JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...

No where NEAR "half" of scientists that are studying global warming
think

Although I agree with the statement so far.... Anyway, there in lies the
problem.. Most "scientists who are studying global taxing" are deeply
vested in the economics of studying the issue. That is to say, if there
is no Global Taxing, they are out of work... snerk...

I'm guessing in your eyes, just the ones that know and realize that it
is happening.


it has nothing to do with the greenhouse gases that man is spewing
into the atmosphere. It's amazing that the GOP chooses to heed the words
of a very few scientists that have a GOP agenda rather than listen to
the WHOLE STORY and then make an intelligent decision.

It's a shame the DNC chooses to heed the words of a very few "however
vocal" scientists that have a "green" agenda rather than listen to the
WHOLE STORY and then make an intelligent decision.



A "few"?????? Are you serious?

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:09:55 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Stupid scientists! Apparently they aren't listening to the people that
really know and understand this stuff, conservative politicians and
Rush! If they did, they'd know that despite evidence, this isn't happeneing:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...USTRALIA-REEF/
Pesky little facts - they just keep getting in the way don't they?

"The five-yearly reef outlook report, aimed at benchmarking the health
of the reef, found climate change, declining water quality from
coastal runoff, development and illegal fishing were the biggest
dangers to the reef."

Let's dissect that paragraph:

1 - Climate Change - check.

2 - Polluted water runoff - check.

3 - Development - check.

4 - Illegal fishing - check.

One out of four - that's 25% of the total problem. If I were looking
at this, I might think that there are a lot more problems with the
reef than just climate change.

Why one could almost believe that if the other 75% of the problems
were solved, then maybe the reef might survive.

Here's an interesting little blurb:

"The report, prepared by Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
scientists, says damage will occur from issues such as climate change,
nutrient overload and over-fishing but, if well managed, the ecosystem
should survive better than most other reefs."

Hmmm - nutrient overload and over-fishing. 2/3rds of the problem.
Wonder how that would affect the health of the reef if those were
solved?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...1-3102,00.html

But wait - there's more!!!

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/k...nfluences.html

Read the non-global warming parts - very interesting. In particular
the part about shipping: groundings, ballast discharge, oil spills,
litter and sewage discharge.

It would appear that "global warming" plays a very minor role in the
problems facing the Great Barrier Reef.

But wait - there's more!!!

http://exoticanimallover.com/2009/02...-barrier-reef/

Pesky little critter huh?

Ah science - gotta love it.

Boy, great post and I bet it took a lot more work than just spewing
bumper sticker ads saying "most scientists, settled science, etc...".


For every article or quote that you have that says it isn't happening, I
can find several that say it is. Wanna bet? SO, again, you're saying
global warming ISN'T happening?

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:09:55 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Stupid scientists! Apparently they aren't listening to the people that
really know and understand this stuff, conservative politicians and
Rush! If they did, they'd know that despite evidence, this isn't happeneing:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...USTRALIA-REEF/
Pesky little facts - they just keep getting in the way don't they?

"The five-yearly reef outlook report, aimed at benchmarking the health
of the reef, found climate change, declining water quality from
coastal runoff, development and illegal fishing were the biggest
dangers to the reef."

Let's dissect that paragraph:

1 - Climate Change - check.

2 - Polluted water runoff - check.

3 - Development - check.

4 - Illegal fishing - check.

One out of four - that's 25% of the total problem. If I were looking
at this, I might think that there are a lot more problems with the
reef than just climate change.

Why one could almost believe that if the other 75% of the problems
were solved, then maybe the reef might survive.

Here's an interesting little blurb:

"The report, prepared by Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
scientists, says damage will occur from issues such as climate change,
nutrient overload and over-fishing but, if well managed, the ecosystem
should survive better than most other reefs."

Hmmm - nutrient overload and over-fishing. 2/3rds of the problem.
Wonder how that would affect the health of the reef if those were
solved?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...1-3102,00.html

But wait - there's more!!!

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/k...nfluences.html

Read the non-global warming parts - very interesting. In particular
the part about shipping: groundings, ballast discharge, oil spills,
litter and sewage discharge.

It would appear that "global warming" plays a very minor role in the
problems facing the Great Barrier Reef.

