The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Bill

Is that so?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7374722.stm

Dunno why you go to these drivel sites for information.

The problem here is ground water extraction.

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:56:25 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com

Such a credible, independent and unbiased source, Bill... I congratulate
you.

/sarcasm

Mostly its them being lazy and dumbing down cos they are um, dumb
themselves. I don't think one can read any more into it than laziness. I
blame the moon.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Bill

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:56:25 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Never believe anything you read in blogs.

(x-post to uk.tech.digital-tv removed))

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Bill

Look Bill it has got warmer, sea level is rising and there have been an
unusual number of extreme weather events.

Only today the BBC announced that the RS and is US equivalent have said
there is global warming: -

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/e...ing.1393483880

but obviously this fails to take into account that your view that the earth
is flat and the sun goes around it...

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:56:25 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming.

Bill, they didn't dream the story up. Did you check their sources
first?


But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Bill

Why is it Bill? Why should the website's sources you quote be more
accurate than the BBC's sources?

This is a quote from the BBC website showing where their monitoring
service found the info..

"As many as 1,500 of Indonesia's islands could be under water by 2050
because of rising sea levels, it's been reported.

In the capital city, Jakarta, the main international Soekarno-Hatta
Airport could be below sea level as soon as 2030, with outlying
districts turned into lakes, says Singapore's Straits Times, quoting a
report from Maplecroft's Climate Change Vulnerability Index."

http://www.straitstimes.com/

http://maplecroft.com/themes/cc/
--
Pete

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:36:42 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Bill

Is that so?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7374722.stm

The BBC is not a scientific research organisation. It was simply
reporting something that had already appeared in The Straits Times of
Singapore which in turn was drawing on information from the Climate
Change and Environmental Risk Atlas 2014 by Maplecroft Global Risk
Analytics and other sources. The BBC report didn't express any opinion
on this material:

http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-...-2050-20140225

http://maplecroft.com/themes/cc/

Dunno why you go to these drivel sites for information.

The problem here is ground water extraction.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:56:25 +0000, Bill
wrote:

The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming.

Bill, they didn't dream the story up. Did you check their sources
first?


But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Bill

Why is it Bill? Why should the website's sources you quote be more
accurate than the BBC's sources?

This is a quote from the BBC website showing where their monitoring
service found the info..

"As many as 1,500 of Indonesia's islands could be under water by 2050
because of rising sea levels, it's been reported.

In the capital city, Jakarta, the main international Soekarno-Hatta
Airport could be below sea level as soon as 2030, with outlying
districts turned into lakes, says Singapore's Straits Times, quoting a
report from Maplecroft's Climate Change Vulnerability Index."

http://www.straitstimes.com/

http://maplecroft.com/themes/cc/

Parts of London could be under water next week then? When weather
forecasters get 50% of their forecasts correct, we might have some
belief. Until then, it's a guess system. I too can forecast the weather
future, if I make enough statements some of them may even be correct.

Maplecroft make their living by persuading people to believe that they
are the true prophets. There's very little back up proof of their
infallibility that I can see.

On 27/02/2014 05:56, Bill Wright wrote:
The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

If it were true, this would mean that the BBC is following the official
government line on climate change. As the government is not left wing,
how does that sit with your claim for a left wing bias in the BBC?

Colin Bignell

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:56:41 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...6/dont-expect-
the-truth-from-the-bbc/

If it were true, this would mean that the BBC is following the official
government line on climate change. As the government is not left wing,
how does that sit with your claim for a left wing bias in the BBC?

The government IS left-wing from Bill's perspective.

Nightjar wrote:
On 27/02/2014 05:56, Bill Wright wrote:
The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/


If it were true, this would mean that the BBC is following the official
government line on climate change. As the government is not left wing,
how does that sit with your claim for a left wing bias in the BBC?

Colin Bignell

It's the official liblabcon policy. hence it's the BBC policy. Like HS2!

