"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:15:55 GMT, "scbafreak via BoatKB.com"
u25927@uwe wrote:



It's easy enough to say something stupid like that but ya gotta
provide some proof. Not everybody's had the logic circuits of their
brains short-circuited by LSD.... Not everybody
believes crap like you, Capt. JG the illegal drug using braggart.

Cheers,
Ellen

Nobody will ever be able to prove conclusively that what we ar edoing
to the
environment is causing climate changes and if there is a significant
event we
will never be able to prove conclusively that it was our fault but we
have a
lot of really good evidence that the pollutants we are putting into
the air
are causing global changes.


It's pretty easy to prove cause and effect as far as humans mowing down
tropical
rainforests causing changes in weather patterns. CWM

That's an entirely different discussion than the CO2 and global warming
discussion...



Actually, it isn't.


Actually, it is....


How so? We're polluting our environment by cutting down the forest and by
burning the vegatation. That produces greenhouse gasses, which contributes
to the global warming. In addition, the lack of trees reduces the possible
absorbtion of those very gasses.

Look it up if you're not too scared.

The effect upon greenhouse gasses and pollution from the unfortunate
destruction of the tropical rain forests in Central and South America is
grossly overstated, probably for the purpose of supporting the global
warming crowd's need for "evidence." The USA logs out hundreds of time more
timber each year than has been removed from the Amazon rain forest since the
whole sordid process began. And the USA burns far more coal, wood, and
other natural fuels each year than the rain forest destroyers have burned
since the beginning as well.

But please don't let such facts dissuade you from beating the GW drum to
your own timing.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Charlie Morgan wrote:


On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:15:55 GMT, "scbafreak via BoatKB.com"
u25927@uwe wrote:




It's easy enough to say something stupid like that but ya gotta
provide some proof. Not everybody's had the logic circuits of their
brains short-circuited by LSD.... Not everybody
believes crap like you, Capt. JG the illegal drug using braggart.

Cheers,
Ellen

Nobody will ever be able to prove conclusively that what we ar edoing
to the
environment is causing climate changes and if there is a significant
event we
will never be able to prove conclusively that it was our fault but we
have a
lot of really good evidence that the pollutants we are putting into
the air
are causing global changes.


It's pretty easy to prove cause and effect as far as humans mowing down
tropical
rainforests causing changes in weather patterns. CWM

That's an entirely different discussion than the CO2 and global warming
discussion...



Actually, it isn't.


Actually, it is....


How so? We're polluting our environment by cutting down the forest and by
burning the vegatation. That produces greenhouse gasses, which contributes
to the global warming. In addition, the lack of trees reduces the possible
absorbtion of those very gasses.

Look it up if you're not too scared.


The effect upon greenhouse gasses and pollution from the unfortunate
destruction of the tropical rain forests in Central and South America is
grossly overstated, probably for the purpose of supporting the global
warming crowd's need for "evidence." The USA logs out hundreds of time more
timber each year than has been removed from the Amazon rain forest since the
whole sordid process began. And the USA burns far more coal, wood, and
other natural fuels each year than the rain forest destroyers have burned
since the beginning as well.

But please don't let such facts dissuade you from beating the GW drum to
your own timing.

Max


You think he's beating a drum? never mind....

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:15:55 GMT, "scbafreak via BoatKB.com"
u25927@uwe wrote:



It's easy enough to say something stupid like that but ya gotta
provide some proof. Not everybody's had the logic circuits of their
brains short-circuited by LSD.... Not everybody
believes crap like you, Capt. JG the illegal drug using braggart.

Cheers,
Ellen

Nobody will ever be able to prove conclusively that what we ar edoing
to the
environment is causing climate changes and if there is a significant
event we
will never be able to prove conclusively that it was our fault but we
have a
lot of really good evidence that the pollutants we are putting into
the air
are causing global changes.


It's pretty easy to prove cause and effect as far as humans mowing
down tropical
rainforests causing changes in weather patterns. CWM

That's an entirely different discussion than the CO2 and global warming
discussion...



Actually, it isn't.


Actually, it is....


How so? We're polluting our environment by cutting down the forest and by
burning the vegatation. That produces greenhouse gasses, which
contributes to the global warming. In addition, the lack of trees reduces
the possible absorbtion of those very gasses.

Look it up if you're not too scared.

