Florida ? Not Lately . . .

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by gettinthere

Which landlubbers? The richest in the world based in the USA or all the people of the world, including those living in 12 X 12 grass huts with dirt floors? After all it's GLOBAL warming we're talking about. I can't find the numbers but if you count the average consumption of ALL the people of the world, I'd expect living on a sailboat to be relatively high on the consumption of resources list. Certainly much lower than the developed world and a good step in the right direction. But still above world average.

Wood buring is CO2 neutral, as the wood would put out the same greenhouse gasses if it were left to rot.
I think living aboard my boat, heated by wood, gives me an environmental foot print which is not that much greater than those living in grass huts.
Globalisation and shipping iron from Brasil to China, manufacturing it into consumer goods, then shipping it back across the Pacific and elsewhere, then shipping the containers back empty, is a major source of the problem.
Globalisation is based on the asumption of everlasting cheap energy and cheap shipping costs . Rising energy costs will kill globalisation, and again make the thingy made just down the road from you , competitive with that made in third world sweatshops.
I've heard that the companies and people promoting denial of global warming, are the same people who were once hired by the tobbacco industry to tell us that smoking is harmless . They are now being paid by the oil gas and coal companies, thru front companies, to hide their connections to their financial sources. No surprises there.

[gettinthere]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

I've heard that the companies and people promoting denial of global warming, are the same people who were once hired by the tobbacco industry to tell us that smoking is harmless . They are now being paid by the oil gas and coal companies, thru front companies, to hide their connections to their financial sources. No surprises there.

Gross exageration. There are a very few that have taken grant money from the oil industry. Take another look at the list of PHDs I posted.
The other side has many many vested interests. Just look at the head of the IPCC. Look at al gore and how he stands to profit from cap & trade while driving a 100' motor yacht

[hellosailor]

"Wood buring is CO2 neutral, as the wood would put out the same greenhouse gasses if it were left to rot."
A chestnut stump can sit for fifty years before it rots and breaks down. A fallen pine may take five years to "go away" as fungi and bugs eat it.
A log on the fire gives up 100% of its carbon immediately. There's no new log growing from the ashes to immediately recycle the carbon, but there are trees growing to absorb and offset the carbon from a rotting log.
So I'd have to say your math is very much a part of the global warming problem. Dumping all the carbon back into the atmosphere in one shot with no offset, is very different from releasing it over 5-50 years, with offsets re-absorbing and countering it. The folks who quickly say "There's no problem!" without really analyzing what is happening, may yet kill us all. Or at least, open up a really great business in new oceanfront property.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

Wood buring is CO2 neutral, as the wood would put out the same greenhouse gasses if it were left to rot.
I think living aboard my boat, heated by wood, gives me an environmental foot print which is not that much greater than those living in grass huts.
1 Globalisation and shipping iron from Brasil to China, manufacturing it into consumer goods, then shipping it back across the Pacific and elsewhere, then shipping the containers back empty, is a major source of the problem.
Globalisation is based on the asumption of everlasting cheap energy and cheap shipping costs . 2 Rising energy costs will kill globalisation, and again make the thingy made just down the road from you , competitive with that made in third world sweatshops.
I've heard that the companies and people promoting denial of global warming, are the same people who were once hired by the tobbacco industry to tell us that smoking is harmless . They are now being paid by the oil gas and coal companies, thru front companies, to hide their connections to their financial sources. No surprises there.

1 If not for all that shipping and stuff I don't think there would be many plastic boats about. My boat seems to me to be a by-product of the increase in technology available (if one has the money of course) and a result of globalisation.

2 I don't doubt it. "New" energy is being sought all the time. Efforts toward it are directly related to the cost of present energy. Humans as a total group simply cannot look at the future of a resource and form a workable plan to conserve while working on the next replacement for that resource. It is one thing that is not possible. Humans are what they are. No different today than what they were 100 or 1000 (or more) years ago. No different than a herd of deer that find a corn field. Eat and reproduce till the food runs out (oil = food, by the way) then starvation thins the herd to sustainable levels. The way of nature.

IMO

We just think we are so smart.

[knothead]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Humans are what they are. No different today than what they were 100 or 1000 (or more) years ago. No different than a herd of deer that find a corn field. Eat and reproduce till the food runs out (oil = food, by the way) then starvation thins the herd to sustainable levels. The way of nature.

Generally speaking, you're probably right. But once in a while there is one or two that stand out from the herd.

I understand the pessimism I'm reading here, but I truly believe that changes, even changes in human perception and behavior are possible if a few of us set good examples.
But even if nothing changes and we are on a hopeless and unchangeable path to destruction, I feel better about myself and like to think I'm accomplishing something positive when I turn a bunch of stuff that would normally be hauled away by a truck or flushed through a maze of pipes into fertile soil that I simply put back in my yard.
There are so many little things that we can do in an attempt to live a little more in harmony with the rest of nature. What's the harm in trying?
Maybe I'm just kidding myself but it gives me something to do.

[gettinthere]

From the London Times:
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.



What are they trying to hide?

