Calculate your carbon footprint
 

http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm


Now change the values to give the lowest result possible (by cheating).

And low and behold we still need 1.2 planets.


So the solution to global warming is to murder 1/6 of the worlds
population.

George Bush has already made an early start on that in Iraq.

Who said he was not green?

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

On Jul 4, 6:44 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm

Now change the values to give the lowest result possible (by cheating).

And low and behold we still need 1.2 planets.

So the solution to global warming is to murder 1/6 of the worlds
population.

ROTLMAO!


(**Note** the slope in the graphs below is misleading and not to
scale)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:India-demography.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:China-demography.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...demography.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Syria-demography.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...demography.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...demography.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...demography.png


George Bush has already made an early start on that in Iraq.

Who said he was not green?

Let's celebrate global warming, eh.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

On 4 Jul, 23:44, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm

Now change the values to give the lowest result possible (by cheating).

And low and behold we still need 1.2 planets.

And low and behold there's nothing us puny humans can do about it!
Didn't I mention that already?

Doc

So the solution to global warming is to murder 1/6 of the worlds
population.

George Bush has already made an early start on that in Iraq.

Who said he was not green?

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

On 04/07/2007 23:44, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

[uk.legal dropped]

http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm
Now change the values to give the lowest result possible (by cheating).
And low and behold we still need 1.2 planets.

Now turn the "efficency of economy" knob to the right ...

--
Statistics are like a bikini, what they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital - Aaron Levenstein.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:44:45 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm


Now change the values to give the lowest result possible (by cheating).

And low and behold we still need 1.2 planets.


So the solution to global warming is to murder 1/6 of the worlds
population.

George Bush has already made an early start on that in Iraq.

Who said he was not green?

All this "carbon footprint" claptrap is softening up to get you ready
for more taxes.

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets in the
solar system are now known to be warming also.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

Dead Paul wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:44:45 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm


Now change the values to give the lowest result possible (by cheating).

And low and behold we still need 1.2 planets.


So the solution to global warming is to murder 1/6 of the worlds
population.

George Bush has already made an early start on that in Iraq.

Who said he was not green?

All this "carbon footprint" claptrap is softening up to get you ready
for more taxes.

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets in the
solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:18:01 +0100, Phil Randal
wrote:

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets in the
solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/

Debunked huh? The theory was proposed by the head of Russia's space
research. Someone calling him/herself "reasic" has a contrary
opinion. Please point me to reasic's qualifications.

What I see is a similar thing happening to planets as to Earth, and a
similar thing happening to what has happened several times before.
But even though the changes that matter are the same, we are told that
the cause is *completely* different to anything that is happening
elsewhere or in the past, based on theory rather than solid
experimental data (which would be impossible to do on the scale
involved)

More reasonable perhaps to believe that the same factors are at least
partially responsible, if not the main factors.

but whatever the real case, it is difficult to see that we could make
any significant difference in any *practical* way. So rather than
trying to stop the inevitable, surely it is better to start preparing
for the outcome - whatever it is being caused by?

--
Cynic

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Phil Randal" wrote in message
...
Dead Paul wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:44:45 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm


Now change the values to give the lowest result possible (by cheating).

And low and behold we still need 1.2 planets.


So the solution to global warming is to murder 1/6 of the worlds
population.

George Bush has already made an early start on that in Iraq.

Who said he was not green?

All this "carbon footprint" claptrap is softening up to get you ready
for more taxes.

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets in the
solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/


Of course that is b*llocks what kind of moron could beleive the follow
clap trap:-

"These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth’s axis and its distance from
the sun and are
thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth."


Of course that is complete and utter b*llox. Any fool would know a change in
the tilt
would merely cause a movement in the position of the ice caps, it would not
cause them
to demenish.

It's hard to believe anyone can be so stupid.

An change in tilt would just shift the ice caps as it would on earth.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Phil Randal" wrote in message
...
Dead Paul wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:44:45 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm


Now change the values to give the lowest result possible (by cheating).

And low and behold we still need 1.2 planets.


So the solution to global warming is to murder 1/6 of the worlds
population.

George Bush has already made an early start on that in Iraq.

