On Aug 20, 12:08 pm, Broadback wrote:
Robert Seago wrote:
In article ,
Broadback wrote:

Snip
Come off it, the vast majority of these are Nimbies, not global warming
protesters. Anyway, apart from the media hype what makes you think that
a) there is global warming
Most of the media hype has been on the other side. This was the
overriding publicity for over 30 years. There is extensive data for a
period of several hundred years that demonstrate a warning steady until
somewhere around 1910 and then upturning, giving it a hockey stick
profile. Even the CCC acknowledge the actual warming.

The much quoted medieval warm spell was not global, just northern Europe.
The cooling for a time after the second world war is usually understood to
be the result of particulate pollution mostly sulphates.
b) if there is it is caused by us burning fossil fuels
the fact of more CO2 in the atmosphere building year on year is not
disputed, it is monitored in Hawaii.

Extra CO2 from whatever source will produce a greenhouse effect from
whatever source.

c) that global warming will have the effect on the weather predicted?
I am old enough to remember the prediction of these effects before they
were measurable. The vested interests at that time denied any effect.
Indeed with the cooling of the fifties it was easy to brush it aside.

While the science behind this is not complete, there is steadily more and
more data which suggests that the deposition of more and more CO2 is
causing the more energetically charged atmosphere which will lead to more
turbulent and thus unpredictable climate.
Do you listen to the weather forecasts? The "scientists" cannot get
tomorrow right, never mind the distant future.
Short term local details are likely always to be the most difficult to
predict.

You talk of media hype. Are you not embarrased by the Channel 4
documentary. Would you not think they could put forward an anti case
without misquoting a scientist on there and without hiding the public
domain data which completely opposed their central thesis that sunspots
were in some way able to explain the warming, a fact incidentally which
they did not seek to deny.

Perhaps you should do a little research of your own, not rely on the
media. I have, and I am not convinced that there is global warming, even
if there is that is is caused by man. Look up the facts about the ice on
this planet, then look up the temperatures of Antarctica. Plenty more
facts if you look for them that do not point to global warming. Also
why do the global warming lobby ignore the sun's output, surely that has
the biggest effect on our climate? If it is warming Mars then maybe it
is warming the Earth.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A little science knowledge is
a really, really dangerous thing. It encourages its afficionados to
openly challenge the results compiled by thousands of people using
hundreds of hours of time and millions of brain cells.

With opinionated but ignorant people to work on, Germany's 1930s
National Socialists came within a whisker of world domination. So next
time wise-up before you speak up.

John M. wrote:
On Aug 20, 12:08 pm, Broadback wrote:
Robert Seago wrote:
In article ,
Broadback wrote:
Snip
Come off it, the vast majority of these are Nimbies, not global warming
protesters. Anyway, apart from the media hype what makes you think that
a) there is global warming
Most of the media hype has been on the other side. This was the
overriding publicity for over 30 years. There is extensive data for a
period of several hundred years that demonstrate a warning steady until
somewhere around 1910 and then upturning, giving it a hockey stick
profile. Even the CCC acknowledge the actual warming.
The much quoted medieval warm spell was not global, just northern Europe.
The cooling for a time after the second world war is usually understood to
be the result of particulate pollution mostly sulphates.
b) if there is it is caused by us burning fossil fuels
the fact of more CO2 in the atmosphere building year on year is not
disputed, it is monitored in Hawaii.
Extra CO2 from whatever source will produce a greenhouse effect from
whatever source.
c) that global warming will have the effect on the weather predicted?
I am old enough to remember the prediction of these effects before they
were measurable. The vested interests at that time denied any effect.
Indeed with the cooling of the fifties it was easy to brush it aside.
While the science behind this is not complete, there is steadily more and
more data which suggests that the deposition of more and more CO2 is
causing the more energetically charged atmosphere which will lead to more
turbulent and thus unpredictable climate.
Do you listen to the weather forecasts? The "scientists" cannot get
tomorrow right, never mind the distant future.
Short term local details are likely always to be the most difficult to
predict.
You talk of media hype. Are you not embarrased by the Channel 4
documentary. Would you not think they could put forward an anti case
without misquoting a scientist on there and without hiding the public
domain data which completely opposed their central thesis that sunspots
were in some way able to explain the warming, a fact incidentally which
they did not seek to deny.
Perhaps you should do a little research of your own, not rely on the
media. I have, and I am not convinced that there is global warming, even
if there is that is is caused by man. Look up the facts about the ice on
this planet, then look up the temperatures of Antarctica. Plenty more
facts if you look for them that do not point to global warming. Also
why do the global warming lobby ignore the sun's output, surely that has
the biggest effect on our climate? If it is warming Mars then maybe it
is warming the Earth.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A little science knowledge is
a really, really dangerous thing. It encourages its afficionados to
openly challenge the results compiled by thousands of people using
hundreds of hours of time and millions of brain cells.

