authority under CEPA to regulate greenhouse gases, they are obliged to act. We have provided Minister Ambrose with a 30 day window to tell Canadians how the Government will honour this duty to Canadians and the world, with the understanding that they are not free to avoid taking action. We support Friends of the Earth's actions, and trust the citing of the domestic duty to act, the legal opinion and compliance complaint will lead Canada to reconsider its illegal behaviour. Until then, Canada's reputation as an honest broker and environmental leader is tarnished, says Peter Roderick, co-Director of the Climate Justice Programme. The scientific evidence calling for urgent action on climate change is undeniable. Yesterday, the conclusions of the Stern Review, commissioned by the UK Government warned that failure to act will lead to global recession. Multilateral action on this issue is needed. The Canadian Government must wake up to the fact that they have their role to play. said Catherine Pearce, Co-ordinator of the climate campaign for Friends of the Earth International. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Friends of the Earth Canada Beatrice Olivastri, CEO Tel: + 1 613-241-0085 x 26 (office); or + 1 613-241-7998 (cell) Christine Elwell, Senior Campaigner Tel: + 1 416-604-7333 Climate Justice Programme Peter Roderick, co-Director, London Tel: + 44 20 7388 3141 www.climatelaw.org Friends of the Earth International Catherine Pearce, Co-ordinator of the international climate change campaign Tel: + 44 7811 283641 NOTES TO EDITORS [1] The Committee received a submission in May 2006 from South Africa, on behalf of the G77 countries and China, complaining that 15 developed countries had not submitted their reports on demonstrable progress, required by the Protocol. This is the first compliance action by developing countries to hold developed countries to account on Kyoto. As at today, 6 countries have still not sent in their reports, including Canada. The submission is here:
Re: [Biofuel] Alberta Wind Cap
isnt denmark situated on fairly windy terrain though? and besides, why cant a wind station incorporate some kind of power levelling like that liquid battery that we talked about a while ago? Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 2:27 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Alberta Wind Cap In Ontario and Alberta, how much wind power is too much? RICHARD BLACKWELL Wind power has become a key part of Canada's energy mix, with the number of installed wind turbines growing exponentially in recent months. But the fact the wind doesn't blow all the time is creating a potential roadblock that could stall growth in the industry. Alberta and Ontario, the two provinces with the most wind turbines up and whirling, face concerns that there are limits on how much power can be generated from the breeze before their electricity systems are destabilized. Alberta recently put a temporary cap on wind generation at 900 megawatts -- a level it could reach as early as next year -- because of the uncertainty. And a report in Ontario released last week says that in some situations more than 5,000 MW of wind power, stable operation of the power grid could be jeopardized. Warren Frost, vice-president for operations and reliability at the Alberta Electric System Operator, said studies done over the past couple of years showed there can be problems when wind contributes more than about 10 per cent of the province's electricity -- about 900 MW -- because of the chance the wind could stop at any time. Each 100 MW of wind power is enough to supply a city about the size of Lethbridge, Alta. If the power disappears on you when the wind dies, then you've got to make it up, either through importing from a neighbouring jurisdiction or by ramping up generators, Mr. Frost said. But Alberta is limited in its imports, because the provincial power grid has connections only with British Columbia and Saskatchewan. And hydroelectric plants with water reservoirs, which can turn on a dime to start producing power, are limited in the province. Coal-fired plants and most gas-fired plants take time to get up to speed, making them less useful as backups when the wind fails. There can also be a problem, Mr. Frost noted, when the wind picks up and generates more power than is being demanded -- that potential imbalance also has to be accounted for. There are a number of ways to allow wind power to make up a greater proportion of the electricity supply, but they require more study, Mr. Frost said. First, he said, the province can develop more sophisticated ways of forecasting the wind so the power it generates is more predictable. The province could also build more plants that can quickly respond if the wind dies down during a peak period, for example. But building new gas-powered plants merely to help handle the variability of wind is certain to raise the ire of environmentalists. The province could also increase its connections to other jurisdictions, where it would buy surplus power when needed. Alberta is already looking at links with some northwestern U.S. states, including Montana. Over all, Alberta is committed to adding as much wind as feasible Mr. Frost said. What we're balancing is the reliability [issue]. Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, which represents companies in the wind business, said he prefers to think of Alberta's 900 MW limit as a speed bump rather than a fixed cap. We have every confidence they'll be able to go further than that, Mr. Hornung said, particularly if the industry and regulators put some effort into wind forecasting over the next year or so. That's crucial, he said, because we have projects of many, many more megawatts than 900 waiting to proceed in Alberta. In Ontario, the situation is less acute than in Alberta, but the wind study released last week -- prepared for the industry and regulators -- shows some similar concerns. While wind power could be handled by the Ontario grid up to 5,000 MW -- about 320 MW of wind turbines are currently in operation with another 960 MW in planning stages -- the situation changes at higher levels, the study suggests. Particularly during low demand periods when wind makes up a relatively high proportion of the power mix, stable operation of the power system could be compromised if backup systems can't be ramped up quickly to deal with wind fluctuations, the report said. But Ontario is in a better position than Alberta because it has far more interconnections with other provinces and states, where it can buy or sell power. And it also has its wind turbines more geographically dispersed than Alberta, where most wind farms are in the south of the province. That means the chance of the wind failing everywhere at the same time is lower in Ontario. Don
Re: [Biofuel] Canada Violating UN Climate Pacts
good. the people that need to stand up the most are ganging up on the big kids. Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 2:48 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Canada Violating UN Climate Pacts CHECK OUT: http://www.foecanada.org/ MEDIA ADVISORY Climate Justice Programme / Friends of the Earth International 31st October 2006 CANADA VIOLATING UN CLIMATE CHANGE PACTS OTTAWA, CANADA, 31st October 2006 -- The Canadian Environment Minister has today been informed that Canada is violating the Kyoto Protocol and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), thus legally requiring action under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Compliance Committee of the UN Kyoto Protocol climate treaty was also informed of the alleged violations [1]. The warning came just one day after the release of a ground-breaking report by Sir Nicholas Stern in the UK on the global economics of climate change. The report shows that governments can afford to act - and must do so urgently - to avoid disastrous economic costs. According to last month's report by the Canadian Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development [2], the gap between Canada's GHG emissions and its Kyoto commitments is growing: Canada's GHG emissions in 2004 were 26.6% above 1990 levels, resulting in a gap of 34.6% from Canada's Kyoto target of a 6% reduction by 2008-2012. Per capita, Canadians are amongst the highest emitters in the world, with the production and consumption of fossil fuels accounting for 80% of these emissions. In an opinion by international climate change lawyer Dr. Roda Verheyen [3], submitted today to the Compliance Committee and the Canadian Environment Minister by Friends of the Earth Canada and Friends of the Earth International, with the support of the Climate Justice Programme, she points out that: (1) Canada is violating the UNFCCC in 3 respects, by not having established measures to reverse emissions trends, or to adapt, and in not reporting; (2) Canada is violating the Kyoto Protocol in 2 respects, by not having made demonstrable progress by 2005 towards its 6% Kyoto Protocol objective, and in not reporting on progress; (3) Canada is likely to violate Article 3.1 of the Kyoto Protocol by not achieving its 6% reduction target during the 2008-2012 period. Canada's emissions of GHGs, their contribution to air pollution as defined in CEPA, and Dr. Verheyen's findings, indicate that the three triggers for the legal duties to control international air pollution under section 166 of CEPA are met [4]. Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada said: With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, we have long felt Canada has demonstrated illegal behaviour on the world stage. Receiving the documentation from lawyer Dr. Roda Verheyen is a giant step toward getting our government to do the right thing and regulate greenhouse gas emission reductions. Christine Elwell, Friends of the Earth Canada's Senior Campaigner described a letter sent to the Canadian Environment Minister as one which, Established that the Government not only has the authority under CEPA to regulate greenhouse gases, they are obliged to act. We have provided Minister Ambrose with a 30 day window to tell Canadians how the Government will honour this duty to Canadians and the world, with the understanding that they are not free to avoid taking action. We support Friends of the Earth's actions, and trust the citing of the domestic duty to act, the legal opinion and compliance complaint will lead Canada to reconsider its illegal behaviour. Until then, Canada's reputation as an honest broker and environmental leader is tarnished, says Peter Roderick, co-Director of the Climate Justice Programme. The scientific evidence calling for urgent action on climate change is undeniable. Yesterday, the conclusions of the Stern Review, commissioned by the UK Government warned that failure to act will lead to global recession. Multilateral action on this issue is needed. The Canadian Government must wake up to the fact that they have their role to play. said Catherine Pearce, Co-ordinator of the climate campaign for Friends of the Earth International. