"PJ" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...


If we seriously want to reduce CO2 emissions, which it is far from proven
will help, it would be far more effective to help third world countries
achieve the same reductions we have made over the past decades. However,
that is not a very visible way of doing it and therefore is not going to
get a UK politician many votes.

How is reducing the CO2 output of the third world going to be done?
They don't have the same industries, etc. that we have, they don't heat
their houses much, they don't cook much and they don't have cars.
Changing one 100W lamp for a CF will probably save more CO2 than killing
off a third world inhabitant.

If you actually believe CO2 is a problem then you are going to have to
contribute.
I will contribute where it saves me money as I don't think CO2 is the
cause of global warming, there is no evidence that CO2 has an effect
AFAICS.

What is a concern is things like the destruction of the tropical forests
which are a buffer and a large buffer is better than a small one.
I thought that kelp in the oceans absorbed more CO2 than the rain forests.

Its a buffer for water/energy.
It helps to stop massive swings in the weather.
CO2 isn't going to effect the weather much.


The programme mentioned that some scientists benefit from global warming
funding but the biggest losers, if the ideas in the programme were
accepted, would be the carbon offset companies.

In article ,
nightjar nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote:
When I was still manufacturing, my direct energy costs were less than 1%
of my overheads. My labour costs were 25% of my income. It is not
because their energy is cheap that we buy from them.

There's far more to energy costs than the direct one to the manufacturer.
It influences labour rates as well, for example.

--
*You! Off my planet!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Ed Sirett wrote:
If all you do is watch DVDs and play games then you don't need a
license for the TV...

Quite so; the licence is for equipment _capable_ of receiving TV
broadcasts.

This used to be the case, but changed when other methods of home viewing
or uses for a TV arrived - like pre-recorded tape and now DVD, games etc.
Before it made no sense to own a TV but claim never to watch it - now it
does.

It would be a wise precaution to remove the tuner module from your TV
(and video if you still have one), this may or may not be possible.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

dennis@home wrote:

(Cue the standard "Yes you do", "No you don't" argument, which I shall
completely ignore.)

Yup, here we go... again...

If its a TV then by definition it is capable of receiving TV transmissions
so should be licensed.

If it has the receiver disabled in some way it is not a TV so doesn't need a
license.

Its pretty easy IMO.

You would have thought, and yet you just managed to get it wrong ;-)

As someone said gluing a panel over the aerial socket may be enough,
removing the tuner should be.

From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp#link1

"Q What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my
games console? Do I still need a licence?

A You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one our
Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not
need a licence."

No mention of disabling tuners or any other nonsense. You need a license
if you use equipment to receive broadcasts - that is all. In this age
all sorts of equipment is now capable of receiving TV, yet you would not
routinely buy a license for your mobile phone, your PDA, or your computer.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

in 622592 20070309 204357 "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...

Last night's programme was as biased and one-sided as all the pro-GW
programmes
which went before it.

How can presenting evidence be biased?
Especially the evidence that shows tempreture rises preceed the increase in
CO2.
Its the greens that use the same evidence to prove CO2 causes global warming
that are biased.

I'm not saying that last night's contributors have vested interests
but almost everyone decided years ago whether they were pro or anti and
have just
reinforced their own prejudices ever since. I've yet to meet someone who
has had
a real change of mind.
We need some *balanced* programmes with both sides represented.

It was balanced.. or maybe its only balanced if it supports your view?

Your definition of "balanced" appears to be quite different to mine !!

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

(Cue the standard "Yes you do", "No you don't" argument, which I shall
completely ignore.)

Yup, here we go... again...

If its a TV then by definition it is capable of receiving TV
transmissions so should be licensed.

If it has the receiver disabled in some way it is not a TV so doesn't
need a license.

Its pretty easy IMO.

You would have thought, and yet you just managed to get it wrong ;-)

As someone said gluing a panel over the aerial socket may be enough,
removing the tuner should be.

From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp#link1

"Q What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games
console? Do I still need a licence?

A You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one our
Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need
a licence."

No mention of disabling tuners or any other nonsense. You need a license
if you use equipment to receive broadcasts - that is all. In this age all
sorts of equipment is now capable of receiving TV, yet you would not
routinely buy a license for your mobile phone, your PDA, or your computer.


So what do you think he is going to check for when he visits you?

You don't (currently) need a license for IPTV, 3GTV as they are not
broadcast TV like the stuff you do need a license for so are totally
irrelevant.

