|
garbage patch
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 |
garbage patch
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:04:10 -0700, Gordon wrote:
Can anybody find an actual cruiser that has been through this garbage patch? I can't speak for the Pacific but can tell you from experience that every remote beach and coast that we've been on the Atlantic side is littered with plastic waste of all kinds. Polypropylene line and netting from commercial fishing gear is one of the biggest offenders because it floats forever until it washes up somewhere. There are also various plastic containers, jugs and barrels of all sizes shapes and description. It would take no time at all to build a large raft from this stuff. |
garbage patch
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 It's been well documented. You can start he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_P..._Garbage_Patch |
garbage patch
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 anyone be so naive as to think its not true??? Can anybody find an actual cruiser that has been through this garbage patch? For decades cruisers have talked about mid-ocean trash, but this is actually something different. Why is it only the Pacific Ocean? Its been seen in the Atlantic for 40 years, but the most recent studies have been in the Pacific. Why can't they even agree on the location and size? Oh My! Disagreements on the details!!! That proves its just a hoax! Seems to me Al Gore has had another wet dream ! I find it amusing that although there is almost complete agreement amongst scientists on the major points of Global Climate Change, there are those that think its really a hoax. BTW, you can now book passage on a Northwest Passage cruise. Gordon One problem with the "garbage patch" is that that it is not an island, as sometimes described. The plastic is well shredded so its closer in size to plankton. The problem though is that the mass of plastic is 6 times that of the plankton. |
garbage patch
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) |
garbage patch
thunder wrote:
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 It's been well documented. You can start he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_P..._Garbage_Patch Ah, now I get it. A great pacific garbage patch that is invisible to satellite photography because the pieces of garbage are very very small, almost invisible to the eye and are suspended at or under the surface of the ocean!!!!!!!!! That rates right along with "we have to get rid of creosoted pilings because they are poisonous to the sea life". Look at an old piling sometime and note the "dead" sealife growing on it. Gordon |
garbage patch
Jeff wrote:
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 anyone be so naive as to think its not true??? Can anybody find an actual cruiser that has been through this garbage patch? For decades cruisers have talked about mid-ocean trash, but this is actually something different. Why is it only the Pacific Ocean? Its been seen in the Atlantic for 40 years, but the most recent studies have been in the Pacific. Why can't they even agree on the location and size? Oh My! Disagreements on the details!!! That proves its just a hoax! Seems to me Al Gore has had another wet dream ! I find it amusing that although there is almost complete agreement amongst scientists on the major points of Global Climate Change, there are those that think its really a hoax. Scientists in fields that could be termed "climate science" pretty much all went into the field with a very large bias in the first place...with a "love of nature" for lack of a better term. This means they went into their climate studies with a favored outcome in mind. This bias is the bane of all science and is the reason for the "double blind" design. Unfortunately, many fields of inquiry, climate science being one, do not lend themselves to double blind type experiments and any science without strong grounding in double blind conclusions should be very suspect, by the very standards of Science itself. The volume of weak science supporting some conclusion is truly irrelevant, especially in an area as complex as climate science. Bottom line: They could easily all be wrong. Stephen |
garbage patch
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. If, on the other hand, the worst fears of global warming are realized, well then we have just really, really screwed all our grandchildren. You realize that, at our average age, we have little to loose personally. We can afford to be flippant. Tell that to a 3rd grader. Cheers Here are a couple of links if you are interested http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17032586/ http://environment.nationalgeographi...-overview.html http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...-3188/Overview assets.panda.org/downloads/2_vs_3_degree_impacts_28sep06.pdf assets.panda.org/downloads/climatesolutionweb.pdf http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/foot.../climate_deal/ |
garbage patch
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 |
garbage patch
