| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Phil Abuster" wrote in news:1m6400.pqt.19.1
@news.alt.net: A great thing would be a buy back of 2 cycle engines, similar to the buy back of guns. http://www.co.cayuga.ny.us/wqma/owasco/owasco2000.pdf Here's the "report". Look at the color picture on the cover of the pdf file. In the lower right corner, right where the lake takes a 90 degree turn in its SE corner, is the little community of SE On Owasco at the end of a little dirt road. That's where I was raised from the time I was a year old....(c; It was a great place to be from.... This is a picture taken around the ONE day summer Central New York has every year, almost....(c; The town in Moravia. Dates way back before it was a country. |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Feb 29, 7:12 am, "Phil Abuster" wrote:
In some areas of the country cars undergo rigorous emissions testing - good for the environment, good for people and delaying the inevitable onslaught of global warming. Why aren't boats tested annually? They burn much more fuel than a car. Because there are vastly more cars than there are boats. Boats make a tiny percentage of harmful emissions. Even if you totally eliminate boat emissions you will not have made any significant impact on the environment. Any competent computer programmer or anyone who passed algebra can tell you why it is silly to spend resources on optimizations that only effect a small portion a problem. Also, of course, your assertion that boats "burn much more fuel than a car" is silly. Some boats do compared to some cars, some don't, but as a class boats burn an insignificant amount compared to cars do as a group. Finally, are you sure the environmental cost of testing is less than the cost of doing nothing? -- Tom. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:12:47 -0700, "Phil Abuster"
wrote: Is it unreasonable to require and annual emission test and follow up remediation for every boat? Yes, terrible idea. You must sail a small boat with no engine. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Phil Abuster whined:
...for the environment, good for people and delaying the inevitable onslaught of global warming. Got news for ya Phil, the earth's average temp went DOWN over the last year - by the same amount it went up over the last 100 or so years. Many countries are seeing the coldest winter and more snow than they've seen in 50 or more years. The Arctic ice is an average 18" thicker this year than this time last year. And despite what Sierra Club and other Eco Terrorists want you to believe the polar bear population has not declined at all - this according to the Canadian scientists who were *actually up there* studying them (Vs.*studying* them from a living room in Santa Barbara or Bev Hills). "Global Warming" is Reverend Al Gore's money market account. This in no way means I am against cleaning up pollution - on the contrary. I just do not worship at the feet of the global warming high priest nor do I accept that all the earth's (or Mars') pollution comes from America or use any of that for an excuse to do what's right anyway. Red |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Red" wrote in message
... Phil Abuster whined: ...for the environment, good for people and delaying the inevitable onslaught of global warming. Got news for ya Phil, the earth's average temp went DOWN over the last year - by the same amount it went up over the last 100 or so years. Many countries are seeing the coldest winter and more snow than they've seen in 50 or more years. The Arctic ice is an average 18" thicker this year than this time last year. And despite what Sierra Club and other Eco Terrorists want you to believe the polar bear population has not declined at all - this according to the Canadian scientists who were *actually up there* studying them (Vs.*studying* them from a living room in Santa Barbara or Bev Hills). "Global Warming" is Reverend Al Gore's money market account. This in no way means I am against cleaning up pollution - on the contrary. I just do not worship at the feet of the global warming high priest nor do I accept that all the earth's (or Mars') pollution comes from America or use any of that for an excuse to do what's right anyway. Red NOAA must be wrong.... http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Capt. JG wrote:
NOAA must be wrong.... The head of Nasa came under fire for stating he didn't believe the GW hoax. NOAA has a political appointee as its head. Red |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Red" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: NOAA must be wrong.... The head of Nasa came under fire for stating he didn't believe the GW hoax. NOAA has a political appointee as its head. Red Yeah. A Republican. I guess you should tell them to shut down their website. FYI, Al Gore isn't running for office this year. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Red wrote: Capt. JG wrote: NOAA must be wrong.... The head of Nasa came under fire for stating he didn't believe the GW hoax. NOAA has a political appointee as its head. I think we're better off not knowing one way or the other. No-one in ages past cared a hoot about it. Practically the world can't/won't do anything about it anyway, so que sera sera. I refuse to even worry about it. -- Molesworth - who will be dead in 20 years anyway. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Molesworth" wrote in message
... In article , Red wrote: Capt. JG wrote: NOAA must be wrong.... The head of Nasa came under fire for stating he didn't believe the GW hoax. NOAA has a political appointee as its head. I think we're better off not knowing one way or the other. No-one in ages past cared a hoot about it. Practically the world can't/won't do anything about it anyway, so que sera sera. I refuse to even worry about it. -- Molesworth - who will be dead in 20 years anyway. Do you have kids, grandkids, friends who have them? Not saying you should worry, but a bit of action is appropriate. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Capt. JG wrote:
NOAA must be wrong.... http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html The web page opens with; "This page is based on a brief synopsis of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National Research Council's 2001 report Climate Change Science:" This is very old information. New and better information comes out all the time as science improves and as scientists study other previously unstudied areas. The most recent info coming out suggests what I have written. Red |