How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Mar 16, 5:32 pm, JNugent wrote:
Unless there is an explanation for the increases
in the last 400 years - or 4000 years - and unless
it can be distinguished from the reasons for the
alleged increases in recent times, the whole
business (a good word to use) is so much hot air.

It's all there in the IPCC reports. Open your eyes and read.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

"Mike Hughes" wrote

However, this was her justification for using a car to go to the gym - a
non essential journey if ever there was one.

Not just a car but the gym's air conditioning too.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:19:05 +0000,
Clive. wrote:
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.

CO2 concentrations haven't been above 300ppmv for at least the last
650kyr and have varied between about 180ppm and 300ppm in that period.

Tim.




--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

Mike Hughes wrote:

Her reply? "I use the car when I go to the gym"

I saw a driver with her engine running outside the small crowded car park to
Holmes Place gym in Hendon.... twenty minutes later, someone else drove out
of the car park, and she then drove in. There were numerous vacant
free-of-charge parking spaces 50 yards further along the road. I guess a
fifty yard walk was too much for her.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On 16 Mar, 10:09, "Brimstone" wrote:

Try driving something more pikey?

It's a 9 year old Skoda!

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On 16 Mar, 12:35, "Boltar" wrote:

If global warming (whatever the cause) really kicks in there'll be a
lot more important things to worry about than the above - like famine in europe
and mass migration north from africa and the med region for example.

Well, they are possibilities rather than certainties though.


I'm not sure how much more "real" you can get that the state of the
planet we all live and depend on.

True, but how much control do we have in reality?

Pensions , education etc are all rather
contrived in comparison

Well, in the great scheme of things, yes, but when I'm 70 and need to
do my weekly food shop, it won't be so contrived then.

I would have thought and will be irrelevant anyway if
there's an economic collapse brought on by climate change.

Again, that's only a possibility. I wouldn't have thought that's
particularly likely to happen though.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On 16 Mar, 17:32, JNugent wrote:

How does anyone know?

How does anyone know? Well...:

Certainly, it's "warmer" now than it was in
Shakespeare's time, but cars and electricity use
had nothing to do with that increase. Similarly,
there was a time when the UK was effectively
buried under a glacier. It wasn't power stations
that caused the warming since that time.

See! You know - there is evidence that the climate has always changed,
no matter what. That is normal, that is what nature does. Adapt &
change or die, it's nature's way - Always has been, always will be.

Unless there is an explanation for the increases
in the last 400 years - or 4000 years - and unless
it can be distinguished from the reasons for the
alleged increases in recent times, the whole
business (a good word to use) is so much hot air.

But... There is an explanation, it's what nature does. It's happened
for approximately 4.5 billion years and it's not going to stop for us.
As to what causes it, well, you could think it is due to the naughty
humans and their horrid gasses, but you could also dare to consider
that it's just part of a natural process which always has, and always
will happen. Homoeostasis is a very powerful system, and if (and it's
a tiny 'if' in my opinion) it turns out naughty humans did hurt poor
ickle defenceless erf, then we will, without doubt get spanked by
nature. But you know what? I'm not worried at all. Humans' minds and
the climate work on completely different time-scales and the idea that
we don't, in this day and age, still have to change and adapt to the
environment is unbelievably pompous. We have effectly nil control over
anything. We have evolved a set of skills to cope with the changes
thrown at us. And Oh. My. God! We might have to continue using them!

(E&OE, I was at a rather good gig at a Levenshulme pub last night and
my head is still a bit skew-whiff).

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On 16 Mar, 18:49, (Nick Leverton) wrote:

Though I'm not a scientist I feel there is now very little doubt.

...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.

This is the point though - science, real science, is about disproving
things. So to say "Hey, we've found a correlation" is pretty
meaningless, even if it appears to be really quite strong. Science
will then go through and rip things apart to see how robust these
ideas are. Yeah, OK, you may feel that the levels of CO2 are
responsible for something, but how robust is the idea that humans (the
all-powerful humans that is) are solely responsible for climate change
when it's known that the climate changes continually, and has done
forever? We may be contributing in a small way, but as mammals, we
necessarily consume resources, cause pollution, etc, the point is how
much actual, real damage is being done by this? And are the
consequences of global warming actually damage to the earth? Or is it
just damage to humans?

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On 16 Mar, 19:19, "Clive." wrote:

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.

But the thing is, if the atmosphere gets warmer, liberates CO2 from
the oceans, isn't this warmness going to cause a rise in atmospheric
water vapour? If so, surely the process of the water vapour trapping
the carbon (i.e. a homeostatic response and part of the carbon cycle)
is going to take care of a lot of the 'problem'?