On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:02:54 +0100, John Mullen
wrote:

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

Those words refer to the second graph, which is not the one which I
was
using to substantiate the evidence, namely that solar activity and
climate
change have a strong correlation over a long period. You will note
the
use
of the words "Think" and "Likely". They don't know.

Absolutely. They don't know. You don't know. I don't know. Neither you
nor
I
are climate scientists. Most people who are climate scientists believe
there
is merit in the Global Warming hypothesis. The 'anthropogenic
greenhouse
effect' as the quote above calls it.

There is a group (mainly funded by the oil lobby) who are trying to
exploit
this perceived uncertainty to say that (contrary to all observations
and
most scientists' beliefs) there is no such thing as GW. You were
foolish
enough to write 'Global warming is real, but it's a natural
phenomenon,
not
man-made.' on the 20th Aug. This was a foolishness that deserved to be
challenged. I have challenged it.

Unless you have anything of substance to support your claim (but as
you
haven't repeated it recently I am beginning to think you have
withdrawn
from
the rather silly position you seemed to be taking anyway!), do not
feel
you
need to add more to this thread.

I haven't withdrawn from my view, supported by the evidence, that there
is
a
very strong correlation between solar activity and climate change. I
also
note that so-far unexplained deviation from the expected in the second
graph. I have my own views about what the causes might be, which could
be
something that started (or began to cease) around the 1980s. Read into
that
what you will.

OK. I read into it that you would quite like to be a GW denier (less
guilt
for you) but you haven't read up enough science yet to be able to talk
the
talk. You said something you couldn't justify, grabbed a URL to justify
it
but didn't properly check the URL. The URL unfortunately contradicted
what
you had said. You blustered for a while, threw in a red herring, and now
you're going all cryptic. Interesting stuff; but more psychology than
climate science.

Personally, I would tend to lean towards Terrys view rather than
"someone@microsoft"
I dont find Johns arguments particularly logical.

Paul

"Paul Hutchinson" wrote in message
newspsc8vcz0iado8ta@paul-7ua5eciid5...

Personally, I would tend to lean towards Terrys view rather than
"someone@microsoft"
I dont find Johns arguments particularly logical.

Thank you Paul.
--
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/

"Paul Hutchinson" wrote in message
newspsc8vcz0iado8ta@paul-7ua5eciid5...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:02:54 +0100, John Mullen
wrote:

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

Those words refer to the second graph, which is not the one which I
was
using to substantiate the evidence, namely that solar activity and
climate
change have a strong correlation over a long period. You will note
the
use
of the words "Think" and "Likely". They don't know.

Absolutely. They don't know. You don't know. I don't know. Neither
you
nor
I
are climate scientists. Most people who are climate scientists
believe
there
is merit in the Global Warming hypothesis. The 'anthropogenic
greenhouse
effect' as the quote above calls it.

There is a group (mainly funded by the oil lobby) who are trying to
exploit
this perceived uncertainty to say that (contrary to all observations
and
most scientists' beliefs) there is no such thing as GW. You were
foolish
enough to write 'Global warming is real, but it's a natural
phenomenon,
not
man-made.' on the 20th Aug. This was a foolishness that deserved to
be
challenged. I have challenged it.

Unless you have anything of substance to support your claim (but as
you
haven't repeated it recently I am beginning to think you have
withdrawn
from
the rather silly position you seemed to be taking anyway!), do not
feel
you
need to add more to this thread.

I haven't withdrawn from my view, supported by the evidence, that there
is
a
very strong correlation between solar activity and climate change. I
also
note that so-far unexplained deviation from the expected in the second
graph. I have my own views about what the causes might be, which could
be
something that started (or began to cease) around the 1980s. Read into
that
what you will.

OK. I read into it that you would quite like to be a GW denier (less
guilt
for you) but you haven't read up enough science yet to be able to talk
the
talk. You said something you couldn't justify, grabbed a URL to justify
it
but didn't properly check the URL. The URL unfortunately contradicted
what
you had said. You blustered for a while, threw in a red herring, and now
you're going all cryptic. Interesting stuff; but more psychology than
climate science.