You do need a license if you have a TVcard in you PC BTW unless you can
prove you don't use it (then why do you have it?).

Ed Sirett wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:26:22 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Bob Martin wrote:

We need some *balanced* programmes with both sides represented.
No, that is the last thing we need - you can't do real science on TV.
Getting the moronic masses to debate the subject (contrary to popular
opinion) is not science, nor will it help you reach a conclusion.


BTW where has "Horizon" gone, hasn't been any for months or have they
moved it to day time ?!




It's been replaced by "Celebrities in the Rain Forest"

dennis@home wrote

You do need a license if you have a TVcard in you PC BTW unless you can
prove you don't use it (then why do you have it?).

And shops which sell such PCs are required to make you fill out a card
with your name and address on -- just as if you'd bought a new telly
from Dixons or wherever.

--
-blj-

dennis@home wrote:

From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp#link1

"Q What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games
console? Do I still need a licence?

A You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one our
Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need
a licence."

No mention of disabling tuners or any other nonsense. You need a license
if you use equipment to receive broadcasts - that is all. In this age all
sorts of equipment is now capable of receiving TV, yet you would not
routinely buy a license for your mobile phone, your PDA, or your computer.


So what do you think he is going to check for when he visits you?

It would be up to TVL to prove that you are guilty, not for you to prove
you are innocent. You can quite legitimately invite an inspector in and
say here is a TV - it is not used for receiving broadcasts (or for that
matter tell them to go away).

You do need a license if you have a TVcard in you PC BTW unless you can
prove you don't use it (then why do you have it?).

Perhaps you bought a media PC and it came with it - that does not mean
it is connected to an aerial or for that matter used. Just because it is
there, does not require you to have a license. Please read the quote
from TVL I posted above - they will "confirm that you do not need a
license".


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Brian L Johnson writes:
dennis@home wrote

You do need a license if you have a TVcard in you PC BTW unless you can
prove you don't use it (then why do you have it?).

And shops which sell such PCs are required to make you fill out a card
with your name and address on -- just as if you'd bought a new telly
from Dixons or wherever.

They are required to pass your name and address to the licencing
authorities (up to £1000 fine each time they don't), but they
don't in my experience ask you for it that blatently -- usually
just take it from you under the guise of a warantee registration
or similar. Same is true of buying/renting a mobile phone which
can receive TV programs simultaneously with a live broadcast.
TV Licencing have been reminding phone shops of this legal
requirement over the past 18 months or so, and I vaguely recall
reading some have been landed with large fines for failing to
do so (I don't recall if this was for phones, but it was for
something which wasn't a traditional TV).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
Owain writes:
Ed Sirett wrote:
BTW where has "Horizon" gone, hasn't been any for months or have they
moved it to day time ?!

According to ITV news just now, old style light bulbs are to be "banned"
by the EU.

There have been none in this house for the last 7 years.

Austrialia has just passed a bill that outlaws them there in
the near future. California is close to doing the same.

An irony is that GE thinks it's close to producing filament
lamps with the same efficiency as CFL's. It's important
that any legislation is appropriately worded such that it's
low efficiency lamps which are banned, and not filament lamps
per se, as there's no reason a filament lamp with the same
efficiency as a CFL shouldn't be used -- indeed it would
quite likely be more environmentally friendly than a CFL.
The Austrialian legislation got this wrong apparently.
I'm sure we can rely on our government to do likewise...

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
John Rumm writes:
dennis@home wrote:

So what do you think he is going to check for when he visits you?

A friend of mine had a TV and VCR for many years, just to watch VCRs.
He got inspected roughly every ~3 years. The check was than neither
the TV or VCR tuner were tuned in to any channels, and that no aerial
was connected nor easily connectable on demand.

It would be up to TVL to prove that you are guilty, not for you to prove
you are innocent. You can quite legitimately invite an inspector in and
say here is a TV - it is not used for receiving broadcasts (or for that
matter tell them to go away).

They will prosecute you if they find it could have been used. When
you get to court, you will find it's actually up to you to prove you
didn't. Magistrates have heard all the excuses loads of times already,
and will always find you guilty. Go and sit through several cases (as
I have done), and your naive notion that they have to prove you are
guilty will be duely corrected.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

I missed the TV programme, and wondered if there is any web-site
summarising the programme, with references to the articles quoted?

