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

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.

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

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.

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)

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

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

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/

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

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.