Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (189114)	6/12/2006 11:33:17 AM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

GREENSPAN ON ETHANOL: "Corn ethanol, though valuable, can play only a limited role, because its ability to displace gasoline is modest at best." Greenspan's reasoning is using corn (the Grain) is taking food off the table but cellulose using the stalk from corn or the straw from any of the grains is another story. He was all for the cellulose form of fuel. By taking the corn for fuel you are taking it from feeding animals and food production. Here is a link to the full speech: theoildrum.com "Current oil prices over time should lower to some extent our worrisome dependence on petroleum. Still higher oil prices will inevitably move vehicle transportation to hybrids, and despite the inconvenience, plug-in hybrids. Corn ethanol, though valuable, can play only a limited role, because its ability to displace gasoline is modest at best. But cellulosic ethanol, should it fulfill its promise, would help to wean us of our petroleum dependence, as could clean coal and nuclear power. With those developments, oil in the years ahead will remain an important element of our energy future, but it need no longer be the dominant player."

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (189114)	6/12/2006 12:29:34 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

What's that?? Is it related to the "4400"? No, the 4400 doesn't soak it's believers out of their life savings. Thanks for accepting the gauntlet...to return to your statement. There are many "scientists" who are avowed atheists and reject the concept that "science is the art of revealing God"... Let's capture what you exactly mean by that. Let's try small first. 1. How many scientists are there in the United States? What are their demographics, i.e., how many scientists are atheists? 2. What are "many"? Notionally, are you speaking in absolute numbers or percentages? Produce some numbers. 3. Isn't it pretty obvious that an atheist would reject the concept of ... "science is the art of revealing God"? 4. What significance is there that an atheist would reject such a concept? 5. How about "believers"? Do they all accept the notion of "science is the art of revealing God"? 6. Does "science is an art" even make sense in the normal usage of the definitions of art and science? 7. We all experience science in our daily lives. So, I'm not at all sure why you would limit the notion to scientists. For example, when you shoot an Iraqi and blow his brains out, do you ponder the wonder of all the physics involved and yell, "God is great!"? If not, why not? jttmab