Who said he was not green?

All this "carbon footprint" claptrap is softening up to get you ready
for more taxes.

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets in the
solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/


Of course that is b*llocks what kind of moron could beleive the follow
clap trap:-

"These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from
the sun and are
thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth."


Of course that is complete and utter b*llox. Any fool would know a change
in the tilt
would merely cause a movement in the position of the ice caps, it would
not cause them
to demenish.

It's hard to believe anyone can be so stupid.

An change in tilt would just shift the ice caps as it would on earth.



And anyone who has seen Venus in the night sky recently glowing
like a 100 watt bulb will know the Sun is extremely active. I noticed
it and I am not an astronemer or even looking for it. You could not help but
notice it.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

On Jul 5, 6:49 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in ...





"Phil Randal" wrote in message
...
Dead Paul wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:44:45 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm

Now change the values to give the lowest result possible (by cheating).

And low and behold we still need 1.2 planets.

So the solution to global warming is to murder 1/6 of the worlds
population.

George Bush has already made an early start on that in Iraq.

Who said he was not green?

All this "carbon footprint" claptrap is softening up to get you ready
for more taxes.

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets in the
solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/

Of course that is b*llocks what kind of moron could beleive the follow
clap trap:-

"These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from
the sun and are
thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth."

Of course that is complete and utter b*llox. Any fool would know a change
in the tilt
would merely cause a movement in the position of the ice caps, it would
not cause them
to demenish.

It's hard to believe anyone can be so stupid.

An change in tilt would just shift the ice caps as it would on earth.

And anyone who has seen Venus in the night sky recently glowing
like a 100 watt bulb will know the Sun is extremely active. I noticed
it and I am not an astronemer or even looking for it. You could not help but
notice it.

[alt.astronomy added to the distribution]

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:18:01 +0100, Phil Randal
wrote:

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets
in the solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/

Debunked huh? The theory was proposed by the head of Russia's space
research.

Abdussamatov is pontificating well outside his field of expertise. He has
not published any peer-reviewed papers in which he explains these theories,
or provided any data supportive of them. That's hardly suprising, given that
there has been no significant increase in any of the solar indices for at
least 30 years (direct satellite observation), and probably much longer.
It's a crock.

There's a rather more thorough debunking he

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
but whatever the real case, it is difficult to see that we could make
any significant difference in any *practical* way. So rather than
trying to stop the inevitable, surely it is better to start preparing
for the outcome - whatever it is being caused by?

If we saved the money that we're going to waste on a futile attempt to
reduce CO2 emissions and spent it on improving coastal defences and so forth
it would make more sense. Why throw away resources on a battle that can't be
won? We need to be realistic.

Bill

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
but whatever the real case, it is difficult to see that we could make
any significant difference in any *practical* way. So rather than
trying to stop the inevitable, surely it is better to start preparing
for the outcome - whatever it is being caused by?

If we saved the money that we're going to waste on a futile attempt to
reduce CO2 emissions and spent it on improving coastal defences and so
forth it would make more sense. Why throw away resources on a battle that
can't be won? We need to be realistic.

That too would be a waste of money. Global warming is over, as
anyone who has gone out without a brolly will have found.
Anyhow CO2 is a product of warming not the cause. Mars
is also warming too however there are no people to blame for
that!! The 'excuse' is that a change in the tilt of the planet
caused frozen CO2 to 'melt' and cause the warming.
However Mars as you know is round, any tilt to melt CO2
would cause it to freeze on the other side, Net effect zero.Also
I don't recall and the change in the tilt of mars hitting the headlines.
Pretty hard to shift something with the inertia of Mars much!!
Mercury is also warming too.

It's all a lie, a con. Yes there have been more CO2 recently but it has not
been matched by increases in temperature, and certaintly not in proportion
to the rise (or we would be frying). Infact it appears that the earth is
cooling.


http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/20...r-in-last.html

And the main article.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/ca...tures-ice.html


Warming by CO2 would be immediate according to the way it works (or is
supposed
to work). If there is more CO2 the sun light will hit it immediately and it
will produce
more heat. There is no time lag whatsoever.