Personally, I would tend to lean towards Terrys view rather than
"someone@microsoft"
I dont find Johns arguments particularly logical.

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows you to
use fossil fuels without guilt.

Unfortunately the science leans the other way.



John

John Mullen wrote:

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows
you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

....and leaning toward the 'sky is falling' position provides another reason
for guilt and self-righteous hand-wringing among the beard 'n' sandals
brigade

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows
you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

...and leaning toward the 'sky is falling' position provides another
reason
for guilt and self-righteous hand-wringing among the beard 'n' sandals
brigade

Personally I prefer to believe things that are likely to be true. You are of
course free to believe whatever self-justifying crap you wish.

I once had a long discussion with a Holocaust denier on another NG. Never
again.

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

I once had a long discussion with a Holocaust
denier on another NG. Never again.

I don't believe you did!

--
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

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

I once had a long discussion with a Holocaust
denier on another NG. Never again.

I don't believe you did!

Excellent!

It made me realise that there is absolutely no way anyone can *prove*
anything to anyone via Usenet.

Particularly if they have constructed a strong belief system around not
believing in it.

There is a book waiting to be written on the abnormal psychology of Usenet.

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows
you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

...and leaning toward the 'sky is falling' position provides another
reason
for guilt and self-righteous hand-wringing among the beard 'n' sandals
brigade

Personally I prefer to believe things that are likely to be true. You are
of
course free to believe whatever self-justifying crap you wish.

I once had a long discussion with a Holocaust denier on another NG. Never
again.



Careful - edging dangerously close to Godwin's law...

Jonn

John Mullen wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows
you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

...and leaning toward the 'sky is falling' position provides another
reason for guilt and self-righteous hand-wringing among the beard
'n' sandals brigade

Personally I prefer to believe things that are likely to be true. You
are of course free to believe whatever self-justifying crap you wish.

As indeed are you. The difference is, I know that I can do **** all about
GW, should it ever turn out to be man-made, in comparison to the
politico-industrial interests causing most of the pollution. Once they
make a significant difference (principally in the US, whose government will
do bugger all about it to avoid upsetting it's industrial backers) then I'll
think about not lighting a barbie and giving up motorsport. Until then, I'm
not going to let it spoil my day

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows
you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

...and leaning toward the 'sky is falling' position provides another
reason for guilt and self-righteous hand-wringing among the beard
'n' sandals brigade

Personally I prefer to believe things that are likely to be true. You
are of course free to believe whatever self-justifying crap you wish.

As indeed are you. The difference is, I know that I can do **** all about
GW, should it ever turn out to be man-made, in comparison to the
politico-industrial interests causing most of the pollution. Once they
make a significant difference (principally in the US, whose government
will
do bugger all about it to avoid upsetting it's industrial backers) then
I'll
think about not lighting a barbie and giving up motorsport. Until then,
I'm
not going to let it spoil my day

Absolutely true.

The only things I can think of you as an individual could do would be to use
public transport rather than a car where possible, and in general to limit
energy usage (sensible on cost grounds anyway). You could also lobby your
member of parliament to support sustainable energy rather than fossil fuel.
Beware though; the whole topic of environmental economics is enourmously
complex and controversial. An awful lot depends on the value you place on
things like having air you can breathe. Most agree they are important, but
their value is difficult to put a number onto.

Your barbie is probably CO2-neutral so you are ok there! Burning charcoal
merely returns the carbon the tree took from the atmosphere when it was
alive. Unless you have one of these ridiculous propane barbecues...

Personally I drive a car (diesel Peugot 205, ~50 mpg) and also own a motor
bike which I enjoy using to burn fossil fuels when I can. I also regularly
use trains (slightly better, though I know all the recent debate about this)
and planes (worse). So I am not trying to establish any kind of green moral
superiority here. I just couldn't let some of the GW denial bull**** go
unchallenged. Whether we like it or not, by blithely releasing all this
carbon (which was built up over millions of years) into the atmosphere at
once, we run a very strong risk of changing the planet's climate in ways we
probably won't like.

John