Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? cheers Jacob |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
Roger Mills wrote:
In an earlier contribution to this discussion, wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? I wouldn't have thought it was exactly rocket science! They are driven by big business - which has the most to lose from any curtailment to our energy-profligate lifestyle. ...so it *is* rocket science then? :-p |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
In article .com,
wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? You can make more money in the short term by ignoring the problem. And Bob Carter *does* know better and so could rightly be questioned as to his reasons for writing the Telegraph article. -- 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 |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
On 9 Apr 2006 07:18:22 -0700, wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? cheers Jacob Going by the mindset of the left and right wing here, the left seem to be suckers for daft ideas and the right have a more commonsense outlook.??? |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
EricP wrote:
On 9 Apr 2006 07:18:22 -0700, wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? cheers Jacob Going by the mindset of the left and right wing here, the left seem to be suckers for daft ideas and the right have a more commonsense outlook.??? Do I detect logic creeping into the equation? :-p |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message ... On 9 Apr 2006 07:18:22 -0700, wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? Because that is what makes them right wing. The main conclusion to accepting global warming, and its effects, is that we can't continue to do the things we take for granted now. That means putting limits on human industrial, consumer and travel activity, for the good of the whole. Right-wing thinking is more about ensuring the minority are safe from the effects of global warming, while keeping the masses as uneducated survants to their needs, and sod what happens to them. Right-wing thinkers have no interest in saving the world for anyone else - it is just their for them to use as they wish. -- JJ |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as "environmentalism"? Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
"Phil L" wrote in message . uk... EricP wrote: On 9 Apr 2006 07:18:22 -0700, wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? cheers Jacob Going by the mindset of the left and right wing here, the left seem to be suckers for daft ideas and the right have a more commonsense outlook.??? Do I detect logic creeping into the equation? :-p I am rather amazed that a few here are overly ready to suggest that the 'so called' right wing have a vested interest in debunking the 'problem' while failing completely to note that the, ermm, lefties, have done nothing, nada, zilch and what is more, given their total inability to manage large scale projects, I for one would be horrified to learn that my pennies would be spent by them on yet another cock up. Not one large scale computer installation on budget on time or working to order, The dome, Cheap housing, Immigration, Motorways that cost millions per 100 yards, 45billion on national health, and for what? OK sorry rant over, just dont give these dickheads any more time to spend our money. P |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
"Steve Firth" wrote in message ... wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as "environmentalism"? Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left. The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a (1) Political Correctness ( aka suppression of free speech ) (2) Immigration ( destruction of whitey ) (3) Global Warming ( we can't have SUV's and will all have to live in communes, eating beans and weaving wicker baskets ). These ideas are tools in their quest for socialism. Andy. |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:50:08 +0100, "Peter"
wrote: "Phil L" wrote in message .uk... EricP wrote: On 9 Apr 2006 07:18:22 -0700, wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? cheers Jacob Going by the mindset of the left and right wing here, the left seem to be suckers for daft ideas and the right have a more commonsense outlook.??? Do I detect logic creeping into the equation? :-p I am rather amazed that a few here are overly ready to suggest that the 'so called' right wing have a vested interest in debunking the 'problem' while failing completely to note that the, ermm, lefties, have done nothing, nada, zilch and what is more, given their total inability to manage large scale projects, I for one would be horrified to learn that my pennies would be spent by them on yet another cock up. Not one large scale computer installation on budget on time or working to order, The dome, Cheap housing, Immigration, Motorways that cost millions per 100 yards, 45billion on national health, and for what? OK sorry rant over, just dont give these dickheads any more time to spend our money. P The only lefties around these parts are capitalist gophers. Exactly the kind of lefties we deserve. -- Regards, Mike Halmarack Drop the (EGG) to email me. |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
In message , Andy
writes "Steve Firth" wrote in message ... wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as "environmentalism"? Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left. The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a (1) Political Correctness ( aka suppression of free speech ) (2) Immigration ( destruction of whitey ) (3) Global Warming ( we can't have SUV's and will all have to live in communes, eating beans and weaving wicker baskets ). These ideas are tools in their quest for socialism. Bit of a ******, aren't you I'm not politically correct, but I don't have the ignorant blinkered attitude you seem to have BTW, I'm not going to get involved in this idiot thread, so nerrrrr ....... -- geoff |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
