Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:12:03 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

No, but it tells us that global warming and cooling cycles are *not*
atypical phenomenae, and thus the presupposition must be that anything
similar is more likely to have the same major cause than not.

That's just nonsense. You cannot simply point to the existence of various
cooling and warming cycles in the Earth's history (which nobody disputes)
and then confidently assert that current warming must have the same
underlying cause!

I have stated no such thing. I have stated that it makes me skeptical
about the assertion that *this* time the cause is different.

If I were to assert that yesterday evening, the loss of daylight was
due to a completely different mechanism than that which caused it on
all previous evenings, would you not be skeptical?

I also take into account that people considered to be wise throughout
history have come up with all sorts of things claiming that the
consequences of man's folly will imminently result in the End of the
World, so I am not awed by the fact that quite a few people with
impressive qualifications are saying it now - and there is by no means
*unanimous* agreement amongst the egg-heads.

We *are* able to drive in excess of 40MPH, despite the fact that many
respected scientists a couple of hundred years ago claimed that
travelling at such a speed would kill us.

But one of the chief things is that I do not feel the need to do a lot
about discovering whether man is or is not the cause of GW, because it
*makes no difference* whether we are or are not. There is absolutely
zero chance that we will alter the situation, so the emphasis should
be on coping with it.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:12:03 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

No, but it tells us that global warming and cooling cycles are *not*
atypical phenomenae, and thus the presupposition must be that
anything similar is more likely to have the same major cause than
not.

That's just nonsense. You cannot simply point to the existence of
various cooling and warming cycles in the Earth's history (which
nobody disputes) and then confidently assert that current warming
must have the same underlying cause!

I have stated no such thing. I have stated that it makes me skeptical
about the assertion that *this* time the cause is different.

But given the lack of evidence for equally rapid warming in the past, and
given the lack of evidence for any natural origin for the observed changes,
and the existence of an entirely plausible man-made culprit, your scepticism
starts to look a little foolish, does it not?

If I were to assert that yesterday evening, the loss of daylight was
due to a completely different mechanism than that which caused it on
all previous evenings, would you not be skeptical?

Indeed I would. But my scepticism would be informed by the fact that I could
still see the Sun in the sky this morning, apparently moving in a way
consistent with its previous history (and thus with the Earth's normal
rotation). I would therefore not consider it necessary to seek alternative
explanations in the first place. The accepted explanation is perfectly
adequate. And if for some reason I did seek an alternative mechanism, I
would certainly want to know what it was, and that it was physically
plausible.

I also take into account that people considered to be wise throughout
history have come up with all sorts of things claiming that the
consequences of man's folly will imminently result in the End of the
World, so I am not awed by the fact that quite a few people with
impressive qualifications are saying it now

I am not aware of anybody predicting the End of the World because of global
warming. That is normally the province of religious fools.

and there is by no means *unanimous* agreement amongst the egg-heads.

There isn't much credible opposition. And there isn't *unanimous* agreement
about relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution... pretty much anything in
all of science, actually.

We *are* able to drive in excess of 40MPH, despite the fact that many
respected scientists a couple of hundred years ago claimed that
travelling at such a speed would kill us.

I don't think *many* respected scientists said any such thing.

But one of the chief things is that I do not feel the need to do a lot
about discovering whether man is or is not the cause of GW, because it
*makes no difference* whether we are or are not. There is absolutely
zero chance that we will alter the situation, so the emphasis should
be on coping with it.

We need to do both. Or are you suggesting that we should allow so much harm
to the global economy that the problem will ultimately be self-limiting?

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:45:16 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

That's just nonsense. You cannot simply point to the existence of
various cooling and warming cycles in the Earth's history (which
nobody disputes) and then confidently assert that current warming
must have the same underlying cause!

I have stated no such thing. I have stated that it makes me skeptical
about the assertion that *this* time the cause is different.

But given the lack of evidence for equally rapid warming in the past, and
given the lack of evidence for any natural origin for the observed changes,
and the existence of an entirely plausible man-made culprit, your scepticism
starts to look a little foolish, does it not?

I do not accept that the global temperature changes over the previous
200 years are unique.

But one of the chief things is that I do not feel the need to do a lot
about discovering whether man is or is not the cause of GW, because it
*makes no difference* whether we are or are not. There is absolutely
zero chance that we will alter the situation, so the emphasis should
be on coping with it.

We need to do both. Or are you suggesting that we should allow so much harm
to the global economy that the problem will ultimately be self-limiting?

I am claiming that nothing we can *practically* do will make a
significant difference to the climate, and that beating ourselves up
by doing things that will have no effect is about as beneficial as
wearing a hair shirt. Just because the medicine tastes nasty does not
mean that it is effective.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
But given the lack of evidence for equally rapid warming in the
past, and given the lack of evidence for any natural origin for the
observed changes, and the existence of an entirely plausible
man-made culprit, your scepticism starts to look a little foolish,
does it not?

I do not accept that the global temperature changes over the previous
200 years are unique.

On the basis of your own personal incredulity, presumably? I think I'll
stick with the science.

I am claiming that nothing we can *practically* do will make a
significant difference to the climate

You think reducing our CO2 emissions is a fundamental impossibility? We had
all better hope you are wrong.

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
But one of the chief things is that I do not feel the need to do a lot
about discovering whether man is or is not the cause of GW, because it
*makes no difference* whether we are or are not. There is absolutely
zero chance that we will alter the situation, so the emphasis should
be on coping with it.