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. |
garbage patch
"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 |
garbage patch
"hpeer" wrote in message ... 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. If it wasn't for Global Climate Change, most of the northern hemisphere would still be covered in glaciers, and humans would number a few hundred thousand hunter-gatherers. The Earth has been MUCH warmer than it currently is in this current interglacial period, and it WILL become much colder again. The only constant when it comes to climate is change. Life adapts. -- KLC Lewis WISCONSIN Where It's So Cool Outside, Nobody Stays Indoors Napping www.KLCLewisStudios.com |
garbage patch
KLC Lewis wrote:
"hpeer" wrote in message ... 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. If it wasn't for Global Climate Change, most of the northern hemisphere would still be covered in glaciers, and humans would number a few hundred thousand hunter-gatherers. The Earth has been MUCH warmer than it currently is in this current interglacial period, and it WILL become much colder again. The only constant when it comes to climate is change. Life adapts. I hate it when people are reasonable. I'd much rather find some crap, pro or con, on the internet where it has to be true cause it's on the internet Gordon |
garbage patch
KLC Lewis wrote:
"hpeer" wrote in message ... 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. If it wasn't for Global Climate Change, most of the northern hemisphere would still be covered in glaciers, and humans would number a few hundred thousand hunter-gatherers. The Earth has been MUCH warmer than it currently is in this current interglacial period, and it WILL become much colder again. The only constant when it comes to climate is change. Life adapts. It is certainly reassuring that life will continue on Earth after humans are gone. |
garbage patch
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. |
garbage patch
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 |
garbage patch
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. |
garbage patch
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 |
garbage patch
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 |
garbage patch
"Jeff" wrote in message ... KLC Lewis wrote: "hpeer" wrote in message ... 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. If it wasn't for Global Climate Change, most of the northern hemisphere would still be covered in glaciers, and humans would number a few hundred thousand hunter-gatherers. The Earth has been MUCH warmer than it currently is in this current interglacial period, and it WILL become much colder again. The only constant when it comes to climate is change. Life adapts. It is certainly reassuring that life will continue on Earth after humans are gone. While your conclusion was not my point, it is correct. Nevertheless, human life is not going to disappear from this planet because of global climate change. Modern humans have existed on this planet for over 200,000 years. In all that time, do you think we have not seen temperatures much hotter, and much colder, than we now experience? Some areas may become less habitable. Other areas may become more habitable. Sea levels will continue to rise (as they've been doing for 12,000 years) and some areas will receive more rainfall while others receive less. The error lies in thinking that the Earth must remain changeless because we're here and we (some of us) like the status quo. Sealevel must remain where it is because I built a house on the beach! Help! A global catastrophe approaches! That life which refuses to adapt gets a swimming lesson. -- KLC Lewis WISCONSIN Where It's So Cool Outside, Nobody Stays Indoors Napping www.KLCLewisStudios.com |
garbage patch
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. |
garbage patch
When was the Earth hotter and what was the results? Are you talking
Dinosaur age? Just curious. It's fact, man has prospered during warm spells. G While your conclusion was not my point, it is correct. Nevertheless, human life is not going to disappear from this planet because of global climate change. Modern humans have existed on this planet for over 200,000 years. In all that time, do you think we have not seen temperatures much hotter, and much colder, than we now experience? Some areas may become less habitable. Other areas may become more habitable. Sea levels will continue to rise (as they've been doing for 12,000 years) and some areas will receive more rainfall while others receive less. The error lies in thinking that the Earth must remain changeless because we're here and we (some of us) like the status quo. Sealevel must remain where it is because I built a house on the beach! Help! A global catastrophe approaches! That life which refuses to adapt gets a swimming lesson. |
garbage patch
Gordon wrote:
