On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:42:56 -0400, Gogarty
wrote:



Well, Larry, you believe as you wish. Me, I am buying land along Hudson's Bay
for my new winter resort complex. Just think. We can offer balmy temperatures
in December as well as the Northern Lights. Oh, I am also buying up vast
tracts of tundra for my future wheat farms -- or maybe poppies. But
seriously, this is exactly what forward looking people in Europe are already
doing. And of the US persists in keeping its head in the sand on this one, it
will fall far behind the rest of the world and there will be no more land to
buy on Hudson's Bay.

Well, I would consider buying land in Brazil. According to one report,
by 2040 the US will be only the 5th largest economy behind Brazil
Russia and China - can't remember other one. Let's face it, when you
move all of your production offshore and your trade value deficit is
30 to 1 with countries such as China and you have resultant
unemployment at home, apart from the temporary buoyancy provided by
the Iraqi invasion and its oil, the future looks bleak. Perhaps I
should encourage my future grandchildren to buy some cheap midwest
land and indenture some of the starving unemployed as serfs. They
could be the new Tsars. The serfs would be not allowed to travel as an
anti-terrorist measure to protect them which situation of course they
would happily accept as being for their own good. If there wasn't
enough work for their offspring we could start a war on our neighbours
and thereby balance the population and reduce the unemployment.

The boating element you ask? The serfs could build cheap boats as
well.

cheers
Peter

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:13:23 -0400, krj said:

And why has Al Gore et al failed to mention the thousands of rain forest
that falls to logging and slash and burn every day.

Trying to justify bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior?

Planting trees is one of the best things we can do to "help the
environment." Creating an aribitrary and utterly impossible law requiring
the US to reduce CO2 emmissions by 90% by 2050 is simply absurd. Makes
much
more sense to stop killing "the lungs of the Earth" than it does to force
people to stop exhaling.

From what I've read, the best method to actually have a significant
effect on the rate of global warming is to take both personal action
and have gov't take action. The personal action doesn't have to be
that terrible. For example, swapping out CFBs for regular lightbulbs
would make a huge difference. I believe GE is phasing them out in the
next few years. On the gov't side, it works best if market forces are
used/encouraged. For example, being able to trade carbon credits would
create a market incentive to reduce greenhouse gasses. We really need
a realistic cap and a trading system.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com



I actually don't think anything we do will have an impact on global climate
change. I think we should plant trees just because we've deforested a
significant portion of the earth which was green only two hundred years ago.
A matter of balance. It makes the world better for us, better for the
creatures we share the Earth with. Then there will be more of them for us to
eat.

I believe I read, however, that all the trees on land don't come close to
absorbing as much CO2 as the oceans do. All that limestone has to come from
somewhere. Calcium carbonate from ocean critters dying and falling to the
bottom of the sea. A never-ending cycle. Hopefully, that is.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:13:05 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

I actually don't think anything we do will have an impact on global
climate
change.

Now at least that's the beginning of a more honest line of argument. If
you've got an agenda, push the merits of that agenda itself, instead of
pushing it as a false choice when compared to someone else's agenda.

I do not push planting trees as "a false choice...compared to someone else's
agenda." I advocate planting trees as something that we should be doing,
period. But I am also not trying to force others to spend their money doing
so -- I simply would like to encourage it. Al Gore's agenda is that of a
Chicken Little who would *impose* his agenda on the world. I do not claim
that planting trees will have a specific impact on Global Climate Change,
which I believe to be beyond the influence of humans in the large scale, but
rather that doing so WILL offset, to a certain degree, the damage we have
done to the environment.

In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:
I actually don't think anything we do will have an impact on global climate
change. I think we should plant trees just because we've deforested a
significant portion of the earth which was green only two hundred years ago.
A matter of balance. It makes the world better for us, better for the
creatures we share the Earth with. Then there will be more of them for us to
eat.

Then you need to read some of the literature on the subject... g

I believe I read, however, that all the trees on land don't come close to
absorbing as much CO2 as the oceans do. All that limestone has to come from
somewhere. Calcium carbonate from ocean critters dying and falling to the
bottom of the sea. A never-ending cycle. Hopefully, that is.

I believe that's right or something like that.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:13:05 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

I actually don't think anything we do will have an impact on global
climate
change.

Now at least that's the beginning of a more honest line of argument. If
you've got an agenda, push the merits of that agenda itself, instead of
pushing it as a false choice when compared to someone else's agenda.

I do not push planting trees as "a false choice...compared to someone else's
agenda." I advocate planting trees as something that we should be doing,
period. But I am also not trying to force others to spend their money doing
so -- I simply would like to encourage it. Al Gore's agenda is that of a
Chicken Little who would *impose* his agenda on the world. I do not claim
that planting trees will have a specific impact on Global Climate Change,
which I believe to be beyond the influence of humans in the large scale, but
rather that doing so WILL offset, to a certain degree, the damage we have
done to the environment.

Come on... the evidence is there. We're a major contributor to the
warming. We can do something about it or not do something about it. If
we don't the consequences will be quite bad.

We successfully reduced the size of the holes in the ozone by direct
efforts of removing the CFCs. Are you going to claim that it was never
a problem?


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:13:05 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

I actually don't think anything we do will have an impact on global
climate
change.

Now at least that's the beginning of a more honest line of argument. If
you've got an agenda, push the merits of that agenda itself, instead of
pushing it as a false choice when compared to someone else's agenda.