Actually, my wife was watching the programme,
but I had decided it would be nonsense and was ignoring it.
However, I was surprised to find that some of the information
that seeped through to my brain seemed surprisingly well-stated.
Unfortunately, by the time I realised this
the programme was near its end.





--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
....
How is reducing the CO2 output of the third world going to be done?
They don't have the same industries, etc. that we have,

That is true. For example, we now have hardly any steel production left,
while China produces around a quarter of the world's steel.

....
and they don't have cars.

I'll remember that next time I try to cross the road in Cairo.

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:46:55 +0000, Owain
wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:
BTW where has "Horizon" gone, hasn't been any for months or have they
moved it to day time ?!

According to ITV news just now, old style light bulbs are to be "banned"
by the EU.

So my bedside lamp will be made obsolete, since it has narrow fluted
glass shades which won't accomodate anything wider than an SES candle
bulb.

I'll have to start stocking up with spares...

And I thought the function of the "EU" was to promote trade, rather
than banning things.

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:

And I thought the function of the "EU" was to promote trade, rather
than banning things.


Why do you feel the two are incompatible? The EU has surely promoted
the European shoe trade by banning many imports.

And you're going to buy a new lamp... surely costing more than the
couple of incandescent bulbs you'd have bought for it during the
rest of its life.

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
...
How is reducing the CO2 output of the third world going to be done?
They don't have the same industries, etc. that we have,

That is true. For example, we now have hardly any steel production left,
while China produces around a quarter of the world's steel.


What about the other 95% of the world?

...
and they don't have cars.

I'll remember that next time I try to cross the road in Cairo.

Colin Bignell

How many in the rest of Africa?
Its like looking at the traffic in London and concluding that its like that
on Dartmoor.

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...

And I thought the function of the "EU" was to promote trade, rather
than banning things.

Its there to ban anything the French don't need or make.

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:51:19 +0000, Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:46:55 +0000, Owain
wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:
BTW where has "Horizon" gone, hasn't been any for months or have they
moved it to day time ?!

According to ITV news just now, old style light bulbs are to be "banned"
by the EU.

So my bedside lamp will be made obsolete, since it has narrow fluted
glass shades which won't accomodate anything wider than an SES candle
bulb.

I'll have to start stocking up with spares...

And I thought the function of the "EU" was to promote trade, rather
than banning things.

Ah well...

This will create a market in filament bulbs as contraband. Factories
in China will produce them and trans-ship through countries on the
edge of the EU (the other edge) and aspiring members still won't be
able to join because of their policies on human rights and light
bulbs.

There will be inspections by HM Customs at sea ports and the Tunnel.
Initially small quantities will be allowed, but anything more
confiscated.

All of this will be able to be done by the EU which does things
because nothing in treaties says it can't and which in any case is
busy implementing most of the content of the European Constitution
anyway, so that in a few years time when it comes to a vote, there
will be little difference between the status quo and what is to be
voted about anyway.

To paraphrase the words of Brecht, they are dissolving the people and
electing another.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:51:19 +0000, Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:46:55 +0000, Owain
wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:
BTW where has "Horizon" gone, hasn't been any for months or have
they
moved it to day time ?!

According to ITV news just now, old style light bulbs are to be
"banned"
by the EU.

So my bedside lamp will be made obsolete, since it has narrow
fluted
glass shades which won't accomodate anything wider than an SES
candle
bulb.

I'll have to start stocking up with spares...

And I thought the function of the "EU" was to promote trade, rather
than banning things.

Ah well...

This will create a market in filament bulbs as contraband.
Factories
in China will produce them and trans-ship through countries on the
edge of the EU (the other edge) and aspiring members still won't be
able to join because of their policies on human rights and light
bulbs.

There will be inspections by HM Customs at sea ports and the Tunnel.
Initially small quantities will be allowed, but anything more
confiscated.

All of this will be able to be done by the EU which does things
because nothing in treaties says it can't and which in any case is
busy implementing most of the content of the European Constitution
anyway, so that in a few years time when it comes to a vote, there
will be little difference between the status quo and what is to be
voted about anyway.

To paraphrase the words of Brecht, they are dissolving the people
and
electing another.


--

.andy



....nah ! You will be able to buy them in France as they ignore all the
rules we obey, and in Holland as they have very liberal attitudes to
substances that we ban G

AWEM

In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
So my bedside lamp will be made obsolete, since it has narrow fluted
glass shades which won't accomodate anything wider than an SES candle
bulb.