All the records show CO2 rising for 800 years after the temperature stops
rising,
why is this CO2 not causing warming? Has it stopped working? Indeed the
temperature
*always* falls in this period of rising CO2.
OK you say, maybe the sun just happened to be less active in this period and
that
would explain the fall in temperature whilst the CO2 rose. Mind you it would
be
a staggering remarkable coincidence that this happened every time, that the
sun
somehow knew to shine less bright at these times.

Of course the real and easy to follow explaination is as follows.The Sun
gets brighter
and warms the earths atmosphere which in turn warms the surface of the sea,
warm
sea releases gases (thats why a kettle boils when you heat it!!) but it
takes a long
time to heat huge oceans!! 800 years apparently, that explains the lag.
When the atmosphere cools it take a long time, 800 years for the oceans to
cool and subsequently absorb more gases.

Imagine you had a warm bath of water with CO2 above it.It will take a long
time
for that bath to cool and absorb the CO2, how many hours would you imagine
it
would take? 5? 6? 7?
Now imagine that bath is a big as the adlantic, pacific and all the other
oceans!!
How long will that take to cool? 5 hours? Not on you life!! 800 years seems
a much more reasonable time scale!!


4,344,685.7 gallons of water in the pacific.

8765 hours in a year

7,200,000 hours in 800 years.

Now if a gallon of water took 2 hours to cool then you could
say that 4,344,685.7 gallons (the pacific) would take about 8,600,000 hours
( 800 years) to cool. Rough figures, but they are in the right 'ball park'.

Conclusion CO2 induced global warming is b*llocks!!

This is because whhilst CO2 does absorb some sunlight, and produce heat,
that sunlight would otherwise hit the ground and produce as much, if not
more
heat!!!! (As anyone who had ever felt tarmac on a sunny day will have
noticed!!).

The CO2 myth exposed by Lord Turkey Cough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, fortunately Lord Turkey knows it
all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And we (well I) know the heat produced by CO2 is produced higher than
grouond level
(mainly) and rises and thus cools in the upper atmosophere so it has little
effect. Whereas
heat produced at ground level has maximum heating effect.

This is why atmospheric CO2 produces global *cooling*, and this is exactly
what
the records show!! And it is exactly what a correctly thought out theory,
like
mind predicts!!

So who do you believe? Fantastically clever LTC or those kn*bheads at the
meteorlogical office?

I rest my case M'lud :O)

A rather inconvienient truth for Al Gore and the crackpot enviromentalists.

Anyway I must stick some more coal on my fossil fuel open fire, it's getting
rather chilly :O|











Bill

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
but whatever the real case, it is difficult to see that we could make
any significant difference in any *practical* way. So rather than
trying to stop the inevitable, surely it is better to start preparing
for the outcome - whatever it is being caused by?

If we saved the money that we're going to waste on a futile attempt to
reduce CO2 emissions and spent it on improving coastal defences and so
forth it would make more sense. Why throw away resources on a battle that
can't be won? We need to be realistic.

That too would be a waste of money. Global warming is over, as
anyone who has gone out without a brolly will have found.
Anyhow CO2 is a product of warming not the cause. Mars
is also warming too however there are no people to blame for
that!! The 'excuse' is that a change in the tilt of the planet
caused frozen CO2 to 'melt' and cause the warming.
However Mars as you know is round, any tilt to melt CO2
would cause it to freeze on the other side, Net effect zero.Also
I don't recall and the change in the tilt of mars hitting the headlines.
Pretty hard to shift something with the inertia of Mars much!!
Mercury is also warming too.

It's all a lie, a con. Yes there have been more CO2 recently but it has
not
been matched by increases in temperature, and certaintly not in proportion
to the rise (or we would be frying). Infact it appears that the earth is
cooling.


http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/20...r-in-last.html

And the main article.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/ca...tures-ice.html


Warming by CO2 would be immediate according to the way it works (or is
supposed
to work). If there is more CO2 the sun light will hit it immediately and
it will produce
more heat. There is no time lag whatsoever.


