My comment was not focused on your debating style, but the "Global
Warming Debate" among the vast majority of people. To me finding
alternative energy solutions and improving the efficiency of the fossil
fuel we use has benefits to all of us, EVEN if the global warming issue
is moot. I really think some people, especially some in rec.boats only
like to debate or discuss Global Warming so they can scream "See all you
do damn Reps. do is goosestep to your party line". My guess is they
would be depressed if we solved the Global Warming problem, because it
would be one less insult they could deliver. That being said, I
personally agree with most scientists who say an increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere is having an effect on our climate. This by no means says
that man is the only or even the major reason for the increase in global
temperature, but we do need to do everything possible to leave a smaller
footprint on the world's ecosystem.

Okay the fact is that everyone, Rep. or Dem. is guilty here. This argument
will go on until everyone is dead. This would not be unprecedented in the
scientific community. Historically speaking, scientists tend to only agree
on something after the first few generations of scientists studying and
teaching have died and can no longer argue thier early results and thoughts.
They few cases where this has not happened is when A major event takes place
that is unavoidably obvious.

One major case is when scientists stated that a huge meteor hi the Earth and
caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. When I was in elementary school they
said that this probably isn't what happened but it's a theory. Then they
found the crater the crater the meteor left and some bits of it still buried
inside. Scientists still said that this huge hole wasn't a crater and a
meteor didn't cause this. After the old scientists died there was a massive
reinterest and this theory is now generally accepted.
Another case is Plate techtonics. The thoery was put out about a hundred
years ago but it wasn't generally accepted until about fifty years ago.

One example of a major event was the theory on possible earthquake magnitude.
This is a big thing i So. Cal. The maximun magnitude of an earthquake in a
ceertain fault zone used to be calculated under the assumption that only one
segment can break at a time. The construction of of buildings in these areas
assumed this to be true even though many geologists and geomorphologists
refuted this idea. Nobody listened until the Landers Quake and several
sections broke, causing a lot more damage than it should have.

The point to all of this is that nobody in this debate is at all open minded.
Not even the scientists and especially not the politicians. I agree that to
say global warming is only caused by one thing is wrong because it negates
other possibilities but there is no real evidence saying that Global warming
does not exist, while there is a lot of evidence saying it does. Right now
fossil fuel consumption is the most likely culprit and the only way we will
know if we are right is to change something. Thats what scientific
experimentation is all about. Change something and see what the effect is.
Arguing that we aren't sure so we should stick to the status quo is very
short sighted. Now before everyone jumps all over me, I am not saying that
you or anyone here has stated that but it does seem to be the general
attitude of people that argue against global warming.

--
Message posted via BoatKB.com
http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/boats/200612/1