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Friends of the Earth Canada Beatrice Olivastri, CEO Tel: + 1 613-241-0085 x 26 (office); or + 1 613-241-7998 (cell) Christine Elwell, Senior Campaigner Tel: + 1 416-604-7333 Climate Justice Programme Peter Roderick, co-Director, London Tel: + 44 20 7388 3141 www.climatelaw.org Friends of the Earth International Catherine Pearce, Co-ordinator of the international climate change campaign Tel: + 44 7811 283641 NOTES TO EDITORS [1] The Committee received a submission in May 2006 from South Africa, on behalf of the G77 countries and China, complaining that 15 developed
Re: [Biofuel] Noam Chomsky interview
you know, hes right. if you really think about it, every government since history was put to paper has been trampled under the public's feet. every government will invariably failat the hands of its unhappycitizens. only to rise and become corrupted, and be crushed once more. the only difference between then and now, is the speed of which it happens. rome took centuries to die, but the us is only 230 years old. it will have a much shorter lifespan because of faster means of communication (ie, internet). JasonICQ#: 154998177MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: D. Mindock To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 12:58 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Noam Chomsky interview Noam Chomsky video interview: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15425.htm ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.23/513 - Release Date: 11/2/2006 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: 11/3/2006 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Strange oil properties
I'll try that just to see the effect. But I don't think I can freeze 200L. Thanks, Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:biofuel- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Katie Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 3:51 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Strange oil properties try freezing it, i think. someone can probably say otherwise, but it seems to me that lard will hold more water if it is not pure fat. if you separate the lard out maybe it will behave itself? Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Chris Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:14 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Strange oil properties Greetings to everyone, About 5 months ago I collected about 200 liters (55gal) of used oil. I was able to determine that my supplier used a mixture of palm, lard and coconut oil. Back then I did trial batches and it tested ok. Acid content measured less than 3%. I left it alone while I was building a bigger reactor. Now that I was testing my reactor and I ran 100liter, all I got is glop. I can't seem to get the water out. I tried using concentrated salt solution, flash drying and settling. None of them worked. I noticed that if I heat the oil, it only gets darker and darker but the cloudiness due to water still persists. And doing a trial just seems to indicate that water is still in the oil. A had a small sample of oil way way back that behaved exactly like this. (I still have it.) Could it be that as oil ages its affinity to water increases? Has anyone experience the same thing? Best, Chris ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.23/513 - Release Date: 11/2/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.23/513 - Release Date: 11/2/2006 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] A.O.C.S. glycerol method
Does anyone here, know or have acess to the AOCS method for determing total glycerine? If you do could you tell me how to perform it? Logan Vilas ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Pellet fuel options