All the records show CO2 rising for 800 years after the temperature stops
rising,
why is this CO2 not causing warming? Has it stopped working? Indeed the
temperature
*always* falls in this period of rising CO2.
OK you say, maybe the sun just happened to be less active in this period
and that
would explain the fall in temperature whilst the CO2 rose. Mind you it
would be
a staggering remarkable coincidence that this happened every time, that
the sun
somehow knew to shine less bright at these times.

Of course the real and easy to follow explaination is as follows.The Sun
gets brighter
and warms the earths atmosphere which in turn warms the surface of the
sea, warm
sea releases gases (thats why a kettle boils when you heat it!!) but it
takes a long
time to heat huge oceans!! 800 years apparently, that explains the lag.
When the atmosphere cools it take a long time, 800 years for the oceans to
cool and subsequently absorb more gases.

Imagine you had a warm bath of water with CO2 above it.It will take a long
time
for that bath to cool and absorb the CO2, how many hours would you imagine
it
would take? 5? 6? 7?
Now imagine that bath is a big as the adlantic, pacific and all the other
oceans!!
How long will that take to cool? 5 hours? Not on you life!! 800 years
seems
a much more reasonable time scale!!


4,344,685.7 gallons of water in the pacific.

8765 hours in a year

7,200,000 hours in 800 years.

Now if a gallon of water took 2 hours to cool then you could
say that 4,344,685.7 gallons (the pacific) would take about 8,600,000
hours
( 800 years) to cool. Rough figures, but they are in the right 'ball
park'.

Conclusion CO2 induced global warming is b*llocks!!

This is because whhilst CO2 does absorb some sunlight, and produce heat,
that sunlight would otherwise hit the ground and produce as much, if not
more
heat!!!! (As anyone who had ever felt tarmac on a sunny day will have
noticed!!).

The CO2 myth exposed by Lord Turkey Cough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, fortunately Lord Turkey knows it
all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And we (well I) know the heat produced by CO2 is produced higher than
grouond level
(mainly) and rises and thus cools in the upper atmosophere so it has
little effect. Whereas
heat produced at ground level has maximum heating effect.

This is why atmospheric CO2 produces global *cooling*, and this is exactly
what
the records show!! And it is exactly what a correctly thought out theory,
like
mind predicts!!

So who do you believe? Fantastically clever LTC or those kn*bheads at the
meteorlogical office?

I rest my case M'lud :O)

A rather inconvienient truth for Al Gore and the crackpot
enviromentalists.

Anyway I must stick some more coal on my fossil fuel open fire, it's
getting
rather chilly :O|



But hold it you say!! What about all the rain and flooding!!!? How do you
explain that oh
wise one LTC? We have caught you out there!!


Simple I say!!!

Cooler air holds less water (obviously!!).

Thats why its been p*ssing it down!!!


Another problem solved.











Bill

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

Dead Paul wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:44:45 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm


Now change the values to give the lowest result possible (by cheating).

And low and behold we still need 1.2 planets.


So the solution to global warming is to murder 1/6 of the worlds
population.

George Bush has already made an early start on that in Iraq.

Who said he was not green?

All this "carbon footprint" claptrap is softening up to get you ready
for more taxes.

Unfortunately this has the understandable side effect of making many
people cynical about global warming.

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets in the
solar system are now known to be warming also.

Global warming is not due solely to fluctuations in the Sun. Other
factors are at work also, human industrial activity being a major
player.

Peter

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 01:21:20 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets
in the solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/

Debunked huh? The theory was proposed by the head of Russia's space
research.

Abdussamatov is pontificating well outside his field of expertise. He has
not published any peer-reviewed papers in which he explains these theories,
or provided any data supportive of them.

How many papers has "reasic" published?

--
Cynic

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 01:21:20 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets
in the solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/

Debunked huh? The theory was proposed by the head of Russia's space
research.

Abdussamatov is pontificating well outside his field of expertise.
He has not published any peer-reviewed papers in which he explains
these theories, or provided any data supportive of them.

How many papers has "reasic" published?

I have no idea. I am not relying on his refutation! That's why I gave you
what I regard as a better link. Here it is again:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:18:01 +0100, Phil Randal
wrote:

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets in the
solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/

Debunked huh? The theory was proposed by the head of Russia's space
research. Someone calling him/herself "reasic" has a contrary
opinion. Please point me to reasic's qualifications.

