|
|
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message Troll. Hey say something, don't just sign your name. Is you other name idiot by the way? Poor half_wit. So obsessed about idiocy. It really is obvious to everybody here that such obsessions are projection. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:11:13 +0100, Doh wrote: The same as the dark side of the earth if it did not rotate so fast!! Ah-ha - proved your ignorance - there is no dark side of the moon! Yes, of course there is, just as there is a light and a dark side of the Earth. But not permenently dark, as OP seems to think |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
"Doh" wrote in message ... Cynic wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:11:13 +0100, Doh wrote: The same as the dark side of the earth if it did not rotate so fast!! Ah-ha - proved your ignorance - there is no dark side of the moon! Yes, of course there is, just as there is a light and a dark side of the Earth. But not permenently dark, as OP seems to think No thats what your thought I thought. Slight difference. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Jun 14, 10:28 am, "Irish Mike" wrote:
I think the whole "global warming" hysteria is a crock of ****. For those of us who are not global warming experts, whose opinions on global warming deserve respect? Irish Mike and his talk radio fools? Or ... scientists? Hmmm .. Irish Mike ... or scientists? Tough call? I think I'll go with the scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." The U.S. National Academy of Sciences -- "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue." The American Meteorological Society -- "Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases.... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems." The American Geophysical Union, in a statement endorsed by the American Institute of Physics and the American Astronomical Society -- "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.... Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer." The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) -- "Unless the world curbs growing CO2 output, concentrations in the air are likely to double from pre-industrial levels by 2080, and may warm the world by 3oC." The U.S. National Research Council -- "Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue." The Geological Society of London -- "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." The Geological Society of America -- "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth's climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." The American Chemical Society -- "The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time." The American Quaternary Association -- "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. The first government-led U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment report supports the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity." The national science academies of all the G8 nations -- "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world's climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
"Ivan" wrote:
I have to say that if the problem is a serious as we are told one would have to ask why is aviation fuel not taxed at anywhere near the same rate as domestic fuel, also why is the government not applying any kind of disincentive on airports in an attempt stop them expanding, thus enabling them to carry millions of extra passengers a year. Perhaps because of the tiny proportion of human co2 emissions that aircraft actually cause? http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...cle2539349.ece In any case, stopping airport expansion would mean the newer super jumbo sized and therefore more efficient per passenger mile aircraft would not get developed and used. Extra passengers does not have to mean extra emissions. Only yesterday I read that within the next few years Richard Branson actually intends kicking off a whole new industry, transporting thrill seekers (with apparently too much money) into the edge of space.. which no doubt means that instead of any kind of condemnation he will probably be made a lord. Only yesterday? Don't read much then? Also AEDS Astrium http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6749873.stm Any space tourism really will be a drop in the ocean as far as CO2 is concerned! dom. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Jun 13, 4:53 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
OK then little Einstein why is the moon hotter than the Earth when the scientists predict it should be colder, having no CO2 and all? Eh? It's OK for you to mock me but when you have nothing to back up your claims you just begin to look like some kind of mindless fool. Have a look at our future when the wingnuts who deny science and distrust education. Not a pretty sight is it? |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Jun 14, 10:28 am, "Irish Mike" wrote:
I think the whole "global warming" hysteria is a crock of **** Ladies and Gentlemen....Noted climatologist Irish Reich |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Jun 14, 10:28 am, "Irish Mike" wrote:
I listened to a recent radio show interviewing a group of scientists who pretty much said the whole CO2 scare is bull ****. I bet those "scientists" were oil industry shills. My odds increase significantly just knowing its a radio show to which you'd be likely to listen. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