On 27/02/2014 12:47, Tim Streater wrote:

http://www.straitstimes.com/

http://maplecroft.com/themes/cc/

What kind of rubbish report is this? "Could be under water". I mean
really. Look, I can predict anything except the future, OK?

This "could be" stuff is from the "our meals in 2000 could consist just
of pills" sort of twaddle you'd read in the Daily Tosspot back in the
70s.

I can recall being off school because 6 inches of snow had fallen
three days in a row, back in the 70s, the BBC's Nationwide programme
was banging on about us being on the verge of another ice age.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:19:11 +0000, Capitol
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:56:25 +0000, Bill
wrote:

The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming.

Bill, they didn't dream the story up. Did you check their sources
first?


But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Bill

Why is it Bill? Why should the website's sources you quote be more
accurate than the BBC's sources?

This is a quote from the BBC website showing where their monitoring
service found the info..

"As many as 1,500 of Indonesia's islands could be under water by 2050
because of rising sea levels, it's been reported.

In the capital city, Jakarta, the main international Soekarno-Hatta
Airport could be below sea level as soon as 2030, with outlying
districts turned into lakes, says Singapore's Straits Times, quoting a
report from Maplecroft's Climate Change Vulnerability Index."

http://www.straitstimes.com/

http://maplecroft.com/themes/cc/

Parts of London could be under water next week then? When weather
forecasters get 50% of their forecasts correct, we might have some
belief. Until then, it's a guess system. I too can forecast the weather
future, if I make enough statements some of them may even be correct.

OK, you can always try this website http://flood.firetree.net/

No idea how accurate it is but according to their maps a 40 metre rise
bring the water within 50 metres of our house g

Maplecroft make their living by persuading people to believe that they
are the true prophets. There's very little back up proof of their
infallibility that I can see.

Can't comment, never heard of them until Bill started this current
thread.

FWIW IF, I say IF awards mean anything the they are a
well thought of company in sector.

http://maplecroft.com/about/awards
--
Pete

On 27/02/2014 14:53, Martin wrote:

I can recall being off school because 6 inches of snow had fallen
three days in a row, back in the 70s, the BBC's Nationwide programme
was banging on about us being on the verge of another ice age.

You are too young to recall 1963?

Half of me started that year as a sperm.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message ...

The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Bill



It's all absolute bull****, the daily activity seven billion humans has
absolutely zero bearing on global environmental conditions whatsoever.

"Chinese scientists have warned that the country's toxic air pollution is
now so bad that it resembles a nuclear winter, slowing photosynthesis in
plants and potentially wreaking havoc on the country's food supply."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ter-scientists

On Thursday, 27 February 2014 15:05:55 UTC, Mark Carver wrote:
On 27/02/2014 14:53, Martin wrote:



I can recall being off school because 6 inches of snow had fallen

three days in a row, back in the 70s, the BBC's Nationwide programme

was banging on about us being on the verge of another ice age.



You are too young to recall 1963?



Half of me started that year as a sperm.

Which half ?

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:33:05 +0000, Mark Carver

wrote:

On 27/02/2014 12:47, Tim Streater wrote:

http://www.straitstimes.com/

http://maplecroft.com/themes/cc/

What kind of rubbish report is this? "Could be under water". I mean
really. Look, I can predict anything except the future, OK?

This "could be" stuff is from the "our meals in 2000 could consist just
of pills" sort of twaddle you'd read in the Daily Tosspot back in the
70s.

I can recall being off school because 6 inches of snow had fallen
three days in a row, back in the 70s, the BBC's Nationwide programme
was banging on about us being on the verge of another ice age.

You are too young to recall 1963?

I remember 1963.
We wenr to school.
No-one would dream of not going then.

Maybe they just pee a lot more over there..
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Bill

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:00:42 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
The BBC tell us that rising sea levels in Indonesia are due to global
warming. But it's all lies. Here's the proof.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordp...-from-the-bbc/

Bill

Look Bill it has got warmer, sea level is rising and there have been an
unusual number of extreme weather events.

