Calculate your carbon footprint
 

In message , Bill Wright
wrote

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Wright Put this into
perspective, it's a small fraction of the money that is going to be
wasted on a few highly paid professional sportsmen in 2012.


Figures pleae.

Your figures for the flood £1,000m

The official figures for that little sporting event in 2012 is £3,300m
(which excludes the security bill or regeneration costs). Many believe
it's going to be closer to £8,000m.

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Bill Wright" wrote

"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message
...

"Pyriform" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote
What a totally stupid and ignorant remark! I wish I could take you
to meet the people of Toll Bar, and let you spout such ****e! You
wouldn't last ten seconds mate!

Bill

Look, what AGW hysterics made of a human... a headless, nervous wreck.
Objective achieved...?

Given that Bill is cynical about AGW, I think that any hysteria
surrounding
it is unlikely to be the cause of his present annoyance.

On one side it is really sad, what has happened there.
On the other side I can't sympathize with all the people, who knew from
the media in the 70s, that there is global warming, but still build their
houses in unsecure areas. Even if those areas are known from former
floods,
they might think "That won't happen to me ... not me.".

"Let them eat cake."

Here's a reality check for you. When you live in a council house you don't
get much of a say regarding where it's been built. The council allocates you
a house after a long wait and you're glad of it. The worst flooded houses in
Catcliffe and Toll Bar were council houses.

Some of the flooding was in places where houses should never be built, I'll
give you that. The fault here lies with the planners, who allow private and
council house building on flood plains.

And here are a few points of information for you. The worst flooding in
Bentley occurred in a place that has never, ever, flooded before.The reason
it flooded was because the government allowed the Coal Board to lower the
whole area by 2 metres in 1967. The worst flooding in Toll Bar occurred in a
place that last flooded in 1947. The areas of Bentley that were flooded in
1930 and 1947 were largely untouched this time. The Toll Bar floods were due
to the pressure gates at the end of the Ea Beck being unable to operate due
to the water level in the Don. By the time the pumps arrived it was too
late.

That's a good point, Bill.
I don't know the regional conditions or some thing about the Coal Board,
but I saw an analogy to New Orleans, where, despite of all warnings,
people rebuild their houses at the same places again, always aware that
such a catastrophe could happen again. And that I simply call unreasonableness.

Even I heard voices after the UK flood, that GW is responsible for this abnormal
weather event. And that's hysteric at all, because there is given no relation,
and, as you say, it is the guilt of humans, not the nature.

That's what I meant with precontitioned... everything supernatural is
caused by GW at first. clickswitch mind off/click Cognition of
other possibilities or clear thinking is suppressed, because we already have
a culprit.

These are typical signs of conditioned by media and GW hysterics, like Al Bore.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote
"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message
...
"Pyriform" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote
What a totally stupid and ignorant remark! I wish I could take you
to meet the people of Toll Bar, and let you spout such ****e! You
wouldn't last ten seconds mate!

Bill
Look, what AGW hysterics made of a human... a headless, nervous wreck.
Objective achieved...?
Given that Bill is cynical about AGW, I think that any hysteria
surrounding
it is unlikely to be the cause of his present annoyance.
On one side it is really sad, what has happened there.
On the other side I can't sympathize with all the people, who knew from
the media in the 70s, that there is global warming, but still build their
houses in unsecure areas. Even if those areas are known from former
floods,
they might think "That won't happen to me ... not me.".
"Let them eat cake."

Here's a reality check for you. When you live in a council house you don't
get much of a say regarding where it's been built. The council allocates you
a house after a long wait and you're glad of it. The worst flooded houses in
Catcliffe and Toll Bar were council houses.

Some of the flooding was in places where houses should never be built, I'll
give you that. The fault here lies with the planners, who allow private and
council house building on flood plains.

