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

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?

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.

"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.

On Jun 15, 11:42 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:

YU must have me marked out as a fool.




Could be.

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

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.

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

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

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.