I do not push planting trees as "a false choice...compared to someone
else's
agenda." I advocate planting trees as something that we should be doing,
period. But I am also not trying to force others to spend their money
doing
so -- I simply would like to encourage it. Al Gore's agenda is that of a
Chicken Little who would *impose* his agenda on the world. I do not claim
that planting trees will have a specific impact on Global Climate Change,
which I believe to be beyond the influence of humans in the large scale,
but
rather that doing so WILL offset, to a certain degree, the damage we have
done to the environment.

Come on... the evidence is there. We're a major contributor to the
warming. We can do something about it or not do something about it. If
we don't the consequences will be quite bad.

We successfully reduced the size of the holes in the ozone by direct
efforts of removing the CFCs. Are you going to claim that it was never
a problem?


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com



Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody
knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the
absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the
models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and
moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global
temperature, and the benefits that will bring.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:19:31 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:



Please feel free to get back to doing whatever it is that you do...as long
as it isn't trying to speak/write intelligently about climate change.

Remember what I said about rational discourse? You chose that path, Bubbie.
Should you wish to engage in it at some time in the future, please do so.
Until then...

"Go thou, and do likewise."

Amen Sister.
Even though I disagree with you about climate change

Peter

In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:
Come on... the evidence is there. We're a major contributor to the
warming. We can do something about it or not do something about it. If
we don't the consequences will be quite bad.

We successfully reduced the size of the holes in the ozone by direct
efforts of removing the CFCs. Are you going to claim that it was never
a problem?

Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody
knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the
absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the
models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and
moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global
temperature, and the benefits that will bring.


Quick! Let's reitroduce them and see what happens!!


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:13:05 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

I actually don't think anything we do will have an impact on global
climate
change.

Now at least that's the beginning of a more honest line of argument. If
you've got an agenda, push the merits of that agenda itself, instead of
pushing it as a false choice when compared to someone else's agenda.

I do not push planting trees as "a false choice...compared to someone
else's
agenda." I advocate planting trees as something that we should be doing,
period. But I am also not trying to force others to spend their money
doing
so -- I simply would like to encourage it. Al Gore's agenda is that of a
Chicken Little who would *impose* his agenda on the world. I do not claim
that planting trees will have a specific impact on Global Climate Change,
which I believe to be beyond the influence of humans in the large scale,
but
rather that doing so WILL offset, to a certain degree, the damage we have
done to the environment.

Come on... the evidence is there. We're a major contributor to the
warming. We can do something about it or not do something about it. If
we don't the consequences will be quite bad.

We successfully reduced the size of the holes in the ozone by direct
efforts of removing the CFCs. Are you going to claim that it was never
a problem?


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com



Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody
knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the
absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the
models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and
moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global
temperature, and the benefits that will bring.

You should read
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte...-testimony.pdf

I have much more shocking reputable sites for you once you have
digested this one. :-)



Eric Stevens

Peter Hendra wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:01:48 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:49:10 +1000, Peter Hendra
wrote:

I had dreamed, many years ago of sailing up the Hudson/Eire canal
and down the Chicago Sanitary canal to the Bay of Mexico. I doubt
now that I'll do it but it is still tempting and I might still head
north after leaving Trinidad. Florida is only two weeks away.

Do you know John and Penny from the Skookum 53 "Seahorse" in
Trinidad?

They winter in Trinidad and go back up the Hudson River to Lake
Champlain in the spring. That's a great trip and they are nice
folks. Say hello for me if you run into them, Wayne and Diane from
the Grand Banks 49 trawler.


Hi Wayne,

There are four major yards here with mostly American boats in them
plus a marina attached to the Cruise In Hotel. I'll ask around and
give your regards should I find them. I am learning to speak with a
slow drawl like a mentally challenged person and mispronounce some of
my words, so they should be able to understand me. I've even learned
to curb my humour as I've discovered that Americans do not readily
understand my Antipodean one which is often based on puns - seemingly
foreign to them.

Actually, for an ex-British colony, this country has many hallmarks of
a US territory partly because Chagaramas was at one time, the largest
American base in the world. Given by the British in exchange for the
lend-lease destroyers etc in 1941, at one time there were about
400,000 servicemen based here as well as at the two military
airfields.

Another reason for the American-ness of the place is that, as I said,
there are so many US citizens here. Prices in catalogues (again -
correct spelling as in "colour" and programme") are often in US. I had
the teak on top of my hatches replaced - quoted in US dollars not TT
ones. Gallons are 3.7 litres, not 4.2 as in the rest of the world,
power is 110 volts, weight is in pounds and ounces - not kilos. Bolts
are not metric (they import Japanese cars so must have problems), and
linear measure is in feet and inches, not the far simpler metre,
centimetre and millimetre where, like the kilo, you just move the
decimal point. AWG is fine, but everywhere else uses cross sectional
area in millimetres - so much easier to calculate loss due to
resistance.

Last week I needed a new copper pipe for my compressor - couldn't get
any metric. I went to buy some wire - $TT 10 on the price ticket -
reasonable I thought for a yard or a metre - then I found that it was
priced by the foot.

At least time is still based upon 24 hours in a day and 365.25 days in
a year. I would spit tacks if the American system had more hours in a
day. I work long enough on this boat as it is already.

Still, most people are very friendly and helpful, are relaxed about
life and behave politely to each other as if they are in continual
holiday mode. I hesitate however to address people in the Australian
manner with "Gidday mate" least it been interpreted as being
suggestive.

cheers
Peter

A British gallon is 4.55 litres, but we pay about 4 times as much for it
(gas) than our US cousins, so I guess it really doesn't matter!

Dennis.