Ah thats not good. The operating temp of the stove is ~400~750F so that should be ok but it worries me.. What about pure veggie oil or bio-diesel? It could be possible to make pellets with such. Anyone know much about screw type presses like a meat grinder or sausage press? I am thinking something like that would work better for pellet making then the die press type. Jeromie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, November 03, 2006 9:04 AM, Mike Weaver wrote: *burning glycerin produces the toxic gas acrolein Probably not a good idea... * If you burn it hot enough the gas will not be a problem: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html Jeromie Reeves wrote: Now that is a left field idea. They would surely make the wood to the correct size. I did no think they put off that much methane. I know they put off naptha. The time to produce workable material would be long, or need a very large setup. Time I can manage over summer, space I have little of. I wonder how well the pellets would soak up WVO/Glycerin? I could use far less if they soaked up enough to burn hotter. That makes me wonder if the auger pipe is hot enough to help wick the fire down into the hopper? Its surely worth a few tests and trials. What would be better as far as stability in a hot (150F) tube, WVO or glycerin? Jeromie Joe Street wrote: Hey Jeromie; Look into termites. Yeah I'm not joshin you. Feed termites with the wood and bind the dust they make with the glycerin. If you put the termite pile in a sealed container then you can harvest the methane the termites produce and use it as fuel as well ;) Joe Jeromie Reeves wrote: Dave: Nice link, you solved one of the issue, what to use as a binder. Jason: That is a very interesting idea. I was under the impression that WVO does not burn clean due to the FFA's. I was thinking of adding a burn ring to the stove so that it can do waste oil burning but that too looked not to burn clean enough. If WVO/Glycerin will burn clean enough then that mix should work well. Now to find a method to chip branches down to the needed size and not use more energy doing it then the final product gives. Jeromie Jason Katie wrote: what if some kind of sausage packer type press could be made for a mix of sawdust and WVO or glycerine? Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pellet fuel options You can probably create press of some type based on this concept: http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/paper/brick/ Paper, saw dust, straw, etc. Plus, won't corn work as well? -dave On Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:35 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 07:35:35 -0800 From: Jeromie Reeves To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Pellet fuel options Hello. Does anyone else use a pellet stove? Prices have jumped this year from $2.25~2.75 to $4.75+ That fairly dries up the reason to have/use the stove (cheaper cleaner fuel then oil/propane/classic wood) I am looking for other fuel options. I would love to produce my own pellets as I have access to tons of waste wood but it needs at least a season to be ready. I also have not been able to find a pellet machine that was not a million dollar investment. I have been thinking of using straw and hay as we have plenty of it here. Also there is a small personal mill in town that makes a fair bit of sawdust. Does anyone know of a pellet press or know of a way to make one? Jeromie ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Pellet fuel options
I used to burn it until a chemist really advised me not to. You are correct that it can be done safely - I just don't feel comfortable with the set up I have. I had though about using a ram like you would use for making rammed earth bricks and mixing sawdust and glc. Now I do burn hardwood chips packed firmly into a paper bag. Okay during the day but won't last over night. Keith had some on JTF with more info. matbe there is a safe process there. I have a furnace blower/injection burning device - I was planning to tear it down and clean it - I have thought of burning 80% filtered WVO 16% RUG and 4% Isoprop, probably mixed with some BD and perhaps #1 HO to keep it thinned out. Good Winter bench project. -Mike Jeromie Reeves wrote: Ah thats not good. The operating temp of the stove is ~400~750F so that should be ok but it worries me.. What about pure veggie oil or bio-diesel? It could be possible to make pellets with such. Anyone know much about screw type presses like a meat grinder or sausage press? I am thinking something like that would work better for pellet making then the die press type. Jeromie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, November 03, 2006 9:04 AM, Mike Weaver wrote: *burning glycerin produces the toxic gas acrolein Probably not a good idea... * If you burn it hot enough the gas will not be a problem: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html Jeromie Reeves wrote: Now that is a left field idea. They would surely make the wood to the correct size. I did no think they put off that much methane. I know they put off naptha. The time to produce workable material would be long, or need a very large setup. Time I can manage over summer, space I have little of. I wonder how well the pellets would soak up WVO/Glycerin? I could use far less if they soaked up enough to burn hotter. That makes me wonder if the auger pipe is hot enough to help wick the fire down into the hopper? Its surely worth a few tests and trials. What would be better as far as stability in a hot (150F) tube, WVO or glycerin? Jeromie Joe Street wrote: Hey Jeromie; Look into termites. Yeah I'm not joshin you. Feed termites with the wood and bind the dust they make with the glycerin. If you put the termite pile in a sealed container then you can harvest the methane the termites produce and use it as fuel as well ;) Joe Jeromie Reeves wrote: Dave: Nice link, you solved one of the issue, what to use as a binder. Jason: That is a very interesting idea. I was under the impression that WVO does not burn clean due to the FFA's. I was thinking of adding a burn ring to the stove so that it can do waste oil burning but that too looked not to burn clean enough. If WVO/Glycerin will burn clean enough then that mix should work well. Now to find a method to chip branches down to the needed size and not use more energy doing it then the final product gives. Jeromie Jason Katie wrote: what if some kind of sausage packer type press could be made for a mix of sawdust and WVO or glycerine? Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pellet fuel options You can probably create press of some type based on this concept: http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/paper/brick/ Paper, saw dust, straw, etc. Plus, won't corn work as well? -dave On Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:35 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 07:35:35 -0800 From: Jeromie Reeves To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Pellet fuel options Hello. Does anyone else use a pellet stove? Prices have jumped this year from $2.25~2.75 to $4.75+ That fairly dries up the reason to have/use the stove (cheaper cleaner fuel then oil/propane/classic wood) I am looking for other fuel options. I would love to produce my own pellets as I have access to tons of waste wood but it needs at least a season to be ready. I also have not been able to find a pellet machine that was not a million dollar investment. I have been thinking of using straw and hay as we have plenty of it here. Also there is a small personal mill in town that makes a fair bit of sawdust. Does anyone know of a pellet press or know of a way to make one? Jeromie ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
[Biofuel] Back on topic - Necessary temp for filtering
Have been gearing up new 55 gallon drum processer - all well but filtering is acting odd. I'm using a mist wash system (I know, but it's so nicely done with steel bubbler and all, plus it work fine) I've noticed as the temp drops it's taking longer for the water to settle through and it's clear there is water in the DB though It does settle after a bit (few hours). I think the DB is thicker due to the cold. Last year I had an aquarium heater (broke it) and it worked better. Offhand does anyone know at which temp I need to heat? -Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Keith Addison wrote: big snip Sure, Bob, same as the media cleaves resolutely to its role as the 4th Estate, defending the public against injustice and exploitation and unfailingly providing the community with the true and accurate information on current events that it deserves and requires - it's only the journalists and newspapers, TV and radio stations that fail to do so, right? LOL! When I read Bob Allen's posts, I'm not getting the idea that he's being any more narrow-minded than some of the other list members who are contributing to this discussion. It seems, on the one hand, that we have a group of people who are advocating the wholesale abandonment of what you've described as allopathic medicine. (It's a term I've only read from you, and I admit that I had to go running to a dictionary because I wasn't confident of its meaning!) Treating the disease at the expense of the whole person is not an approach with which I'm familiar, having grown up in an environment where health education, diet control, adequate sleep and water intake were all considered an indicator of a person's SPIRITUAL health. (I'm dead serious here. Several people in my family think it's a SIN to abuse your body in any way!) In this forum, however, some individuals make it sound like there's a conspiracy around every corner, and that occidental medicine can do nothing right. We've got chemistry in our amalgam fillings and in our vaccines that cause a host of problems for human health. But Bob Allen has a legitimate point in asking: Where's the data to support this? Mercury in amalgam fillings has been used in the dental profession for a very long time. If it represents an actual health risk, shouldn't we be witnessing broad-based impacts within the population--particularly in dentists and dental assistants who are exposed to amalgam on a regular basis? (My wife has been working with this stuff for twenty five years, yet we see no impact on her.) We've found very serious, deleterious effects of depleted uranium munitions on soldiers who served in the Gulf War. That's a relatively small sample size when compared to the population of dental professionals in North America and Europe. So, if we can diagnose our veterans on the basis of exposure to depleted uranium in the Gulf War, why are we UNABLE to provide similar results in a much larger population exposed to dental amalgam? Yet we have people in this forum who insist that there IS a link between dental amalgams (and vaccines) and negative impacts on human health, on the basis of anecdotal evidence alone. So is their anecdotal evidence better than mine? And then Bob Allen is being painted with the same brush as scientists who supported the tobacco industry