Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...
No-one washes dishes. All these places use huge machines to do it.
And the national minimum is over a fiver now.


Clever dishes (never mind the cutlery), just think, these bits of
innate china can somehow manage to get from table to dishwasher and
from dishwasher to storage place all by themselves -

Clearing tables and the general organisation of a restaurant is not
the same thing as washing dishes.

Talk about splitting hairs!

WWWHHHHOOOOSSSSSHHHHH.

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 02:08:04 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

I must say, I think a bit of warmth would be a bloody good thing for the
UK.

More energy in the atmosphere -- which is what global warming means --
means more extreme weather events as well as warmer temperatures. In
the UK that translates to more storms and more flooding. Summers, on
the best predictions currently available, will be warmer and drier,
which I quite fancy too, but winters, as well as being milder, will be
wetter.
Thank goodness. No more hosepipe bans.

More rainfall combined with higher sea levels due to both
thermal expansion and ice melt will mean disastrous floods in some
areas. Most of the world's population live in low-lying areas, such as
Bangladesh, so more difficult living conditions in these areas will
mean much more immigration pressure in places like the UK. You're
going to love it, Bill!
We might finally wake up and start a policy of keeping them out. Mind you,
there's no point now. The damage is done. They've reached critical mass.
Sorry, but I'd just prefer it if Britain had a future as a country with a
culture and morality based on Christian rather than Muslim values. It's just
my personal preference, that's all. I'm not keen on the idea of us going
back to the middle ages, for some reason. Aren't I an old stick-in-the-mud?
I should welcome change.

Bill

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 01:50:16 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

The fact is that if there was a really strong link between CO2 emissions
and
climate change there would be a correlation right though the last century.

Not true.

But there isn't. During the massive industrial growth of the 50s and 60s
the
rate of climate change decreased. It should have shot up.

That "massive industrial growth" only happened in limited areas, and
is tiny in comparison with what's happened since and is happening now,
on a global perspective. Plus, there are other, complicating factors,
such as air pollution that reflects heat back into space and so has a
cooling effect. Unfortunately, that lasts only a few years, unlike the
effects of CO2, which go on for decades.

Fact is, there should be a correlataion and there isn't. What you say above
is the climate doom mongers' attempt to fudge things because the figures
don't fit.

Bill

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...
My concern is that because of the global warming craze decisions
are being taken that will affect the prosperity of the whole of
mankind.

If (accelerated) CC is real, being caused by mankind, and mankind
doesn't do something to (try) and reduce the rate at which any such
changes take place, the (financial) prosperity of the whole of
mankind will be the least of mankind's worries!
No it won't. The climate will change and we'll adjust, just as we
have for the last 50,000 years.


I assume you didn't bother reading the rest of by reply before firing
off ignorant response?... :~(

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Actually, I think there is a much better reason for Britain to
invest in alternate energy sources. Simply, we are dangerously in
thrall to Russia and the Middle East for our energy. Neither of
which is a beacon of political stability.

Greater energy independence for Britain is a worthwhile thing to
aim for, regardless of any arguments about global warming.

You just can't believe the stupidity and short-termism, abandoning
our coal mines, wrecking all our communities up her in Yorkshire,
burning all the gas in power stations instead of saving it. So now
if some loony in Russia or somewhere decides to shaft us they can.


The foolery was not to build more nuclear power stations in the 1980s,
the problem around coal was not caused by short sightedness but the
arrogant behaviour by (some of) those who worked or controlled in the
industry - you complain about Russia shafting the UK population (never
mind UK Plc) but you seem to have forgotten about how the communist
lead NUM repeatedly shafted them in the 1970s...

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Woody" wrote in message
...
snip

That's it - the answer. Kill all of the animals and do away with all
vegitation and we can do what we like ;-))


If we did away with all the vegetation the problem would be even worse,
in fact it would be setting a death sentence for the world, vegetation
absorbs Co2 - that's why burning fuel made from (natural) wood products
is 'carbon natural', the burning of it only releases what it has
absorbed in it life.

It still produces CO2 though doesn't it? How is that different from
burning coal, which is made from (natural)
wood products as well.


How many million year old trees are growing in your woods Bill?! Burning
coal releases Co2 (not CO2, that's something completely different) that
has not been in the atmosphere for a few million years - result, a net
increase in Co2 levels.

Co is cobalt.

Carbon dioxide is CO [subscript] 2.

--
Max Demian

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

snip
Co2 (not CO2, that's something completely different)

Co is cobalt.

Carbon dioxide is CO [subscript] 2.


I stand corrected.

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:25:47 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 02:08:04 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

I must say, I think a bit of warmth would be a bloody good thing for the
UK.

More energy in the atmosphere -- which is what global warming means --
means more extreme weather events as well as warmer temperatures. In
the UK that translates to more storms and more flooding. Summers, on
the best predictions currently available, will be warmer and drier,
which I quite fancy too, but winters, as well as being milder, will be
wetter.
Thank goodness. No more hosepipe bans.

That's only true if we have enough storage capacity (natural and
artificial) to last through the warmer, drier summer. Probably true in
the north and west, but less likely further south and east.
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:28:02 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 01:50:16 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

The fact is that if there was a really strong link between CO2 emissions
and
climate change there would be a correlation right though the last century.

Not true.

But there isn't. During the massive industrial growth of the 50s and 60s
the
rate of climate change decreased. It should have shot up.

That "massive industrial growth" only happened in limited areas, and
is tiny in comparison with what's happened since and is happening now,
on a global perspective. Plus, there are other, complicating factors,
such as air pollution that reflects heat back into space and so has a
cooling effect. Unfortunately, that lasts only a few years, unlike the
effects of CO2, which go on for decades.

Fact is, there should be a correlataion and there isn't. What you say above
is the climate doom mongers' attempt to fudge things because the figures
don't fit.

They only seem not to fit because you're ignoring the complications.
If you take all the available evidence into consideration, the figures
fit very nicely. Don't believe me, if you're serious about this you
should be willing to spend an hour on the web starting he
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/

Then come back and tell us whether your views have changed or not.
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:25:47 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 02:08:04 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

I must say, I think a bit of warmth would be a bloody good thing
for the
UK.

More energy in the atmosphere -- which is what global warming
means --
means more extreme weather events as well as warmer temperatures.
In
the UK that translates to more storms and more flooding. Summers,
on
the best predictions currently available, will be warmer and
drier,
which I quite fancy too, but winters, as well as being milder,
will be
wetter.
Thank goodness. No more hosepipe bans.

That's only true if we have enough storage capacity (natural and
artificial) to last through the warmer, drier summer. Probably true
in
the north and west, but less likely further south and east.

We could, as a country, say good-by to water shortages now (well
within a couple of years or so), all it would take is the investment
in a infrastructure - such as a 'Grey water' distribution system and
the building of a few desalination plants, the UK will never be short
of water, FFS we have the stuff all around us!