On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:48:12 -0700, Alex Terrell wrote:
yes the railways could still run fine, but not in their current state.

Bit like now then?

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:19:06 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

We got the "Red Dwarf" version of the future instead. :-{

We're heading for the futurama version, everything exactly the same, but
worse. Advets beamed into you brain etc.

(madeupname) wrote in message . com...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message ...
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

You sound like a knowledgeable bloke, but if global warming is hokum, why
does New Scientist tell me it's real? Is this to do with research grants,
like the asteroids heading towards the Earth that the astronomers find
whenever they are trying to get increases in funding?

Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made.

Global warming and COOLING are natural processes of the Earths cycle.
Tectonic plate shift, volcanic discharge, varying sun output, varying
Earth orbit, varying rotation axis points, the occasional comet/
asteroid hit and our general orbit around the galaxy etc.

Certainly mans minor ****ting on his own doorstep doesn't help but it
is just that - minor.

Its not that minor. Name me a natural process that adds 4 billions of tons
of CO2 a year extra to the atmosphere every year over and above the normal
sources of the gas.

If it is the life and death problem they make out, why aren't they
throwing our billions at solar, hydro, wind, thermo and the new
hydrogen fuel cell development? Why is it left up to some bloke in a
shed?

Well they do try , but as soon as they try anything they get shouted at by
nimbys or the greens.

Example. The greenies say use renewable energy. Ok , so government encourages
wind farms to be built and funnily enough the windiest places are on top of
hills and near the sea. Oh , but we can't have that say the hypocritical
greenies, it'll spoil the view or upset the lesser spotted snot gobblers mating
ritual or some other ********. OK , what about nuclear power? Oh no , can't have
that , radiation don't you know. Solar power? Where in britain would you put
all the cells so the greenies and nimbies don't whinge? Hydro? How many rivers
do you want to dam (and the greenies would complain about that to , they always
do). Hydrogen fuel cell? It takes energy to get hydrogen from water and where
does that come from then?

I'm no great fan of politicans but in this instance I'm afraid they're in a no
win situation. Enviromental damage on one side , whinging halfwits on the other.

B2003

"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not
man-made.

Are you unable to answer this question? If not, please do.

The answer was given in another post. See
http://dmiweb.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterr.../welcome.shtml

The URL you give contradicts what you say!

"Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made." (You)

"While the curves do not match perfectly at any time, they start to diverge
noticeably by the 1980's. We interpret this widening gap as evidence for an
additional influence on the temperature - over and above what the Sun is
causing. We think this is likely to be due to the anthropogenic greenhouse
effect" (Your ref above)

So now I am confused. What do you in fact believe? What you said above? Or
what your reference said?

John

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:26:30 +0100, John Mullen wrote:
What a stupid post!

Oh no! Caught out by such a witty and yet surpsingly verbose reply

Yup. You certainly were. Never mind, keep trying...

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

The answer was given in another post. See
http://dmiweb.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterr.../welcome.shtml

The URL you give contradicts what you say!

"Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made."
(You)

"While the curves do not match perfectly at any time, they start to
diverge
noticeably by the 1980's. We interpret this widening gap as evidence for
an
additional influence on the temperature - over and above what the Sun is
causing. We think this is likely to be due to the anthropogenic greenhouse
effect" (Your ref above)

So now I am confused. What do you in fact believe? What you said above? Or
what your reference said?

Did you look at the first graph on the page, and read what it says about it?

They don't know why there is a recent divergence. They are postulating.
Man-made additions to the CO2 in the atmosphere did not suddenly start in
the 1980s.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

"KW" wrote in message ...
"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

I did about global warming in Geography at A level but can't remember
the specifics (must be because I killed a few brain cels celebrating
on Thursday night) so I won't try to sound clever by trying to
contribute to the signs of global warming.

What I will say is that we've been having some fairly extreme weather
in the north west (and the rest of the country for that matter). As
the weather forecast described it, the conditions have been cyclonic.
What I thought I'd put on the topic of extreme weather was that I
witnessed a rather interesting but at the same time unnerving sight on
my way home last night. There was a tornado trying to form over where
I live at about 9 o'clock yesterday evening. It started off as a tube
coming out of the cloud at an angle of about 35 degrees. It then
formed a funnel shape but dispersed. It then managed to reform itself
but now heading straight downwards. You could see the bottom of it
heading further down from the clouds and you could see it starting to
look like the classic funnel shape. At the same time you could watch
it moving across the base of the cloud - it was easily visible because
it looked light grey against the greenish looking cloud that it was
coming out of.

Fortunately it dispersed before getting too far towards the ground and
so I'm sure people directly underneath it were oblivious to its
presence.
Still, this is a sight that I've never witnessed before and wouldn't
want to witness again in any hurry. What I'd be interested to know is
how regular are these sort of events (bearing in mind that had this
tornado actually got to the ground, I would say it looked more
powerful than an F1). Do these monsters get to a point where they are
self sustaining? This one certainly appeared to be 'trying' to work
itself up to something.

"Lukipela" wrote in message
m...

There was a tornado trying to form over where
I live at about 9 o'clock yesterday evening.

I saw one of these when I was in the Lake District in approx 1980. It looked
to reach all the way to the ground, but I was a long way off, so I can't be
sure. I wouldn't worry too much about it, I don't think they have much power
when they form at British latitudes.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

The answer was given in another post. See
http://dmiweb.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterr.../welcome.shtml

The URL you give contradicts what you say!

"Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made."
(You)

"While the curves do not match perfectly at any time, they start to
diverge
noticeably by the 1980's. We interpret this widening gap as evidence for
an
additional influence on the temperature - over and above what the Sun is
causing. We think this is likely to be due to the anthropogenic
greenhouse
effect" (Your ref above)

So now I am confused. What do you in fact believe? What you said above?
Or
what your reference said?

Did you look at the first graph on the page, and read what it says about
it?

I looked at both graphs and the accompanying story, a few months ago in the
New Scientist, and again yesterday. Neither supports what you are trying to
make it support.

They don't know why there is a recent divergence. They are postulating.
Man-made additions to the CO2 in the atmosphere did not suddenly start in
the 1980s.

Indeed not.

If the scientific mainstream (say 9 out of 10 scientists who study this kind
of thing for a living), and also the article *you* chose to highlight your
argument, both disagree with you, please do tell why your opinion is
nonetheless right.

John

On 20 Aug 2004 09:46:45 -0700, (David
Chorley) wrote:

Since all the activities of humanity do not, cumulatively, equal the
CO2 production of termites, I suggest we eradicate the termite
population.

Methinks you are confusing CO2 with methane.

Peter Harris
--
Sorry, I don't date outside my species.