Paul Weaver wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote:

ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over
the last however many millions of years, remains in territory already
seen in nature.

Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice
age, would you?

You do know "The Day After Tomorrow" wasn't meant as literal truth, right?
--
Al

[ aim: LGeezerAIM | jabber: | yahoo: LGeezer_YHO ]

Tony Day wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:39:21 +0100 someone who may be Annabel Smyth
wrote this:-

it is so not funny what has happened. Imagine Prescott
visiting, must make everything so much worse.....

Those who are busy doing things must curse some party politician
deciding to impose themself on the area in the interests of
furthering their political party.

I think you (and just about everybody else on here) are missing the
point. If Blair is out of the country (which I assume he is),
Prescott is acting head of state.

Ahem. Blair isn't head of state when he is in the country. Thank $DEITY.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:28:10 +0000, Al wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote:

ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over
the last however many millions of years, remains in territory already
seen in nature.

Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice
age, would you?

You do know "The Day After Tomorrow" wasn't meant as literal truth, right?

Err, yes, when have I ever given the impression it is? All I mentioned in
my post was that a high global temperature isn't necersarilly a bad thing
for me.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:34:55 +0100, "Tony Day"
wrote:



Whether such visits do any good may be arguable - the proof of the pudding
will be when we see what, if any, financial assistance Government makes
available to the local community to help rebuild. Hopefully his
understanding has been improved by the visit (which, incidentally, the local
lunchtime news described as "brief").

Interestingly, the Duke of Cornwall has been to Boscastle since
Prescott visited. The former *has* promised the local community
financial assistance.


--
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:48:29 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:00:37 +0100, Paul Weaver
wrote:


Of course there are explanations, things like volcanic eruptions, and
I'm much more worried about a couple of Krakatoa or Tambora sized
volcanos (or worse, a Yellowstone)

Our green anti growth chums would blame that on global warming too.

That is precisely the problem. While polution from tranposrt, cars,
busses, lorries, etc, is a problem (I hate their fumes, especially busses.
But then I hate cigarette fumes too, of coursehthe greenies wouldn't dream
of banning smoking and it's poisonous fumes), which can and will be
solved, the fundamental point is the greens are luddites. They moan about
fossil fuels, so we build nuclear reactors. They moan about nuclear, so we
build Wind and hydro. Now they are moaning about how hydro plants disrupt
the river, and wind disrupts the climate. Perhaps we'll build solar, which
of coruse means producing lots of poisonous solar panels. I wonder what
they'll say about the Heat Chimney proposed in Austrailia? I'm sure
they'll come up with something wrong with fusion if we ever produce it.
Failing anything scientific they'll just throw out some crap movies like
Spiderman Two that imply a fusion plant will turn into a black hole if
it's disrupted (rather then automatically shut down as fusion is not self
sustaining with a plant larger then jupiter).

Paul Weaver wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:28:10 +0000, Al wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote:

ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over
the last however many millions of years, remains in territory already
seen in nature.

Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice
age, would you?

You do know "The Day After Tomorrow" wasn't meant as literal truth,
right?

Err, yes, when have I ever given the impression it is?

Just above. Your question implies complete climate change well within a
lifetime, the central premise of the film. Not gonna happen.

All I mentioned in
my post was that a high global temperature isn't necersarilly a bad thing
for me.

Nor me -- I prefer high temperatures to low and would have no problem with
the UK experiencing a few degrees higher. So what if we lose some deciduous
trees? Palm trees make a picturesque replacement!
--
Al

[ aim: LGeezerAIM | jabber: | yahoo: LGeezer_YHO ]

In article , Paul Weaver
writes
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote:

ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over the
last however many millions of years, remains in territory already seen in
nature.

Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice
age, would you?

Thirty years ago, we were being promised one, which should have started
about four years ago.
--
Sue

http://www.gresley.org.uk/overhaul.htm - updated 7 July 2004
OO gauge models from Sir Nigel Gresley Loco Trust:-
http://www.gresley.org.uk/hbmodels.htm - latest update 25/05/04

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:48:29 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:00:37 +0100, Paul Weaver
wrote:


Of course there are explanations, things like volcanic eruptions, and
I'm much more worried about a couple of Krakatoa or Tambora sized
volcanos (or worse, a Yellowstone)

Our green anti growth chums would blame that on global warming too.

That is precisely the problem. While polution from tranposrt, cars,
busses, lorries, etc, is a problem (I hate their fumes, especially busses.
But then I hate cigarette fumes too, of coursehthe greenies wouldn't dream
of banning smoking and it's poisonous fumes), which can and will be
solved, the fundamental point is the greens are luddites. They moan about
fossil fuels, so we build nuclear reactors. They moan about nuclear, so we
build Wind and hydro. Now they are moaning about how hydro plants disrupt
the river, and wind disrupts the climate. Perhaps we'll build solar, which
of coruse means producing lots of poisonous solar panels. I wonder what
they'll say about the Heat Chimney proposed in Austrailia? I'm sure
they'll come up with something wrong with fusion if we ever produce it.
Failing anything scientific they'll just throw out some crap movies like
Spiderman Two that imply a fusion plant will turn into a black hole if
it's disrupted (rather then automatically shut down as fusion is not self
sustaining with a plant larger then jupiter).

What a stupid post!

John

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
Surely every sort of weather is blamed on global warming, whether hot,
cold, wet, dry or anything in between? I'm told that in the USA, all
weather is blamed on El Nino or La Nina - here, of course, those
particular phenomena are also blamed on global warming!

There is NO doubt at all about Globalwarming otherwise we would still be in
the last Iceage. Having said that it rained extremely hard yesterday
(Wednesday) evening in Bolton. If we then compare this with the day I passed
my driving test which was a Wednesday afternoon in August 1967. It also
rained so heavily for the windscreen wipers on my Reliant Mk5 that I had to
take refuge under a railway bridge in Preston (Returning from Blackpool).
Therefore I conclude that the "peak" of the globalwarming cycle has passed
and we are now on a downwards spiral to the next Iceage. By eck its
cowd up t'north!

KW

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:29:04 +0000, Al wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:28:10 +0000, Al wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote:

ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over
the last however many millions of years, remains in territory already
seen in nature.

Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice
age, would you?

You do know "The Day After Tomorrow" wasn't meant as literal truth,
right?

Err, yes, when have I ever given the impression it is?

Just above. Your question implies complete climate change well within a
lifetime, the central premise of the film. Not gonna happen.

I was thinking more of a return to 1800's tempreatures,

Nor me -- I prefer high temperatures to low and would have no problem with
the UK experiencing a few degrees higher. So what if we lose some deciduous
trees? Palm trees make a picturesque replacement!

We've had warmer climates before - medievil times