hpeer wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
hpeer wrote:
I recently read a pretty good book about the Climate Change argument.
And there is also some pretty interesting research out there if you
are looking for information.

What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the
Climate Change Debate Greg Craven

The thrust is not to tell you what will happen but to help people
navigate their way through all the claims and counter claims. He
offers a simplified risk analysis approach to the topic. He also
offers his own personal opinion on the matter. I suggest you read
it. It's an easy read and the technique is useful in a lot of other
areas besides.

Something else interesting is a recent Yale/George Mason report on
American attitudes towards climate change. It seems that the deniers
fall into a fairly well defined demographic:
Well paid
Home owners
Older
Well educated
White
Men

research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/CCAmericanMind.pdf

You might ask yourself if your opinion is because of your reasoned
and enlightened thoughts - or because of the group you belong to.

As to my personal opinion - Playing the global warming game is
dangerous and should not be done lightly. If, in fact, GW is a hoax
and there is nothing to do then the worst we could do is to clean up
or environment and improve our gas mileage. That may come at the
cost of a recession.

The worst that may happen by "cleaning up the environment" is much
worse than that, and is in fact almost entirely unaddressed by anyone.
How much less CO2 production will it take to change anything? No one
knows. Will it results in massive unemployment and economic hardship,
a radical change in lifestyle and great decrease in quality of life?
No one knows. But, the radical greens don't care, right? Their agenda
is something akin to setting technology back a hundred years or so,
with no consideration for how much suffering it would cause anyone,
right? I mean, you're all sympathetic to that idea, right?

So don't pretend that the worst case scenario is just a little cleanup
and increased gas mileage of cars.

Stephen

No Stephen, you missed the point entirely. The worst that can happen is
run away warming that makes Earth largely uninhabitable. Is that
likely? I don't know. Is it possible? Yes. Your choice, their future.

We were talking about the worst case scenario, if we take global warming
seriously and really reduce CO2 emissions.

Stephen

hpeer wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
hpeer wrote:
I recently read a pretty good book about the Climate Change argument.
And there is also some pretty interesting research out there if you
are looking for information.

What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the
Climate Change Debate Greg Craven

The thrust is not to tell you what will happen but to help people
navigate their way through all the claims and counter claims. He
offers a simplified risk analysis approach to the topic. He also
offers his own personal opinion on the matter. I suggest you read
it. It's an easy read and the technique is useful in a lot of other
areas besides.

Something else interesting is a recent Yale/George Mason report on
American attitudes towards climate change. It seems that the deniers
fall into a fairly well defined demographic:
Well paid
Home owners
Older
Well educated
White
Men

research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/CCAmericanMind.pdf

You might ask yourself if your opinion is because of your reasoned
and enlightened thoughts - or because of the group you belong to.

As to my personal opinion - Playing the global warming game is
dangerous and should not be done lightly. If, in fact, GW is a hoax
and there is nothing to do then the worst we could do is to clean up
or environment and improve our gas mileage. That may come at the
cost of a recession.

The worst that may happen by "cleaning up the environment" is much
worse than that, and is in fact almost entirely unaddressed by anyone.
How much less CO2 production will it take to change anything? No one
knows. Will it results in massive unemployment and economic hardship,
a radical change in lifestyle and great decrease in quality of life?
No one knows. But, the radical greens don't care, right? Their agenda
is something akin to setting technology back a hundred years or so,
with no consideration for how much suffering it would cause anyone,
right? I mean, you're all sympathetic to that idea, right?

So don't pretend that the worst case scenario is just a little cleanup
and increased gas mileage of cars.

Stephen

No Stephen, you missed the point entirely. The worst that can happen is
run away warming that makes Earth largely uninhabitable. Is that
likely? I don't know. Is it possible? Yes. Your choice, their future.

I was talking about your statement:

If, in fact, GW is a hoax
and there is nothing to do then the worst we could do is to clean up
or environment and improve our gas mileage. That may come at the
cost of a recession.

It is raging pretense to say that decreasing CO2 emissions enough to
make a difference is only going to result in a cleaner environment,
better gas mileage cars and a little recession. Read my statement above
for why.

Stephen

hpeer wrote:

Something else interesting is a recent Yale/George Mason report on
American attitudes towards climate change. It seems that the deniers
fall into a fairly well defined demographic:
Well paid
Home owners
Older
Well educated
White
Men

research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/CCAmericanMind.pdf

You might ask yourself if your opinion is because of your reasoned and
enlightened thoughts - or because of the group you belong to.


Fascinating report; it will take some time to go through, it but I think
you're mis-reading it. The only demographics I saw were with regard to
ALL respondents, not just the deniers. If fact, the report seems to be
saying the the overwhelming majority believe that Global Climate Change
is real and something should be done about it, while the deniers are a
small minority, under 10% in most of the categories. Since almost any
national survey will have about 15% supporting any outlandish claim (we
faked the moon landings, Area 51 aliens, etc.) its a little hard to
prove anything by looking at the demographics of a small group of deniers.