"Another Problem Solved By R.G.P." wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 14, 10:28 am, "Irish Mike" wrote: I think the whole "global warming" hysteria is a crock of ****. For those of us who are not global warming experts, whose opinions on global warming deserve respect? Irish Mike and his talk radio fools? Or ... scientists? Hmmm .. Irish Mike ... or scientists? Tough call? I think I'll go with the scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." The U.S. National Academy of Sciences -- "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue." The American Meteorological Society -- "Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases.... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems." The American Geophysical Union, in a statement endorsed by the American Institute of Physics and the American Astronomical Society -- "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.... Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer." The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) -- "Unless the world curbs growing CO2 output, concentrations in the air are likely to double from pre-industrial levels by 2080, and may warm the world by 3oC." The U.S. National Research Council -- "Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue." The Geological Society of London -- "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." The Geological Society of America -- "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth's climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." The American Chemical Society -- "The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time." The American Quaternary Association -- "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. The first government-led U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment report supports the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity." The national science academies of all the G8 nations -- "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world's climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." "*likely* to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas" In other words they have no evidence whatsoever to prove it. I |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"*likely* to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas" In other words they have no evidence whatsoever to prove it. There is no such thing as proof in any empirical science, dimbulb. That is found only in mathematics, and not always there, either. So in science, all we can ever have is supporting evidence. I believe the "likely" quote was from the IPCC third assessment. In the fourth assessment, that is strengthened to "very likely", meaning that the level of confidence is between 90 and 95%. That means it is time to act. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
Irish Mike wrote:
I think the whole "global warming" hysteria is a crock of ****. And I think you are an idiot. The difference between us is that I have the evidence (your post) and you do not. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
"Pyriform" wrote in message ... Lord Turkey Cough wrote: "*likely* to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas" In other words they have no evidence whatsoever to prove it. There is no such thing as proof in any empirical science, dimbulb. That is found only in mathematics, and not always there, either. So in science, all we can ever have is supporting evidence. I believe the "likely" quote was from the IPCC third assessment. In the fourth assessment, that is strengthened to "very likely", meaning that the level of confidence is between 90 and 95%. That means it is time to act. I right then I won't leave my electrical goods on standby, just like Lewis Hamilton does. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Jun 14, 1:25 pm, "Pyriform" wrote:
Lord Turkey Cough wrote: "*likely* to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas" In other words they have no evidence whatsoever to prove it. There is no such thing as proof in any empirical science, dimbulb. That is found only in mathematics, and not always there, either. So in science, all we can ever have is supporting evidence. I believe the "likely" quote was from the IPCC third assessment. In the fourth assessment, that is strengthened to "very likely", meaning that the level of confidence is between 90 and 95%. That means it is time to act. Correct. The IPCC's paper "Working Group I Report (WGI): Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" published March 2007 states: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is *very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." In the 2007 report, "very likely" has a specific meaning: a probability greater than 90%. Merely "likely" would have meant a probability greater than 66%. An explanation can be found at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...idanceNote.pdf |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
I think the whole "global warming" hysteria is a crock of ****.
I listened to a recent radio show interviewing a group of scientists who pretty much said the whole CO2 scare is bull ****. Why do you bother posting this **** all the time? Do you think anyone is listening to you except for perhaps your fellow RGP idiots? Your bias is transparent and you cherry pick your "sources" based only on your personal political leanings, bigotry etc. You're such a simple minded fool you're incapable of being honest even with yourself. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message ... Lord Turkey Cough wrote: Guess what the temperature on the moon is (same distance from the Sun as Earth. Very cold you will wisely say because it has no atmosphere to keep it warm llike the earth with it's lovely greehouse gases. So you would expet it to be about -30C would you not? Guess what it can get to over 100C there. PROOF THE GREENHOUSE GAS (CO2) THEORY IS WRONG. A MYTH EXPOSED BY LORD TURKEY HIMSELF AND HIS MASSIVE BRAIN. Troll. Hey say something, To even bother to address myself to what you laughably think is an 'argument' would be to lend credibility to a fool. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