In some of the e-mails these scientists talk of 'tricks' they used to hide data that did not agree with their pre-conceived notions.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by knothead

Generally speaking, you're probably right. But once in a while there is one or two that stand out from the herd.

I understand the pessimism I'm reading here, but I truly believe that changes, even changes in human perception and behavior are possible if a few of us set good examples.
But even if nothing changes and we are on a hopeless and unchangeable path to destruction, I feel better about myself and like to think I'm accomplishing something positive when I turn a bunch of stuff that would normally be hauled away by a truck or flushed through a maze of pipes into fertile soil that I simply put back in my yard.
There are so many little things that we can do in an attempt to live a little more in harmony with the rest of nature. What's the harm in trying?
Maybe I'm just kidding myself but it gives me something to do.

I see no harm in trying, nor feeling good about it.

If everyone thought that way we would be closer to what I said

Humans as a total group simply cannot look at the future of a resource and form a workable plan to conserve while working on the next replacement for that resource.

Alas, I do not see it possible.

And if we did form a "plan" what if we conserved and still ran out before fusion or some other thing came about. Pestilence. Yuk!

I just want to go sailing. First week of March is penciled in. South for a few days and then hame again to work.

[SeattleBaba]

I for one am glad that Al Gore is using the prestiage of the office the American people entrusted him with to become filthy rich. There have been many ice ages. They usually last around one hundred thousand years. Warm periods last around ten thousand years. The last ice age ended around eleven thousand years ago. Knowing this, and feeling a deep sense of responsibility for my family, friends and neighbors, I have left my huge pickup truck idling in my driveway that was covered with thousands of feet of ice not long ago....

[FSMike]

Originally Posted by gettinthere

From the London Times:
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data ----

Do you have a link to that London Times article so I can see exactly what law it is that that university is supposed to have broken?

I thought the "Freedom of Information Act" as titled was the law in the United States? And the University of East Anglia is where?

[cliffdykes]

Originally Posted by FSMike

Do you have a link to that London Times article so I can see exactly what law it is that that university is supposed to have broken?

I thought the "Freedom of Information Act" as titled was the law in the United States? And the University of East Anglia is where?

Just google "Freedom of Information Act 2000" and you can read the whole thing.

The University of East Anglia is in....East Anglia. Norwich to be precise.

There is a world outside of the United States you know

Cheers
Cliff

[anjou]

What is the vested interest behind the hidden data?
What do you think it would say and whos hiding it and for what reason?

Is it evidence that global warming isnt al man made after all. Where humans are concerned, there HAS to be an agenda, one way or another

[gettinthere]

East Anglia U is in Great Britian. And GB does have a freedom of information act. They copied their smart neighbors to the west!

The specific evidence the researchers were hiding was in regards to tree rings. They manipulated that data and hid their manipulations. The data disproved al gores hockey stick graph. The hockey stick graph denies the existance of the midieval warm period.
Most of the GW arguement these days is based on rising CO2 levels. But all historic records show CO2 rises 800 years AFTER temperature rises. The last 10 years have shown no increase in temps while the CO2 levels have risen significantly. All the GW crowd were saying with absolute certanty 10 years ago that today we would be at record temps. Their 'computer models' assured us of that. They were way off.

The East Anglia e-mails also had several discussions on how to get accredited PHD scientists, who disagreed with their findings, out of the peer review process. They made a concerted and successful effort at silencing those who disagree so that they could trumpet 'concensus'.

[FSMike]

Originally Posted by cliffdykes

The University of East Anglia is in....East Anglia. Norwich to be precise.

There is a world outside of the United States you know

Cheers
Cliff

Cliff -
Hard as it may be to believe, some of us colonials do know where the University of East Anglia is located. I was indulging in some apparently unnoticed sarcasm. Or, I was being snide, your choice.

[svHyLyte]

In the 15th Century, the "scientific consensus" was that the earth was the center of the universe ("geocentrism"). One Copernicus had earlier set forth the proposition that, in fact, the sun was the center of the universe ("heliocentrism") in a work (wisely) published shortly before his death. Those foolish enough to subscribe to or support this proposition were, at the least, censured, and at worst, turned over to the Roman Inquisition (and some subsequently burned at the stake).

Based upon his own observations, in 1610 or so Galileo began publicly supporting the heliocentric view. He was met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Inquisition in 1615. He was cleared of any offence at that time after promising to recant his support and acknowledge heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture". When he later defended his views in his most famous work publish in about 1632, "Dialogue Concerning Two World Systems" he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest, unable to speak, or publish, publically. Interestingly, it was not until 1992, that Pope John Paul II declared that the ruling against Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." That of course was not an official Vatican Ruling which was not put forth until championed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008! (Memo to Galileo: "All is forgiven".)

It is axiomatic of science that a single exception disproves a theory, which must then be revised or discarded. Given that, for the "scientists" that have so much invested in their "consensus", it is more convenient to [attempt to] silence Galilean dissent than admit an "inconvenient truth".

[FSMike]

cliffdykes -
Thanks for the FOIA 2000 info by the way. I did not know the UK version had the same title.
FSMike