What I see is a similar thing happening to planets as to Earth, and a
similar thing happening to what has happened several times before.
But even though the changes that matter are the same, we are told that
the cause is *completely* different to anything that is happening
elsewhere or in the past, based on theory rather than solid
experimental data (which would be impossible to do on the scale
involved)

More reasonable perhaps to believe that the same factors are at least
partially responsible, if not the main factors.

but whatever the real case, it is difficult to see that we could make
any significant difference in any *practical* way. So rather than
trying to stop the inevitable, surely it is better to start preparing
for the outcome - whatever it is being caused by?

Oh, stop trying to flog a very dead horse. The theory has been
discredited, and you're making a complete fool of yourself:

See http://blog.petedecarlo.com/?p=41 for a commentary on the Nature
article which blows it all apart and
http://www.petedecarlo.com/files/448008a.pdf for the article itself.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

Phil Randal wrote:

Oh, stop trying to flog a very dead horse. The theory has been
discredited, and you're making a complete fool of yourself:

See http://blog.petedecarlo.com/?p=41 for a commentary on the Nature
article which blows it all apart and
http://www.petedecarlo.com/files/448008a.pdf for the article itself.

Add to the list of required reading:

Cosmic Rays and Global Warming
T. SLOAN, A.W.WOLFENDALE


Abstract: It has been claimed by others that observed temporal
correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with ‘the cosmic ray intensity’
are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between
cosmic rays and Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very
great.

We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So
far we have not found any and so our tentative conclusions are to doubt
it. Such correlations as appear are more likely to be due to the
small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with
cosmic rays. We estimate that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming
variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming
over the last 35 years is due to this cause.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...706.4294v1.pdf

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Phil Randal" wrote in message
...

All our fuel sources are bio - renewable, oil is plant derived, just a
long time ago.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

"Phil Randal" wrote in message
...

All our fuel sources are bio - renewable, oil is plant derived, just a
long time ago.

When the greenies point out the error of your logic you will be able to tell
them that carbon offsetting by planting trees uses the same logic.

Bill

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

In message , 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.

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

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 08:54:06 +0100, Alan wrote:

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

They don't mean that. Weather records (readings) prior to 1914 are,
apparently, now no longer considered to be viable.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20070705.html

The first line of the link above, 'Provisional statistics from the Met
Office have today shown that June has been the wettest since records
began in 1914' is an obvious misrepresentation as records go back to the
mid-19th century.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 08:54:06 +0100, Alan
wrote:

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.

Indeed. Sky news had a local in Hull reposting that the recent flood,
bad though it was, was not as bad as the flood there in 1947. He also
stated that a lot of the money given in 1947 to be used to help flood
victims was still sitting in a bank account gathering interest instead
of being used for its intended purpose.

--
Cynic

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

In message , Alan White
wrote
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 08:54:06 +0100, Alan wrote:

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

They don't mean that. Weather records (readings) prior to 1914 are,
apparently, now no longer considered to be viable.

Possibly because they cast doubt on the global warming theories.
Perhaps the figures don't look very good when compared to those produced
by the expensive weather models - which have difficult predicting what
happened a few hour ago let alone what happened a hundred years ago - or
what may happen tomorrow.


The first line of the link above, 'Provisional statistics from the Met
Office have today shown that June has been the wettest since records
began in 1914' is an obvious misrepresentation as records go back to the
mid-19th century.

And was not the cannon fodder of WW1 drowning in oceans of mud around
this time as a result of unusual and prolonged periods of rain, albeit a
few miles away in France and Belgium? Taking the UK figures in
isolation isn't very meaningful.

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

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

Bill Wright wrote:
"buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

"Phil Randal" wrote in message
...

All our fuel sources are bio - renewable, oil is plant derived,
just a long time ago.

When the greenies point out the error of your logic you will be able
to tell them that carbon offsetting by planting trees uses the same
logic.