"Another Problem Solved By R.G.P." wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 14, 1:25 pm, "Pyriform" wrote: Lord Turkey Cough wrote: "*likely* to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas" In other words they have no evidence whatsoever to prove it. There is no such thing as proof in any empirical science, dimbulb. That is found only in mathematics, and not always there, either. So in science, all we can ever have is supporting evidence. I believe the "likely" quote was from the IPCC third assessment. In the fourth assessment, that is strengthened to "very likely", meaning that the level of confidence is between 90 and 95%. That means it is time to act. Correct. The IPCC's paper "Working Group I Report (WGI): Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" published March 2007 states: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is *very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." In the 2007 report, "very likely" has a specific meaning: a probability greater than 90%. Merely "likely" would have meant a probability greater than 66%. An explanation can be found at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...idanceNote.pdf In other words they are just guessing. These are the same scientists that are saying one thing is good for you one minute and bad for you the next. The same scientists who gave super human properties to spinach (Popeye) due to a typing error in a table. The models they have are pretty much useless. They can't even predict the weather 24 hours in advance. "90% chance of rain" and its the sunniest day ever. "Definitely no hurricane on the way", and half of England is devestate by hurricane force winds (despite being told there was one on the way). You believe these fools? Why? They will produce whatever kind of crap which will keep them in a job. That's all. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
"Scott" wrote in message ... Lord Turkey Cough wrote: "Scott" wrote in message ... Lord Turkey Cough wrote: Guess what the temperature on the moon is (same distance from the Sun as Earth. Very cold you will wisely say because it has no atmosphere to keep it warm llike the earth with it's lovely greehouse gases. So you would expet it to be about -30C would you not? Guess what it can get to over 100C there. PROOF THE GREENHOUSE GAS (CO2) THEORY IS WRONG. A MYTH EXPOSED BY LORD TURKEY HIMSELF AND HIS MASSIVE BRAIN. Troll. Hey say something, To even bother to address myself to what you laughably think is an 'argument' would be to lend credibility to a fool. You have no credibility so you are in no position to be lending it in the first place. A begger would have more chance of setting himself up as a major merchant bank. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message To even bother to address myself to what you laughably think is an 'argument' would be to lend credibility to a fool. You have no credibility so you are in no position to be lending it in the first place. Poor half_wit. So mentally scarred by the abuse that you brought upon yourself with your social crassness during the years that formed your personality. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
Err.......We are talkng about the surface tremperature You can measure it with a themometer (heat meter) Heat is not the same as temperature, idiot boy. BugBear |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Jun 14, 3:21 am, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
Thanks for that R, I was about to mention that but I just thought I would allow them to make that mistake ;O) (honestly....) And you could well imaging how cold it would get on the other side of the earth if it took a month to rotate. Close to absolute zero no doubt. Utter, utter, utter ********. Venus' "day" is about 100 days (its sidereal day is slightly longer than its year - both around 250 days) There is no "cold" side on Venus. Surface temperature 700K all the time. Mercury's day is about 200 days (three times its sidereal day and twice its year). There is both a hot and cold side to Mercury 90 K (night) 250 K (midmorning) 700 K (noon) The surface temperature of Venus after about 50 days of continuous darkness is about the same as the surface temperature of Mercury after about 50 days of continuous sunlight. Even on Earth the poles have 100+ days of continuous darkness and they don't get anything like as cold as the surface of Mercury at night. Tim. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:25:32 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote: There is no such thing as proof in any empirical science, dimbulb. That is found only in mathematics, and not always there, either. So in science, all we can ever have is supporting evidence. I believe the "likely" quote was from the IPCC third assessment. In the fourth assessment, that is strengthened to "very likely", meaning that the level of confidence is between 90 and 95%. That means it is time to act. So what actions do you propose should be taken? Stop generating CO2 and return to the stone age? Quickly invest our entire GNP in wind farms? I have two big problems with the idea that we "must act now". The first is that I am not at all convinced that *any* action we could possibly take (short of a worldwide return to the stone-age) would have any significant effect whatsoever. When I hear ideas such as switching off TV sets instead of leaving them to consume standby current, I start thinking of trying to empty the ocean using a teaspoon and having the delusion that it is making a difference. The second problem I have is that I have not so far heard anything that suggests to me that the consequences of global warming are likely to be particularly damaging to us at all - and in fact may well end up being beneficial. Sure, some areas will become uninhabitable - but other areas will become habitable. The process is plenty slow enough to allow mankind to adapt as the changes occur. It appears to me that the cures being proposed are *far* worse than the disease, and unlikely to actually make much difference anyway. ISTM that after a few hundred years the World will reach a new equilibrium without causing any significant problems for mankind. -- Cynic |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:17:26 +0100, Doh wrote:
