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

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

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

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

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

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*.

"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

"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

"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...?

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