The Environment: Is it really that bad?

Yep, the old hoary joke about the city couple stopping to ask the local farmer about the weather.. He looks meaningfully up at the sky, tests the wind with with his finger and says.. "yep, I reckon it might rain, but then again it might not".. lol.
Mychael

 

Regarding water and boats and the environment.
Many places in Norway the water is cleaner and we can eat the fish again.
The industry has been forced to reduce their pollution to the rivers and fjords.
Then we have stupidities like the "cleaning" of sewer from small communities close to a large ocean..

 

Yes- definite improvements on many fronts. My local water (The Chesapeake bay), has not improved much since initial decline. In this case the large estuary is not polluted by toxins so much as degraded by the influence of nutrient and sediment loading from non-point sources. Given the development issues in the watershed, this is a tough nut to crack. I suppose what burns me it the characterizations of ecology and environmental issues in general to be somehow associated with the lunatic fringe and not common concerns. There have been recent episodes of pollution induced bacterial blooms on the bay. Simply touching the water in areas where the has happened can induce neurological damage from the exotoxins present. One would have to be dumb as dirt to not acknowledge that this is a problem.

 

As one of my Father's wives (?) used to say "it will either rain or go dark before morning" - the only true weather forecast I've ever heard up till now! Well done Longliner, you've passed into the realms of mytholigy with yet another accurate forecast - that's two in a century careful somebody will think we know what we're doing (actually most of the time I know what I'm doing - just can prevent it is all)! the walrus fella

 

You guys might be saying that as a joke but our weather forecasters actually say things like that.

 

Sorry bntii I missed your scientific question earlier. I can't put all scientists in this catagory but, all professionals need to be paid. So scientists results depend on who pays them. Even scientists that own boats. I had to say that in case Safewalrus accuses me of making a post that has no relevance to boating.

Longliner - I saw a documentary the other day that described how weapons manufacturers are now making environmentaly friendly weapons. Less smoke and biodegradable materials. What a perfect world.

 

Poida- thanks for being so generous- I was really just trying to ride you on that one.

Internet before coffee and all that

I often hear this disclaimer that a body of scientific inquiry is driven (read distorted), by funding. "They will say anything to get funding" sort of thinking. I don't buy it. The science I have been around is typified by long hard fought expensive battles. The battles I found delineate some very small bit of detail which serves to describe some structure or system in a more complete manner. A building block if you will. It goes without saying that the ready application of research results guarantee funding. All the work which has been done to put these computers together springs to mind. What this leads to is branches of science where work is accelerated by better funding while other areas languish. Try funding "feeding preferences of the copepod in fully eutrophied pond water." Perhaps Global warming is considered a cash cow? All card houses fall. Paradigms shift in science, but fraud makes a big splash. Find it and I'll buy you a coke.

 

Bnti:
I agree with you WRT funding and scientific honesty. People who say the scientists are influenced by thier benefactor are putting the cart before the horse. What really happens is that potential funders 'shop' for a scientist whom they believe will support the idea they want to promote/bolster with a favorable study.

On the fraud RE global warming; it was already posted earlier in the thread. You really have to read the post and not just skip over the tech parts.

Synopsis: (facts not disputed by either side, only the conclusions)

CO2 is the least important of all the GH gases, and only .4% of the atmosphere

Humans only contribute a tiny bit of the CO2 that's in the atmosphere

Water vapor is by far the most important GH gas and is for all practial purposes 100% natural in origin. Accounts for >95% of GH effect All other gases combined are the other 5%

Atmospheric CO2 content tracks poorly with global temps in the geological record.

All this adds up to the GHG theory of human induced climate change seeming quite unplausible.

But true believers will always believe!

Jimbo

 

Ok

Sort of begs a question: Who is it that is shopping for what at this point is a consensus on this issue?

The solar energy cartel? Seems a bit more plausible that the messenger is being shot, no?

 

It seems pretty obvious, but I guess some people have to have it spelled out for them. The political left WANTS the GHG theory to be real, ostensibly to further the cause of "Social Justice", but really it's about getting and keeping political power:



"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald


Bntii:

It's seems as if you don't even count political power as a thing of value, the way money is (more obviously) a thing of value, thus you inquire "where is the gain?" in promoting an idea. How shockingly naive!




Jimbo

 

Forget I asked:

"It's actually far more scientifically honest to assume that whatever caused past warming trends is likley causing this one too. Of course that assumption carries no political implications with attendant calls for adoption of draconian 'eco-socialism'. Since socialism has proven to be pretty much unsustainable economically over the long term, it should come as no shock that true believers in that system (and you all know who you are ) have really latched on to the CO2/global warming theory since it validates/re-energizes what amounts to their pet socio-economic system, a system that has largely been abandoned by the world."

kidding right?

The great liberal conspiracy?


I am out of here till the ice melts in my drink

 

Wait! I will play.

give me a day or two and I'll get back on this to shoot down some of your wacky ideals

Been too busy mucking about in boats

 

Thanks! I've been waiting for you to play rather than merely throw pebbles at my window

I've been mucking around with airplanes today. NBAA convention is in town and all that free catered food and beer was too much to resist And all those pretty airplanes (free beer) and cool giveaway items (free beer) and stuff! The Dassault/Falcon tent had the best prime rib!

Jimbo

 

OK I know alott about somethings and there is alott I dont know about other things,,the eco system is part of our enviornment too! today Iceland anounced the resume of whaling after 21 years,,,,I dont think the whale population has recoverd enough to warrent this,,,all creaturs have a purpose, sharks are killed because they are sharks and man is afraid of them ,, they clean the seas of decaying matter that would otherwise pollute the oceans,the only way I see to combat this is to not purchase these products,I am a man of conviction, I belieive we should leave the world as we find it ,also I believe (WE as collective consumers can make a differance) by not going out to buy these products our voices will be heard. so before you go out to buy that can of whale oil think twice..before you go out to buy that big rock for your old lady think of the misery it caused. I dont eat at dennys because of thier racial policy . I dont buy timkin bearing because of appartide .I could go on but I wont,,,,its time to wake up and smell reality,, we can make a differance,,ya just gotta make a small effort,,,,,,,,bitchin about it online does nothing,,,,,,longliner

 

What?

I was just getting warmed up to the ideal of bitching online

Jimbo- been looking for a proper rock but us liberals are a bit weak so pebbles have got to do.

Do me a favor-
Provide the ORIGINAL source for the Stewart quote above.
Full article or url to same would do the trick