Only today the BBC announced that the RS and is US equivalent have said
there is global warming: -

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/e...ing.1393483880

but obviously this fails to take into account that your view that the
earth
is flat and the sun goes around it...


a) The article is about climate change. The climate has always changed.

b) "On the other hand, there is much less certainty about the extent to
which
sea levels are likely to rise, and what effect increasing acidity of the
oceans
will have on marine life."

Billions have been spent, because of exaggerated forecasts of the rise in
sea
levels.

Billions have been lost because the water came over (New Orleans, New York
etc.)

--

Martin in Zuid Holland

No risk from rising sea levels in your country is there?

On 28/02/2014 15:08, Martin wrote:

Zero, but billions wasted through believing original predictions of increase in
sea levels.

That will be why they are operating the Thames barrier much more frequently
now than predicted then.

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On 01/03/2014 13:34, David Kennedy wrote:
On 28/02/2014 15:08, Martin wrote:

Zero, but billions wasted through believing original predictions of
increase in
sea levels.

That will be why they are operating the Thames barrier much more
frequently now than predicted then.


That will be because they didn't have weather records that were accurate
for very far into the past.
Some of the records are only about 20 years so when they state "since
records began" you need to ask when they began and does it really mean
that it was a freak event or just one they don't have prior records for.
They just got it wrong through lack of data.


The recent floods for instance occurred after a period of wetness that
was the wettest since 1910 (Met office claim) later after more rain
since records began).
So anyone that links the recent floods to GW will have to explain why it
was that wet in 1910 when there was little or no GW.

On 01/03/14 16:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/03/2014 13:34, David Kennedy wrote:
On 28/02/2014 15:08, Martin wrote:

Zero, but billions wasted through believing original predictions of
increase in
sea levels.

That will be why they are operating the Thames barrier much more
frequently now than predicted then.


That will be because they didn't have weather records that were accurate
for very far into the past.
Some of the records are only about 20 years so when they state "since
records began" you need to ask when they began and does it really mean
that it was a freak event or just one they don't have prior records for.
They just got it wrong through lack of data.


The Thames barrier was initially built to resist a 1953 style storm
surge. Since then the sea level has risen by 4 inches at most.

Of course silting will have been at a far higher level than that.



The recent floods for instance occurred after a period of wetness that
was the wettest since 1910 (Met office claim) later after more rain
since records began).

Depends on whose records. IIRC we had weather like this in 1810 or
thereabouts :-)

So anyone that links the recent floods to GW will have to explain why it
was that wet in 1910 when there was little or no GW.


Well of course, its **** all to do with non-existent GW and a hell of a
lot to do with not dredging, building on flood plains and general lack
of attention to drainage of existing river basins.

And that places the blame squarely on the environment agency which has
for many years told the relevant river authorities that rivers are to be
left to nature, and not to dredgers.

And that directive of course ultimately comes from Brussels.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 01/03/2014 16:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/03/2014 13:34, David Kennedy wrote:
On 28/02/2014 15:08, Martin wrote:

Zero, but billions wasted through believing original predictions of
increase in
sea levels.

That will be why they are operating the Thames barrier much more
frequently now than predicted then.


That will be because they didn't have weather records that were accurate
for very far into the past.
Some of the records are only about 20 years so when they state "since
records began" you need to ask when they began and does it really mean
that it was a freak event or just one they don't have prior records for.
They just got it wrong through lack of data.


Not helped by the need to build sea walls ever higher because people
have built on the land previously flooded during tidal surges. Funnel
more water up towards London and the water level will get higher.

The water you stop flowing in its traditional way has to go somewhere
else.


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 27/02/2014 12:19, Capitol wrote:
When weather
forecasters get 50% of their forecasts correct, we might have some
belief. Until then, it's a guess system. I too can forecast the weather
future, if I make enough statements some of them may even be correct.

