Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Varis wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:

In the final analysis; nobody with a motorized pleasure boat has any
license, at all, to seriously complain about the global consumption of
fossil fuel. (Sort of like Al Gore travelling around in a big SUV). A
true believer would need to sink his or her boat, junk out his or her
car (not just sell it, and transfer the problem to another person), and
take up walking, rowing, and bicycling instead.

Maybe he is demotivated by the thought that the million guys next to
him will not let go of their SUVs anyway? And... how do you know how
much gas _his_ boat consumes? :-)

Risto

All very probably true. However, nobody should call upon others to make
sacrifices that they are personally unwilling to endure. Matters not
whether it's the fundie preacher having gay sex with his meth pusher on
Saturdays and then screaming that all gays are going to hell from his
pulpit on Sunday, Al Gore traveling around in a 12 MPG SUV while
railing against mankind's acceleration of global warming, or some guy
who owns a boat suggesting that others should not do the same because
it is a frivolous use of fossil fuel.

Anything burning less fuel than my boat (about 2 gph) is probably under
sail; but darned if I would assume some moral soap box to insist that
others conserve fuel that I am personally unwilling to conserve. Every
drop of fuel burned in a pleasure boat, every drop of fuel burned in a
motor vehicle for a pleasure trip, and nearly every drop of fuel burned
in any private passenger vehicle larger or more comfortable than a
Mini-Cooper is a discretionary waste.
Show me the guy who uses nothing but solar or wind energy, walks, bikes
or rows everywhere he goes, eats no commercially grown, processed, or
transported food, buys nothing made of plastic or imported from a
country with few meaningful environmental laws (China), and that will
be the guy who has earned the right to tell the rest of us we need to
change our living standards to forestall global warming.

There's a chance that we're no more than a generation or two from the
next Dark Age.
When radiation poisoning, famine, warfare, and disease reduce the
population to a small fraction of what it is today, the survivors will
get a chance to evaluate whether suspending the use of fossil fuels,
allowing the forests to once again cover the continents, etc will have
any effect on global warming. Most of us will be long gone, and perhaps
primarily by natural causes- but our grandkids or great grandkids will
need to be lucky as well as strong and resourceful to survive in a
future that it is *already too late* to salvage. Gawd that's
depressing- good reason to own a boat. :-)

(But if you own a boat, you have no creds in the "global warming"
discussion)

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Uh, where did I EVER say that? Are you having reading comprehension
problems?

Here is again-

" So, you do realize that that water, in order to cool with any noticeable
amount, would be quite warm, usually warmer than the ambient air
temperature, don't you?"


I'd STILL like to know, however, how, if you are flowing equal amounts
of water at equal temps., how the ice chest will make it more effective.

Who said that?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

My comment was not focused on your debating style, but the "Global
Warming Debate" among the vast majority of people. To me finding
alternative energy solutions and improving the efficiency of the fossil
fuel we use has benefits to all of us, EVEN if the global warming issue
is moot. I really think some people, especially some in rec.boats only
like to debate or discuss Global Warming so they can scream "See all you
do damn Reps. do is goosestep to your party line". My guess is they
would be depressed if we solved the Global Warming problem, because it
would be one less insult they could deliver. That being said, I
personally agree with most scientists who say an increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere is having an effect on our climate. This by no means says
that man is the only or even the major reason for the increase in global
temperature, but we do need to do everything possible to leave a smaller
footprint on the world's ecosystem.

Okay the fact is that everyone, Rep. or Dem. is guilty here. This argument
will go on until everyone is dead. This would not be unprecedented in the
scientific community. Historically speaking, scientists tend to only agree
on something after the first few generations of scientists studying and
teaching have died and can no longer argue thier early results and thoughts.
They few cases where this has not happened is when A major event takes place
that is unavoidably obvious.

One major case is when scientists stated that a huge meteor hi the Earth and
caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. When I was in elementary school they
said that this probably isn't what happened but it's a theory. Then they
found the crater the crater the meteor left and some bits of it still buried
inside. Scientists still said that this huge hole wasn't a crater and a
meteor didn't cause this. After the old scientists died there was a massive
reinterest and this theory is now generally accepted.
Another case is Plate techtonics. The thoery was put out about a hundred
years ago but it wasn't generally accepted until about fifty years ago.