Sadly, I agree. I'm far from convinced about global warming, although to be
honest I don't see how any layman can have a valid opinion. My scepticism
comes mostly from innate cynicism borne of watching 30 years of
scaremongering TV documentaries. But really, if the climate is going to
alter significantly, I think we should look at the ways we can cope rather
than embark on an attempt to avert the inevitable.

I'm also absolutely sickened by the way commerce, show business, and the
media are having a ball with global warming.

And finally, I'm concerned that if the west gets too carried away with CO2
reduction schemes it will hasten the decline of us and the rise of the far
east.

Bill

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
I am claiming that nothing we can *practically* do will make a
significant difference to the climate

You think reducing our CO2 emissions is a fundamental impossibility? We
had all better hope you are wrong.

Well, yes. The world as a whole is not going to reduce CO2 emissions.
Concern about global warming is a luxury enjoyed by the affluent nations.

Look, a lot of people round here never bought any insurance and now they're
flooded out, and they're up **** creek. But the reason isn't that they
didn't see the need for insurance, it's because they had more immediate
things to spend their limited money on. It's the same with India and China
and Africa. We can't expect them to worry about global warming when they
have thousands of kids that die for the lack of £50's worth of medication or
treatment.

I think we're all up **** creek if the global warming thing turns out to be
true. Sorry and all that, but I think that if serious global warming
actually ever happens the verdict of history will be that there were a few
utterly futile attempts to deal with it, which only made things worse by
denuding resources, then the **** hit the fan.

So, let's eat drink and be merry. Mine's a pint.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:
"Cynic" wrote in message
...
But one of the chief things is that I do not feel the need to do a lot
about discovering whether man is or is not the cause of GW, because it
*makes no difference* whether we are or are not. There is absolutely
zero chance that we will alter the situation, so the emphasis should
be on coping with it.

It need not be an either/or situation. A lot of mitigation does *not*
involve massive investment of money or resources. We just need to ease
up on consuming fossil fuels and energy-intensive goods. Not exactly
difficult, but in these narcissistic / egocentric times that's not
exactly what people want to hear.

Sadly, I agree. I'm far from convinced about global warming, although to be
honest I don't see how any layman can have a valid opinion. My scepticism
comes mostly from innate cynicism borne of watching 30 years of
scaremongering TV documentaries. But really, if the climate is going to
alter significantly, I think we should look at the ways we can cope rather
than embark on an attempt to avert the inevitable.

I prefer 30 years of reading scientific papers, myself. And it is
possible for laypeople to do just that.

I'm also absolutely sickened by the way commerce, show business, and the
media are having a ball with global warming.

I'm heartily sickened by the way commerce and the media manipulate
people to waste energy, buy things they don't need, and encourages
people to purchase short-life products instead of durable alternatives.
There's more profit that way, of course.

And finally, I'm concerned that if the west gets too carried away with CO2
reduction schemes it will hasten the decline of us and the rise of the far
east.

We're already pushing a lot of our pollution onto the Far East. So we
reduce locally, but increase globally. Our society's attitude seems to
be "let China produce our steel and consumer goods, it counts against
their CO2 emissions and not ours".

It's too much to hope that people start to think ethically, I guess.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:11:32 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Cynic wrote:
But given the lack of evidence for equally rapid warming in the
past, and given the lack of evidence for any natural origin for the
observed changes, and the existence of an entirely plausible
man-made culprit, your scepticism starts to look a little foolish,
does it not?

I do not accept that the global temperature changes over the previous
200 years are unique.

On the basis of your own personal incredulity, presumably?

No, based upon my observation of the records, which contain many
spikes of equal and greater magnitudes.

I think I'll stick with the science.

You are sticking with what scientists have told you. There is a
difference.

I am claiming that nothing we can *practically* do will make a
significant difference to the climate

You think reducing our CO2 emissions is a fundamental impossibility?

No, a *practical* impossibility. Unless there is a startling new
breakthrough in technology, CO2 emissions Worldwide will *increase*
Any reduction we could hope to achieve in the UK will be so
insignificant that it will make zero difference to the outcome.

We had all better hope you are wrong.

Why? What do you claim will happen if we do not?

--
Cynic

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:40:49 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

I think we're all up **** creek if the global warming thing turns out to be
true.

Why do you think that? What insurmountable problems do you claim it
will cause?

--
Cynic

On 10 Jul, 00:30, "Bill Wright" wrote:
"Cynic" wrote in message

...

But one of the chief things is that I do not feel the need to do a lot
about discovering whether man is or is not the cause of GW, because it
*makes no difference* whether we are or are not. There is absolutely
zero chance that we will alter the situation, so the emphasis should
be on coping with it.

Sadly, I agree. I'm far from convinced about global warming, although to be
honest I don't see how any layman can have a valid opinion. My scepticism
comes mostly from innate cynicism borne of watching 30 years of
scaremongering TV documentaries. But really, if the climate is going to
alter significantly, I think we should look at the ways we can cope rather
than embark on an attempt to avert the inevitable.

I'm also absolutely sickened by the way commerce, show business, and the
media are having a ball with global warming.

And finally, I'm concerned that if the west gets too carried away with CO2
reduction schemes it will hasten the decline of us and the rise of the far
east.

Bill

I'm all for CO2 reduction schemes. As a drive towards ISO14001 we have
invested in a number of projects reducing energy and resource usage,
expanding recycling and reducing waste.

All of these have saved us serious money with payback periods from a
little under one year to about 3 years at very worst. Don't make the
mistake of fitting energy saving bulbs etc because you are helping the
environment, do it because you don't like giving your money away.

Have fun!