On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:47:23 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem

http://tinyurl.com/262px5

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:47:23 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem

http://tinyurl.com/262px5

Doesn't pass muster, who trusts those Danes? 8)

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jun 24, 11:22?am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jun 22, 2:31?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Temps in the low '60s, reasonable humidity, winds NNW at 10,
occasional rain showers...
Man, this Global Warming is wonderful!
Heh, heh, heh...
Just got back from Alaska.
On one leg of our cruise ship vacation we motored up Endicott Arm,
(east of Juneau) and got up fairly close to the Daws glacier. (Got to
hand it to the Captain, I would never have thought anybody would
attempt to run a vessel of that size up through a snakey fjord filled
with ice bergs, but he did).
A lot of the passengers on this cruise seemed to hail from the south
and the midwest. Every time a whale would spout or somebody would spot
an eagle, a dolphin, etc there would be a chorus of oohs and aahs and
cameras would be snapping madly. (The scenery was a lot like Puget
Sound or SW BC, only a lot less populated, so it wasn't quite as
stunning or surprising for residents of the Pacific NW).
While stopped in sight of the glacier, one of the ship's Norwegian
officers gave a lecture over the PA system about glaciers. How they
form, why they're blue at the bottom, how many there are, etc.
Everybody listened with at least moderate interest until the officer
began mentioning the number of glaciers that have retreated
substantially or disappeared in Glacier National Park during the last
several years. You would have thought he had announced, "We support
Hillary for president." The crowd got pretty lippy. Comments like "Who
the hell is up on the bridge, Al Gore?" (and some worse) were
frequently heard. It was pretty obvious that the negative reaction was
*political*, not scientific.
The telling moment, for me, occured when the officer mentioned that
"as recently as 10,000 years ago much of the earth was covered by a
sheet of ice." Once person standing immediately behind me grumbled
"Not according to the Bible!", and another bystander confirmed that
sentiment by stating, "I guess it all depends on what you believe."
Indeed. As always, a solid belief or disbelief is unlikely to be
swayed by anything as trivial as actual evidence- on either side of
the question.
What was interesting was the Eagle Glacier outside Seward, AK. There are
markers as you hike the trail to the glacier of where the face was over the
years. From 1917-1926 was the major retreat. Maybe 300 yards. Tells me it
is not all mankinds fault.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's normal for individual glaciers to advance and retreat. Always has
been, for millions of years.

What is so unusual about current global climate conditions is that
nearly all glaciers are receding at once. Many are disappearing
entirely, and no new glaciers are appearing to take their place Yes,
there *are* exceptions to the prevailing conditions of glacial
retreat, just enough to prove the rule.

I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem. Nobody is well served by
side-tracking this scientific concern into an "us vs. them" political
snot fight. If things come down as they well might, nobody is going to
be spared the consequences simply because he or she voted for the
prevailing candidate in the most recent election.




I thought the Republicans and Jesus were going to protect us.

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:49:17 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jun 23, 4:47?pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:13:18 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Jun 22, 2:31?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Temps in the low '60s, reasonable humidity, winds NNW at 10,
occasional rain showers...

Man, this Global Warming is wonderful!

Heh, heh, heh...

Just got back from Alaska.

On one leg of our cruise ship vacation we motored up Endicott Arm,
(east of Juneau) and got up fairly close to the Daws glacier. (Got to
hand it to the Captain, I would never have thought anybody would
attempt to run a vessel of that size up through a snakey fjord filled
with ice bergs, but he did).

A lot of the passengers on this cruise seemed to hail from the south
and the midwest. Every time a whale would spout or somebody would spot
an eagle, a dolphin, etc there would be a chorus of oohs and aahs and
cameras would be snapping madly. (The scenery was a lot like Puget
Sound or SW BC, only a lot less populated, so it wasn't quite as
stunning or surprising for residents of the Pacific NW).

While stopped in sight of the glacier, one of the ship's Norwegian
officers gave a lecture over the PA system about glaciers. How they
form, why they're blue at the bottom, how many there are, etc.
Everybody listened with at least moderate interest until the officer
began mentioning the number of glaciers that have retreated
substantially or disappeared in Glacier National Park during the last
several years. You would have thought he had announced, "We support
Hillary for president." The crowd got pretty lippy. Comments like "Who
the hell is up on the bridge, Al Gore?" (and some worse) were
frequently heard. It was pretty obvious that the negative reaction was
*political*, not scientific.