One example of a major event was the theory on possible earthquake magnitude.
This is a big thing i So. Cal. The maximun magnitude of an earthquake in a
ceertain fault zone used to be calculated under the assumption that only one
segment can break at a time. The construction of of buildings in these areas
assumed this to be true even though many geologists and geomorphologists
refuted this idea. Nobody listened until the Landers Quake and several
sections broke, causing a lot more damage than it should have.

The point to all of this is that nobody in this debate is at all open minded.
Not even the scientists and especially not the politicians. I agree that to
say global warming is only caused by one thing is wrong because it negates
other possibilities but there is no real evidence saying that Global warming
does not exist, while there is a lot of evidence saying it does. Right now
fossil fuel consumption is the most likely culprit and the only way we will
know if we are right is to change something. Thats what scientific
experimentation is all about. Change something and see what the effect is.
Arguing that we aren't sure so we should stick to the status quo is very
short sighted. Now before everyone jumps all over me, I am not saying that
you or anyone here has stated that but it does seem to be the general
attitude of people that argue against global warming.

--
Message posted via BoatKB.com
http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/boats/200612/1

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Sam wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Uh, where did I EVER say that? Are you having reading comprehension
problems?

Here is again-

" So, you do realize that that water, in order to cool with any noticeable
amount, would be quite warm, usually warmer than the ambient air
temperature, don't you?"


I'd STILL like to know, however, how, if you are flowing equal amounts
of water at equal temps., how the ice chest will make it more effective.

Who said that?

You did. I said that it would make no difference whether the ice was in
an ice chest or in a cardboard box. You said I was wrong.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

If he has stated it several times, it should be very easy to find one of
them. Maybe you can do what you insist on everyone else doing and
Google up one instance where Tom stated man has no hand in global
warming.

Oooookay:

Here on Oct 1, 2004, Tom states that global warming is only someone's
pet theory and doesn't even exist:

The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's
about it

Here, Calif Bill says:
You forgot Clinton, LBJ, Nixon and "global warming", plus the oil refinery
blast in Texas.

To which Tom replied:

There is only so much conspiracy to spread around.

Thus saying that global warming is just a conspiracy. How could man
have a hand in global warming if it's nothing more than a conspiracy?

There's plenty more where that came from!

Kinda like banks cannot have a profit higher than the consumer interest
rates they charge.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Sam wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Uh, where did I EVER say that? Are you having reading comprehension
problems?

Here is again-

" So, you do realize that that water, in order to cool with any noticeable
amount, would be quite warm, usually warmer than the ambient air
temperature, don't you?"


I'd STILL like to know, however, how, if you are flowing equal amounts
of water at equal temps., how the ice chest will make it more effective.

Who said that?

That is equal, in your brain to "You mean those machines where you put
cold water in, blow ambient air across
it and get hot water out?"??????? Really, IS it?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Sam wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Uh, where did I EVER say that? Are you having reading comprehension
problems?

Here is again-

" So, you do realize that that water, in order to cool with any
noticeable
amount, would be quite warm, usually warmer than the ambient air
temperature, don't you?"


I'd STILL like to know, however, how, if you are flowing equal amounts
of water at equal temps., how the ice chest will make it more
effective.

Who said that?

You did. I said that it would make no difference whether the ice was in
an ice chest or in a cardboard box.


*I* said it makes a difference while the ice/water is below ambient and
makes no difference at ambient.
*You* said it makes no difference regardless of ice/water temp.

You said I was wrong.

You are.

LOL!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sam wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Uh, where did I EVER say that? Are you having reading comprehension
problems?

Here is again-

" So, you do realize that that water, in order to cool with any
noticeable
amount, would be quite warm, usually warmer than the ambient air
temperature, don't you?"


I'd STILL like to know, however, how, if you are flowing equal amounts
of water at equal temps., how the ice chest will make it more
effective.

Who said that?

That is equal, in your brain to "You mean those machines where you put
cold water in, blow ambient air across
it and get hot water out?"??????? Really, IS it?

You said it, not me-

LOL!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer
wrong. I'll be waiting.



I love you too, man. Peace.

What an intelligent and well thought reply.....NOT.......

I take it that although you have no science to repute the article, you
must goose step to the party and try to negate it, huh?

(refute??)


I prefer the two-step. Goose stepping just looks gay, especially at a party.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Tell us? or, tell you?


basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
right.

Right, WHAT then?
And tell us more about THE transatlantic cable, okay?!