(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

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:55:27 UTC, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:

(Highly relevant to anti 4x4 lobby !!!)

Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming.

I expect a long rebuttal from Mr Hansen soon. His masters won't have
approved tonight.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

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.


Very good program, and about bloody time.

--
Grunff
http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental

Grunff wrote:
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.


Very good program, and about bloody time.


Not a mention of it on the BBC this morning, which is surprising. Well,
no, it isn't surprising at all.

Stuart Noble wrote:

Not a mention of it on the BBC this morning, which is surprising. Well,
no, it isn't surprising at all.

Indeed, we were talking about this during the program. Why is it that
the BBC are incapable of producing original, cutting-edge documentaries?
And how can I opt out of paying my license fee to this extremely biased
behemoth?


--
Grunff
http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:31:30 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Why is it that the BBC are incapable of producing original, cutting-edge documentaries?
And how can I opt out of paying my license fee to this extremely biased
behemoth?

Get rid of your TV set and you won't need a licence.

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:31:30 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Why is it that the BBC are incapable of producing original, cutting-edge documentaries?
And how can I opt out of paying my license fee to this extremely biased
behemoth?

Get rid of your TV set and you won't need a licence.


Even if I wanted to totally do away with watching TV (which I could
quite easily), I still like watching DVDs and playing games.


--
Grunff
http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental

"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message
...
(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.

That has been argued for some time. It has also recently been reported that
Mars appears to be suffering global warming - must be those all-wheel drive
exploration vehicles to blame.

Colin Bignell

in 622366 20070309 005911 "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote:
"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message
...
(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.

That has been argued for some time. It has also recently been reported that
Mars appears to be suffering global warming - must be those all-wheel drive
exploration vehicles to blame.

So, the antis were right all along and can now go back to destroying the Earth's
atmosphere with a clear conscience?
Last night's programme was as biased and one-sided as all the pro-GW programmes
which went before it. 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.

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.


--
Grunff
http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental

in 622388 20070309 082622 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.

I'm not suggesting that the masses debate it - I want to see pro and anti scientists
putting their views to each other face-to-face. Some of the more ridiculous claims
- on both sides - would be exposed for what they are.
What else are documentaries for?

Bob Martin wrote:

What else are documentaries for?

The sole purpose of a documentary is to influence the opinions of those
watching it, pushing the consensus in one direction or the other.


--
Grunff
http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental

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 ?!



--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards

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"

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 622366 20070309 005911 "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname
here.uk.com wrote:
"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message
.. .
(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.

That has been argued for some time. It has also recently been reported
that
Mars appears to be suffering global warming - must be those all-wheel
drive
exploration vehicles to blame.

So, the antis were right all along and can now go back to destroying the
Earth's
atmosphere with a clear conscience?

You mean doing things like eating? The IPCC report rated agriculture as the
predominant source of methane and nitrous oxide and a significant source of
CO2.

They are not even sure that human intevention has anything to do with the
changes, which the data from Mars suggests would happen anyway. The IPCC
assessment of human intervention being responsible for various climate
changes ranges from 'likely' - warmer and fewer cold days and nights over
land / warmer and more frequent hot nights over land - to, for most, 'more
likely than not', which means there is a high level of uncertainty.

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

I have not decided on the subject, but I have yet to see anything to
convince me that changing the way we live, particularly in Britain, is going
to make any difference. 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.

We need some *balanced* programmes with both sides represented.

The IPCC report is about as balanced a view as you can get. Chapters 2 and 3
should make interesting reading when they are published.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
nightjar nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote:
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.

Have you figures which proved we've reduced our CO2 output over the past
decades? Apart from the change from coal to gas for electricity
generation I'd thought the talk of doing so translated mainly into hot
air. And, of course, we source most of our manufactured goods and
foodstuffs from abroad. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to 'expect' those
countries to to reduce their CO2 outputs while we effectly also try to
control the prices we pay for their goods?

--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
nightjar nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote:
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.

Have you figures which proved we've reduced our CO2 output over the past
decades? Apart from the change from coal to gas for electricity
generation I'd thought the talk of doing so translated mainly into hot
air. And, of course, we source most of our manufactured goods and
foodstuffs from abroad. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to 'expect' those
countries to to reduce their CO2 outputs while we effectly also try to
control the prices we pay for their goods?