And here are a few points of information for you. The worst flooding in
Bentley occurred in a place that has never, ever, flooded before.The reason
it flooded was because the government allowed the Coal Board to lower the
whole area by 2 metres in 1967. The worst flooding in Toll Bar occurred in a
place that last flooded in 1947. The areas of Bentley that were flooded in
1930 and 1947 were largely untouched this time. The Toll Bar floods were due
to the pressure gates at the end of the Ea Beck being unable to operate due
to the water level in the Don. By the time the pumps arrived it was too
late.

That's a good point, Bill.
I don't know the regional conditions or some thing about the Coal Board,
but I saw an analogy to New Orleans, where, despite of all warnings,
people rebuild their houses at the same places again, always aware that
such a catastrophe could happen again. And that I simply call unreasonableness.

Perhaps, but I imagine that the still own the land where their previous house
that was destroyed was built, and maybe I'm wrong, but after losing everything
I expect that their ability to buy a new home elsewhere is limited. Also, I expect
that housing in Louisiana is much cheaper than housing in California.

Even I heard voices after the UK flood, that GW is responsible for this abnormal
weather event.

The *******.

And that's hysteric at all, because there is given no relation,
and, as you say, it is the guilt of humans, not the nature.

It's interesting that AGW believers are quite willing to point the finger of blame
at skeptics ('dem evil deniers) but totally unwilling to acknowledge that if their
AGW belief system is correct, both they and the British share equal blame.

That's what I meant with precontitioned... everything supernatural is
caused by GW at first.

AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGgggggggg.............. running around in circles

clickswitch mind off/click Cognition of
other possibilities or clear thinking is suppressed, because we already have
a culprit.

Indeed (and in word too).

These are typical signs of conditioned by media and GW hysterics, like Al Bore.

Hey, I'm sure that there are some exciting moments in Al Gore's life, although my
imagination is lacking in regards to what those might be.

Cheers,

Rich

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

In message , Pyriform
writes
Norman Wells wrote:
In message , Pyriform
writes
Bill Wright wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote:

Trees take carbon out of the
atmosphere *now*.

No they don't, they take it out during their lifetime, which is
typically 100 years. They take bugger all out each year.

For some values of "bugger all". Plants and trees gain mass largely
as a result of carbon absorbed from the atmosphere. So they have a
net uptake of carbon "now" and for the next n years, where n is the
growing period. It's rather a lot of carbon.

Plants, though, generally give it all back within the year as they rot
down. Trees do absorb carbon over their lifetime, but you need a
rather large tree to offset the 6 (or 8, or is it 10?), tonnes of
carbon (or is it CO2?), each household is supposed to emit annually.

I don't dispute any of that. I was merely pointing out that the logic was
quite different than claiming that fossil fuels are "renewable".

I don't know what proportion of a tree by weight is carbon, but I
doubt if it's more than 10%.

You doubt wrong. It's about 50% of a tree's dry weight. The dry/green weight
ratio varies a lot between species, but if we take a fairly typical value of
0.75, that gives a carbon content of 37.5%.

I don't think that's right. The dry weight of a tree is made up not of
pure carbon, but of cellulose and lignin, which contain substantially
less than 50% of carbon by weight.

Even if you are right, you still need a tree just for your household
that will put on green weight of something like 16 tonnes a year. And
that's a very big tree, or what we call a wood, if not a forest.

--
Norman Wells
NG

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Wright
wrote

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Wright Put this
into
perspective, it's a small fraction of the money that is going to be
wasted on a few highly paid professional sportsmen in 2012.


Figures pleae.

Your figures for the flood £1,000m

The official figures for that little sporting event in 2012 is £3,300m
(which excludes the security bill or regeneration costs). Many believe
it's going to be closer to £8,000m.

Are you talking about the Olympics? I thought they were all amateurs.

Bill

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Rich" wrote in message
. ..
Hey, I'm sure that there are some exciting moments in Al Gore's life,
although my
imagination is lacking in regards to what those might be.

He's political failure who looked round for a bandwagon, saw a good one, and
jumped on. He is becoming very famous and turning into an international
superstar on the back of the global warming fiasco. Yet his own personal
consumption is megga!