"John Cartmell" wrote in message ... In article .com, wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? You can make more money in the short term by ignoring the problem. And Bob Carter *does* know better and so could rightly be questioned as to his reasons for writing the Telegraph article. Nothing new in that article though. Same old retoric designed to appeal to the emotional side of the uninformed. Just about everything Bob Carter says has been debunked already. -- JJ |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
Peter wrote:
I am rather amazed that a few here are overly ready to suggest that the 'so called' right wing have a vested interest in debunking the 'problem' while failing completely to note that the, ermm, lefties, have done nothing, nada, zilch and what is more, given their total inability to manage large scale projects, I for one would be horrified to learn that my pennies would be spent by them on yet another cock up. Not one large scale computer installation on budget on time or working to order, The dome, Cheap housing, Immigration, Motorways that cost millions per 100 yards, 45billion on national health, and for what? OK sorry rant over, just dont give these dickheads any more time to spend our money. Give it to the other dickheads who will do the same thing. Seriously - we are a two party 'democracy' just like America, and no matter which way you vote, you've lost as they are all the same. |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
"Phil L" wrote in message . uk... Roger Mills wrote: In an earlier contribution to this discussion, wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? I wouldn't have thought it was exactly rocket science! They are driven by big business - which has the most to lose from any curtailment to our energy-profligate lifestyle. ..so it *is* rocket science then? :-p Not for the average person, perhaps for politicians :-) tim |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
"Andy" wrote in message ... "Steve Firth" wrote in message ... wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as "environmentalism"? Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left. The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a (1) Political Correctness ( aka suppression of free speech ) (2) Immigration ( destruction of whitey ) (3) Global Warming ( we can't have SUV's and will all have to live in communes, eating beans and weaving wicker baskets ). Which bit of GW don't you accept? That it happening? What its effect is? What is required to stop it? Difficult to discuss without knowing what it is that you think is wrong. tim |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
In article ,
Andy wrote: You are unwittingly, institutionally politically correct..... He is certainly correct and you are certainly wrong. That at least is clear. Surprisingly he has treat you remarkably well considering that you support the dangerous idiots intent on destroying our home. -- 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 |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
tim (back at home) wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message ... "Steve Firth" wrote in message ... wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as "environmentalism"? Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left. The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a (1) Political Correctness ( aka suppression of free speech ) (2) Immigration ( destruction of whitey ) (3) Global Warming ( we can't have SUV's and will all have to live in communes, eating beans and weaving wicker baskets ). Which bit of GW don't you accept? That it happening? What its effect is? What is required to stop it? Difficult to discuss without knowing what it is that you think is wrong. tim I am by no means certain that it is happening. The, oh so clever "experts" keep changing their minds about what the effects are/will be. The predictions are all based on computer models, which are renowned for their fallibility. The Gulf Stream is going to stop suddenly, no it is going to slow down, it will cause extreme cold Winters. If the Winters become extremely cold then will now the Gulf Stream restart/speed up? I don't know nor do they. By the way in the 1920s lots of scientists and politicians firmly believed that unless the human race was "cleansed" it would cease to exist because of bad genes. The cleansing was practised for a while then common sense prevailed and it was stopped, we are still here. |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
tim (back at home) wrote: "Andy" wrote in message ... "Steve Firth" wrote in message ... wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as "environmentalism"? Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left. The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a (1) Political Correctness ( aka suppression of free speech ) (2) Immigration ( destruction of whitey ) (3) Global Warming ( we can't have SUV's and will all have to live in communes, eating beans and weaving wicker baskets ). Which bit of GW don't you accept? That it happening? No one can seriously deny It is happening. What is open to debate is how quickly it is happening What its effect is? A return to warmer climate. What is required to stop it? And whether it can, oe even should, be stopped. You missed the most important: Is it natural or man-made? MBQ |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
Andy wrote: "Steve Firth" wrote in message ... wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as "environmentalism"? Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left. The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a They also need something to scare the masses and keep them in their place now that the cold war is over. Global warming is happening. by exhagerating and distorting the facts they have a convenient "bogey man". MBQ |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:14:22 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote: In article , Andy wrote: You are unwittingly, institutionally politically correct..... He is certainly correct and you are certainly wrong. That at least is clear. Surprisingly he has treat you remarkably well considering that you support the dangerous idiots intent on destroying our home. You mean the Chinese communists with their coal fired power stations being opened at a rate of (IIRC) one a week or so or was it someone else? It seems to me that environmentalism, or the reverse isn't the preserve of any particular political position but rather the ability and opportunity. -- ..andy |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
Andy Hall wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:14:22 +0100, John Cartmell wrote: In article , Andy wrote: You are unwittingly, institutionally politically correct..... He is certainly correct and you are certainly wrong. That at least is clear. Surprisingly he has treat you remarkably well considering that you support the dangerous idiots intent on destroying our home. You mean the Chinese communists with their coal fired power stations being opened at a rate of (IIRC) one a week or so or was it someone else? It seems to me that environmentalism, or the reverse isn't the preserve of any particular political position but rather the ability and opportunity. Nail; meet head! This is exactly correct, the only thing that's bothering us westerners is the fact that developing countries with huge populations like China and India are fast becoming car owners....it's been OK for us and America to belch out pollution for the past 100 years but now that the 3rd world wants in on the action it's brown underpants time. |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
In article ,
Broadback wrote: The, oh so clever "experts" keep changing their minds about what the effects are/will be. No they don't. As with all good science they keep refining them - but the richest nation on Earth keeps finding ways to muddy the waters and make people think the evidence isn't strong. -- 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 |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
wrote in message oups.com... Andy wrote: "Steve Firth" wrote in message ... wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as "environmentalism"? Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left. The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a They also need something to scare the masses and keep them in their place now that the cold war is over. Global warming is happening. by exhagerating and distorting the facts they have a convenient "bogey man". MBQ Exactly, certain things are siezed upon and used as tools to control our behaviour. 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 and the atlantic conveyer halt then? ) Also, given the divergent predictions given by the computer models, just how reliable are they? Even the scientists admit there are problems. Also, what are the benefits of global warming? Noone ever mentions them, are there none - is this the Goldilocks climate already then? I note the left will jump onto a bandwagon when it sees one, look at George Galloway and his prediliction for muslims, though the whole left seem inclined that way, e.g. Ken Livingstone. They have spotted a support base for their plans for gaining power, despite the fact that muslims are notoriously conservative and make strange bedfellows for people who profess to champion female and homosexual rights. Same with global warming, see a bandwagon, work out some potential benefits from it for their designs on utopian societies, hop on and ride it 'til the end, whatever the truth is. Andy |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
"tim (back at home)" wrote in message ... Which bit of GW don't you accept? That it happening? What its effect is? What is required to stop it? Difficult to discuss without knowing what it is that you think is wrong. The bit that tells him what he's not supposed to do anymore. I think he is afraid that if he is made to give up his SUV, then the next thing would be to make him eat beans, just like the thousands of scientists around the world working on climate change research (who instantly turn into lentil-eating hippies the moment their graphs come out hockey-shaped). -- JJ |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
In article ,
Andy wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Andy wrote: "Steve Firth" wrote in message ... wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as "environmentalism"? Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left. The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a They also need something to scare the masses and keep them in their place now that the cold war is over. Global warming is happening. by exhagerating and distorting the facts they have a convenient "bogey man". MBQ Exactly, certain things are siezed upon and used as tools to control our behaviour. 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. and the atlantic conveyer halt then? ) Also, given the divergent predictions given by the computer models, just how They vary. From bad to catastrophic. Do you really want to quibble? reliable are they? Even the scientists admit there are problems. Between bad and catastrophic. OK is like a lottery win. Also, what are the benefits of global warming? Noone ever mentions them, are there none - is this the Goldilocks climate already then? Plenty of benefits. The deserts of the world get drier, Bangladesh and other damp places get wetter, Britain gets hotter then freezes. But London drowns. ;-) Oh - and if anyone is around to bother we might be able to find some interesting fossils in the Antarctic once the ice has gone. ;-)) -- 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 |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