With opinionated but ignorant people to work on, Germany's 1930s
National Socialists came within a whisker of world domination. So next
time wise-up before you speak up.

Perhaps if you read a little on Eugenics it may show you that
scientists, polictions and the media do get it wrong. Or perhaps you
agree deep down that the USA, Churchill and Hitler, among others, were
correct and the gene pool is going to pot and sterilisation and
euthenasia (in this case a posh word for murder) is the right way forward.

"John M." wrote in message
oups.com...

With opinionated but ignorant people to work on, Germany's 1930s
National Socialists came within a whisker of world domination. So next
time wise-up before you speak up.

Pratt!

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:49:51 +0100, Broadback
wrote:

John M. wrote:
On Aug 20, 12:08 pm, Broadback wrote:
Robert Seago wrote:
In article ,
Broadback wrote:
Snip
Come off it, the vast majority of these are Nimbies, not global warming
protesters. Anyway, apart from the media hype what makes you think that
a) there is global warming
Most of the media hype has been on the other side. This was the
overriding publicity for over 30 years. There is extensive data for a
period of several hundred years that demonstrate a warning steady until
somewhere around 1910 and then upturning, giving it a hockey stick
profile. Even the CCC acknowledge the actual warming.
The much quoted medieval warm spell was not global, just northern Europe.
The cooling for a time after the second world war is usually understood to
be the result of particulate pollution mostly sulphates.
b) if there is it is caused by us burning fossil fuels
the fact of more CO2 in the atmosphere building year on year is not
disputed, it is monitored in Hawaii.
Extra CO2 from whatever source will produce a greenhouse effect from
whatever source.
c) that global warming will have the effect on the weather predicted?
I am old enough to remember the prediction of these effects before they
were measurable. The vested interests at that time denied any effect.
Indeed with the cooling of the fifties it was easy to brush it aside.
While the science behind this is not complete, there is steadily more and
more data which suggests that the deposition of more and more CO2 is
causing the more energetically charged atmosphere which will lead to more
turbulent and thus unpredictable climate.
Do you listen to the weather forecasts? The "scientists" cannot get
tomorrow right, never mind the distant future.
Short term local details are likely always to be the most difficult to
predict.
You talk of media hype. Are you not embarrased by the Channel 4
documentary. Would you not think they could put forward an anti case
without misquoting a scientist on there and without hiding the public
domain data which completely opposed their central thesis that sunspots
were in some way able to explain the warming, a fact incidentally which
they did not seek to deny.
Perhaps you should do a little research of your own, not rely on the
media. I have, and I am not convinced that there is global warming, even
if there is that is is caused by man. Look up the facts about the ice on
this planet, then look up the temperatures of Antarctica. Plenty more
facts if you look for them that do not point to global warming. Also
why do the global warming lobby ignore the sun's output, surely that has
the biggest effect on our climate? If it is warming Mars then maybe it
is warming the Earth.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A little science knowledge is
a really, really dangerous thing. It encourages its afficionados to
openly challenge the results compiled by thousands of people using
hundreds of hours of time and millions of brain cells.

With opinionated but ignorant people to work on, Germany's 1930s
National Socialists came within a whisker of world domination. So next
time wise-up before you speak up.

Perhaps if you read a little on Eugenics it may show you that
scientists, polictions and the media do get it wrong. Or perhaps you
agree deep down that the USA, Churchill and Hitler, among others, were
correct and the gene pool is going to pot and sterilisation and
euthenasia (in this case a posh word for murder) is the right way forward.

They get away with it in the CONservation world against wildlife so
why not? CONservation hooliganism follows Nazi principals almost to
the letter.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:23:56 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
wrote:


"John M." wrote in message
roups.com...

With opinionated but ignorant people to work on, Germany's 1930s
National Socialists came within a whisker of world domination. So next
time wise-up before you speak up.

Pratt!


I think most would agree with you there. He claims to be a scientist,
although untraceable, he doesn't even have the receipt!

Gloria wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:23:56 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
wrote:

"John M." wrote in message
oups.com...
With opinionated but ignorant people to work on, Germany's 1930s
National Socialists came within a whisker of world domination. So next
time wise-up before you speak up.