Bill

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Alan" wrote:
Lord Turkey Cough wrote


But hold it you say!! What about all the rain and flooding!!!? How do you
explain that oh

What you have to realise that the weather hasn't changed in centuries and
it is cyclic.

When they say that it was the wettest June since 1914 they mean that it
was also rather wet in 1914!

There has always been localised flooding and it has always rained in
Wimbledon this time of year, irrespective of the tennis.

What has changed is the reporting of such events. Even ten years ago
something like the flooding t'up north would have resulted in a couple of
lines in a national newspaper and a maximum of thirty seconds of reporting
on national TV. Now that the industry is so short of news to fill a couple
of 24 hour news channels they pump in dozens of reporters to tell us that
a river flood plain has flooded! Add a few spurious facts such as flood
water is unfit for drinking and carpets get wet when water enters a house
and you suddenly have a national disaster.

You are trivialising an ongoing event which has had disastrous
consequences for thousands of people unfortunate enough to
live in a floodplain. Many have lost their homes and all their
possessions - permanently. More fortunate ones may eventually
be able to move back into their homes to repair or rebuild -
if they are sufficiently insured but life will never be the same
again for any of these people, and you reduce it in importance
to an unwanted news item.

Shame on you. This is not the way to debunk global warming.

--
altheim

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

In message , altheim
wrote

You are trivialising an ongoing event which has had disastrous
consequences for thousands of people unfortunate enough to
live in a floodplain.

I'm not trivialising anything. I'm just pointing out a flood plain was
given that name long before the global warming hype. It seems to come as
some surprise to the media and the residents of such areas that a flood
plain gets flooded?

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Bill Wright" wrote

"Rich" wrote in message
. ..
Hey, I'm sure that there are some exciting moments in Al Gore's life,
although my
imagination is lacking in regards to what those might be.

He's political failure who looked round for a bandwagon, saw a good one, and
jumped on. He is becoming very famous and turning into an international
superstar on the back of the global warming fiasco. Yet his own personal
consumption is megga!

Shorter version:
He hasn't digested the rout in 2000 and that's dishonour for him.
What we see here is a dispaired try to regain his honesty by hook
or by crook. IOW, it's simply compensation of an inferiority complex.
He needs the masses to approve him, regardless of if he is right or wrong.
The false science he uses is nothing more than a medium for him to
achieve his goal. This guy is simply a case for psychiatry.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

On Jul 8, 11:25 am, "altheim" wrote:
"Alan" wrote:

Lord Turkey Cough wrote



But hold it you say!! What about all the rain and flooding!!!? How do you
explain that oh

What you have to realise that the weather hasn't changed in centuries and
it is cyclic.

When they say that it was the wettest June since 1914 they mean that it
was also rather wet in 1914!

There has always been localised flooding and it has always rained in
Wimbledon this time of year, irrespective of the tennis.

What has changed is the reporting of such events. Even ten years ago
something like the flooding t'up north would have resulted in a couple of
lines in a national newspaper and a maximum of thirty seconds of reporting
on national TV. Now that the industry is so short of news to fill a couple
of 24 hour news channels they pump in dozens of reporters to tell us that
a river flood plain has flooded! Add a few spurious facts such as flood
water is unfit for drinking and carpets get wet when water enters a house
and you suddenly have a national disaster.

You are trivialising an ongoing event which has had disastrous
consequences for thousands of people unfortunate enough to
live in a floodplain.

That should be "thousands of people stupid enough to live in a
floodplain", tardboy.

Many have lost their homes and all their possessions - permanently.

Boo ****in hoo, tardboy.
Shut-up and give them some of YOUR money.

More fortunate ones may eventually
be able to move back into their homes to repair or rebuild -

So it's not ALL doom and gloom, tardboy?

if they are sufficiently insured but life will never be the same
again for any of these people,

Life may get better for some of those people, tardboy.
Like, if they're smart, they could move some place where they don't
have to worry about flooding.
What a concept, eh pussy?

and you reduce it in importance to an unwanted news item.

**** the ******/*******, tard.

Shame on you. This is not the way to debunk global warming.

Go **** yourself, lunatic.