"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

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.

Max

Yes but the apathetic American public always needs impending doom to make any
changes in thier lives even if those changes will directly benefit themselves.
I largely agree with you on the GW issue that we really don't know but
cleaning things up would be a good idea. Fossil fuel emmissions come with a
lot of problems that we know exist and have proof of but may not cause us to
all die. Still they are problems and should be addressed but people in this
country just wont do anything but bitch until they think the world will end.
If GW will make people decide producing less pollution is a good idea then I
say so be it. Capt. JG might be a little overzealous but people making noise
like he is clearly doing might inspire some other "genius" to make a change
in their lives for the better even if for the wrong reasons.

Bill

--
Message posted via http://www.boatkb.com

"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6d86598928fe8@uwe...
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.

Max

Yes but the apathetic American public always needs impending doom to make
any
changes in thier lives even if those changes will directly benefit
themselves.
I largely agree with you on the GW issue that we really don't know but
cleaning things up would be a good idea. Fossil fuel emmissions come with
a
lot of problems that we know exist and have proof of but may not cause us
to
all die. Still they are problems and should be addressed but people in
this
country just wont do anything but bitch until they think the world will
end.
If GW will make people decide producing less pollution is a good idea then
I
say so be it. Capt. JG might be a little overzealous but people making
noise
like he is clearly doing might inspire some other "genius" to make a
change
in their lives for the better even if for the wrong reasons.

Bill

--
Message posted via http://www.boatkb.com



I? A LITTLE OVER ZEALOUS!!!!!! no way. g


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

"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6d86598928fe8@uwe...
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.

Max

Yes but the apathetic American public always needs impending doom to make
any
changes in thier lives even if those changes will directly benefit
themselves.
I largely agree with you on the GW issue that we really don't know but
cleaning things up would be a good idea. Fossil fuel emmissions come with
a
lot of problems that we know exist and have proof of but may not cause us
to
all die. Still they are problems and should be addressed but people in
this
country just wont do anything but bitch until they think the world will
end.
If GW will make people decide producing less pollution is a good idea then
I
say so be it. Capt. JG might be a little overzealous but people making
noise
like he is clearly doing might inspire some other "genius" to make a
change
in their lives for the better even if for the wrong reasons.

Folks in general won't react to GW until we have something similar to that
portrayed in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow." Folks need a brick against
the head to wake up and see what's happening. The current scare tactics of
the GW set are accomplishing nothing apart from making a few left-wing
organizers quite wealthy.

Max

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

"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



You're completely wrong about an even split. The vast majority of scientists
know that we're dramatically changing our environment for the worse. Look it
up for gods sake. You're really not putting your best foot forward here.

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

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

"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



You're completely wrong about an even split. The vast majority of
scientists know that we're dramatically changing our environment for the
worse. Look it up for gods sake. You're really not putting your best foot
forward here.

I have looked it up. As an example, Purdue University's meteorology
department published a position paper a while back stating that man-made GW
is probably a fact, but inconsequential compared with the normal global
warming trend. Out of their entire faculty only one of their people
dissented in that paper. I attempted to find a link for it, but so far I've
been unsuccessful. Give it a try--you may have better luck.

The point is that you choose to believe that the majority of meteorological
researchers are on board with your belief, but that simply isn't supported
by fact. Feel free to prove me wrong with more than just your opinion.

Max

Maxprop wrote:


The point is that you choose to believe that the majority of meteorological
researchers are on board with your belief, but that simply isn't supported
by fact. Feel free to prove me wrong with more than just your opinion.

From your favourite network:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html

From your favourite government, "Sharon Hays, associate director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, welcomed the
strong language of the report.", if Bush's people say it's so, it must
be!

Cheers
Marty (Who would appreciate a little GW right now, it's frickin cold
outside)
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:


The point is that you choose to believe that the majority of
meteorological
researchers are on board with your belief, but that simply isn't
supported
by fact. Feel free to prove me wrong with more than just your opinion.

From your favourite network:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html

From your favourite government, "Sharon Hays, associate director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, welcomed the
strong language of the report.", if Bush's people say it's so, it must
be!

Cheers
Marty (Who would appreciate a little GW right now, it's frickin cold
outside)
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----


Don't believe it Max. It feels better not to believe it.

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