The same as the dark side of the earth if it did not rotate so fast!! Ah-ha - proved your ignorance - there is no dark side of the moon! Yes, of course there is, just as there is a light and a dark side of the Earth. But not permenently dark, as OP seems to think The OP certainly did not indicate that he thinks any such thing. He is definitely not as stupid as he makes himself out to be. His posts are half trolling, half TIC and half entertainment. And yes, I am perfectly aware that that does not add up. He certainly succeeds in provoking a lot of responses in most of the threads he starts. Seemingly naive questions and observations can sometimes be quite revealing - such as when the small child made the observation that the emperor was not wearing any clothes. Do not underestimate the amount of politics that is tied up in scientific research, nor the ego and predjudices of scientists. -- Cynic |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
Cynic wrote:
The second problem I have is that I have not so far heard anything that suggests to me that the consequences of global warming are likely to be particularly damaging to us at all - and in fact may well end up being beneficial. Sure, some areas will become uninhabitable - but other areas will become habitable. The process is plenty slow enough to allow mankind to adapt as the changes occur. It appears to me that the cures being proposed are *far* worse than the disease, and unlikely to actually make much difference anyway. Two points here (at least): 1) *Mankind* may be able to adapt - in a purely ecological sense - but very many animal and plant species won't be able to; the likely changes are far faster than 'normal' evolution can cope with. Does this matter? That's partly a matter of taste/philosophy, but one of the most fundamental changes in our view of the world in recent decades has been the realisation - though we're very far from anything like a complete understanding - that just about everything on this planet - including its geology - is an interconnected system. 2) The purely 'ecological' adaptation of mankind as a species says nothing about the effect of climate change on human civilisation. You rightly say that some areas will become uninhabitable and some others habitable. The problem is that many of those 'soon to be uninhabitable' areas contain thousands of millions of people, many of them dirt poor. Are they to be left to die? Are they to be made welcome in the remaining areas (like the U.K.)? Are they to be forcibly settled in 'starting to become habitable' areas? I share *some* of your scepticism about the ineffectiveness and vapidity of *some* of the proposed cures, but the disease is pretty damn serious. André Coutanche |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
"bugbear" wrote in message ... Lord Turkey Cough wrote: Err.......We are talkng about the surface tremperature You can measure it with a themometer (heat meter) Heat is not the same as temperature, idiot boy. You know what I mean. Your not that that arre you ? Surely? BugBear |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
"André Coutanche" wrote in message ... Cynic wrote: The second problem I have is that I have not so far heard anything that suggests to me that the consequences of global warming are likely to be particularly damaging to us at all - and in fact may well end up being beneficial. Sure, some areas will become uninhabitable - but other areas will become habitable. The process is plenty slow enough to allow mankind to adapt as the changes occur. It appears to me that the cures being proposed are *far* worse than the disease, and unlikely to actually make much difference anyway. Two points here (at least): 1) *Mankind* may be able to adapt - in a purely ecological sense - but very many animal and plant species won't be able to; the likely changes are far faster than 'normal' evolution can cope with. Does this matter? That's partly a matter of taste/philosophy, but one of the most fundamental changes in our view of the world in recent decades has been the realisation - though we're very far from anything like a complete understanding - that just about everything on this planet - including its geology - is an interconnected system. 2) The purely 'ecological' adaptation of mankind as a species says nothing about the effect of climate change on human civilisation. You rightly say that some areas will become uninhabitable and some others habitable. The problem is that many of those 'soon to be uninhabitable' areas contain thousands of millions of people, many of them dirt poor. Are they to be left to die? Are they to be made welcome in the remaining areas (like the U.K.)? Are they to be forcibly settled in 'starting to become habitable' areas? I share *some* of your scepticism about the ineffectiveness and vapidity of *some* of the proposed cures, but the disease is pretty damn serious. No it's no its not a disease it's a cure. I am looking forwaard to global warming with great anticipation. The weather is going to be cracking. André Coutanche |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