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 and the atlantic conveyer halt then? ) [snip] That global warming is happening is a matter of fact, and not something that I wish to rake over again. However the implication that it is man made and that we can do anything about it are things I take with a pinch of salt. It's something that gets overlooked that only 120,000 years ago London was a tropical paradise. Note that's 120 *thousand* years, a mere blink of he ye in geological time. We're in an interglacial period, which way would you expect the global temperature to be heading? The evidence that it is human activity resulting in global warming is IMO circumstantial. |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:14:47 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote: In article , Broadback wrote: The, oh so clever "experts" keep changing their minds about what the effects are/will be. No they don't. As with all good science they keep refining them - but the richest nation on Earth keeps finding ways to muddy the waters and make people think the evidence isn't strong. Luxembourg has never struck me as that influential. -- ..andy |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
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. 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. 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. Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little unwise. -- ..andy |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
Andy Hall wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:14:47 +0100, John Cartmell wrote: In article , Broadback wrote: The, oh so clever "experts" keep changing their minds about what the effects are/will be. No they don't. As with all good science they keep refining them - but the richest nation on Earth keeps finding ways to muddy the waters and make people think the evidence isn't strong. Luxembourg has never struck me as that influential. They do have nice low petrol prices though, as does the second wealthiest country in the world, Switzerland. |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
"Broadback" wrote in message ... I am by no means certain that it is happening. People who know more than you are pretty certain it is. The, oh so clever "experts" keep changing their minds about what the effects are/will be. As has been said, the experts do not keep changing their mind. There are many articles published that try to rubbish the research, and by muddying the research, they make it look like the whole scientific community is in disagreement. The predictions are all based on computer models, which are renowned for their fallibility. They are renowned for being models. Like all models, they are as good as the knowledge that goes into building them. The only real true model of climate change is the Earth itself. We can either try to model what we believe is going to happen in advance, or watch the real thing play out in slow motion. There is no argument which will be the most accurate. However - the evidence for current change is just that - evidence of it happening now. That has nothing to do with models. The Gulf Stream is going to stop suddenly, no it is going to slow down, it will cause extreme cold Winters. It is slowing down now. There is evidence of that. We will have to wait and see what it does to our winters in Northern Europe. If the Winters become extremely cold then will now the Gulf Stream restart/speed up? I don't know nor do they. Right, 'they' don't know how easy it would be to start the thing up again. That's a good argument for not letting things get so far. By the way in the 1920s lots of scientists and politicians firmly believed that unless the human race was "cleansed" it would cease to exist because of bad genes. The cleansing was practised for a while then common sense prevailed and it was stopped, we are still here. Are you talking about the Nazis? Perhaps communist dictatorships? Yes, some pretty nasty stuff has been done by many dictators, but what has this to do with climate change? -- JJ |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
Jason wrote:
[snip] By the way in the 1920s lots of scientists and politicians firmly believed that unless the human race was "cleansed" it would cease to exist because of bad genes. The cleansing was practised for a while then common sense prevailed and it was stopped, we are still here. Are you talking about the Nazis? Perhaps communist dictatorships? Yes, some pretty nasty stuff has been done by many dictators, but what has this to do with climate change? I take it you never heard of eugenics then? Nor of the work of Louis Agassiz? If you are as woefully ignorant as you appear to be, how one take your views of the accuracy of climate prediction seriously? |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
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 |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? cheers Jacob Because they tend to be more in the pockets of oil companies. |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
