"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:39:31 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


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


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
ayareasolutions...
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.



I went to a few, in different states. They were all teaching the same
thing.
Bang goes that theory, eh?


A couple of geography teachers do not make a "scientific concensus"

That's one serious case of denial you've got there. You might want to look
for an ointment.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:56:14 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:39:31 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


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


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
news:OeydnZdp1v1tjPjUnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@posted. bayareasolutions...
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.



I went to a few, in different states. They were all teaching the same
thing.
Bang goes that theory, eh?


A couple of geography teachers do not make a "scientific concensus"

That's one serious case of denial you've got there. You might want to look
for an ointment.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Ya, so if someone tells me that I did not experience something that I
experienced, I must not have experienced it.
It is true that the clamor over "global cooling" didn't begin to approach
the current levels of concern over "global warming. There are many reasons
for that. But to suggest that the reason is that they were wrong then, and
are right now, based solely upon the differences in concern, is ridiculous.
And to deny that the science existed then is an attempt to rewrite history.

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

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.

"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

"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.

"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

Capt. JG wrote:
"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?


Well it seems that Free Enterprise is recognizing the economic impact of
GW. Insurance companies are feeling its sting. See below article. I
think this argues for (proves?) an economic link. And since insurance
agencies are essentially in the business of predicting the future
(actuarial tables) then I would think they would represent the free
markets best predictions.

AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change

May 17, 2006

American International Group has joined the ranks of major insurers
committed to doing something about the increased risks the industry
faces due to climate change.
Advertisement


In a newly issued statement, the company said it "is actively seeking to
incorporate environmental and climate change considerations across its
businesses, focusing on the development of products and services to help
AIG and its clients respond to the worldwide drive to cut greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions."

Companies such as Munich Re and Swiss Re have long endorsed programs and
research aimed at finding solutions to what increasingly appears to be a
major threat facing the worldwide insurance community. AIG would appear
to be the first major U.S.-based insurer to do so.

"Climate change is increasingly recognized as an ongoing, significant
global environmental problem with potential risks to the global economy
and ecology, and to human health and wellbeing," the statement
continued. "AIG recognizes the scientific consensus that climate change
is a reality and is likely in large part the result of human activities
that have led to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
earth's atmosphere. At the same time, market-based environmental
policies and potential new investments provide business opportunities
for AIG to address the problem. We will pursue these new opportunities
where we have the expertise and capacity to do so in ways that mutually
benefit AIG, its shareholders, employees, customers, and the global
community."

The full text is available on AIG's Website - www.aig.corporate.com, but
it's not prominently displayed. Locate "Corporate Responsibility, "
under that "environmental initiatives," go to the bottom to "Environment
and Climate Change."

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said:

AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change

And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g

I was leaning toward that response myself. lol

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said:

AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change

And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g


So because they made bad decisions in one segment of their business, that's
supposed to mean that they're incompetent in others?

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