If you state tomorrows weather will be the same as todays weather then
you are likely to be greater than 50% correct.

Add a look at satellite photo animations and you could get a success
rate above 75%.

Most weather forecasts in the UK spend more time telling you what has
happen rather than what is going to happen.


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

"alan" wrote in message ...

On 01/03/2014 16:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/03/2014 13:34, David Kennedy wrote:
On 28/02/2014 15:08, Martin wrote:

Zero, but billions wasted through believing original predictions of
increase in
sea levels.

That will be why they are operating the Thames barrier much more
frequently now than predicted then.


That will be because they didn't have weather records that were accurate
for very far into the past.
Some of the records are only about 20 years so when they state "since
records began" you need to ask when they began and does it really mean
that it was a freak event or just one they don't have prior records for.
They just got it wrong through lack of data.


Not helped by the need to build sea walls ever higher because people
have built on the land previously flooded during tidal surges. Funnel
more water up towards London and the water level will get higher.

The water you stop flowing in its traditional way has to go somewhere
else.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, it doesn't go anywhere significantly different to where it used to
go

It's just that we now complain that it's "someone fault" for not doing their
job properly, when it does

tim




--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 01/03/2014 16:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/03/2014 13:34, David Kennedy wrote:
On 28/02/2014 15:08, Martin wrote:

Zero, but billions wasted through believing original predictions of
increase in
sea levels.

That will be why they are operating the Thames barrier much more
frequently now than predicted then.


That will be because they didn't have weather records that were accurate
for very far into the past.
Some of the records are only about 20 years so when they state "since
records began" you need to ask when they began and does it really mean
that it was a freak event or just one they don't have prior records for.
They just got it wrong through lack of data.


Not helped by the need to build sea walls ever higher because people have
built on the land previously flooded during tidal surges. Funnel more
water up towards London and the water level will get higher.

The water you stop flowing in its traditional way has to go somewhere
else.

This is true for precipitation which flows down rivers.

It is not true for coastal "storm surges" caused by gravity (tidal element)
and air pressure (wind element). The water will simple rise to a certain
height anywhere it can, but it won't be any higher than if you don't have
defences.



--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 02/03/2014 13:28, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
It is not true for coastal "storm surges" caused by gravity (tidal element)
and air pressure (wind element). The water will simple rise to a certain
height anywhere it can, but it won't be any higher than if you don't have
defences.

Not sure that's true in estuaries.

Look at the Severn; biggest range in the country because it's all
concentrated up the river. If it flooded over the neighbouring flat
lands (there aren't any incidentally) it wouldn't have half as much punch.

Andy

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 02/03/2014 13:28, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
It is not true for coastal "storm surges" caused by gravity (tidal
element)
and air pressure (wind element). The water will simple rise to a certain
height anywhere it can, but it won't be any higher than if you don't have
defences.

Not sure that's true in estuaries.

Look at the Severn; biggest range in the country because it's all
concentrated up the river. If it flooded over the neighbouring flat lands
(there aren't any incidentally) it wouldn't have half as much punch.

Andy

What drivel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldico...entloog_Levels
There are extensive flat lands on the South side too.
There has been very serious flooding here in the past with thousands killed.
The Severn bore occurs because of the shape of the estuary and the seabed.

On 03/03/2014 07:57, harryagain wrote:

What drivel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldico...entloog_Levels
There are extensive flat lands on the South side too.
There has been very serious flooding here in the past with thousands killed.
The Severn bore occurs because of the shape of the estuary and the seabed.


Harry,

read again what I said. OK, so there are flat lands nearby, that flood
in extreme cases. There's nothing there that interferes with the normal
flow.

Now if we do get that one-in-a-century surge, and it flows over the
levels you've mentioned won't that take out a little of the punch before
it hits upstream?

In any case, the size is trivial. About 100km^2, according to your link.
Draw a line from The Gower to Ilfracombe, and the area of the Bristol
Channel is about 2500km^2...

Andy.