The Natural Philosopher wrote: wrote: I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most seem inclined to debunk the theory? cheers Jacob Because they tend to be more in the pockets of oil companies. I don't think it's that simple; direct self interest. It's more of a mind-set or idea syndrome. Is is that the rights are stupid and disturbed by and distrust all who challenge their simplistic world views and that tends to include scientists, philosophers, thinkers in general, artists, liberals and the whole pinko intelligent community? cheers Jacob |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:05:13 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote: 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. Possibly, but by how much? Nobody has actually measured whether climate change is happening in the absence of CO2 emission, because obviously that can't be done. Therefore, how does one know the extent to which it does contribute to climate change? It would be rather misguided to discover, having reduced emissions by some huge percentage, that there had been no effect. 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? You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point. 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? You tell me. However, let's say that the contribution of CO2 idea does turn out to be wrong or that it has much less of an influence than was initially thought. The implication of that, is that we would not have been able to influence climate change by cutting CO2 emissions and climate change was happening anyway and beyond our control. My concern is that backing only the CO2 horse is rather unwise. If we have got it wrong then shouldn't some work be going into dealing with climate change outcome rather than just saying that unless we cut CO2 emissions the end will come? My pragmatic point, above, is that history doesn't support measures happening on a co-operative world basis at any great speed, if at all. Even as so called sentient beings, animal instinct is never far below the surface or even below the surface at all, which is why socialism doesn't work. I am not saying whether that is a good or bad thing, but it would be naive to expect that world governments and populations are going to become self denying. Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little unwise. Bank? You seriously think there will be a *bank* left! ;-!!( There might not be. However, making the whole thing a one-issue situation does not make sense either. -- ..andy |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
In article , Andy Hall
wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:05:13 +0100, John Cartmell wrote: 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. Possibly, but by how much? Nobody has actually measured whether climate change is happening in the absence of CO2 emission, because obviously that can't be done. Therefore, how does one know the extent to which it does contribute to climate change? As there are feedback effects it would be silly to give a single answer to that question; it depends what you mean. It would be very foolish to suggest there is no effect. It would be rather misguided to discover, having reduced emissions by some huge percentage, that there had been no effect. Not as misguided as waiting for proof that even thoroughly stupid people like GW Bush can't ignore and then finding that it's far too late to do anything about it. 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? You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point. If you think that's emotional try waiting until peoples homes are disappearing - and the numbers move from thousands to millions. Try explaining to me why I *shouldn't* get emotional about the prospect of my grand-daughter having to defend her home against starving hordes from the South East - or do you seriously think that 20 millions can be rehoused without people getting emotional? 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? You tell me. However, let's say that the contribution of CO2 idea does turn out to be wrong or that it has much less of an influence than was initially thought. The implication of that, is that we would not have been able to influence climate change by cutting CO2 emissions and climate change was happening anyway and beyond our control. My concern is that backing only the CO2 horse is rather unwise. If we have got it wrong then shouldn't some work be going into dealing with climate change outcome rather than just saying that unless we cut CO2 emissions the end will come? Rather unwise as opposed to stupidly suicidal? My pragmatic point, above, is that history doesn't support measures happening on a co-operative world basis at any great speed, if at all. Even as so called sentient beings, animal instinct is never far below the surface or even below the surface at all, which is why socialism doesn't work. I am not saying whether that is a good or bad thing, but it would be naive to expect that world governments and populations are going to become self denying. And your solution is to suggest that we check and double-check until it's far too late. We've known of the problem for 45 year (at least) and we have already checked and double-checked and it's already too late to take anything but drastic action. We have already taken your advice and we are now at "We have to do something bloody fast!" stage. Now. Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little unwise. Bank? You seriously think there will be a *bank* left! ;-!!( There might not be. However, making the whole thing a one-issue situation does not make sense either. It doesn't make sense to people who won't listen. -- 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 |