Without getting into the wisdom of carbon offsetting, the logic is entirely
different. The carbon in fossil fuels was sequestered over a period of many
millions of years and so burning them all in a matter of a few centuries
re-introduces it into the atmosphere at a higher rate than it can be
re-absorbed. Trees take carbon out of the atmosphere *now*.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Alan" wrote in message
...
What has changed is the reporting of such events. Even ten years ago
something like the flooding t'up north
If you're going to take the **** you smug southern **** sitting there with
your dry feet at least get it right.

would have resulted in a couple of lines in a national newspaper and a
maximum of thirty seconds of reporting on national TV.
You must be joking! The biggest peacetime evacuation ever! A disaster that's
going to cost the country £1,000m to put right! We still have sports halls
full of evacuees, 14 days after they lost their homes. A lot of
properties -- half a village -- are going to have to be demolished. At one
point we were very close to having a damn burst that would have resulted in
two large towns being lost. The national news coverage (especially the
BBC's) has been disproportionately small (except when bloody Prince Charles
came for five minutes). Of course if this had happened in the south-east
there would have been far more coverage.

Now that the industry is so short of news to fill a couple of 24 hour news
channels
They show the same news every half hour. Haven't you noticed?

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.
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

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
When the greenies point out the error of your logic you will be able
to tell them that carbon offsetting by planting trees uses the same
logic.

Without getting into the wisdom of carbon offsetting, the logic is
entirely different. The carbon in fossil fuels was sequestered over a
period of many millions of years and so burning them all in a matter of a
few centuries re-introduces it into the atmosphere at a higher rate than
it can be re-absorbed. 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. And since the 'tipping point'
is allegedly in about ten years time the amount of carbon the trees will
remove before then is insignificant, partly because trees are small at the
start of their life and therefore metabolise smaller quantities of
everything. The offset industry claims that each tree saves the amount of
carbon that it will save during its entire life, which in view of the facts
above it totally dishonest and misleading. They also ignore the carbon costs
of actually planting and tending the trees. What's more, quite a large
proportion of forst trees catch fire, thus releasing all the carbon into the
air. So, like a lot of the global warming industry, it's a load of ********
designed to con money out of us for doing SFA.

Bill

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Bill Wright" wrote

"Alan" wrote in message
...
What has changed is the reporting of such events. Even ten years ago
something like the flooding t'up north
If you're going to take the **** you smug southern **** sitting there with
your dry feet at least get it right.

would have resulted in a couple of lines in a national newspaper and a
maximum of thirty seconds of reporting on national TV.
You must be joking! The biggest peacetime evacuation ever! A disaster that's
going to cost the country £1,000m to put right! We still have sports halls
full of evacuees, 14 days after they lost their homes. A lot of
properties -- half a village -- are going to have to be demolished. At one
point we were very close to having a damn burst that would have resulted in
two large towns being lost. The national news coverage (especially the
BBC's) has been disproportionately small (except when bloody Prince Charles
came for five minutes). Of course if this had happened in the south-east
there would have been far more coverage.

Now that the industry is so short of news to fill a couple of 24 hour news
channels
They show the same news every half hour. Haven't you noticed?

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.
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...?

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

In message , 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!

For **** sake it's a minor bit of local flooding that the press, as
usual, have made a major disaster. It may a bit of a problem for those
affected but in the scale of world problems, and even the rest of the
UK, it is insignificant.

All we are getting now is that the rest of us who have paid spent their
hard earned cash on household insurance should now pay for those who
cannot be bothered to do the same.

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

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

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.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

Bill Wright wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
When the greenies point out the error of your logic you will be able
to tell them that carbon offsetting by planting trees uses the same
logic.

Without getting into the wisdom of carbon offsetting, the logic is
entirely different. The carbon in fossil fuels was sequestered over a
period of many millions of years and so burning them all in a matter
of a few centuries re-introduces it into the atmosphere at a higher
rate than it can be re-absorbed. 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.

The offset industry
claims that each tree saves the amount of carbon that it will save
during its entire life, which in view of the facts above it totally
dishonest and misleading. They also ignore the carbon costs of
actually planting and tending the trees.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did. I am quite sure that the
offsetting industry is full of rogues. That doesn't alter the fact that the
underlying logic is entirely different from the claim that fossil fuels are
somehow "carbon-neutral".