The telling moment, for me, occured when the officer mentioned that
"as recently as 10,000 years ago much of the earth was covered by a
sheet of ice." Once person standing immediately behind me grumbled
"Not according to the Bible!", and another bystander confirmed that
sentiment by stating, "I guess it all depends on what you believe."
Indeed. As always, a solid belief or disbelief is unlikely to be
swayed by anything as trivial as actual evidence- on either side of
the question.

Maybe it was the Norwegian accent that got on people's nerves.

Other than the politics, what did you think of the cruise line. Would it be
worth a trip to Seattle to take such a cruise on the Norwegian Line?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd recommend the cruise to anybody, especially folks from some of the
more geographically remote areas of the country and for whom nearly
all of the sights and experiences will be entirely new.

We booked on NCL, one of the "freestyle" cruise lines. Pluses and
minuses of the format: On the plus side, a wide variety of dining and
entertainment choices everyday. Some of the specialty restaurants were
probably 4-star caliber. Service was fantastic at every level from
housekeeping to bar service etc. Onboard entertainment was fair,
although the first night the featured band was supposedly "Kiss" (or
some loosely assembled former members of same) and if I had ever been
a Kiss fan I would have gone to check it out. I'm assuming that Gene
Simmons was *not* among the performers. On the minus side, nearly
everything was extra. The basic fare included unlimited dining in the
Market Cafe', essentially a buffet that is pretty similar to the
buffets found in Las Vegas casinos. There was also a sit-down
restaurant or two where there was no cover charge- but we opted to
dine at the steakhouse, the Asian restaurant, the French restaurant,
etc for every meal except breakfast and there was an upcharge of about
$20-$40 per meal for the privilege. Drinks were extra, and were not
cheap. Even soda pop was extra, and we paid $44 for a decent but far
from incredible bottle of Napa Valley Pinot Joir on our last night
underway.

There were "art auctions" every day, preceded by liberal quantities of
free champagne. (All sales were final) :-)

The relatively low fare was offset by a non-stop sales environment.
The ship's photographer was in everybody's face all the time, and
pictures were posted so that passengers enamored with their own
appearance could buy almost unlimited numbers of poses for $20 per
print. The Cruise line even hired a "shopping consultant", that held
seminars on finding the best values in Skagway, Juneau, and Ketchikan-
and to nobody's extreme surprise the best values were said to be at
the NCL owned shops in each of those ports. To comply with the Jones
act, we had to stop in Prince Rupert en route back to Seattle. NCL
apparently doesn't own any shops in Prince Rupert, as the shopping
consultant reportedly told the ladies in her audience that there was
"no shopping of any consequence in Prince Rupert."

Beware the ship's casino. Odds are abysmal for slots, video poker, or
any other games with adjustable payouts.....nobody is going to get
upset about losing too much money and go across the street to the next
casino. Odds are same as anywhere else for Blackjack, poker, roulette
(lousy odds, roulette), etc.

SE Alaska is rapidly becoming Disnified. Take Ketchikan, for example.
The guide in Ketchikan that took us river rafting told us that the
only thing really keeping the economy going there these days is the
cruise ship business. He said, "Several years ago WalMart came to town
and almost immediately put nearly all the Mom and Pop stores in
downtwon Ketchikan out of business. Most of the downtown area was for
rent, with no takers. The cruise ship lines came in and quietly rented
up all the vacant store fronts, opened a lot of jewelry and souvenier
shops, and then started bringing boat loads of tourists to Ketchikan
to shop in the stores that are owned by the cruise companies. There
are something like 6000 permanent residents of Ketchikan, but a lot of
days in the summer we get four cruise ships in port that bring in
about 10,000 tourists. That brings in another few thousand workers who
live here May- September to work in the tour businesses and staff the
souvenier shops. That creates a seasonal housing shortage and drives
rents out of sight during the summer months. By the first of October
they load up all the inventory from all the shops and relocate it to
the Caribbean, and all of the seasonal workers go home. Then it's all
over until the following spring."

We heard similar remarks in Skagway, where a guide that took us for a
hike up (a relatvely easy section of) the Chilkoot trail remarked that
there are less than 10 businesses in downtown Skagway that stay open
during the winter months.

Did see a grizzly bear during our Chilkoot trail adventure----but not
really up close and personal. The bear was feeding on something in a
grassy meadow on the other side of the river, certainly no closer than
100 yards away and maybe even a bit farther. We got a good look at his
head and the hump on his back, but the rest of the bear was hidden in
the vegetation----what a beautiful tawny brown color he was. Several
people sighted the smaller and more common black bears on various
beaches, etc, but I didn't personally see a black bear on this trip.