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:55:38 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote: It doesn't matter *why* - CO2 emissions make it worse. Possibly, but by how much? Nobody has actually measured whether climate change is happening in the absence of CO2 emission, because obviously that can't be done. Therefore, how does one know the extent to which it does contribute to climate change? As there are feedback effects it would be silly to give a single answer to that question; it depends what you mean. It would be very foolish to suggest there is no effect. Of course. Just as it is equally silly to suggest that it is the only effect as is implied by the political bandwagon. More reasonably, the reality is likely to lie somewhere between a natural trend happening (which may of course be subject to variations up and down over decades and centuries) and man made influence of CO2 emission. It would be rather misguided to discover, having reduced emissions by some huge percentage, that there had been no effect. Not as misguided as waiting for proof that even thoroughly stupid people like GW Bush can't ignore and then finding that it's far too late to do anything about it. Hence my point that this debate is not where the entire focus ought to be as it seems to be today, but also to consider what to do in the event of various global warming scenarios actually happening. This would cover the situations of Dubya, his successors, the Chinese, the 3rd world and everybody else who is unwilling or unable to do anything about CO2 emission as well as the scenario that CO2 emission might not have as much influence as is thought and that it is other phenomena beyond our control instead or as well. This is not to say that I don't think that reduction in CO2 emission is worthwhile. I am simply concerned about backing one horse only and especially when the other punters are not laying bets at all. 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? You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point. If you think that's emotional try waiting until peoples homes are disappearing - and the numbers move from thousands to millions. Try explaining to me why I *shouldn't* get emotional about the prospect of my grand-daughter having to defend her home against starving hordes from the South East - or do you seriously think that 20 millions can be rehoused without people getting emotional? No I don't which is why I make the point that sensible thought should go into how to deal with movement of people, should that become necessary at some point, before it actually happens. Applying emotion to it is not going to deal with this in any useful way. 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? You tell me. However, let's say that the contribution of CO2 idea does turn out to be wrong or that it has much less of an influence than was initially thought. The implication of that, is that we would not have been able to influence climate change by cutting CO2 emissions and climate change was happening anyway and beyond our control. My concern is that backing only the CO2 horse is rather unwise. If we have got it wrong then shouldn't some work be going into dealing with climate change outcome rather than just saying that unless we cut CO2 emissions the end will come? Rather unwise as opposed to stupidly suicidal? This assumes that you believe that CO2 emission reduction is *the* way to address the issue and that looking at that *and* other things such as what to do if that can't be achieved for whatever reason or doesn't have the influence that was first believed does not make sense. It is that that is my concern about the current bandwagon. When there is tunnel vision like this, the usual outcome is to meet a train coming the other way. My pragmatic point, above, is that history doesn't support measures happening on a co-operative world basis at any great speed, if at all. Even as so called sentient beings, animal instinct is never far below the surface or even below the surface at all, which is why socialism doesn't work. I am not saying whether that is a good or bad thing, but it would be naive to expect that world governments and populations are going to become self denying. And your solution is to suggest that we check and double-check until it's far too late. That's not what I said at all. The point is that attention should be paid to CO2 emission, including reducing it *and* the possibility that that cannot be done sufficiently and soon enough to make a difference *and* the possibility that there are other manmade influences *and* the possibility of natural influences and *also* to look at what to do if none of these play out and we do have to deal with climate change happening. We've known of the problem for 45 year (at least) and we have already checked and double-checked and it's already too late to take anything but drastic action. What if the conclusions are wrong and it is (also) another manmade or natural phenomenon and the change is happening even if we do take drastic action on CO2 emisssion? What happens if Dubya's successors take a similar view to him and the Chinese and 3rd world continue to go in the wrong direction? We have already taken your advice and we are now at "We have to do something bloody fast!" stage. Now. No we haven't. You didn't read what I said, just what you wanted to think I said. Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little unwise. Bank? You seriously think there will be a *bank* left! ;-!!( There might not be. However, making the whole thing a one-issue situation does not make sense either. It doesn't make sense to people who won't listen. Listening to one-issue politicians certainly doesn't. -- ..andy |