Jeff wrote:
hpeer wrote:

Something else interesting is a recent Yale/George Mason report on
American attitudes towards climate change. It seems that the deniers
fall into a fairly well defined demographic:
Well paid
Home owners
Older
Well educated
White
Men

research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/CCAmericanMind.pdf

You might ask yourself if your opinion is because of your reasoned and
enlightened thoughts - or because of the group you belong to.


Fascinating report; it will take some time to go through, it but I think
you're mis-reading it. The only demographics I saw were with regard to
ALL respondents, not just the deniers.

Ah,my mistake. Similar report by Yale. The attached URL should take
you to the one with the demographics. They are in the back end. What I
found most interesting was the comparisons of TRUST. These guys don't
trust anyone excepting, perhaps, family and friends.

environment.yale.edu/uploads/6Americas2009.pdf

If fact, the report seems to be
saying the the overwhelming majority believe that Global Climate Change
is real and something should be done about it, while the deniers are a
small minority, under 10% in most of the categories.

Correct, however almost no one IS doing anything about it. This comes
out in the new report.

Since almost any
national survey will have about 15% supporting any outlandish claim (we
faked the moon landings, Area 51 aliens, etc.) its a little hard to
prove anything by looking at the demographics of a small group of deniers.

Agree. I was not trying to PROVE anything other than to ask the
gentlemen to question the source of their beliefs. Are they considered
opinions or because that is what their cohort things - peer pressure.

hpeer wrote:
Jeff wrote:
hpeer wrote:

Something else interesting is a recent Yale/George Mason report on
American attitudes towards climate change. It seems that the deniers
fall into a fairly well defined demographic:
Well paid
Home owners
Older
Well educated
White
Men

research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/CCAmericanMind.pdf

You might ask yourself if your opinion is because of your reasoned
and enlightened thoughts - or because of the group you belong to.


Fascinating report; it will take some time to go through, it but I
think you're mis-reading it. The only demographics I saw were with
regard to ALL respondents, not just the deniers.

Ah,my mistake. Similar report by Yale. The attached URL should take
you to the one with the demographics. They are in the back end. What I
found most interesting was the comparisons of TRUST. These guys don't
trust anyone excepting, perhaps, family and friends.

environment.yale.edu/uploads/6Americas2009.pdf

If fact, the report seems to be saying the the overwhelming majority
believe that Global Climate Change is real and something should be
done about it, while the deniers are a small minority, under 10% in
most of the categories.

Correct, however almost no one IS doing anything about it. This comes
out in the new report.

Since almost any national survey will have about 15% supporting any
outlandish claim (we faked the moon landings, Area 51 aliens, etc.)
its a little hard to prove anything by looking at the demographics of
a small group of deniers.

Agree. I was not trying to PROVE anything other than to ask the
gentlemen to question the source of their beliefs. Are they considered
opinions or because that is what their cohort things - peer pressure.



Ah! This is also an interesting study. But I'm not sure I buy the
"peer pressure" theory unless you include geography. For instance, the
education level for "alarmed" is not very different from "dismissive"
and income level could be explained by the gender difference, etc. Much
more significant factors are living in the "red state" areas.

I was struck by the "I do not need more information" response: 73% for
dismissive, much lower for everyone else. Its clear that the deniers
have made up their mind and are not interested in any "facts." And they
don't pay attention to energy conservation information, either.

The "trust" questions really tell it all: its clear that for deniers
this is based more on politics than reality. And of course, Fox News is
"often" more than twice the national average; Rush is 7 times the
average! This is in line with not wanting real information.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:13:59 -0400, Jeff wrote:

BTW, you can now book passage on a Northwest Passage cruise.

Find out the name of the skipper. If it's Franklin, don't go.

Casady

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:04:10 -0700, 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 anybody find an actual cruiser that has been through this garbage
patch?
Why is it only the Pacific Ocean?
Why can't they even agree on the location and size?
Seems to me Al Gore has had another wet dream !
Gordon


Sounds like the Sargasso Sea where all those old sailing ships are
stranded.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:04:10 -0700, 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 anybody find an actual cruiser that has been through this garbage
patch?
Why is it only the Pacific Ocean?
Why can't they even agree on the location and size?
Seems to me Al Gore has had another wet dream !
Gordon


Sounds like the Sargasso Sea where all those old sailing ships are
stranded.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)



I understand there is quite a large garbage patch at the Bangkok dock. . .

Wilbur Hubbard

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:46:00 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce In Bangkok"
aka Good Soldier Schweik shrieked:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:04:10 -0700, 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 anybody find an actual cruiser that has been through this garbage
patch?
Why is it only the Pacific Ocean?
Why can't they even agree on the location and size?
Seems to me Al Gore has had another wet dream !
Gordon


Sounds like the Sargasso Sea where all those old sailing ships are
stranded.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


I understand there is quite a large garbage patch at the Bangkok dock. . .

Wilbur Hubbard


Looks like the Brown-eyed Mullet got a lot of Friendship 'n Luv on the
Usenet!

:-)
Mort
"there are no docks in Bangkok" - by Bruce-in-Bull**** aka GSS, on 9
July 2009