How's this for being hypocritical?
 

In message , Nick Leverton
writes
And lest anyone is looking forwards to relaxing in their
back garden in balmy Mediterranean temperatures, even if we did stop
increasing CO2 right now we will have 200 to 500 years of extreme wind,
storms, heatwaves, big freezes, floods and drought to go through before
the climate stabilises
Could it be to do with the scare stories that we were told about losing
ozone in the atmosphere would cause skin cancer for hundreds of years to
come and would be not reversible, or AIDs will kill 20 million by the
year 2000?
Am I a cynic, yes. Am I a realist, that's up to you.
--
Clive.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

Mike Hughes wrote:
Picked up a fare (in my London taxi) to Buckhurst Hill in Essex on
Thursday night. Lady about 30 years old.

On the way she goes on about how we are polluting the planet and must do
something to stop greenhouse gases as we (the human race) are
responsible for Global Warming. I agree that we pollute the planet, that
the planet is getting warmer, but state that there is no absolute
certainty that GW is man made and that it *could* just be part of a
natural process.At this she goes on about how it *is* caused by us and
that everyone *must* do something or we will all suffer due to GW.

Then we get near her home. There is a fairly steep hill with lots of
speed humps in it to get to her turning. Then she says that she drives
along this road nearly every day. I ask her why she does this as it's
not too far to walk to the nearby station.

Her reply? "I walk to the station when I go to work but I use the car
when I go to the gym"

You could have blown me down with a feather! I asked why she couldn't
walk or cycle to the gym and her reply was "It's too dangerous to do
that around here" From the way she said that I inferred that she meant
there was a likelihood of being attached by muggers. This was possibly
more imaginary than real. However, this was her justification for using
a car to go to the gym - a non essential journey if ever there was one.

Seems that many people pay lip service to the idea of being less
polluting just as long as it doesn't interfere with their lifestyle !

For the record I'm quite happy to try to reduce my pollution by not
being an 'aggressive' driver, not accelerating too hard, and looking
ahead so that I don't have to brake too hard. It not only makes good
sense from a pollution point of view, it also makes economic sense as I
use less fuel and get greater mileage from my brake pads. My wife is
good at recycling most things from our family waste. Our personal
'carbon footprint' is getting less, but I believe that there is
currently too much emphasis on this and not enough on other aspects of
pollution, which may cause us more damage than any (natural) warming may
do.

I wait for the usual rant from Duhg but There must be some of you who
can put forward intelligent opinions.

Yes: The customer is always right (even when
they're wrong).

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

In message .com,
Boltar writes
I often
wonder if its ever occured to them that if they ran to the gym then
ran back home
again immediately they could get their exercise, save on gym
membership and
save on petrol all in one go.
How do the show off their new motor though?
--
Clive.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

In article ,
Clive. wrote:
Could it be to do with the scare stories that we were told about losing
ozone in the atmosphere would cause skin cancer for hundreds of years to
come and would be not reversible,

It would have done, but we took action to prevent it.

or AIDs will kill 20 million by the
year 2000?

AIDS has killed more than that already, and with up to 70% infection in
some countries it's going to kill 200 million in the next few years.

Am I a cynic, yes. Am I a realist, that's up to you.

The thing is, Clive - you may be an optimist, a pessimist, or a realist.
But to ignore the evidence is just foolish. Are you hoping the
scinentific community wil be caught out and you can say "ha ha, fourth
time unlucky" ? Or will you wait another few decades before you admit
"well maybe it was a bit silly not to take action when we'd only added
50% to CO2 levels, cos now we've doubled them and the day to day weather
really isn't predictable any more" ?

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/blosxom ... So express yourself

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

In message , JNugent
writes
Similarly, there was a time when the UK was effectively buried under a
glacier.
UKTV Docs. Tonight at 9:00pm 16/03/07 Snowball earth, when the earth
was covered by 1 kilometre of ice. Sky channel 532.
--
Clive.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

In article ,
Clive. wrote:
In message . com,
Boltar writes
Well why wouldn't they occur previously? Droughts wil have always
occured , the difference is they seem to last for longer , be more
frequent and more severe now.
Or 24 hour news coverage is getting better at pushing the agenda at us.

I would agree with you there Clive. News coverage always over-reacts,
sometimes it's to make up for being late on the scene but to be frank
often they treat a vague possiblilty as if it were earth shattering
news. We've seen many scientific theories trumpeted by the papers and
subsequently demolished by better evidence.

This is not the case with Gw. It may have been uncertain a few years
ago, but whilst we've argued over the evidence the figures themselves
have increased, new ideas been included, and even the exceptions people
used to say "yes but" about have been included in the models. The models
themselves have been tested by checking with the real present day numbers.
And the answers come out even worse now. Though I'm not a scientist I
feel there is now very little doubt.

Would you turn to the media first to tell you the causes behind the causes
of derailments or broken rails ? Treat the media and Al "politician"
Gore with the scepticism they deserve if you wish, but don't assume there
is no evidence behind them. You might find New Scientist a better primer
than News International :)

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/blosxom ... So express yourself

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

Nick Leverton wrote:
AIDS has killed more than that already, and with up to 70% infection
in some countries it's going to kill 200 million in the next few
years.

Which should make a contribution to reducing the planet's over population.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

In message , Nick Leverton
writes
well maybe it was a bit silly not to take action when we'd only added
50% to CO2 levels, cos now we've doubled them and the day to day weather
really isn't predictable any more" ?
This is what I mean. I don't know where you get your figures, but I
thought Gore said the background CO2 is 300ppm on average swinging
between 250 and 350, the current level is 350 to 380. We,re looking at
a percentage increase of a little over 10% or 3X10-7, it's an awfully
small number, and as the oceans absorb 50% then it's even smaller.
However if you subscribe to the heat causing an increase by liberation
from the oceans then it's beyond control and measures need to be taken.
--
Clive.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On 16 Mar, 15:55, "Boltar" wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:01 pm, "Fod" wrote:
africa in a bit of a mess due to a variety of problems, all man made
but none GW related.

So you can prove 100% that all the recent droughts and heatwaves in
africa that have badly affected crop harvests have nothing to do with
GW and are merely a local blip?

i'd suspect the widespread deforestation has had a lot more to do with
it. Say GW impact it 1% and deforestation 99%; which would you say
the main cause would be?

Like i say Africa is a complicated issue. Given, as you say, GW seems
to have started to bite in the last 10 years
why was Africa being hammered by drought when the global temerature
hadn't started to rise?


Well the last few years have been the hottest on record and the decade
as a whole has been the hottest since records began so whatever the
cause of the warming I think we can safely say its started.

climate is a complicated thing, say we found 10 warmer years 500 years
ago; would that mean we coud safetly assume the last 10 years probably
didn't mean much?

Where it
goes from here is anyones guess.

very true.

Fod