Thanks for all that! On the Disney cruise, all the various restaurants were
included in the price, except one. It had about a $25 surcharge, but it was
well worth it. I've heard that Disney is planning an Alaskan cruise
sometime in the fairly near future. Maybe I'll just wait until then to try
that trip.

Thanks again, Chuck, for all the info.

On Jun 24, 12:56?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:47:23 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem

http://tinyurl.com/262px5

Dueling websites?

Yawn......... :-).

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:28:00 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jun 24, 12:56?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:47:23 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem

http://tinyurl.com/262px5

Dueling websites?

Yawn......... :-).

Ah yes - I see.

It's all our fault.

~~ yawn ~~

Yeah and that record breaking deep freeze of a winter we just had. Al gore
can suck a dick.

--
Steve Barker







"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Temps in the low '60s, reasonable humidity, winds NNW at 10,
occasional rain showers...

Man, this Global Warming is wonderful!

Heh, heh, heh...

On Jun 24, 6:31?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Ah yes - I see.

It's all our fault.

~~ yawn ~~


wrote:
I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem



It may not be all our fault. May not any of it be our fault. My point
all along is that this is a scientific issue that is still open to
debate. That debate should be scientific, not political.

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem. That was the basis of my "dueling websites"
comment. Everbody could link to hundreds of sites on both sides of th
issues, some of them prepared by people with exceptional scientific
credentials that exceed even those of Sean Hannity, Al Gore, or Rush
Limbaugh. :-)

Way back in the days of yore....there was one lonely voice crying out
that the earth revolved around the sun. All the evidence available at
that time and popularly accepted by the established religious and
political powers seemed to indicate that the earth was the
geographical "center" of the universe. That one lonely voice was
right...

One side or the other in the global warming debate is right. I don't
know which it is, and you don't either. The three main questions a

1. Is the climate changing? Almost any reasonable person would have to
answer yes because the climate has always been in a state of change
for as far back as we can detect.

2. If the climate is changing, is it changing differently or more
rapidly than it has in the past?

3. If the climate is changing differently or more rapidly than in the
past, is there something man should do or should stop doing as a
result?

The tough aspect is that it's going to take 100 years to know who's
right about climate change.....and in the meantime it's silly (IMO) to
get all worked up on a personal basis or start characterizing people
who disagree with your personal guess on the issue as a bunch of bad
guys.

On Jun 24, 8:59?pm, "Steve Barker"
wrote:
Yeah and that record breaking deep freeze of a winter we just had. Al gore
can suck a dick.

--
Steve Barker


Does that "record breaking deep freeze winter" you meniton support a
position that the climate cannot be changing?

Just because the *globe* may be warming, that wouldn't have to mean
that parts of it might not get colder. In fact, if you study up on the
way that temperature differentials between the poles and the tropics
generate winds and currents and how those winds and currents
contribute to local weather patterns, a warmer overall global
temperature can easily result in weird weather in certain sections of
the planet. Warmer temperatures at the poles, regardless of cause, can
really screw up winds and currents, and when the polar temperatures
rise more than the equatorial temperatures that changes the dynamic of
the thermal differential.

Tidal currents will remain pretty much the same, and those are more
prominent in coastal areas than convection currents. The biggest risk
to boating could be a marked increase in the frequency or intensity of
gale force winds, or maybe a serious decline in the normal amount of
wind and that would upset sailors a lot.

I found the basic theory of wind and current generation not all that
tricky a subject to tackle, and it comes in handy when listening to
marine weather forecasts and noting the changes between high and low
pressure cells.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem

That's the point Chuck. While you may think it's 10-15% of
scientists, and it's certainly presented that way, it's more like
50/60% of scientists disagree. There isn't any consensus even amoung
those who even think that somehow greenhouse gases are causing global
warming.

The simple truth is this - you can either believe in Global Warming or
not believe in Global Warming. You obviously believe in it despite
evidence to the contrary. So does Gene. And I have no problem with
that.

However, every time I, or others, bring up evidence to the contrary,
it's dismissed - politely and reasonably to be sure, but it's still
dismissed under the quise that the evidence isn't in, but....

Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.

I would also point out that in the history of science, the "deniers"
of established wisdom are usually the ones that are eventually proven
right.

Think Galileo Galilei and go from there.