I'll have to start stocking up with spares...

And I thought the function of the "EU" was to promote trade, rather
than banning things.

Well, yes. You'll have to buy a new bedside lamp.

--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

An irony is that GE thinks it's close to producing filament
lamps with the same efficiency as CFL's. It's important
that any legislation is appropriately worded such that it's
low efficiency lamps which are banned, and not filament lamps
per se, as there's no reason a filament lamp with the same
efficiency as a CFL shouldn't be used -- indeed it would
quite likely be more environmentally friendly than a CFL.
The Austrialian legislation got this wrong apparently.
I'm sure we can rely on our government to do likewise...

I am sure they have given serious thought (what is the emoticon for
irony?) to the environmental impact of landfilling all those dimmer
switches complete with power semiconductors, followed by the amount of
extra mercury that will follow from the CFLs, not to mention all the
light fittings that will change as a result of the new technology
alternatives not fitting or not producing adequate illumination.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm writes:

I am sure they have given serious thought (what is the emoticon for
irony?) to the environmental impact of landfilling all those dimmer
switches complete with power semiconductors, followed by the amount of
extra mercury that will follow from the CFLs

Burning extra fossel fuel to provide the extra energy used
by filament lamps over a CFL generates about 2.5 times as
much mercury polution as the mercury contained in an equivalent
CFL plus the reduced mercury from reduced fossel fuel burning.
CFL's are starting to appear with only 1/3rd of the mercury
content they've had up to now, which will make the CFL advantage
even larger in this respect.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
So my bedside lamp will be made obsolete, since it has narrow fluted
glass shades which won't accomodate anything wider than an SES candle
bulb.

I'll have to start stocking up with spares...

And I thought the function of the "EU" was to promote trade, rather
than banning things.

Well, yes. You'll have to buy a new bedside lamp.

....which will be made in China, and transported half way around
the world to get to you, using fuel transported from Russia or
Africa.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Owain wrote:

It will be interesting to see how well CFLs replace filament lamps in
vehicle headlights.

and projectors
and halogen hobs


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Timothy Murphy wrote:

I missed the TV programme, and wondered if there is any web-site
summarising the programme, with references to the articles quoted?

There is some of it he

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

although the program went into more detail on the solar activity front...

Actually, my wife was watching the programme,
but I had decided it would be nonsense and was ignoring it.
However, I was surprised to find that some of the information
that seeped through to my brain seemed surprisingly well-stated.
Unfortunately, by the time I realised this
the programme was near its end.

I only caught the last two thirds of it or so (which I have recorded).

Much of the argument (to me anyway) seemed more plausable than the "CO2
causes all ills" one that seems accepted as a "fact" by the GW
bandwagon. In particular the theories hold together without needing to
magic away the mediaeval warm period or mini ice age.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , Brian L
Johnson writes
dennis@home wrote

You do need a license if you have a TVcard in you PC BTW unless you can
prove you don't use it (then why do you have it?).

And shops which sell such PCs are required to make you fill out a card
with your name and address on -- just as if you'd bought a new telly
from Dixons or wherever.

And has one ever done that ?

not here


--
geoff

In message , Timothy Murphy
writes
I missed the TV programme, and wondered if there is any web-site
summarising the programme, with references to the articles quoted?

Actually, my wife was watching the programme,
but I had decided it would be nonsense and was ignoring it.
However, I was surprised to find that some of the information
that seeped through to my brain seemed surprisingly well-stated.
Unfortunately, by the time I realised this
the programme was near its end.

It's repeated on More4 on Monday and prolly on a regular basis following
that


--
geoff

raden wrote:

It's repeated on More4 on Monday and prolly on a regular basis following
that

Twas hoping it might be...

I left Toppy with a control timer running to grab it if it came on again ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , nightjar
writes

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
...
How is reducing the CO2 output of the third world going to be done?
They don't have the same industries, etc. that we have,

That is true. For example, we now have hardly any steel production left,
while China produces around a quarter of the world's steel.

...
and they don't have cars.

I'll remember that next time I try to cross the road in Cairo.

From my experience that's not a problem - they just sit there and don't
move

I remember an Egyptian getting very annoyed at my taking pictures of a
traffic jam - it wasn't the sort of image I should be taking. What did
he expect me to take - a photo of the decomposing corpse of a horse
which had pegged out down the road ?