Pratt!


I think most would agree with you there. He claims to be a scientist,
although untraceable, he doesn't even have the receipt!



I wonder if some bright chap out there can wise me up. Is the increase
in CO2 caused by the release of this gas as the oceans warm up, or is
the increase in the temperature of the Oceans caused by the man made CO2.

Incidentally, is it accurate to say that Greenland coastal waters which
are now tundra sustained a Viking grass based agrarian colony in the 4
century AD?

Incidentally, is it accurate to say that Greenland coastal waters which
are now tundra sustained a Viking grass based agrarian colony in the 4
century AD?

If it did, it must have been a lot warmer! So what happened to this so
called 'Global Warming' of today?

Knocks their theory up the creek without a paddle doesn't it?

Mike


--
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
Reunion Bournemouth August/September 2007 FULL. WAIT LIST OPERATING
www.rneba.org.uk
"Navy Days" Portsmouth 25th - 27th July 2008. RN Shipmates will have a Stand

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...


Incidentally, is it accurate to say that Greenland coastal waters which
are now tundra sustained a Viking grass based agrarian colony in the 4
century AD?

If it did, it must have been a lot warmer! So what happened to this so
called 'Global Warming' of today?

Knocks their theory up the creek without a paddle doesn't it?



I i nstictively feel pouring millions of tons of pollutants into the
atmosphere and using up the worlds raw resources is a bad thing
and should be managed.

I still feel unconvinced over global warming, we are in the position of the
'authorities' waving bits of paper and saying it proves global warming. It
appears NASA will only release processed data from all the weather stations
they have spread over North America,
independent researchers are not permitted access.

Changes in weather that 20 years ago were due to sea current and jet stream
movement are now 'global warming',

In article ,
Grippa wrote:

I wonder if some bright chap out there can wise me up. Is the increase
in CO2 caused by the release of this gas as the oceans warm up, or is
the increase in the temperature of the Oceans caused by the man made CO2.

No the CO2 warms the whole system which includes the ocean.

Incidentally, is it accurate to say that Greenland coastal waters which
are now tundra sustained a Viking grass based agrarian colony in the 4
century AD?
Greenland always had small coastal fringes that were green. Currently
there is a rapid warming. with glaciers shrinking though parts of the
interior are thickening due to increased snowfall.

--
Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/

"Grippa" wrote in message
news
Gloria wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:23:56 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
wrote:

"John M." wrote in message
oups.com...
With opinionated but ignorant people to work on, Germany's 1930s
National Socialists came within a whisker of world domination. So next
time wise-up before you speak up.

Pratt!

I think most would agree with you there. He claims to be a scientist,
although untraceable, he doesn't even have the receipt!



I wonder if some bright chap out there can wise me up. Is the increase in
CO2 caused by the release of this gas as the oceans warm up, or is the
increase in the temperature of the Oceans caused by the man made CO2.

Incidentally, is it accurate to say that Greenland coastal waters which
are now tundra sustained a Viking grass based agrarian colony in the 4
century AD?

There was a Viking colony which hung on in Greenland, mainly between 11th
and 14th centuries, cannot remember the exact date a ship found the last
inhabitants gone
But in the early history of Iceland they regularly supported themselves with
grain produced on the island. When I was there in the 1980s there was only
one farm on the island that could hope to combine oats for grain, and that
not every year

Jim Webster

"buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...


Incidentally, is it accurate to say that Greenland coastal waters which
are now tundra sustained a Viking grass based agrarian colony in the 4
century AD?

If it did, it must have been a lot warmer! So what happened to this so
called 'Global Warming' of today?

Knocks their theory up the creek without a paddle doesn't it?



I i nstictively feel pouring millions of tons of pollutants into the
atmosphere and using up the worlds raw resources is a bad thing
and should be managed.

I think most sensible people will agree with that


I still feel unconvinced over global warming, we are in the position of
the 'authorities' waving bits of paper and saying it proves global
warming. It appears NASA will only release processed data from all the
weather stations they have spread over North America,
independent researchers are not permitted access.

Changes in weather that 20 years ago were due to sea current and jet
stream movement are now 'global warming',

in the 1960s we were officially moving into an ice age..............