But wait - there's more!!!

http://exoticanimallover.com/2009/02...-barrier-reef/

Pesky little critter huh?

Ah science - gotta love it.

Boy, great post and I bet it took a lot more work than just spewing
bumper sticker ads saying "most scientists, settled science, etc...".


OH, I get it!!! You think that because the Great Barrier Reef is having
other problems, that it couldn't POSSIBLY be suffering because of global
warming...right??

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:09:55 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Stupid scientists! Apparently they aren't listening to the people that
really know and understand this stuff, conservative politicians and
Rush! If they did, they'd know that despite evidence, this isn't happeneing:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...USTRALIA-REEF/



"The study echoed findings by scientists belonging to the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..."

Shoots their credibility out the friggin' window.

Good try, Loogy.
--
Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a
Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"

John H

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:30:35 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:38:07 -0400, JustWait penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|In article ,
|says...
|
| No where NEAR "half" of scientists that are studying global warming
| think
|
|Although I agree with the statement so far.... Anyway, there in lies the
|problem.. Most "scientists who are studying global taxing" are deeply
|vested in the economics of studying the issue. That is to say, if there
|is no Global Taxing, they are out of work... snerk...
|
| it has nothing to do with the greenhouse gases that man is spewing
| into the atmosphere. It's amazing that the GOP chooses to heed the words
| of a very few scientists that have a GOP agenda rather than listen to
| the WHOLE STORY and then make an intelligent decision.
|
|It's a shame the DNC chooses to heed the words of a very few "however
|vocal" scientists that have a "green" agenda rather than listen to the
|WHOLE STORY and then make an intelligent decision.

Your talking points are showing, but they are fairly devoid of facts.

Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe
?global average temperatures have increased? during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming
is occurring, and 74% agree that ?currently available scientific
evidence? substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that human
activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are
unsure.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global..._apr23_08.html

I would like to see a list of "climate scientists" stacked up against
the amount of grants they are receiving to do the research...

Exactly. I didn't see that as one of the questions. It's surely
pertinent.
--
Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a
Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"

John H

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:24:57 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:09:55 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Stupid scientists! Apparently they aren't listening to the people that
really know and understand this stuff, conservative politicians and
Rush! If they did, they'd know that despite evidence, this isn't happeneing:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...USTRALIA-REEF/
Pesky little facts - they just keep getting in the way don't they?

"The five-yearly reef outlook report, aimed at benchmarking the health
of the reef, found climate change, declining water quality from
coastal runoff, development and illegal fishing were the biggest
dangers to the reef."

Let's dissect that paragraph:

1 - Climate Change - check.

2 - Polluted water runoff - check.

3 - Development - check.

4 - Illegal fishing - check.

One out of four - that's 25% of the total problem. If I were looking
at this, I might think that there are a lot more problems with the
reef than just climate change.

Why one could almost believe that if the other 75% of the problems
were solved, then maybe the reef might survive.

Here's an interesting little blurb:

"The report, prepared by Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
scientists, says damage will occur from issues such as climate change,
nutrient overload and over-fishing but, if well managed, the ecosystem
should survive better than most other reefs."

Hmmm - nutrient overload and over-fishing. 2/3rds of the problem.
Wonder how that would affect the health of the reef if those were
solved?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...1-3102,00.html

But wait - there's more!!!

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/k...nfluences.html

Read the non-global warming parts - very interesting. In particular
the part about shipping: groundings, ballast discharge, oil spills,
litter and sewage discharge.

It would appear that "global warming" plays a very minor role in the
problems facing the Great Barrier Reef.

But wait - there's more!!!

http://exoticanimallover.com/2009/02...-barrier-reef/

Pesky little critter huh?

Ah science - gotta love it.

Boy, great post and I bet it took a lot more work than just spewing
bumper sticker ads saying "most scientists, settled science, etc...".


OH, I get it!!! You think that because the Great Barrier Reef is having
other problems, that it couldn't POSSIBLY be suffering because of global
warming...right??