wrote in message ups.com... On Jun 14, 3:21 am, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: Thanks for that R, I was about to mention that but I just thought I would allow them to make that mistake ;O) (honestly....) And you could well imaging how cold it would get on the other side of the earth if it took a month to rotate. Close to absolute zero no doubt. Utter, utter, utter ********. Yes thats what you talk Venus' "day" is about 100 days (its sidereal day is slightly longer than its year - both around 250 days) There is no "cold" side on Venus. Surface temperature 700K all the time. Ahso now you have disproved greenhouse effect, which predicts the side facing the sun must be hotter. Wow!! How thick are you then? Mercury's day is about 200 days (three times its sidereal day and twice its year). There is both a hot and cold side to Mercury 90 K (night) 250 K (midmorning) 700 K (noon) The surface temperature of Venus after about 50 days of continuous darkness is about the same as the surface temperature of Mercury after about 50 days of continuous sunlight. Even on Earth the poles have 100+ days of continuous darkness and they don't get anything like as cold as the surface of Mercury at night. Cos the are not completely dark and they get down not nearly -100C anyway. Tim. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:47:36 +0100, "André Coutanche"
wrote: Cynic wrote: The second problem I have is that I have not so far heard anything that suggests to me that the consequences of global warming are likely to be particularly damaging to us at all - and in fact may well end up being beneficial. Sure, some areas will become uninhabitable - but other areas will become habitable. The process is plenty slow enough to allow mankind to adapt as the changes occur. It appears to me that the cures being proposed are *far* worse than the disease, and unlikely to actually make much difference anyway. Two points here (at least): 1) *Mankind* may be able to adapt - in a purely ecological sense - but very many animal and plant species won't be able to; the likely changes are far faster than 'normal' evolution can cope with. Does this matter? That's partly a matter of taste/philosophy, but one of the most fundamental changes in our view of the world in recent decades has been the realisation - though we're very far from anything like a complete understanding - that just about everything on this planet - including its geology - is an interconnected system. Which has survived the coming and going of many species with ease. The *only* species of concern to me is mankind - and the probability that the predicted global warming will significantly affect that species is close to zero. Sorry that I don't get particularly emotional about the extinction of the lesser-spotted toad, or even the leopard. I remain distinctly sanguine about the passing of the Dodo bird. There is not a single species that has become extinct that has adversely affected my lifestyle or that of anyone I have heard about. 2) The purely 'ecological' adaptation of mankind as a species says nothing about the effect of climate change on human civilisation. You rightly say that some areas will become uninhabitable and some others habitable. The problem is that many of those 'soon to be uninhabitable' areas contain thousands of millions of people, many of them dirt poor. Are they to be left to die? Are they to be made welcome in the remaining areas (like the U.K.)? Are they to be forcibly settled in 'starting to become habitable' areas? Many areas have become unsustainable for the population, with famine and widespread deaths occuring as a result. The effects of global warming will be far slower than the effects of a poor crop season or even rapid overpopulation of an area. There will be a few Ethiopia and Bangladesh (and probably Rwanda) type tradgedies that the majority of people in the World will "tut tut" over when they see the news footage before deciding what to have for breakfast. I share *some* of your scepticism about the ineffectiveness and vapidity of *some* of the proposed cures, but the disease is pretty damn serious. I disagree that it is at all serious for mankind. If you had absolute control of the World, and could enforce any measures you like, what measure would you impose on the World's population that would (a) prevent global warming rather than only delaying it for a few decades, and (b) not cause us a huge drop in the general standard of living? -- Cynic |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
wrote in message Surface temperature 700K all the time. Ahso now you have disproved greenhouse effect, which predicts the side facing the sun must be hotter. Wow!! How thick are you then? Poor half_wit. Psychologically damaged by all those nasty people that called you "thick" to your face when you were younger. Now you try to "get even" with the world by calling random people "thick" on Usenet, which is about as desperately sad as it is possible to get. Poor poor half_wit. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
Cynic wrote:
The *only* species of concern to me is mankind - and the probability that the predicted global warming will significantly affect that species is close to zero. You appear to be an idiot. No wonder you think Lord Turkey ******** is brighter than he seems. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:33:36 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote: Cynic wrote: The *only* species of concern to me is mankind - and the probability that the predicted global warming will significantly affect that species is close to zero. You appear to be an idiot. No wonder you think Lord Turkey ******** is brighter than he seems. So explain to me exactly how global wqarming is likely to adversely affect me or any of my great great grandchildren -- Cynic |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Jun 15, 12:43 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
You know what I mean. Your not that that arre you ? Surely? Why the **** would we listen to anybody who writes a sentence like that? |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Jun 15, 7:34 am, Cynic wrote:
