Global Warming

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Graeme said:

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yet it was warm enough to grow grapes in Yorkshire in Roman times

But would they not have been more "wild", i.e. less developed/cultivated,
varieties rather than the high yielding varieties you get these days that
prefer a warmer climate?

Quoted message said:

and what melted all the ice covering Northern Europe in 10 000 BCE?

Farting mammoths? :-)

The Earth's climate does go through some fairly large, long period
variations (it's been a while since they've been able to hold an "Ice
Fair" on the Thames). How many people are confident enough to say that

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] we've been chucking into the air for the last hundred years or more

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not responsible for the current change and it is not worth trying to

change

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

our behaviour?

As the gamble is of such a magnitude, whether to reduce CO2 emissions
is one of the few questions that should be answered with the
precautionary principle.

Global warming may or may not be driven by man made CO2 and we have to
decide whether or not to change our behaviour and reduce CO2. Consider
the implications of getting the wrong answer to the question "is
manmade global warming real?"

If it turns out to be spurious science but we have gone ahead and
reduced C02 output, what is the downside of this incorrect assessment
to individuals and society? Not much, really; the oil will last
longer, people might be fitter and healthier and economic growth might
have slowed.

Conversely, if it turns out that manmade CO2 really is creating a
atmospheric greenhouse but we have decided to do nothing, the
implications for the planet, civilisation and the human species are
uncontemplatable.

I'm undecided as to the reality of global warming but I am very clear
that we must act to reduce CO2 emissions.

What about the downside of significantly reducing C02 emissions (hint, Kyoto
isnt even close)?Would cause a massive economic upheaval which would impact
many people negaively. Why not apply the precautionary principle to that?

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Tim Woodall said:

There has been some significant reanalysis of these tropospheric (O2?)
temperatures and the temperature signal has included a significant
proportion of the stratopheric (O? O2) signal (20%IIRC).

Tim.

Nature 429, 55 - 58 (06 May 2004); doi:10.1038/nature02524

Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred
tropospheric temperature trends

QIANG FU, CELESTE M. JOHANSON, STEPHEN G. WARREN & DIAN J. SEIDEL

And that paper has been strongly criticized by one of the leading
experts in satellite temperature measurements -
http://www.techcentralstation.com/050504H.html

Tony

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:17:17 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

As the gamble is of such a magnitude, whether to reduce CO2 emissions
is one of the few questions that should be answered with the
precautionary principle.

And the process of reducing energy consumption (and hence CO2
emissions) is what engineers call "efficiency" :-)

So, which do we prefer to risk? An unnecessary increase in efficiency
or global meltdown? Tough call...

It would need to be much more than an "increase in efficiency" to have any
effect.
Unless you can come up with a 90% increase in efficiency in the near term.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:56:17 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It would need to be much more than an "increase in efficiency" to have any
effect. Unless you can come up with a 90% increase in efficiency in the near
term.

Depends on whether you view all progress towards the goal as
desirable, or whether you prefer to take the view that too little is
worse than nothing at all.

Personally I find it hard to see a downside to reducing pollution :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Not Responding said:

Global warming may or may not be driven by man made CO2

NO, this is NOT an open question and has not been for some time.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Tony Raven said:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/050504H.html

You do know that this site is funded by Exxonmobil and General Motors,
among others?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Simon Mason said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Methane is
a natural greenhouse gas that is 20 times more potent than CO2 and
comes,inter alia, from livestock. Yet it rarely gets mentioned.

Strangely water vapour doesn't get mentioned either, but these
climatalogists have to come up with something dramatic otherwise their
grants get cut.

Yes, all the climate scientists are either incompetent or dishonest, or
both, and it's only due to the brilliance of a couple of usenet pundits
that the Truth is Revealed.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:08:07 +0900 someone who may be James Annan
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Yes, all the climate scientists are either incompetent or dishonest, or
both, and it's only due to the brilliance of a couple of usenet pundits
that the Truth is Revealed.

Agreed. The Meteorological Office knows a bit about the weather and
their Hadley Centre are about as good as it gets.

The interesting one is The Mad Woman of Finchley, the only person
trained as a scientist to be Prime Minister. She was very
dismissive, but was convinced by the arguments.

--
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.

James Annan said:

Not Responding said:

Global warming may or may not be driven by man made CO2

NO, this is NOT an open question and has not been for some time.

It is except for closed minds. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change do not claim certainty.

Tony

James Annan said:

Yes, all the climate scientists are either incompetent or dishonest, or
both, and it's only due to the brilliance of a couple of usenet pundits
that the Truth is Revealed.

Not at all. That the world is warming is generally accepted although
how quickly is still a topic of debate between the earth station and
satellite observers. That CO2 is causing it is a hypothesis but it is
by no means proven and natural climate variation, for example the recent
studies on sun spot activity and climate, are alternative hypotheses
being studied. It may even be the other way round that global warming
brings CO2 out of solution in the oceans so that CO2 rises are effect
and not cause.