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:55:38 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote: Snip You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point. If you think that's emotional try waiting until peoples homes are disappearing - and the numbers move from thousands to millions. Try explaining to me why I *shouldn't* get emotional about the prospect of my grand-daughter having to defend her home against starving hordes from the South East - or do you seriously think that 20 millions can be rehoused without people getting emotional? snip I think there's inevitably an emotional component to the discussion/argument. Emotion is probably beneficial but it depends what it's combined with. As humans I don't think were as important as we consider ourselves to be. By the same token I don't think were as responsible for these big events as we imagine. Natural changes tend toward the amorphous. Human responses to these changes usually range from stiff to rigid. Civilised man responds to changes in sea level and flow patterns by moving millions of tons of rock and pouring millions of tons of concrete. Primitive man would just move out of the way. People spend fortunes trying to preserve houses built on the edges of crumbling cliffs because natural erosion isn't prepared to consider title deeds and mortgage commitments. Most of us share a concern for the quality of life of our grand-children but isn't defending their home against starving, dispossessed hordes inevitable for one reason or another at various points in time? Hollywood regularly makes a fortune from presenting mock-ups of such situations for our entertainment and we lap it up appreciatively. Sometimes we have to live it. always a -- Regards, Mike Halmarack Drop the (EGG) to email me. |
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT global warming
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:30:28 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote: In article , Andy Hall wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:55:38 +0100, John Cartmell wrote: It doesn't matter *why* - CO2 emissions make it worse. Possibly, but by how much? Nobody has actually measured whether climate change is happening in the absence of CO2 emission, because obviously that can't be done. Therefore, how does one know the extent to which it does contribute to climate change? As there are feedback effects it would be silly to give a single answer to that question; it depends what you mean. It would be very foolish to suggest there is no effect. Of course. Just as it is equally silly to suggest that it is the only effect as is implied by the political bandwagon. More reasonably, the reality is likely to lie somewhere between a natural trend happening (which may of course be subject to variations up and down over decades and centuries) and man made influence of CO2 emission. Truth is rarely conveniently found half-way between where competing ignorant statements place it. I prefer to accept scientific evidence. So do I, which is why I think it's important to keep all possible factors in mind. Since non-man-made change cannot be eliminated as a contributor to global warming, it is foolhardy to assume that CO2 emission is the only causal contributor. It would be rather misguided to discover, having reduced emissions by some huge percentage, that there had been no effect. Not as misguided as waiting for proof that even thoroughly stupid people like GW Bush can't ignore and then finding that it's far too late to do anything about it. Hence my point that this debate is not where the entire focus ought to be as it seems to be today, but also to consider what to do in the event of various global warming scenarios actually happening. Prepare for the worst-case scenario? Then prepare for your civilisation to disappear. That may happen. There are also numerous other possibilities between where we are now and that. It would be far more useful, while doing what is technically and politically achievable with CO2 reduction, to put some effort into whether any of those can also be influenced, or at the very least to consider options as to what to do should they occur. This would cover the situations of Dubya, his successors, the Chinese, the 3rd world and everybody else who is unwilling or unable to do anything about CO2 emission as well as the scenario that CO2 emission might not have as much influence as is thought and that it is other phenomena beyond our control instead or as well. This is not to say that I don't think that reduction in CO2 emission is worthwhile. I am simply concerned about backing one horse only and especially when the other punters are not laying bets at all. We're back to you cheering on those yobbos ... No *we're* not. Only *you* are. 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? You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point. If you think that's emotional try waiting until peoples homes are disappearing - and the numbers move from thousands to millions. Try explaining to me why I *shouldn't* get emotional about the prospect of my grand-daughter having to defend her home against starving hordes from the South East - or do you seriously think that 20 millions can be rehoused without people getting emotional? No I don't which is why I make the point that sensible thought should go into how to deal with movement of people, should that become necessary at some point, before it actually happens. If you get to that point you have lost. We're planning to avoid that. Really? What happens if said planning is wrong and despite the best efforts for CO2 reduction, climate change continues to occur? Applying emotion to it is not going to deal with this in any useful way. Applying quiet, scientific detachment has not got us very far since the early 60s. Quiet scientific detachment considers all of the options and outcomes. It should also consider options if the original theory is incorrect or the changes that it would like are not achieved. 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? You tell me. However, let's say that the contribution of CO2 idea does turn out to be wrong or that it has much less of an influence than was initially thought. The implication of that, is that we would not have been able to influence climate change by cutting CO2 emissions and climate change was happening anyway and beyond our control. My concern is that backing only the CO2 horse is rather unwise. If we have got it wrong then shouldn't some work be going into dealing with climate change outcome rather than just saying that unless we cut CO2 emissions the end will come? Rather unwise as opposed to stupidly suicidal? This assumes that you believe that CO2 emission reduction is *the* way to address the issue and that looking at that *and* other things such as what to do if that can't be achieved for whatever reason or doesn't have the influence that was first believed does not make sense. I'm looking at the scientific question and answers. Choosing which populations to choose to wipe out is a political consideration. Brigands, murderers, dentists and civil servants would be a reasonable start. I was also looking at the scientific, applied acientific and possibly engineering considerations. Work should also go into what can be done in the event of the various scenarios resulting from global warming - for example different types of food production in different places plus the other paraphernalia and locations for the support of mankind's continued existence. It is that that is my concern about the current bandwagon. When there is tunnel vision like this, the usual outcome is to meet a train coming the other way. I'm not on a bandwagon. I'm trying to educate someone who dismisses real, and dangerous problems as a bandwagon. Don't be mistaken. I am not dismissing CO2 emission and it's reduction, per sec, as a bandwagon. It may well have a substantial influence on climate. On the other hand, there amy be other factors as well. The bandwagon is following it as *the* issue to the exclusion of others. This is convenient for politicians and others who are hard of thinking. The danger in this is if either the required reductions can't be made either technically or politically (which is a very likely possibility whether we like it or not) or if the influence is not what we thought. My pragmatic point, above, is that history doesn't support measures happening on a co-operative world basis at any great speed, if at all. Even as so called sentient beings, animal instinct is never far below the surface or even below the surface at all, which is why socialism doesn't work. I am not saying whether that is a good or bad thing, but it would be naive to expect that world governments and populations are going to become self denying. And your solution is to suggest that we check and double-check until it's far too late. That's not what I said at all. The point is that attention should be paid to CO2 emission, including reducing it *and* the possibility that that cannot be done sufficiently and soon enough to make a difference *and* the possibility that there are other manmade influences *and* the possibility of natural influences and *also* to look at what to do if none of these play out and we do have to deal with climate change happening. We don't deal with climate change if we get the worst. There is no reason to suppose that, if we let it go beyond the tipping point, there is any technology that will cope - and no reason to suppose that any mammals will survive, even though it's likely that life will continue. There may well not be any technology that will cope if no effort is put into researching that. It would also assume the notion of a tipping point. Granted, one can model that, but it depends on a set of assumptions that may or may not happen. We've known of the problem for 45 year (at least) and we have already checked and double-checked and it's already too late to take anything but drastic action. What if the conclusions are wrong and it is (also) another manmade or natural phenomenon and the change is happening even if we do take drastic action on CO2 emisssion? What happens if Dubya's successors take a similar view to him and the Chinese and 3rd world continue to go in the wrong direction? Could be a touch uncomfortable. Exactly. Unfortunately, I think that this is the most likely scenario. I don't *want* that this should be what happens, but fear that it will be. Given that likely reality, I would like to see at least some effort going into dealing with the consequences. We have already taken your advice and we are now at "We have to do something bloody fast!" stage. Now. No we haven't. You didn't read what I said, just what you wanted to think I said. Your advice was to investigate further. We have done. We have spent too long doing so. No it wasn't. I have not said that effort should not go into reduction of CO2 emission or that it should be delayed to look at alternatives. My point is that while that is being done, and knowing full well that it will take longer than is desirable, we should also be looking at whether there are other factors and whether we can do anything about those and also to look at how to deal with the outcome of CO2 emissions not being reduced as we might hope. Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little unwise. Bank? You seriously think there will be a *bank* left! ;-!!( There might not be. However, making the whole thing a one-issue situation does not make sense either. It doesn't make sense to people who won't listen. Listening to one-issue politicians certainly doesn't. I don't listen to politicians or the media on questions like this. None of them show more than minimal real understanding. Which is all the more concerning -- ..andy |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast ! | Metalworking | |||
OT - Global Warming Revisited | Metalworking | |||
OT - Global Warming Revisited | Metalworking | |||
Completely OT Preparing for life with global warming | Metalworking |