--
geoff

In message , "dennis@home"
writes

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
...
How is reducing the CO2 output of the third world going to be done?
They don't have the same industries, etc. that we have,

That is true. For example, we now have hardly any steel production left,
while China produces around a quarter of the world's steel.


What about the other 95% of the world?

...
and they don't have cars.

I'll remember that next time I try to cross the road in Cairo.

Colin Bignell

How many in the rest of Africa?
Its like looking at the traffic in London and concluding that its like that
on Dartmoor.

Ignoring Africa - not my geographical area of expertise

Take any city on the Indian subcontinent or S E Asia

.... gridlocked on a regular basis

Dennis, I think you need to get out more (and car drivers out less)
--
geoff

raden wrote

In message , Brian L
Johnson writes
dennis@home wrote

You do need a license if you have a TVcard in you PC BTW unless you can
prove you don't use it (then why do you have it?).

And shops which sell such PCs are required to make you fill out a card
with your name and address on -- just as if you'd bought a new telly
from Dixons or wherever.

And has one ever done that ?

not here

Well, I haven't bought a new telly in years, but when I bought a PC plus
TV card at Aldi's back in 2001, they made me fill out a card w/ my
details on it.

And when I was in John Lewis's about a year ago buying a personal CD
player for my mum, I was at the counter with a bloke who was filling out
name address etc for a plasma screen he'd just bought, and...

So, yes, they do do that.

--
-blj-

On 10 Mar 2007 14:18:07 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2007-03-10, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Brian L Johnson writes:
dennis@home wrote

You do need a license if you have a TVcard in you PC BTW unless you can
prove you don't use it (then why do you have it?).

And shops which sell such PCs are required to make you fill out a card
with your name and address on -- just as if you'd bought a new telly
from Dixons or wherever.

They are required to pass your name and address to the licencing
authorities (up to £1000 fine each time they don't), but they
don't in my experience ask you for it that blatently -- usually
just take it from you under the guise of a warantee registration
or similar.

Bought a TV last week. No-one asked for anything, other than my credit
card.

The requirement for a dealer to notify the licensing people was under
the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967.
This Act, together with the 1949 Act, has been replaced by the
Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006.
AFAICS, there doesn't appear to be any reference to this notification
in the 2006 Act.

ICBWT...

--
Frank Erskine

In message , John
Rumm writes
raden wrote:

It's repeated on More4 on Monday and prolly on a regular basis
following that

Twas hoping it might be...

I left Toppy with a control timer running to grab it if it came on again ;-)

Of course, I have a copy on DVD, along with greenwash ...

--
geoff

In article ,
John Rumm writes:
Owain wrote:

It will be interesting to see how well CFLs replace filament lamps in
vehicle headlights.

and projectors

Both applications have already been taken over by HID lamps.
The same is likely to happen with spot lamps in the home
(already pretty much completed in commercial premises).
Integral ballasted metal halide retrofit lamps are being
manufactured and sold in some countries now, but haven't
found their way into UK retailers yet AFAIK.

and halogen hobs

Well, the purpose of that isn't for lighting.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Mawson wrote:
(Highly relevant to anti 4x4 lobby !!!)

Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming. It
seems that there is very strong evidence that although CO2 levels
historically have been high when the earth warms up, the level of CO2
LAGS the temperature rise so isn't the cause, but a symptom. However
there is historically excellent evidence that earth temperature
follows sun activity. The stronger the sun activity the stronger it's
magnetic field, and the more cosmic rays are deflected away from
earth. Apparently the cosmic rays entering a water laden atmosphere
form clouds which reflect the sun, so when the cosmic rays are at a
low, so is the cloud cover and up the temperature goes. After a
considerable lag the ocean temperature rises a bit, and as CO2 is less
soluble in warm water than cold water, more is released into the
atmosphere. Apparently the volume of CO2 dissolved in the oceans and
naturally being released is orders of magnitude greater than anything
man is releasing. Small changes in sea temperature alter the balance.

AWEM



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...031455,00.html

"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
...
Andrew Mawson wrote:
(Highly relevant to anti 4x4 lobby !!!)

Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming.
It
seems that there is very strong evidence that although CO2 levels
historically have been high when the earth warms up, the level of
CO2
LAGS the temperature rise so isn't the cause, but a symptom.
However
there is historically excellent evidence that earth temperature
follows sun activity. The stronger the sun activity the stronger
it's
magnetic field, and the more cosmic rays are deflected away from
earth. Apparently the cosmic rays entering a water laden
atmosphere
form clouds which reflect the sun, so when the cosmic rays are at
a
low, so is the cloud cover and up the temperature goes. After a
considerable lag the ocean temperature rises a bit, and as CO2 is
less
soluble in warm water than cold water, more is released into the
atmosphere. Apparently the volume of CO2 dissolved in the oceans
and
naturally being released is orders of magnitude greater than
anything
man is releasing. Small changes in sea temperature alter the
balance.

AWEM



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...031455,00.html

That's interesting. He seemed to volunteer all he said at the time
freely, and the various bits didn't seem overly cut and pasted. I
wonder what he now wants to retract and why ? Sinister isn't it !

AWEM

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:52:43 -0000, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...031455,00.html

That's interesting. He seemed to volunteer all he said at the time
freely, and the various bits didn't seem overly cut and pasted. I
wonder what he now wants to retract and why ? Sinister isn't it !

AWEM



He has probably been leant upon by whoever provides his funding....



--

..andy

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 09:20:14 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:52:43 -0000, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...031455,00.html

That's interesting. He seemed to volunteer all he said at the time
freely, and the various bits didn't seem overly cut and pasted. I
wonder what he now wants to retract and why ? Sinister isn't it !

AWEM


He has probably been leant upon by whoever provides his funding....

Picked this off alt.comsumers.
As a retired scientist and having seen the programme.
It's all true, but against the flow (until temperatures begin to fall)
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
http://www.jimscott.co.uk

Sorry missed out the quote:

http://entertainment.iafrica.com/tel...ion/671607.htm

TASHI'S TV
'The Great Global Warming Swindle'
Tashi Tagg
Fri, 09 Mar 2007

A juicy new documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle has
just been broadcast (on 8 March, 2007) on the UK's Channel 4.

Based on the thesis presented in the book The Chilling Star by Danish
scientist Henrik Svensmark, the documentary claims that humans have
absolutely no control over Global Warming and that all the hype about
it is simply propoganda inspired by the huge amounts of money given to
what's become a popular cause.

I caught an interview with one of the scientists involved with it on
CNN on Thursday night and everything he had to say made total sense.
The argument the scientists are making is that the sun impacts on
clouds and clouds impact on how the suns rays get distributed, which
results in changes to the earths temperature.

They're saying that carbon dioxide omissions have a miniscule, if any,
impact on this process and that it's proven by the fact that most
Global Warming took place prior to 1940 - before people started pumping
out CO2 gasses.

The mouldy oldy Einstein dude being interviewed (I can't remember his
name) said that huge amunts of information gets kept from the public
about what's actually happening with the earth and used Antarctica as
an example.

He referred to all the media reports about the icecaps melting and the
pictures they show etc and said that these are simply around the edges
of Antarctica and that at it's core it's actually getting colder. He
also said that something we're never told is that the earth's global
temperature has remained constant for the past five years.

When asked why we'd be misled like this he said that the scientific
studies into the impact of CO2 gasses on the climate started in the
1980's and had tons of cash injected into it.

For such an investigation to get more money they obviously need to make
dramatic discoveries to justify why more cash needs to spent on further
studies and action, so the more hype and fuss they could make about
people's responsibility, the more cash everyone's been prepared to
spend.

To me it really sounds like it's the truth. In a climate that's so
socially aware with people so keen to show how much they care while
blaming everyone for everything it makes sense that tons of cash can be
made by appealing to people's sense of guilt.

Also, he mentioned that scientists who didn't support the theory were
constantly at threat of having their funding pulled. That's the way
money operates all the time so it gives the argument further
credibility.

The trouble is - will anyone want to back down on madly Going Green now
that everyone's made such a big deal about it? As we speak there's some
big summit about Global Warning featuring all the worlds leaders
discussing solutions and looking special. I just don't see them
suffering the embarassment of suddenly saying that it's all been a scam
and that we're simply at the earth's mercy.

On the other hand they can't just ignore it and carry on wasting
people's taxes. Apparently the documentary also looks at the impact the
whole trend has on poorer nations who are being told to spend money and
do stuff that's hindering them instead of helping.

Let's hope we get to see the show soooon. It's sounds like a very
plausible theory don't you think?



--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
http://www.jimscott.co.uk