Of course those of the church of CO2 global warming don't need to look
at alternative hypotheses because they know they are right. However
there are plenty of examples that litter science - Helicobacter Pylori,
Cold Fusion, Delta-rays - where the community has got it wrong for some
time while attacking the questioners.

I prefer to keep an open and questioning mind.

Tony

James Annan said:

Tony Raven said:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/050504H.html

You do know that this site is funded by Exxonmobil and General Motors,
among others?

Do you disagree with the proposition or do you believe that academics
who question CO2 Global Warming must be corrupt?

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

NO, this is NOT an open question and has not been for some time.

Quoted message said:

It is except for closed minds. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change do not claim certainty.

And the Septics are going to wait until the polar ice caps melt before they
admit that there is concusive evidence anyway :-)

Point is, how bad could it be, reducing pollution? What's the downside in
extending the lifetime of the finite reserves of fossil fuels?

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

James Annan said:

Tony Raven said:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/050504H.html

You do know that this site is funded by Exxonmobil and General
Motors, among others?

Do you disagree with the proposition or do you believe that academics
who question CO2 Global Warming must be corrupt?

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Everyone who has worked as an
academic researcher knows that. Yes, I too have worked on a study where
the parameters of the study had been set in order to produce an outcome
favourable to the funder.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; If you're doing this for fun, do what seems fun. If you're
;; doing it for money, stop now.
;; Rainer Deyke

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

Tony Raven said:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/050504H.html

You do know that this site is funded by Exxonmobil and General Motors,
among others?

Do you disagree with the proposition

The proposition being that some GW sceptics can apparently find no
better outlet for their pontification than op-ed pieces in oil
industry-funded disinformation sites?

Or did you mean something else?

Quoted message said:

or do you believe that academics
who question CO2 Global Warming must be corrupt?

Not that they "must be", and "corrupt" may be a harsh term for someone
who quite possibly believes that they in fact being honest and
objective, but it would be foolish to entirely ignore the funding trail
in determining the validity of claims, be it in respect of global
warming, helmet efffectiveness or fork safety.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

Tony Raven said:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/050504H.html

You do know that this site is funded by Exxonmobil and General
Motors, among others?

Do you disagree with the proposition or do you believe that academics
who question CO2 Global Warming must be corrupt?

Everything on techcentralstation is suspect. It's not just funded by
industry; it's published by a lobbying firm. It's a professional
Astroturfing operation.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html

--
Keith Willoughby
Welcome to the police state - http://tinyurl.com/3cptb

Tony Raven said:

That CO2 is causing it is a hypothesis but it is
by no means proven and natural climate variation, for example the recent
studies on sun spot activity and climate, are alternative hypotheses
being studied. It may even be the other way round that global warming
brings CO2 out of solution in the oceans so that CO2 rises are effect
and not cause.

That is nothing more than ignorant nonsense.

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These
effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's
history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences
cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures
observed during the second half of the 20th century.

"The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some
aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur,
exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will
take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions.
Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there
will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice
will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to
higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify,
leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought
patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the
resulting impacts."

Quoted message said:

I prefer to keep an open and questioning mind.

If only. Your inability to see the reams of evidence on one side of the
argument, and gullible reliance on industry-funded op-ed junk on the
other, gives the lie to your "open and questioning mind".

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Tony Raven said:

James Annan said:

Not Responding said:

Global warming may or may not be driven by man made CO2

NO, this is NOT an open question and has not been for some time.

It is except for closed minds. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change do not claim certainty.

The last IPCC report was published in 2001, and largely written some
time before, based on peer-reviewed research which was performed more
than 5 years ago.

The world has moved on since then, although I am not surprised that you
prefer to live in the past.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Just zis Guy said:

Point is, how bad could it be, reducing pollution? What's the downside in
extending the lifetime of the finite reserves of fossil fuels?

As I've said before I actually support reducing pollution and maximising
the effectiveness with which we use non-renewable resources but I don't
need threats of climate disaster to persuade me those are good things to do.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

Point is, how bad could it be, reducing pollution? What's the
downside in extending the lifetime of the finite reserves of fossil
fuels?

Quoted message said:

As I've said before I actually support reducing pollution and
maximising the effectiveness with which we use non-renewable
resources but I don't need threats of climate disaster to persuade me
those are good things to do.

Ah, well, that's a different matter. Whether anybody will respond before
ten minutes after the last possible moment, if there is no widespread
discussion of the worst-case scenario, is a question to which I suspect I
can guess the answer :-)

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

That CO2 is causing it is a hypothesis but it is
by no means proven and natural climate variation, for example the recent
studies on sun spot activity and climate, are alternative hypotheses
being studied. It may even be the other way round that global warming
brings CO2 out of solution in the oceans so that CO2 rises are effect
and not cause.

That is nothing more than ignorant nonsense.

No it isn't!!

Quoted message said:

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate.

The principal spokesman for climate change in the US said, a few years ago,
that after reviewing all the data, he FELT that human activities were the
cause. This "gut feeling" has mysteriously changed into a fact for most of
the public.

Graham