In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:38:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy wrote:



I would like to know:-

How much global warming is anthropogenic and how much natural ( e.g. the
little ice age was caused by the sun, but what were the early middle
ages and Roman warm periods caused by? It wasn't C02. It was warm
enough to farm in Greenland in 1000AD, its not that warm now, how come
ice caps didn't melt
This is as bad as the nature/nurture question. It doesn't really matter
what caused it - we need to reduce it to avoid *big* problems.


I do wonder about one thing. Let's suppose that the apparent increase in
temperature is actually due to a cyclic trend and has little relationship
to CO2 emissions.

If this did turn out to be the case, then controlling CO2 emissions would
not have the effect that is hoped.

It doesn't matter *why* - CO2 emissions make it worse.

In practical terms, it is also unlikely that the larger polluters are going
to be willing to do what is required to bring CO2 emission levels down to
the figures at the point that there was first thought to be a possible
connection.

A bunch ofyobbos are beating the hell out of an innocent passer-by and, as you
reckon they won't stop, you cheer them on. Do you?

This is not to say that one should not attempt to reduce CO2 emissions, but
equally one does not read a lot about work to deal with the impact of
substantial climate change if and when it happens.

If we pass the tipping-pont and greenhouse gasses are released from the tundra
& sea and the gulf-stream ends then it's simply a matter of half the world's
population finding somewhere new to live.

How do you suggest we go about it?

Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little unwise.

Bank? You seriously think there will be a *bank* left! ;-!!(

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing