Jeff wrote:
Gordon wrote:
Various eco groups have described the "Great Garbage Patch" in the
Pacific ocean. It has been described as twice the size of the
continental US located between Hawaii and Japan, or bigger than the
state of Texas located between California and Hawaii, or it is located
in the North Pacific. It consists of millions of tons of garbage
floating everywhere.
At the Seattle boat show was a raft made of plastic jugs and held
together with old fishing nets and with an old airplane fuselage as a
cabin. Supposedly, they sailed this raft to Hawaii and documented all
the garbage out there.
Does anybody believe this crap????

Can anyone be so naive as to think its not true???

Can anybody find an actual cruiser that has been through this garbage
patch?

For decades cruisers have talked about mid-ocean trash, but this is
actually something different.

Why is it only the Pacific Ocean?

Its been seen in the Atlantic for 40 years, but the most recent studies
have been in the Pacific.

Why can't they even agree on the location and size?

Oh My! Disagreements on the details!!! That proves its just a hoax!

Seems to me Al Gore has had another wet dream !

I find it amusing that although there is almost complete agreement
amongst scientists on the major points of Global Climate Change, there
are those that think its really a hoax.

Scientists in fields that could be termed "climate science" pretty much
all went into the field with a very large bias in the first place...with
a "love of nature" for lack of a better term. This means they went into
their climate studies with a favored outcome in mind.

This bias is the bane of all science and is the reason for the "double
blind" design. Unfortunately, many fields of inquiry, climate science
being one, do not lend themselves to double blind type experiments and
any science without strong grounding in double blind conclusions should
be very suspect, by the very standards of Science itself.

The volume of weak science supporting some conclusion is truly
irrelevant, especially in an area as complex as climate science. Bottom
line: They could easily all be wrong.

Stephen