So what actions do you propose should be taken? Stop generating CO2 and return to the stone age? Quickly invest our entire GNP in wind farms? Oh my. Stone age! Our *entire* GNP! Are those are only options? But let's talk wind power. What percentage of US GNP (or GDP) -- would you guess -- *is* currently invested in wind energy? Answer: not very much. According to the American Wind Energy Association, in 2005 wind power supplied 0.5% of electricity consumption in the USA, the equivalent of only about 1.6 million households. Meanwhile, in Denmark, parts of Germany and Spain, wind power supplied over 20% of electricity demand. Why can they do it but we can't? The AWEA estimates that $50 billion in new investment would increase wind power-supplied electricity by 700% -- the equivalent of about 11 million households -- and create 10,000 jobs, by the way. And $50 billion is a drop in the GDP bucket. US GDP in 2005 was $12 trillion. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
"BongCrosby" wrote in message ps.com... On Jun 15, 12:43 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: You know what I mean. Your not that that arre you ? Surely? Why the **** would we listen to anybody who writes a sentence like that? Well I tkink you know what I was saying. I imagine it is quicker for you to work it out then for me to type it on correctly (mightbe wrong though). :O| Do u judge someones intellilgence bytheir typing? YU must have me marked out as a fool. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Jun 15, 11:42 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
YU must have me marked out as a fool. Could be. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
In article . com,
Another Problem Solved By R.G.P. wrote: On Jun 15, 7:34 am, Cynic wrote: So what actions do you propose should be taken? Stop generating CO2 and return to the stone age? Quickly invest our entire GNP in wind farms? Oh my. Stone age! Our *entire* GNP! Are those are only options? But let's talk wind power. What percentage of US GNP (or GDP) -- would you guess -- *is* currently invested in wind energy? The problem with wind power, in this country, is that wind is not a permanent thing. An example: a couple of winters ago I drove round the M25 on a freezing morning and passed the wind turbine near Hemel Hempstead. No wind, so it was not turning at all - at a time when it was needed. -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:26:44 +0100, Cynic
wrote: Cynic wrote: The *only* species of concern to me is mankind - and the probability that the predicted global warming will significantly affect that species is close to zero. You appear to be an idiot. No wonder you think Lord Turkey ******** is brighter than he seems. So explain to me exactly how global wqarming is likely to adversely affect me or any of my great great grandchildren You mean when half the UK is under water, the remaining half is like the Sahara, and there are no animals left to eat? They'll die. That's how it will affect them. Rod. |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:00:29 -0700, "Another Problem Solved By R.G.P."
wrote: On Jun 15, 7:34 am, Cynic wrote: So what actions do you propose should be taken? Stop generating CO2 and return to the stone age? Quickly invest our entire GNP in wind farms? Oh my. Stone age! Our *entire* GNP! Are those are only options? But let's talk wind power. What percentage of US GNP (or GDP) -- would you guess -- *is* currently invested in wind energy? Answer: not very much. According to the American Wind Energy Association, in 2005 wind power supplied 0.5% of electricity consumption in the USA, the equivalent of only about 1.6 million households. Meanwhile, in Denmark, parts of Germany and Spain, wind power supplied over 20% of electricity demand. Why can they do it but we can't? The AWEA estimates that $50 billion in new investment would increase wind power-supplied electricity by 700% -- the equivalent of about 11 million households -- and create 10,000 jobs, by the way. And $50 billion is a drop in the GDP bucket. US GDP in 2005 was $12 trillion. And if they spent "only" $50 billion and did that, what would be the effect on global warming? Would it stop it? Reverse it? Delay it (by how much)? I'm sure that you and I could do *something* to reduce CO2 emissions as well, perhaps by cycling everywhere instead of using our cars. The reason that I won't consider such a thing is because it will have absolutely zero practical effect in solving the problem. Teaspoons and oceans again. -- Cynic |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
In article ,
Cynic wrote: I'm sure that you and I could do *something* to reduce CO2 emissions as well, perhaps by cycling everywhere instead of using our cars. not just cars: a Eurostar train draws 4MW ! -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:34:43 +0100, Cynic
wrote: I have two big problems with the idea that we "must act now". The first is that I am not at all convinced that *any* action we could possibly take (short of a worldwide return to the stone-age) would have any significant effect whatsoever. When I hear ideas such as switching off TV sets instead of leaving them to consume standby current, I start thinking of trying to empty the ocean using a teaspoon and having the delusion that it is making a difference. You've probably got the scale about right. We're just messing about trying to cover up the symptoms of the problem instead of dealing with the problem itself, which is that the planet is living well beyond its means because there are simply far too many of us. Unfortunately I think it's probably reached a stage where even if we were able to implement an effective population policy on a global scale starting tomorrow, we would probably still have to face some of the worst effects of what we have already done. Rod. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com