How's this for being hypocritical?
 

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.

--
Mike Hughes
A Taxi driver licensed for London and Brighton
at home in Tarring, West Sussex, England

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

"Mike Hughes" wrote in message
...
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.

You make good points, especially about the hypocritical passenger.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On 16 Mar, 08:52, Mike Hughes wrote:

...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.

Hear hear! I consider GW to be what Hitchcock would call a 'MacGuffin'
- a diversionary tactic dressed up as the most important detail (not
that I'm one for conspiracy theories, but...) I do think that if there
wasn't so much GW propaganda about, more people would be more
concerned about the state of the country's balance sheet, especially
pensions, education and healthcare.

(I'm a cause-of-climate change sceptic, BTW. Clearly it's happening,
but what's the actual cause? (Nature, in my humble opinion) There's
far more real concerns to keep us occupied, but as is human nature we
tend to focus, or are made to focus, on the ones we can do least
about).

Anyway, to bring it back on to topic, I'm now going to Manchester city
centre. I'm going to drive to Cornbrook metrolink station, park there
and use the tram to get into the city - contributing to a decrease in
city centre congestions and exhaust emissions and enrich the local
economy with the financial support of the public transport system. I
just hope my car doesn't get ****ing vandalised in the car park again.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On 16 Mar, 10:09, "Brimstone" wrote:
.. I
just hope my car doesn't get ****ing vandalised in the car park again.

Try driving something more pikey?

Seems to make little difference, pikey cars are usually easier for
kids to joyride, less sophisticated security.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Mar 16, 8:52 am, Mike Hughes wrote:
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.

I train at a gym (which I walk to) and it does make me laugh the
number of people who
drive there to spend 20 minutes on a running machine then drive home
again. 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. Theres nowt as queer as folk...

B2003

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Mar 16, 10:01 am, wrote:
concerned about the state of the country's balance sheet, especially
pensions, education and healthcare.

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.

but what's the actual cause? (Nature, in my humble opinion) There's
far more real concerns to keep us occupied, but as is human nature we

I'm not sure how much more "real" you can get that the state of the
planet
we all live and depend on. Pensions , education etc are all rather
contrived
in comparison I would have thought and will be irrelevant anyway if
theres an
economic collapse brought on by climate change.

B2003

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Mar 16, 12:35 pm, "Boltar" wrote:
On Mar 16, 10:01 am, wrote:

concerned about the state of the country's balance sheet, especially
pensions, education and healthcare.

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.

given the range of projections that might not happen; you might see
the warmer weather of 1-2 degrees increasing food yields.


Fod

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Mar 16, 8:52 am, Mike Hughes wrote:

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 !

It's the same as congestion etc - everything would be ok if everyone
ELSE gave up driving. Like the school run - 'I have to take the kids
in an SUV because of all the dangerous cars on the road'.
People are addicted and in denial, that's all I can say.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Mar 16, 1:18 pm, "Fod" wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:35 pm, "Boltar" wrote:

On Mar 16, 10:01 am, wrote:

concerned about the state of the country's balance sheet, especially
pensions, education and healthcare.

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.

given the range of projections that might not happen; you might see
the warmer weather of 1-2 degrees increasing food yields.

If that were the case then shouldn't the med and northern africa be
the bread basket of europe?

B2003

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

TimB wrote:
On Mar 16, 8:52 am, Mike Hughes wrote:

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 !

It's the same as congestion etc - everything would be ok if everyone
ELSE gave up driving. Like the school run - 'I have to take the kids
in an SUV because of all the dangerous cars on the road'.
People are addicted and in denial, that's all I can say.

I had just such a discussion with a woman in London on one occasion.

She agreed that the traffic was bad and that most probably everyone else
would agree. But when I said that if one was to suggest to those complaining
that they should give up using their cars she gave me a very strange look,
although I think the penny began to drop.

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

In article om,
Fod wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:35 pm, "Boltar" wrote:
On Mar 16, 10:01 am, 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.

given the range of projections that might not happen; you might see
the warmer weather of 1-2 degrees increasing food yields.

We've already seen a rise of that order, and it's not even really got
going yet. 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 :-(

You nay-sayers can argue all you like but the risks are incredibly high.
We dealt with acid rain when we discovered it was due to our own SOx and
NOx in the atmosphere - we are dealing the ozone layer breakdown since
we discovered we are causing that with our atmospheric CFCs - and those
are very small emissions compared to what we have been doing to CO2,
methane and other greenhouse gases. Why is there so much suspicion
about the latest measurements of the atmosphere ?

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

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Mar 16, 2:05 pm, "Boltar" wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:18 pm, "Fod" wrote:

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

On Mar 16, 10:01 am, wrote:

concerned about the state of the country's balance sheet, especially
pensions, education and healthcare.

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.

given the range of projections that might not happen; you might see
the warmer weather of 1-2 degrees increasing food yields.

If that were the case then shouldn't the med and northern africa be
the bread basket of europe?

africa in a bit of a mess due to a variety of problems, all man made
but none GW related.

The med does produce a lot of food but as far as i'm aware GW hasn't
kicked in as yet...
At least not to the degrees you've been talking about.

GW could cause changes but given that the med is a tourist hot spot
why would it being a degree warmer on average cause mass migrations?
( assuming the low end of the predictions for the next 100 years).


Fod

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Mar 16, 2:08 pm, (Nick Leverton) wrote:
given the range of projections that might not happen; you might see
the warmer weather of 1-2 degrees increasing food yields.

We've already seen a rise of that order, and it's not even really got
going yet. 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 :-(

climates are never stable, they are constantly changing...

You nay-sayers
anyone who wants to talk about GW seems to get branded a nay-sayer and
their views ignored. People who question things might not be against
GW but against misunderstanding of it.

can argue all you like but the risks are incredibly high.
yep, so having the most detailed information, scrutinized by people on
both sides of the debate is a good idea.

Why is there so much suspicion
about the latest measurements of the atmosphere ?

its not the latest ones i question, just the ones from a while back.
Given that we need them all to be accurate to predict trends they are
important and if not accurate they will muck up any computer
simulations. As the computer simulations are what we use to plan our
answer to GW i'd like them to be as accurate as possible.

Mans attempts to control or change nature in the past have been less
than successful so even if we combat GW at full speed we could yet
make things worse rather than better. Having accurate information to
base decisions on could possibly help avoid this though.

Fod

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Mike Hughes wrote:

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.

This is beside the point, but i think this is a somewhat mendacious thing
to say - we can never have *certainty* about anything important, and the
balance of evidence at the moment comes down very strongly on global
warming being manmade. In your case, the lack of certainty evidently
doesn't stop you doing the right thing in practical terms, but there are
plenty of people who use this kind of argument to justify not doing
anything, which is entirely unhelpful.

I was arguing with a chap on another newsrgup who didn't believe that HIV
is the cause of AIDS, so i may have my scientific hackles up a bit here!

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

*HEADROLL*

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.

Bang on. It's also scarily widespread. On yet a third newsgroup, a woman
living in California was saying much the same to explain why she wanted to
buy a thousand-dollar exercise machine rather than a bicycle to keep fit.

Closer to home, when i and my flatmates were last house-hunting, we passed
over a large, gorgeous and affordable flat in Whitechapel (well, what Mr
Rowland would call Stepney!) in favour of a tiny hovel in Finsbury Park on
the basis that my female housemate had heard terrible stories about
Whitechapel. I showed her police statistics which put the street crime
rate in Finsbury Park at about twice what it is in Whitechapel, but she
wasn't moved :(.

Okay, so that's irrelevant here, but i'm still irked by it.

Perhaps the solution would be for her to take up Thai kickboxing as her
chosen form of exercise (all the rage now, apparently)? That way, an
encounter with some hoodlums on the way to the gym would just mean an
early start ...

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.

Also, you're more fuel-efficient just by virtue of being a taxi; you keep
moving all day, avoiding the energy-intensive engine starts that a fleet
of private cars would have to make.

I mean, you're still a carbon criminal compared to us cyclists, but it's a
start!

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

As a great sage once wrote, "Dude, read Aquinas if you want intelligent.
This is the internet."!

tom

--
you can't feel your stomack with glory -- Czako

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Mar 16, 3:01 pm, "Fod" wrote:
On Mar 16, 2:05 pm, "Boltar" wrote:



On Mar 16, 1:18 pm, "Fod" wrote:

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

On Mar 16, 10:01 am, wrote:

concerned about the state of the country's balance sheet, especially
pensions, education and healthcare.

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.

given the range of projections that might not happen; you might see
the warmer weather of 1-2 degrees increasing food yields.

If that were the case then shouldn't the med and northern africa be
the bread basket of europe?

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?


The med does produce a lot of food but as far as i'm aware GW hasn't
kicked in as yet...
At least not to the degrees you've been talking about.

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. Where it
goes from here is anyones guess.

GW could cause changes but given that the med is a tourist hot spot
why would it being a degree warmer on average cause mass migrations?

A degree warmer on *average* can mean a shed load warmer at certain
times. It only takes a month or two of sustained high summer
temperatures to knacker certain types of agriculture. Wheat and barkey
for example don't grow well if at all above 30C.

B2003

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

Mike Hughes wrote:

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.

Hypocritical? just a stupid bitch. People love to be prophets of doom, some
like the self flagellation but they all really the opportunity to flog
everyone else about it (in her case you for example). They do a bit of
vacuous gesturing like recycling newspapers or something really dumb like
sticking a windmill on their house and feel they have done their bit and
are fully entitled to flog everyone else.
--

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

What do you consider to be "recent" and how do you explain those which
occurred previously?

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

On Mar 16, 4:19 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

oups.com...

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?

What do you consider to be "recent" and how do you explain those which
occurred previously?

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.

B2003

How's this for being hypocritical?
 

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.
--
Clive.

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

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'?