The most interesting thing for me was that London has regularly frozen
solid, and yet been able to produce wine, all within recorded history.
Perhaps concentrating on something the scientists can't argue about
might be more fruitful

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
nightjar nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote:
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.

Have you figures which proved we've reduced our CO2 output over the past
decades?

I was referring to the difference between what we produce and what we would
be producing if we were still using Third World technologies.

... of course, we source most of our manufactured goods and
foodstuffs from abroad. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to 'expect' those
countries to to reduce their CO2 outputs while we effectly also try to
control the prices we pay for their goods?

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.

Colin Bignell

On Mar 9, 9:00 am, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname
here.uk.com wrote:

The IPCC report is about as balanced a view as you can get. Chapters 2 and 3
should make interesting reading when they are published.

There'll never be a balanced view until such time as the consensus is
that the world won't boil next week after all. Arguing against GW is
as futile as arguing before 01/01/2000 that the risks of Y2K were
grossly overstated. The "debate", such as it is, is entirely one-
sided.

Will this be an IPCC report with any contrary views excised after
"comments from governments and various organisations", as hinted on
last night's programme ?

Whatever, I found it an interesting documentary. The observed
correlation between solar activity and global average temperature was
striking, especially over the timescales involved. Since all the
surface conditions on this planet are directly associated with the
interaction between its atmosphere and solar radiation, this should
hardly be surprising, but it was.

I was a little less happy with the suggestion of an 800-year lag in
their claimed correlation between CO2 and temperature - no-one seemed
to suggest which event in the middle ages might link to what we can
observe now - but it did see to me that previous cycles of high
temperature and high CO2 does rather weaken the argument that somehow
we might be entering a "runaway" phase. The evidence from long-term
trends was that increasing CO2 didn't apparently cause any
acceleration in the warming phase. I can't follow the argument at all
that says that we shouldn't tinker around with CO2 levels because we
don't know how sensitive the "system" might be. Human contributions
to CO2 are small and if the system was sensitively balanced then you
would have to argue that the remaining 90%+ was somehow naturally
invariant, and once you have added in the much much larger "greenhouse
gas" effect of water vapour, this doesn't hold much weight really.

A risk might be that we have managed to remove a moderating factor,
and the loss of vegetation over the tropical regions is certainly of
concern, not to say wasteful, but the chances are that the primary
moderator of temperature and water vapour concentration and CO2 is the
world's oceans.

There's an awful lot of junk science in the global warming debate. An
awful lot.

--
"On a scale of 1 to 10, 4 is about 7."

John Laird wrote:
On Mar 9, 9:00 am, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname
here.uk.com wrote:

The IPCC report is about as balanced a view as you can get. Chapters 2 and 3
should make interesting reading when they are published.

There'll never be a balanced view until such time as the consensus is
that the world won't boil next week after all. Arguing against GW is
as futile as arguing before 01/01/2000 that the risks of Y2K were
grossly overstated. The "debate", such as it is, is entirely one-
sided.

Will this be an IPCC report with any contrary views excised after
"comments from governments and various organisations", as hinted on
last night's programme ?

Whatever, I found it an interesting documentary. The observed
correlation between solar activity and global average temperature was
striking, especially over the timescales involved. Since all the
surface conditions on this planet are directly associated with the
interaction between its atmosphere and solar radiation, this should
hardly be surprising, but it was.

I was a little less happy with the suggestion of an 800-year lag in
their claimed correlation between CO2 and temperature - no-one seemed
to suggest which event in the middle ages might link to what we can
observe now - but it did see to me that previous cycles of high
temperature and high CO2 does rather weaken the argument that somehow
we might be entering a "runaway" phase. The evidence from long-term
trends was that increasing CO2 didn't apparently cause any
acceleration in the warming phase. I can't follow the argument at all
that says that we shouldn't tinker around with CO2 levels because we
don't know how sensitive the "system" might be. Human contributions
to CO2 are small and if the system was sensitively balanced then you
would have to argue that the remaining 90%+ was somehow naturally
invariant, and once you have added in the much much larger "greenhouse
gas" effect of water vapour, this doesn't hold much weight really.

A risk might be that we have managed to remove a moderating factor,
and the loss of vegetation over the tropical regions is certainly of
concern, not to say wasteful, but the chances are that the primary
moderator of temperature and water vapour concentration and CO2 is the
world's oceans.

There's an awful lot of junk science in the global warming debate. An
awful lot.

