"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:02:18 -0500, hpeer wrote:

As I said, my review has led to the conclusion that the arctic ice sheet
is BOTH losing surface area and thinning. The VAST majority of
information sources lead in one direction, Global Warming.

Although still a bit of a skeptic I have to agree that the artic ice
evidence is fairly compelling. There have been lots of historic
variations in artic ice of course, none of which had anything to do
with human activity. That is the crux of the issue in my opinion:
Is the warming a result of some natural influence over which we have
no control, or is it indeed a result of fossil fuel combustion, or
some combination of both? I think the jury is still out and likely to
remain so for quite a while. The quest for alternate fuels is a good
thing however and should proceed full speed ahead regardless.



There's nothing wrong with skepticism. That's a healthy, scientific mindset.
There's a lot wrong with cynicism, which is what I've been reading in this
thread. If you look at the data, it's pretty obvious that the dramatic
difference is in the last 150 years or so.

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.



At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.


Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If
you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?

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


That is partially my point, yes, but not entirely. Remove the "boondoggle"
aspect, including all the government handouts, corporate welfare, grants,
etc., and the clamor over "We've go to act NOW!" will likely diminish
significantly. None of this is about "Saving the Planet," as it is being
touted. Rather, it's about keeping the planet static -- which is an
impossibility.

In the course of human history, we have adapted to an ever-changing planet.
That is what has allowed us to thrive. The most rational reaction to coastal
flooding is to move further inland -- not to attempt to keep the oceans from
rising. If Las Vegas runs out of water, it's not a national disaster, but
chickens coming home to roost. The human ability to modify our environment
only goes so far -- in the end, we have to accept that the Earth itself is
far more powerful than we are, and adapt to its changes.

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
yareasolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political
will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity.

Only at *your* school.


Time Magazine. Read the article. Get educated.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts

Same stupid unfounded hysteria - only about the coming, man-caused ice
age.

Wilbur Hubbard


How come, Wilbur? How come the pro-global warmers have no comments about
this? A liberal magazine like Time? Should be their Bible. It is NOW that
Time's on their side? Why do they ignore it when it's not on their side?
Who's going to take them seriously THIS time?
Other dimbulb people?

Cheers,
Gwen Ives

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...
Ya, and Pluto was a planet five years ago.



Bzzzt. Pluto is a cartoon dog.

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


So then what's Goofy?



Umm... talk to goofball. lol

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

"katy" wrote in message
. com...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely
subjective.
I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse
gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths
during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the
living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference
between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris
to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight
variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what
we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are
responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this
earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes,
clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in
swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond
our control short of a nuclear war.


The dinosaurs lasted for 100M years, likely until a catastrophic event
wiped them out over a very short period of time. The changes that are
being discussed have happened over a period of less than 200 years,
almost all of it is due to the industrial revolution. There's no doubt
that the earth's climate varies a lot. There's also no doubt that the
recent changes have been dramatic. If we don't address our own pollution,
we won't have to wait very long.


ANd maybe that's a good thing...


You have a point, but I don't want to be miserable in the waiting room.


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

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's
see just how much "concern" remains.



At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.


Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread?
If you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?

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


That is partially my point, yes, but not entirely. Remove the "boondoggle"
aspect, including all the government handouts, corporate welfare, grants,
etc., and the clamor over "We've go to act NOW!" will likely diminish
significantly. None of this is about "Saving the Planet," as it is being
touted. Rather, it's about keeping the planet static -- which is an
impossibility.

In the course of human history, we have adapted to an ever-changing
planet. That is what has allowed us to thrive. The most rational reaction
to coastal flooding is to move further inland -- not to attempt to keep
the oceans from rising. If Las Vegas runs out of water, it's not a
national disaster, but chickens coming home to roost. The human ability to
modify our environment only goes so far -- in the end, we have to accept
that the Earth itself is far more powerful than we are, and adapt to its
changes.



Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think we
need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of people
who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable to do so.
There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug with this sort
of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable to "just move,"
but the cost of relocating them and/or populations centers is non-trivial,
and would make the currect financial debacle look like a zit on a flea's
butt.


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

"katy" wrote in message
. com...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely
subjective.
I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse
gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths
during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the
living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference
between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris
to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight
variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what
we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are
responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this
earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes,
clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in
swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond
our control short of a nuclear war.


The dinosaurs lasted for 100M years, likely until a catastrophic event
wiped them out over a very short period of time. The changes that are
being discussed have happened over a period of less than 200 years,
almost all of it is due to the industrial revolution. There's no doubt
that the earth's climate varies a lot. There's also no doubt that the
recent changes have been dramatic. If we don't address our own pollution,
we won't have to wait very long.


ANd maybe that's a good thing...


I like George Calin's joke about global warming and saving the planet...
something like... the planet will be just fine, but the people won't be
around... pack your bags folks....


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

Capt. JG wrote:
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's
see just how much "concern" remains.


At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.

Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread?
If you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?

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

That is partially my point, yes, but not entirely. Remove the "boondoggle"
aspect, including all the government handouts, corporate welfare, grants,
etc., and the clamor over "We've go to act NOW!" will likely diminish
significantly. None of this is about "Saving the Planet," as it is being
touted. Rather, it's about keeping the planet static -- which is an
impossibility.

In the course of human history, we have adapted to an ever-changing
planet. That is what has allowed us to thrive. The most rational reaction
to coastal flooding is to move further inland -- not to attempt to keep
the oceans from rising. If Las Vegas runs out of water, it's not a
national disaster, but chickens coming home to roost. The human ability to
modify our environment only goes so far -- in the end, we have to accept
that the Earth itself is far more powerful than we are, and adapt to its
changes.



Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think we
need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of people
who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable to do so.
There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug with this sort
of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable to "just move,"
but the cost of relocating them and/or populations centers is non-trivial,
and would make the currect financial debacle look like a zit on a flea's
butt.




It's somewhat ironic, the people who should be embracing this concept,
that is that we should try to do something about global warming, man
made or not, are the same who are saying "nothing can be done". There
exists opportunity for making great gobs of money here. Just look at
wind turbine production in the US.

In 2006, there were only two blade production facilities in the US, by
the end of 2008 there were eight. By 2011 the US is expected to exceed
Germany in installed wind energy conversion plant. These things are not
cheap, about a dollar a watt installed cost, and we are talking about
thousands of megawatts, somebody is making money. That they are
coincidently doing something positive for the environment is nice, but
is certainly not the motive driving these installations.

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

Cheers
Martin

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think
we need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of
people who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable to
do so. There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug with
this sort of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable to
"just move," but the cost of relocating them and/or populations centers is
non-trivial, and would make the currect financial debacle look like a zit
on a flea's butt.


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

By saying "just move," you trivialize the logistics of the problem, which is
something I haven't done. I didn't say it would be easy, I didn't say it
would be cheap. But there are many, many examples of former cities which are
now under lots of water. Those who refused to move either grew gills or
drowned. Probably doesn't matter a whole lot now, since they'd have died a
few thousand years ago anyway, but my point remains.

Building Pompeii and Herculaneum near the foot of Mt. Vesuvius was a reall
bad idea, as it turned out. Those who moved before the blast got to live
longer lives than those who were trying to build a big cork.

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:58:20 -0500, Marty said:

In 2006, there were only two blade production facilities in the US, by
the end of 2008 there were eight. By 2011 the US is expected to exceed
Germany in installed wind energy conversion plant. These things are not
cheap, about a dollar a watt installed cost, and we are talking about
thousands of megawatts, somebody is making money. That they are
coincidently doing something positive for the environment is nice, but
is certainly not the motive driving these installations.

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

Cheers
Martin