Global Warming Debate

[PBzeer]

Originally Posted by pigslo

No, No, No, Rags. Don't be talking about bringing everyone to Texas. We have enough Yankees here already.
pigslo

In Alaska, back during the pipeline hey day, we used to say the prettiest thing to see was a Texan with 2 Okies under his arms getting on an airplane. Humor from the BIGGEST state.

[PBzeer]

Originally Posted by T34C

A) snake oil salesman
B) scam artist
C) grifter
D) swinddler
E) BS artists
F) Irish Travler
G) All of the Above!!!

You forgot one - Politican

[donrr1]

I was gonna post a reply here but I don't like walkin around all hunched up waitin for a slap on the back of me head...

Don

Hey Don,, read this http://www.sailnet.com/forums/genera...hlight=helmets then jump in. No need to walk around hunched up if ya gots your helmet on.
__________________
Dale

Thanx for the advice goose, as you can see the helmet came in handy.


I'm not a scientist, an expert on logic (although I realize my premises were held together by thread, if at all), but I am a fairly good salesman. There was already plenty of evidence on this thread about where most stood on the great 'global warming debate'. But I figured, hell let me throw something out there that will tingle the emotions and see what develops. I was hoping for a little better two sided response, and it may be too early to give up on that, but the responses given after my posts are so strong as to deter other opinions. I am not on any side about global warming, the busy little bees are not done constructing the hive on it yet. My opinion on the matter is much like this excerpt of gilsurf's post way back on the first page.....

whether one agrees with the issue of global warming and its roots in our society or not, a decrease in the production of 'greenhouse' gases is not a bad thing. Cleaner air, more efficient energy, less focus on fuel supply, etc. Even to a complete naysayer to science, the benefits are not all that bad.

I commend free thinking and the fact that we live in a country where it is tolerated. The most serious point that I could possibly make about the issue of global warming at this point, would be to always keep an open mind. Propaganda isn't just one sided. It doesn't just belong to the gov't, the 'greens', or any group the wants to express a voice. Data has, and always will, be presented in such a way as to form an opinion to whoever will listen and thus, sides are taken.

I will admit that I stuck my foot in this thread (or my mouth) but I got what I wanted. If you all look back on your posts, most of them were generated with a significant degree of emotion. Apologies for my 'hysteria' and the ruffling of feathers.

Don

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[sailaway21]

There you go again Donrr1.

To just assume that a reduction in greenhouse gases is, in and of itself, a good thing is unscientific. The statement does not allow for any potentially good benefits derived from greenhouse gases. The next step, after deciding to reduce greenhouse gases, is to ask why we are not reducing them more. Do you see how what seemed to be a relatively uncontroversial statement turns in to something much more? If the science at the front end is faulty can one be surprised that the law of unintended consequences is operative at the back end. See previous posts on DDT/malaria.

I posted some time back on the process called hormesis. It basically states that otherwise toxic substances can actually have a beneficial or tonic effect on people and animals. Radon comes to mind. Yet all we here is that radon is the second leading cause of cancer in the US. The fact that it ranks negligbly above "unkown" or "insignificant" causes is not as well publicised.

Asthma was mentioned previously, and the explosion thereof. What is not mentioned is that children exposed at an early age to airborne pathogens do not get asthma at nearly the rates as the rest of the populace. "Tight" houses are suspected of contributing to the problem. Animals raised in germ free environments quickly die when released into nature; their immune systems have not developed by dealing with the myriad toxins in the outside environment. Kids who spend all of their time indoors are coming down with allergies to natural toxins that their grimey little mud covered neighbors are not.

As Camaraderie has posted, the world is a very large and complex mechanism of which we do not even know all of it's components as yet. To be making blanket statements, with no doubt shown, is rather arrogant and shows little regard for how much we really do not know. It is also unscientific. To use a navigational illustration; if we desire to sail to Yurrup we must first have a real good idea where we are located now. Departing without that knowledge, and furiously 'navigating' away, is delusional. What we end up doing is sailing about in a very controlled, and meticulous manner absorbing all the data we can while essentially lost. Now you can do that, but it's no way to run a steamship line!

[PBzeer]

It's really quite simple. 30 years ago, they wanted to melt the polar icecaps, now they're worried that they ARE melting. In the words of that once popular game ..... They Don't Know Jack.

[poopdeckpappy]

Don't take any of this wrong Don

Originally Posted by donrr1

Fact # 1 Ozone depletion from human causes is a fact. Less ozone = more of the sun's radiation getting thru the atmosphere. Think of ozone as a radiation filter.

The Ozone depletion was not an result of CO2 and since the mid 80's to late 90's the ozone layer has been recovering to near normal levels

Fact # 2, Humans have been belchin smoke into the atmosphere since the industrail revolution started in the 19th century. While I don't have any pertinent data comparing the belching of humans to the belching of mother earth, I daresay there is a substantial contribution made by humans over time. A steady, over one century long, contribution.

Currently we contribute 3.8 - 5 percent, of that 1/2 is naturally absorb by the environment the balance is released into the atmosphere, the accumulated amount of CO2 over the last 250 yrs is around 160Gtons, most of that prior to the industrial revolution

anyone who would deny that there isn't any human contribution the 'global warming' situation is at best in denial, at worst, a fool.

The human contribution isn't the debate, every living thing, plant & animal and then mother earth is contributing, always have, always will, the debate is the level of contribution being focused towards human ( US in particular )activity purely for political reasons and goals

[bestfriend]

Blah, blah, blah. Well, seems our governments are succeeding AGAIN in distracting us from important things in life, LIKE SAILING!
Way too much time and effort spent on this. Yes, its good to regulate so we don't destroy ourselves too fast, but I'm sorry, its gonna happen weather we like it or not. We won't be around on this planet forever.
As Goose mentioned a long time ago, its all cyclical. Stick your finger in one hole in the dam and another will spring up.
So, go ahead, put restrictions on everything, make everybody stand in a single file line, let the government walk all over ya, save a few years in the life of a planet that has a life span of billions. While the government keeps you distracted and moves on to its next abomination. Don't mistake me for someone that throws trash on the ground though. I separate my trash and try to conserve, not buy too much junk I don't need. I am all for recycling. Its nice to keep the place clean. But, they wouldn't have done it if their was no profit in it, and it saves space to build other things that eat up more things we need to conserve. Round and round we go.
We cut down forests to make Big Macs and people scream, but I haven't seen anyone hunting for all their food lately.
In the larger scale of things, we are just another bacteria.

[sailaway21]

I am grateful that the significant other bacteria in my life has such a pleasing shape to it and developed to the point where my microscope is no longer necessary.

[cardiacpaul]

ho-hum....

Both James Hansen of NASA (the father of greenhouse theory) and Richard Lindzen of MIT (the most renowned climatologist in the world) agree that, even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues “predict additional warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ± 0.04°C per decade.”

since 1880, the world avg temp has raised approx 1.4 degrees (F). If one takes into the account that thermometers haven't been reliably within 3 degrees (F) until the last 60 yrs, I think I'm going to forget this whole thing and go sailing.
But I will be taking my LLBean Maine Parka and my cumoniwannalaya shorts just to have both ends covered.