--
"On a scale of 1 to 10, 4 is about 7."


A lot seems to hinge on whether the Medieval Warm Period was global or a
local blip.
There's also a lot of disagreement about how much CO2 volcanoes
contribute. One would have thought they could at least agree on that

"John Laird" wrote in message
ups.com...
....
Will this be an IPCC report with any contrary views excised after
"comments from governments and various organisations", as hinted on
last night's programme ?

There does not seem to be any significant difference between the
consultation documents and the final published version. There are much
greater variations between what the report actually says and what has been
reported it says.

... I can't follow the argument at all
that says that we shouldn't tinker around with CO2 levels because we
don't know how sensitive the "system" might be. Human contributions
to CO2 are small and if the system was sensitively balanced then you
would have to argue that the remaining 90%+ was somehow naturally
invariant, and once you have added in the much much larger "greenhouse
gas" effect of water vapour, this doesn't hold much weight really....

One physicist from the Cavendish laboratories has suggested that CO2 is
irrelevant, as only 15% of the current atmospheric level should absorb 100%
of the energy available at the relevant infra red wavelengths. Water vapour
does have him worried though.

Colin Bignell

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

The IPCC report is about as balanced a view as you can get.

As I understood it the program maintained that the IPCC report's authors
had suppressed contrary views.

Another Dave

--
change nospam to f2s in e-mail

"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.

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.

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.

"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

I've yet to meet someone who has had
a real change of mind.
We need some *balanced* programmes with both sides represented.

Patrick Moore (the one on the programme) changed his mind.

"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?

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 !!

The message
from "dennis@home" contains these words:

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.

The theory of global warming stands or falls by the effect of CO2 in the
atmosphere, not by the source of the CO2. That the CO2 released by the
oceans lags the increased radiation from the Sun is only to be expected.
It says nothing at all about the other sources of CO2 or about the
effect of CO2 on global temperature.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...


The theory of global warming stands or falls by the effect of CO2 in the
atmosphere, not by the source of the CO2. That the CO2 released by the
oceans lags the increased radiation from the Sun is only to be expected.

No it doesn't stand or fall based on CO2.
It is accepted that CO2 isn't a particularly powerful greenhouse gas..
but it is the only one *we* can control.
Just how much control we have is the real question.

It says nothing at all about the other sources of CO2 or about the
effect of CO2 on global temperature.

If it says nothing about the effect of CO2 on global temperature.. why all
the fuss?

Global warming is a good thing the hotter the better - bring it on.


"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message
...
(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

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:55:27 +0000, Andrew Mawson wrote:

Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming.
...

Surely the point is not whether human activities are causing the change[1]
but whether
(a) the change is threatening our existence on this planet
(b) we can do anything about it.

Nobody would say a possible asteroid collision was 'our fault' but
everyone[2] would agree we should try to avert it.

We've got to the technological stage now where a small proportion of
residents of this planet are fairly well protected against the
effects of natural disasters which have been our lot since the year dot.
We could be aiming to do that on a global - indeed extra-global level (and
maybe even aiming to protect 100% of the population). Or we could sit
around squabbling while it all happens.

Perhaps it's time for a B-Ark :-)


[1] typical lawyer/politician knee-jerk response: "who's to blame?"

[2] with the possible exception of some religious nutters who'd say it
was the Sky Fairy's will and we should sit back and take it up the botty.

John Stumbles wrote:

Perhaps it's time for a B-Ark :-)



A good idea, but I've always felt the A-Ark should have gone first.

'Great leaders'?. And, after last night, 'scientists'?

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:28:31 +0000, Joe wrote:

A good idea, but I've always felt the A-Ark should have gone first.

'Great leaders'?. And, after last night, 'scientists'?

Which one were the TV documentary makers in?

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

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 09:26:00 GMT, Jim S wrote:

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)


Quite.

If one simply enters "carl wunsch" as search terms in Google, there
are a slew of articles in publications ranging from the Economist to
the Royal Society where he has said essentially the same things, so it
isn't as though what he said in the C4 program was new for him.

Then one asks the obvious question of surely he saw the program before
it went out.

Now he is complaining *after* it went out, one can only assume that he
has been leaned on in some way or decided that he doesn't want to be
marginalised.

It's disappointing, but I suppose not surprising when science becomes
so heavily influenced by populism rather than its core business.



--

..andy

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