claims, because he's skeptical about the linkage between these kinds of things and their impact on health. This is unnecessary a slight to the man's intelligence. I don't get the sense that he's blindly advocating the dismissal of all concern, but rather, expressing a desire to look into these accusations with greater care. The sincerity of his claim to investigate further is not something I can comment upon, but if he's anything like me, it takes time to turn a mental frame of reference around. Maybe I'm wrong. But I sense that the man simply BELIEVES in the veracity of the scientific method as a means of solving mysteries. You have a right (or perhaps, an obligation!) to point out the problems with peer-reviewed journals as a means of illustrating how science, as currently practiced, is broken. But does this have to turn into criticism of Bob Allen himself? Your church is empty, or rather it's full of money-lenders, a pawn-shop. Serious people make their own arrangements. Media schmedia, science schmience. You bring up another good point in this. The business concerns that so pervade our society blur the lines between the pure pursuit of knowledge (or truth, and many of us know that the same problem exists in churches, mosques, temples and synogogues) and the bending of it for the purpose of producing profit. Yet charlatans exist, and they often scam gullible people by attacking mainstream science and making claims that are ONLY supported by anecdotal evidence. Is there anything wrong with being skeptical about extraordinary claims? I admit, in writing this, that I'm a victim of my childhood. I'm a victim of missionary stories, in which the good, white doctor saves the poor and ignorant brown people from the bad witch doctor. It's hard to escape that influence, Keith. It's also hard to escape the influence of educational training that exalts a manner of thinking tracing its roots to Plato and Euclid. I'm trying, Keith, but the pull remains strong. Maybe Bob Allen didn't grow up listening to missionary stories. But I'm sure it's hard for him to escape the influence of his
Re: [Biofuel] Pellet fuel options
I have a oil stove but it is not hooked up and i was not planning to use it (oil here is $3/gl with 100gal min delivery) With out a auto feeder wood chips do not last. I did find that I can burn large wood chunks 4inch cube-ish). They give a nice large heat impulse that lasts for about 3 hours a cube. Mike Weaver wrote: I used to burn it until a chemist really advised me not to. You are correct that it can be done safely - I just don't feel comfortable with the set up I have. I had though about using a ram like you would use for making rammed earth bricks and mixing sawdust and glc. Now I do burn hardwood chips packed firmly into a paper bag. Okay during the day but won't last over night. Keith had some on JTF with more info. matbe there is a safe process there. I have a furnace blower/injection burning device - I was planning to tear it down and clean it - I have thought of burning 80% filtered WVO 16% RUG and 4% Isoprop, probably mixed with some BD and perhaps #1 HO to keep it thinned out. Good Winter bench project. -Mike Jeromie Reeves wrote: Ah thats not good. The operating temp of the stove is ~400~750F so that should be ok but it worries me.. What about pure veggie oil or bio-diesel? It could be possible to make pellets with such. Anyone know much about screw type presses like a meat grinder or sausage press? I am thinking something like that would work better for pellet making then the die press type. Jeromie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, November 03, 2006 9:04 AM, Mike Weaver wrote: *burning glycerin produces the toxic gas acrolein Probably not a good idea... * If you burn it hot enough the gas will not be a problem: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html Jeromie Reeves wrote: Now that is a left field idea. They would surely make the wood to the correct size. I did no think they put off that much methane. I know they put off naptha. The time to produce workable material would be long, or need a very large setup. Time I can manage over summer, space I have little of. I wonder how well the pellets would soak up WVO/Glycerin? I could use far less if they soaked up enough to burn hotter. That makes me wonder if the auger pipe is hot enough to help wick the fire down into the hopper? Its surely worth a few tests and trials. What would be better as far as stability in a hot (150F) tube, WVO or glycerin? Jeromie Joe Street wrote: Hey Jeromie; Look into termites. Yeah I'm not joshin you. Feed termites with the wood and bind the dust they make with the glycerin. If you put the termite pile in a sealed container then you can harvest the methane the termites produce and use it as fuel as well ;) Joe Jeromie Reeves wrote: Dave: Nice link, you solved one of the issue, what to use as a binder. Jason: That is a very interesting idea. I was under the impression that WVO does not burn clean due to the FFA's. I was thinking of adding a burn ring to the stove so that it can do waste oil burning but that too looked not to burn clean enough. If WVO/Glycerin will burn clean enough then that mix should work well. Now to find a method to chip branches down to the needed size and not use more energy doing it then the final product gives. Jeromie Jason Katie wrote: what if some kind of sausage packer type press could be made for a mix of sawdust and WVO or glycerine? Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pellet fuel options You can probably create press of some type based on this concept: http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/paper/brick/ Paper, saw dust, straw, etc. Plus, won't corn work as well? -dave On Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:35 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 07:35:35 -0800 From: Jeromie Reeves To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Pellet fuel options Hello. Does anyone else use a pellet stove? Prices have jumped this year from $2.25~2.75 to $4.75+ That fairly dries up the reason to have/use the stove (cheaper cleaner fuel then oil/propane/classic wood) I am looking for other fuel options. I would love to produce my own pellets as I have access to tons of waste wood but it needs at least a season to be ready. I also have not been able to find a pellet machine that was not a million dollar investment. I have been thinking of using straw and hay as we have plenty of it here. Also there is a small personal mill in town that
Re: [Biofuel] Imagining Peace and Light Journeying Through Forever (Was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra)
This isthe best way, Jason, to just let the words occur to you throughout the day and when they do give to thema moment of your attention. When I first suggested a certain time for each person that each would choose on their own, it was with the idea that the participants would then have a sense of participating in something greater than any one of us individually. However, I recognize how this introduces an arbitrary and unnecessarycomplexity (and burden) in connection with something potentially more profoundlymeaningful...and simple. Thank you for this adjustment. "In peace and light I journey through forever." Mike DuPree -Original Message - From: Jason Katie To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra inever said i wouldnt useit, and i actually have been spinning it through my mind at random, just whenever i think about it. JasonICQ#: 154998177MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: MK DuPree To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Bob...you asked "to whom should I pray?which god is more effective in solving the world's ills?" And you also say, "I in my heart of hearts know that you too Mike will accept reality." I'm sorry I've introduced confusion with the word "prayer." Mary Lynn used the word "affirmation" in one of her posts to this thread and perhaps that is the more accurate word for what I am asking if there is interest among the List in which to participate, which, judging from the response of the List to date, there appears to be little. Oh well. I'm still saying and meditating upon "In peace and light I journey through forever" at least during the hour of 7amCST, USA, but because it is relatively few words that carry so much potential, I find myself easily repeating same throughout the day.For the purposes of giving the List a sense of connection to the same idea, I've suggested each of us pick an hour that we might say the "prayer," "affirmation," call it what you will.I've gota time period covered. Mary Lynn says she has 4pmEST, USA, covered. Now, is this praying to a god or to a god that is most effective in solving the world's ills? I have also stated my intention in suggesting such is first and foremost for the individual and that whatever might happen throughout humanity globally as a result will be what happens as a result. The focus, however, is on the individual. It's for you first, Bob. If you don't want to participate, then you don't want to participate. What might happen, however, if you did participate? As to your knowing that I, too, will accept reality, thank you, Bob, for this vote of confidence. Perhaps I don't sound in writing like the crack I sometimes sound like to myself. Of course, what reality are we talking about? Without going too crazy on that question, I'd like to keep a contemplation of an answer to that question within the context of the suggestion I'm making to this global List. What reality might we be talking about if we all participated in not just the recitation of but the meditation upon "In peace and light I journey through forever"? Speculate all we want, we will never know until more and more of us participate. So, again, I hope you'll join us, Bob. "It's easy if you try." Mike DuPree - Original Message - From: "bob allen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra MK DuPree wrote: Keith...thank you. List...required reading. That includes you too Bob, if you haven't already read. If you have...what the freak is all this "Show me the data!" stuff? But that's all wrong of me...or is it? Yeah, I understand some of it. But some of it, maybe it's that "gun" Joe Street referred to elsewhere that you seem to brandish all too easily along with your requests. I don't know. Whatever it is, it's indicative of the great need we all have today. From the article: "The capacity for global destruction has the effect that it puts us all in the same lifeboat...What is needed now is a new psychology that is commensurate with the realities of political interdependency...a shared enough sense of reality and humanity. A shared sense of humanity and reality, the prerequisites to any sort of problem-solving, however, can not be taken for granted simply because all the parties are human beings, communicate with each other directly or
Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Mike, go back to the beginning of this thread and read Bob's initial reaction to it. He never addressed theoriginal intent of the thread,but instead chose to attack the author of an article, thecontent of whichwas the purpose for the thread's introduction.If this is the way Bob Allen conducts his "science," forget it. I ain't buyin!Critical reading involves at least paying attention to both the context and content of what we read, and Bob has too often ignored one or the other or both of not just this thread's initiation but too many other's also. Again, go back to the beginning of this thread, read for yourself, and then, please, I'd like to hear from you whether or nor you agree with I'm saying. Mike DuPree - Original Message - From: Michael Friebel To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra "If you have...what the freak is all this "Show me the data!" stuff?" It's a simple crucial request. Give us reason to believe what is claimed. Demanding sufficient evidence is not a “gun.” It is a positive creative contribution most fundamental to good understanding conciliation. Data is critical; we can’t operate without it. And, the burden is necessarily upon the one who makes the claim to provide sufficient evidence. To say that evidence isn’t applicable is ridiculous and gets us nowhere. If you think Bob is being unreasonable in regards to the definition of sufficiency, then specifically question debate that. E.g.: How much data is sufficient?, Why?, What type of data is sufficient, Why?, Why is this particular data set not sufficiently trustworthy?, How should we operate when evidence is so limited?, Do our standards for data vary with application or circumstance?, How do the interests behind these studies affect the data?, etc. Demanding sufficient evidence is critical to working from our common rationality in order to create something useful. This creative process is easy if you try. All it takes is a shedding of emotional attachment to any proposition and dedicating yourself to understanding our world, whatever it takes. We will never best manage our situation until we best understand it, and employing a standardmethod of investigation based on evidence is absolutely crucial to that end. And, if we want a shared sense of reality humanity, this is it. Nothing connecting every single one of us is so in our control. If we are to work togetherin making sense ofthe complexities, uncertainties,and differences we face, then what we need more than anything is a common fabric from which to acknowledge, communicate, negotiate, understand, compromise, and create. Nothing can provide this other than a commitment to reason standards of knowledge. Our rationality is somethingwe all share, indispensably depend upon, and with which can relate to one another. To abandon this common thread is to abandon peace, because without it we have 6 billion irreconcilable realities. If youcan't support why such such is so interms tangible to another's sense of reality, then there is no method by which to reach agreement, no matter what the issue is.Without data, you are depending upon chance by way of whatever inclination happens to posses you or another, and that's no way to create peace. Mike - Original Message From: MK DuPree [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Friday, November 3, 2006 12:47:54 AMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Keith...thank you. List...required reading. That includes you too Bob, if you haven't already read. If you have...what the freak is all this "Show me the data!" stuff? But that's all wrong of me...or is it? Yeah, I understand some of it. But some of it, maybe it's that "gun" Joe Street referred to elsewhere that you seem to brandish all too easily along with your requests. I don't know. Whatever it is, it's indicative of the great need we all have today. From the article: "The capacity for global destruction has the effect that it puts us all in the same lifeboat...What is needed now is a new psychology that is commensurate with the realities of political interdependency...a shared enough sense of reality and humanity. A shared sense of humanity and reality, the prerequisites to any sort of problem-solving, however, can not be taken for granted simply because all the parties are human beings, communicate with each other directly or through translators, and appear to use reason. A shared sense of humanity and reality is a complex personal and social process that, at present, has only been achieved to a limited degree...we have not yet developed a psychological paradigm to deal with the realities