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , 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!

For **** sake it's a minor bit of local flooding that the press, as usual,
have made a major disaster. It may a bit of a problem for those affected
Well I just hope you get flooded sometime so you can find out what a 'bit of
a problem' it is. Would you like to have your irreplacable possessions
ruined -- your photograph albums and other momentos of your family's past?


but in the scale of world problems, and even the rest of the UK, it is
insignificant.
The cost will be significant in GDP terms.


All we are getting now is that the rest of us who have paid spent their
hard earned cash on household insurance should now pay for those who
cannot be bothered to do the same.
Toll Bar is a very poor area. You might be lucky enough to have the money to
buy insurance; many people aren't. Let's be honest, if money is very tight
most people aren't going to spend it on insurance. I agree that if the
goverment bale out (sorry) the uninsured it will make a nonsense of
insurance, but the fact is that one way or another the very considerable
cost will have to be paid. Some of these people have been made permanently
homeless, and since they live in social housing they have a legal
entitlement to decent accommodation. Just how this will be financed is a
detail at the moment.

If you are right wing you need to learn that those right wingers who are
fully-formed human beings never lose sight of basic
humanitarian considerations. Your posts are typical of the selfish
thoughtless immature rantings of a particulary odious Young Conservative.

Bill



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

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

In message , Bill Wright
wrote

"Alan" wrote in message
...


but in the scale of world problems, and even the rest of the UK, it is
insignificant.
The cost will be significant in GDP terms.


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.


All we are getting now is that the rest of us who have paid spent their
hard earned cash on household insurance should now pay for those who
cannot be bothered to do the same.
Toll Bar is a very poor area.
ou might be lucky enough to have the money to
buy insurance; many people aren't. Let's be honest, if money is very tight
most people aren't going to spend it on insurance. I agree that if the
goverment bale out (sorry) the uninsured it will make a nonsense of
insurance,

Government ministers/officials were not talking about the tax payers
baling out the uninsured. They wanted insurance companies to do it in
much the same way as the £30/yr levy on anyone paying for car insurance
to bale out uninsured drivers! This kills my sympathy with those who may
have been affected stone dead!

but the fact is that one way or another the very considerable
cost will have to be paid.

Perhaps lottery money could be redirected into something worthwhile.

Some of these people have been made permanently
homeless, and since they live in social housing they have a legal
entitlement to decent accommodation. Just how this will be financed is a
detail at the moment.

Presumably in the same way that local councils in other areas have
managed to absorbed thousands of deserving refugees.


If you are right wing you need to learn that those right wingers who are
fully-formed human beings never lose sight of basic
humanitarian considerations.

Many of the people reported in the news were those in society who never
take responsibility for their own actions.

The press were also over-reporting the situation, often struggling to
find anything worthwhile to say. Reporter standing in field in
Wellington boots points to two foot of water. He then interviews the
farmer who admits that the field floods every year.

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

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

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 know what proportion of a tree by weight is carbon, but I doubt
if it's more than 10%. To save 10 tonnes of carbon a year, you'd
therefore need a tree that put on 100 tonnes per year. Or, to put is
another way, a small forest.

--
Norman Wells
NG

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

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%.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"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.

Bill

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"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.".
So I don't understand why they are upset, when it happens anyway.
That's their own guilt, also the words sound hard.

How quick will such people shift off those events on GW.
That shows only, how good they were preconditioned by hysterical media reports,
and how weak their mind is, that they can't think clear for their own.

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"JAF" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 13:19:47 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

trees are small at the
start of their life and therefore metabolise smaller quantities of
everything.

Trees metabolise *more* during their growth periods, the majority of which
occurs while the tree is still young.

Trees keep growing until they die surely. And since a bigger tree is, well,
bigger, the same percentage of growth will result in a greater mass
increase. I mean, think about a little tree that you've planted in your
garden. For the first few years the weight increase can be measured in
pounds. But think of that tree when it's 50 years old. The weight increase
each year will be much greater.

Bill

Calculate your carbon footprint
 

"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.

Bill