Jim Webster

On Aug 20, 5:49 pm, Broadback wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Aug 20, 12:08 pm, Broadback wrote:
Robert Seago wrote:
In article ,
Broadback wrote:
Snip
Come off it, the vast majority of these are Nimbies, not global warming
protesters. Anyway, apart from the media hype what makes you think that
a) there is global warming
Most of the media hype has been on the other side. This was the
overriding publicity for over 30 years. There is extensive data for a
period of several hundred years that demonstrate a warning steady until
somewhere around 1910 and then upturning, giving it a hockey stick
profile. Even the CCC acknowledge the actual warming.
The much quoted medieval warm spell was not global, just northern Europe.
The cooling for a time after the second world war is usually understood to
be the result of particulate pollution mostly sulphates.
b) if there is it is caused by us burning fossil fuels
the fact of more CO2 in the atmosphere building year on year is not
disputed, it is monitored in Hawaii.
Extra CO2 from whatever source will produce a greenhouse effect from
whatever source.
c) that global warming will have the effect on the weather predicted?
I am old enough to remember the prediction of these effects before they
were measurable. The vested interests at that time denied any effect.
Indeed with the cooling of the fifties it was easy to brush it aside.
While the science behind this is not complete, there is steadily more and
more data which suggests that the deposition of more and more CO2 is
causing the more energetically charged atmosphere which will lead to more
turbulent and thus unpredictable climate.
Do you listen to the weather forecasts? The "scientists" cannot get
tomorrow right, never mind the distant future.
Short term local details are likely always to be the most difficult to
predict.
You talk of media hype. Are you not embarrased by the Channel 4
documentary. Would you not think they could put forward an anti case
without misquoting a scientist on there and without hiding the public
domain data which completely opposed their central thesis that sunspots
were in some way able to explain the warming, a fact incidentally which
they did not seek to deny.
Perhaps you should do a little research of your own, not rely on the
media. I have, and I am not convinced that there is global warming, even
if there is that is is caused by man. Look up the facts about the ice on
this planet, then look up the temperatures of Antarctica. Plenty more
facts if you look for them that do not point to global warming. Also
why do the global warming lobby ignore the sun's output, surely that has
the biggest effect on our climate? If it is warming Mars then maybe it
is warming the Earth.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A little science knowledge is
a really, really dangerous thing. It encourages its afficionados to
openly challenge the results compiled by thousands of people using
hundreds of hours of time and millions of brain cells.

With opinionated but ignorant people to work on, Germany's 1930s
National Socialists came within a whisker of world domination. So next
time wise-up before you speak up.

Perhaps if you read a little on Eugenics it may show you that
scientists, polictions and the media do get it wrong. Or perhaps you
agree deep down that the USA, Churchill and Hitler, among others, were
correct and the gene pool is going to pot and sterilisation and
euthenasia (in this case a posh word for murder) is the right way forward.

I'll leave questions of medical ethics to those who are proved by
their track record to be competent in such matters.

Meanwhile why don't we leave climate science, or any other branch of
science for that matter, to those whose track record shows them to be
competent. People who believe interpreting scientifically derived and
processed data is somehow just a matter of preference and personal
opinion need to wise-up or shut up, as I have already said.

In reply to John M. ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

Meanwhile why don't we leave climate science, or any other branch of
science for that matter, to those whose track record shows them to be
competent. People who believe interpreting scientifically derived and
processed data is somehow just a matter of preference and personal
opinion need to wise-up or shut up, as I have already said.

Brings to mind an episode by one Michael Fish, who interpreted loads of
scientifically derived and processed data, in the dim, distant past ...

On Aug 20, 6:23 pm, "buddenbrooks" wrote:
"John M." wrote in message

oups.com...
With opinionated but ignorant people to work on, Germany's 1930s
National Socialists came within a whisker of world domination. So next
time wise-up before you speak up.

Pratt!

So you believed everything you read in "Mein Kampf" did you?

Ignorant people whose opinion is that one race of humans is 'better'
than another, and voted for world domination by Aryans as a result,
might be better removed and isolated from society as they are likely
incapable of wiseing-up. But that's what you Aryan *******s did to the
Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, wasn't it? Better being a pratt than a
bigotted Nazi scumbag like you.

"John M." wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 20, 5:49 pm, Broadback wrote:
snip


Meanwhile why don't we leave climate science, or any other branch of
science for that matter, to those whose track record shows them to be
competent. People who believe interpreting scientifically derived and
processed data is somehow just a matter of preference and personal
opinion need to wise-up or shut up, as I have already said.


Of course climate science should be left to climate scientists. It's
mistrust of the 'spin' sometimes put on 'scientific' findings which leads to
scepticism, I suspect. For example, Home Office statistics show that 'crime'
is increasing, hence the surrender of civil liberties is justified. Or
driving Range Rovers causes global warming, hence increases on taxes on 4x4s
is justified, etc.