It's those derailed logic trains that make many of your posts easily
ignorable.
--
Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a
Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"

John H

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:30:35 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:38:07 -0400, JustWait penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|In article ,
|says...
|
| No where NEAR "half" of scientists that are studying global warming
| think
|
|Although I agree with the statement so far.... Anyway, there in lies the
|problem.. Most "scientists who are studying global taxing" are deeply
|vested in the economics of studying the issue. That is to say, if there
|is no Global Taxing, they are out of work... snerk...
|
| it has nothing to do with the greenhouse gases that man is spewing
| into the atmosphere. It's amazing that the GOP chooses to heed the words
| of a very few scientists that have a GOP agenda rather than listen to
| the WHOLE STORY and then make an intelligent decision.
|
|It's a shame the DNC chooses to heed the words of a very few "however
|vocal" scientists that have a "green" agenda rather than listen to the
|WHOLE STORY and then make an intelligent decision.

Your talking points are showing, but they are fairly devoid of facts.

Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe
?global average temperatures have increased? during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming
is occurring, and 74% agree that ?currently available scientific
evidence? substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that human
activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are
unsure.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global..._apr23_08.html
I would like to see a list of "climate scientists" stacked up against
the amount of grants they are receiving to do the research...

Exactly. I didn't see that as one of the questions. It's surely
pertinent.
--

And I'd like to see a list of anti-global warming scientists stacked up
against the amount of grants THEY receive.

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:09:55 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Stupid scientists! Apparently they aren't listening to the people that
really know and understand this stuff, conservative politicians and
Rush! If they did, they'd know that despite evidence, this isn't happeneing:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...USTRALIA-REEF/



"The study echoed findings by scientists belonging to the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..."

Shoots their credibility out the friggin' window.

Good try, Loogy.
--
Pssssst, do you suppose that the research scientists that are
anti-global warming get grants? Of course they do!

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:06:13 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:38:07 -0400, JustWait penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|In article ,
|says...
|
| No where NEAR "half" of scientists that are studying global warming
| think
|
|Although I agree with the statement so far.... Anyway, there in lies the
|problem.. Most "scientists who are studying global taxing" are deeply
|vested in the economics of studying the issue. That is to say, if there
|is no Global Taxing, they are out of work... snerk...
|
| it has nothing to do with the greenhouse gases that man is spewing
| into the atmosphere. It's amazing that the GOP chooses to heed the words
| of a very few scientists that have a GOP agenda rather than listen to
| the WHOLE STORY and then make an intelligent decision.
|
|It's a shame the DNC chooses to heed the words of a very few "however
|vocal" scientists that have a "green" agenda rather than listen to the
|WHOLE STORY and then make an intelligent decision.

Your talking points are showing, but they are fairly devoid of facts.

Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe
“global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming
is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific
evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that human
activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are
unsure.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global..._apr23_08.html

I give up - it's just not worth discussing with true believers.

Which is fine - you want to believe it, believe it.

Although I would point out that there must be more than 479 "climate"
scientists in the world.

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:53:52 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:30:35 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:38:07 -0400, JustWait penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|In article ,
|says...
|
| No where NEAR "half" of scientists that are studying global warming
| think
|
|Although I agree with the statement so far.... Anyway, there in lies the
|problem.. Most "scientists who are studying global taxing" are deeply
|vested in the economics of studying the issue. That is to say, if there
|is no Global Taxing, they are out of work... snerk...
|
| it has nothing to do with the greenhouse gases that man is spewing
| into the atmosphere. It's amazing that the GOP chooses to heed the words
| of a very few scientists that have a GOP agenda rather than listen to
| the WHOLE STORY and then make an intelligent decision.
|
|It's a shame the DNC chooses to heed the words of a very few "however
|vocal" scientists that have a "green" agenda rather than listen to the
|WHOLE STORY and then make an intelligent decision.

Your talking points are showing, but they are fairly devoid of facts.

Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe
?global average temperatures have increased? during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming
is occurring, and 74% agree that ?currently available scientific
evidence? substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that human
activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are
unsure.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global..._apr23_08.html
I would like to see a list of "climate scientists" stacked up against
the amount of grants they are receiving to do the research...

Exactly. I didn't see that as one of the questions. It's surely
pertinent.
--

And I'd like to see a list of anti-global warming scientists stacked up
against the amount of grants THEY receive.

Now *that's* pretty funny!
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.