David Chorley wrote:

The only interest a politician will have in climate change will be how
to extract more money from the taxpayer and extend control over the
individual.
This, incidentally, is why "global warming through increased levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" was thought up as it is hogwash as
basic science and undisproveable, as it is unproveable.

David

Your evidence for this exactly?

Matthew
--
Matthew Wild Tel.: +44 (0)1235 445173
URL http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/
World Data Centre - Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Chilton
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX

David Chorley wrote:
This, incidentally, is why "global warming through increased levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" was thought up as it is hogwash as
basic science and undisproveable, as it is unproveable.

If global warming is happening, it's a far more serious problem for
humanity than Islamic terrorism. Yet our politicians seem much more
exercised about the latter.

As to the theory, like all theories it cannot be proved 100%. But we
have warming, we have increased CO2, and we have a credible theory to
connect the two. Until a better theory comes along, intelligent people
without vested interests accept the hypothesis.

Colin McKenzie


--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

On 18 Aug 2004 11:35:20 -0700 someone who may be
(David Chorley) wrote this:-

The only interest a politician will have in climate change will be how
to extract more money from the taxpayer and extend control over the
individual.
This, incidentally, is why "global warming through increased levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" was thought up as it is hogwash as
basic science and undisproveable, as it is unproveable.

Really.

I think I believe the views of organisations like the Hadley Centre
for Climate Prediction and Research rather than your assertions.
Care to enlighten us on the work you have done on climate change?

http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

John Rowland wrote:

"Mike D" wrote in message
...

Am I right in saying that you could be charged
with manslaughter if you 'Fail to offer reasonalbe
assistance' to someone in need.

No. Under English law, if you found Tony Blair hanging off the edge of a
cliff, you would be under no legal obligation to rescue him. I've checked.

If you were responsible for him being there, then there is a duty of care;
were you to leave him there you could be sued for negligence in the breach
of that duty.

Further, I understand that if directed to help by a Police hofficer it would
be an offence to decline to do so.

But most of all were you not to aid the poor Vicar, you would certainly be
lynched by those of us who really, really don't want Blunketty Spunk
getting his hands on the tiller!
--
Al

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

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Tim Holden" wrote in message
om...

On the subject of visiting national disasters, on that basis when is 2
Jags going to visit Virgin HQ?!

Hasn't he done enough to save the drowning this week?


I thought he went down there to go rafting on the faster whitewater
rapids....

Nick

Colin McKenzie wrote:

David Chorley wrote:
This, incidentally, is why "global warming through increased levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" was thought up as it is hogwash as
basic science and undisproveable, as it is unproveable.

If global warming is happening, it's a far more serious problem for
humanity than Islamic terrorism. Yet our politicians seem much more
exercised about the latter.

That would be because the Islamic terrorism (or indeed any terrorism) speaks
clearer to the purpose of the political system: the protection of those
inside from those outside. Global warming is far more opaque a problem: it
simply cannot be solved for those within one jurisdiction, ergo, anyone
purporting to do so will fail and failure begets electoral suicide.

As to the theory, like all theories it cannot be proved 100%. But we
have warming, we have increased CO2, and we have a credible theory to
connect the two. Until a better theory comes along, intelligent people
without vested interests accept the hypothesis.

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.
--
Al

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

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:40:52 +0100, Colin McKenzie wrote:

David Chorley wrote:
This, incidentally, is why "global warming through increased levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" was thought up as it is hogwash as
basic science and undisproveable, as it is unproveable.

If global warming is happening, it's a far more serious problem for
humanity than Islamic terrorism. Yet our politicians seem much more
exercised about the latter.

As to the theory, like all theories it cannot be proved 100%. But we
have warming, we have increased CO2, and we have a credible theory to
connect the two. Until a better theory comes along, intelligent people
without vested interests accept the hypothesis.

So you're saying correlation instead of causation is proof?

Here's some more correlation
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard Observatory correlated
historical sunspot counts with temperature proxies. They report that when
there are fewer sunspots, the earth has always cooled, and that when there
are more sunspots the earth has always warmed.

Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System
Research has satated "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60
years and may now be affecting global temperatures.... He continued: the
brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both
contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was
impossible to say which had the greater pact."

And of course there are Milankovitch Cycles.

In the Jurrasic period, the Earth experienced 5 degress of global warming.
In the 10th-14th centuries we had an relatively warm period (grapes in
scotland). In the 14th-18th centuries we had a relatively cool period
(thames frozen over).

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)

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?

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.


greg

--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein

Greg Hennessy wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 19 Aug 2004:

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.

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!
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
(trying out a new .sig to reflect the personality I use in online forums)