When was the Earth hotter and what was the results? Are you talking Dinosaur age? Just curious. It's fact, man has prospered during warm spells. G While your conclusion was not my point, it is correct. Nevertheless, human life is not going to disappear from this planet because of global climate change. Modern humans have existed on this planet for over 200,000 years. In all that time, do you think we have not seen temperatures much hotter, and much colder, than we now experience? Some areas may become less habitable. Other areas may become more habitable. Sea levels will continue to rise (as they've been doing for 12,000 years) and some areas will receive more rainfall while others receive less. The error lies in thinking that the Earth must remain changeless because we're here and we (some of us) like the status quo. Sealevel must remain where it is because I built a house on the beach! Help! A global catastrophe approaches! That life which refuses to adapt gets a swimming lesson. Gordon, It isn't just the absolute temperature, it is also the RATE OF CHANGE. Clearly Earth is under stress due to our population level. The population has got to where it is only because of the Green Revolution, which is allowed by cheap energy. The old example is bacteria in a petri dish. So anyway, Earth is under stress. Humans are under increasing stress. The cheap energy is going away. Now we have to adjust to a warmer climate in a very short time. So it is the cumulative effects. Then, when we look back we say "Well this or that animal survived this or that temperature/climate." However we do NOT note that not ALL species survived. Witness the dinos. And others argue "Humanity will survive." Quite possibly true. Maye 2-billion, maybe 1-billion, maybe 100 million. No one knows. The transition sounds kinda bleak. As they say in financial fields, past gains are no guarantee of future returns. Or, its not the fall, its the sudden stop! |
garbage patch
hpeer wrote:
Gordon wrote: When was the Earth hotter and what was the results? Are you talking Dinosaur age? Just curious. It's fact, man has prospered during warm spells. G While your conclusion was not my point, it is correct. Nevertheless, human life is not going to disappear from this planet because of global climate change. Modern humans have existed on this planet for over 200,000 years. In all that time, do you think we have not seen temperatures much hotter, and much colder, than we now experience? Some areas may become less habitable. Other areas may become more habitable. Sea levels will continue to rise (as they've been doing for 12,000 years) and some areas will receive more rainfall while others receive less. The error lies in thinking that the Earth must remain changeless because we're here and we (some of us) like the status quo. Sealevel must remain where it is because I built a house on the beach! Help! A global catastrophe approaches! That life which refuses to adapt gets a swimming lesson. Gordon, It isn't just the absolute temperature, it is also the RATE OF CHANGE. Clearly Earth is under stress due to our population level. The population has got to where it is only because of the Green Revolution, which is allowed by cheap energy. The old example is bacteria in a petri dish. So anyway, Earth is under stress. Humans are under increasing stress. The cheap energy is going away. Now we have to adjust to a warmer climate in a very short time. So it is the cumulative effects. Then, when we look back we say "Well this or that animal survived this or that temperature/climate." However we do NOT note that not ALL species survived. Witness the dinos. And others argue "Humanity will survive." Quite possibly true. Maye 2-billion, maybe 1-billion, maybe 100 million. No one knows. The transition sounds kinda bleak. As they say in financial fields, past gains are no guarantee of future returns. Or, its not the fall, its the sudden stop! Hpeer, Recent reports show the earth has been cooling for the last several years. (Must be true, I read it on the internet!) The birthrate in the US (by US citizens)is not high enough to sustain itself. The US is expected to foot the bill for the problems caused by the rest of the world? Sorry, but as a senior citizen on a fixed retirement with my duly elected representatives trying to takeaway my medicare which I pay for monthly, I have no wish to solve the rest of the worlds problems by donating (cap and trade taxes on energy) what little I take in. Gordon |
garbage patch
Gordon wrote:
hpeer wrote: Gordon wrote: When was the Earth hotter and what was the results? Are you talking Dinosaur age? Just curious. It's fact, man has prospered during warm spells. G While your conclusion was not my point, it is correct. Nevertheless, human life is not going to disappear from this planet because of global climate change. Modern humans have existed on this planet for over 200,000 years. In all that time, do you think we have not seen temperatures much hotter, and much colder, than we now experience? Some areas may become less habitable. Other areas may become more habitable. Sea levels will continue to rise (as they've been doing for 12,000 years) and some areas will receive more rainfall while others receive less. The error lies in thinking that the Earth must remain changeless because we're here and we (some of us) like the status quo. Sealevel must remain where