The whole of Sheiffield under water.

foghollow wrote:

I'd like to see that, be sure to post the URL to uk.misc
I seem to recall taking some pics myself, but they're lost in the
mists of time, I was only 14 when it happened.
^ ^
Sort your sodding linelength! Lines broke where the arrows show.

"Amethyst Deceiver" wrote in message
...
foghollow wrote:

I'd like to see that, be sure to post the URL to uk.misc
I seem to recall taking some pics myself, but they're lost in the
mists of time, I was only 14 when it happened.
^ ^
Sort your sodding linelength! Lines broke where the arrows show.


No they are not !

In article ,
Amethyst Deceiver wrote:

I'd like to see that, be sure to post the URL to uk.misc
I seem to recall taking some pics myself, but they're lost in the
mists of time, I was only 14 when it happened.

Sort your sodding linelength! Lines broke where the arrows show.

The problem is that the line starting "I seem to recall" was 95
characters long, and your newsreader is breaking it, presumably
giving two short lines at the end.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

Peter Hayes wrote:
There's more fuel for the conspiracy theorists next Minday, Channel 4,
20:00 - Despatches, "The Great Green Smokescreen".

The science underpinning recent warming is settled (despite the contrary
claims of assorted nutters), but there is endless scope for rip-off
initiatives that do nothing to solve the problem. The programme summary
says:

"Channel 4 News Science Correspondant Tom Clarke reveals startling evidence
that although schemes such as carbon offsetting, tree-planting and green
energy tarrifs are growing in popularity, realistically they are doing
nothing to combat global warming."

I guess we'll have to wait and see what it says.

Huge wrote:
The IPCC didn't find it necessary to deliberately falsify and tamper
with data.

You reckon?

Yes, we reckon. No doubt you will wish to provide some evidence for your
contrary assertion. And merely providing a link to some other idiot saying
the same thing doesn't count.

In article ,
says...
foghollow writes:

In article ,
says...
On 26 Jun 2007 16:38:32 +0100, August West wrote:

foghollow writes:

In article ,
says...
foghollow wrote:

Only 2 really got taken out totally by the flood - the two down past
the Fry's factory, on the Willsbridge road. The Bath Road bridge was
still standing but a hole developed next

Your line-length's buggered.

Looks alright here. Set to 72 IIRC. Even after your followup

Didn't look right here.

Ditto

fuggit i'll go to LJ

Cuz it's just like usenet, but all about YOU?


's mostly about rhodri and whizzer i fink
--
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:46:25 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Apparently (according to that link) the drop in temperature between
the 1940's and 1970's was due to a different *type* of man-made
pollution that we don't carry out any more. Great! If it is that
easy to negate global warming, why not just work out the exact amount
of other pollutants needed to balance the effects of CO2, and start
producing them like we did 70 years ago?

I see you are still as much of an idiot as you were in the previous thread
on this subject.

I see your arguments are up to their usual standard.

--
Cynic

Huge wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
Huge wrote:
The IPCC didn't find it necessary to deliberately falsify and
tamper with data.

You reckon?

Yes, we reckon. No doubt you will wish to provide some evidence for
your contrary assertion.

Err, no. Why the **** should I?

Only that if you don't, the rest of us are entitled to draw the obvious
conclusion that you are talking out of your ample arse.

And merely providing a link to some other idiot ...

And that's one of the reasons I'd as soon you ****ed off back under
whichever rock it was you crawled out from. You see, calling me
an idiot from behind some ostentatiously anonymous address is hardly
going to induce me to spend my precious time debating with you, is it
now?

You are hardly publicising your own identity, are you? Meanwhile, I can
offer arguments to back up anything I say, and you cannot. That's because
you are an idiot.

Byeeeee, ****. *plonk*

That's excellent. Now I can talk about you behind your back, and you won't
even know about it!

Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:46:25 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Apparently (according to that link) the drop in temperature between
the 1940's and 1970's was due to a different *type* of man-made
pollution that we don't carry out any more. Great! If it is that
easy to negate global warming, why not just work out the exact
amount of other pollutants needed to balance the effects of CO2,
and start producing them like we did 70 years ago?

I see you are still as much of an idiot as you were in the previous
thread on this subject.

I see your arguments are up to their usual standard.

What argument? You said something that is self-evidently stupid, and I
pointed out that you are an idiot for saying it.

I suppose my post was redundant, but sometimes I like pointing out that
people are idiots, even if it's obvious.

Bill Wright wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
He also repeated the ridiculous claim that volcanoes emit more CO2 than
human activities. The whole thing was a piece of crap.

Is that ridiculous?

Yes, it's ludicrous.

It actually sounds quite credible.

Only if you don't know what the figures are.

I wonder what the
figures are.

Bill



Gerlach (1991) [1] estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr of
CO2 from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic)
CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

[1] Gerlach, T.M., 1991, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Transactions
of the American Geophysical Union (EOS), v. 72, p. 249, and 254-255.