The effect upon greenhouse gasses and pollution from the unfortunate
destruction of the tropical rain forests in Central and South America is
grossly overstated, probably for the purpose of supporting the global
warming crowd's need for "evidence." The USA logs out hundreds of time
more timber each year than has been removed from the Amazon rain forest
since the whole sordid process began. And the USA burns far more coal,
wood, and other natural fuels each year than the rain forest destroyers
have burned since the beginning as well.

But please don't let such facts dissuade you from beating the GW drum to
your own timing.

Max



So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you. You'll listen to
big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think smoking doesn't cause
cancer?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote
So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you. You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe
you think smoking doesn't cause cancer?

The pot calling the kettle black again. Your a freaking maggot worm.
I asked you for facts. I asked in the post that started this thread. What facts
did you give? Yes, that's right. You gave no facts. Zero zip nada. Duh!
Your trick of changing the subject might work with the morons in this thread
but they don't work with me.

Cheers,
Ellen

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements like
"science says it is so.")

You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when some
scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the issue is far
from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any scientist who disputes
the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of big business. That is the
hallmark of a closed mind.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements
like "science says it is so.")

You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when some
scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the issue is
far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any scientist who
disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of big business.
That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max



Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science from
scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are always a couple
of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence. What do you
believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual facts on the
subject.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message


So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements
like "science says it is so.")


You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when some
scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the issue is
far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any scientist who
disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of big business.
That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max




Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science from
scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are always a couple
of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence. What do you
believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual facts on the
subject.


YYou haven't got it yet...scince can look at thuings short term and draw
conclusions and science can lok at overall picutres and applyn the short
term and draw a conclusion. Your science is short-sighted...

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message


So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements
like "science says it is so.")


You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when some
scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the issue is
far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any scientist who
disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of big business.
That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max




Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are always a
couple of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence.
What do you believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual
facts on the subject.


YYou haven't got it yet...scince can look at thuings short term and draw
conclusions and science can lok at overall picutres and applyn the short
term and draw a conclusion. Your science is short-sighted...


Ummm... you're right. If science can look at the short term and draw valid
conclusion and science can look at the long term and draw valid conclusions,
then science is not short-sighted. Why don't you tell how the earth is only
10,000 years old. You need to give it up. You're not making any sense at
this point.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


"Capt. JG" wrote in message



So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements
like "science says it is so.")



You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when some
scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the issue is
far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any scientist who
disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of big business.
That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max




Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are always a
couple of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence.
What do you believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual
facts on the subject.


YYou haven't got it yet...scince can look at thuings short term and draw
conclusions and science can lok at overall picutres and applyn the short
term and draw a conclusion. Your science is short-sighted...



Ummm... you're right. If science can look at the short term and draw valid
conclusion and science can look at the long term and draw valid conclusions,
then science is not short-sighted. Why don't you tell how the earth is only
10,000 years old. You need to give it up. You're not making any sense at
this point.


No...it's you who don't make sense...over the long term...the millions
of years that one can look at, the tests, based on core samplings, tree
rings, etc etc etc say that this is a cyclical and historical event...I
suppose yur contention os that there must have been ancient
civilisations of man that cuased it to happen before..if you look at
climate and weather patterns over short term, you lose track of the
previous cycles ..you cannot make conclusions based on the short erm
relative to earth climatic change...I really don't think you understand
this at all...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW?

If you bothered to be circumspect, you'd realize that the
meteorological/geographical scientific community is almost evenly split on
the subject.

I contend that there are always a couple of wackos who are unconvinced by
the preponderance of evidence.

I see. When scientists disagree with your point of view, they are wackos?

What do you believe in?

I've made that clear in any number of posts. But since you seem to read
selectively: I believe that the global warming we are currently
experiencing is, to some unknown degree, influenced by the activities of
mankind. I also believe that the warming trend is at least party natural
and predictable, and would have occurred during this same period even if the
Earth had no human population. The net effect of human activity upon the
warming of the planet is unknown, albeit real. Until we actually know, any
attempts to correct the perceived problem will likely have one of two
outcomes: 1) it will achieve nothing substantive, or 2) it will cause
unforseen changes which could make the situation worse. Cleaning up
emissions is a laudable endeavor, if for no other reason than to clean up
the air we breathe.

So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual facts on the subject.

I've cited at least as many facts as you have. You spout vitriol and
platitudes, but offer up no evidence. You automatically assume that
*everyone* already knows all about GW, or at least your version of it. You
have a closed mind.

Max