it is because I built a house on the beach! Help! A global catastrophe approaches! That life which refuses to adapt gets a swimming lesson. Gordon, It isn't just the absolute temperature, it is also the RATE OF CHANGE. Clearly Earth is under stress due to our population level. The population has got to where it is only because of the Green Revolution, which is allowed by cheap energy. The old example is bacteria in a petri dish. So anyway, Earth is under stress. Humans are under increasing stress. The cheap energy is going away. Now we have to adjust to a warmer climate in a very short time. So it is the cumulative effects. Then, when we look back we say "Well this or that animal survived this or that temperature/climate." However we do NOT note that not ALL species survived. Witness the dinos. And others argue "Humanity will survive." Quite possibly true. Maye 2-billion, maybe 1-billion, maybe 100 million. No one knows. The transition sounds kinda bleak. As they say in financial fields, past gains are no guarantee of future returns. Or, its not the fall, its the sudden stop! Hpeer, Recent reports show the earth has been cooling for the last several years. (Must be true, I read it on the internet!) Yes, you can find all sorts of reports, reports to support any position you would like to believe. Then again, the vast majority of evidence is that GW is real. I tend to think most climate scientists are honest people and that if the majority can agree on something then it is pretty likely. The birthrate in the US (by US citizens)is not high enough to sustain itself. True enough. It's all those pesky immigrants that keep coming here that are the problem. What does that have to do with GW? If you are arguing over-population, then you are only talking about the US (and other select well off countries) and does not reflect the situation in the rest of the world. You hear what you wish. The US is expected to foot the bill for the problems caused by the rest of the world? Oh so wrong in so many ways: A - I never said that. B - How did the "rest of the world" cause the GW problem? We are 5% of population but use 25% of fossil fuels, which lead to GW. Nope, sounds like we (Western Civilization in general) were pretty much the cause. C - So, if the West does not take a lead in solving the problem who should? Sorry, but as a senior citizen on a fixed retirement with my duly elected representatives trying to takeaway my medicare which I pay for monthly, I have no wish to solve the rest of the worlds problems by donating (cap and trade taxes on energy) what little I take in. These are other issues Gordon. They suck. But have nothing to do with GW. And, you are right that there are no "cheap" solutions. Your argument is essentially "It's not fair." Well, is it fair to leave a screwed up world to our grand kids? We grew up admiring the "Greatest Generation." What will our legacy be? The "Greedy Generation?" What would your Grand Pa say about that attitude? Gordon |
garbage patch
"hpeer" wrote in message ... Well, is it fair to leave a screwed up world to our grand kids? We grew up admiring the "Greatest Generation." What will our legacy be? The "Greedy Generation?" What would your Grand Pa say about that attitude? Can't speak for Gordon, but both of my "Grandpas" were pretty much isolationists who would agree with Gordon's position. For what it's worth, I applaud the moves toward "green energy": solar, geothermal, wind, etc., because they are cleaner, sustainable, and progressive. But I refuse to worship at the altar of Global Warming which is more of a religion than its adherants would like to admit. It's not enough that we adopt some of their policies -- we have to adopt their mindset as well. Sorry, but no. I'll think for myself, thank you very much. -- KLC Lewis WISCONSIN Where It's So Cool Outside, Nobody Stays Indoors Napping www.KLCLewisStudios.com |
garbage patch
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 |
garbage patch
"hpeer" wrote in message ... , Yes, you can find all sorts of reports, reports to support any position you would like to believe. Then again, the vast majority of evidence is that GW is real. I tend to think most climate scientists are honest people and that if the majority can agree on something then it is pretty likely. Galileo could have saved himself a lot of grief if he had gone along with thar philosophy... |
garbage patch
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 21:44:33 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote: "hpeer" wrote in message m... , Yes, you can find all sorts of reports, reports to support any position you would like to believe. Then again, the vast majority of evidence is that GW is real. I tend to think most climate scientists are honest people and that if the majority can agree on something then it is pretty likely. Galileo could have saved himself a lot of grief if he had gone along with thar philosophy... Galileo's disagreement was not with science. His disagreement was with superstitious religious zealots. The same situation exists today. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com