"Peter Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:23:21 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote :


It sounds as though you are following this thread on the
alt.global-warming or uk.environment newsgroups which I agree
should not avoid the politics. I am following it on sci.environment
where a few professional scientists post stuff worth reading too!
This probably applies even more to sci.geo.meteorology but
you do get even more dross in along with the pearls in these
big groups.

Thanks for that and for the other info too, Alistair.
Most interesting.

I've added sci.environment to my subscribed list and, if it looks as
good as you say, I may just keep that and drop this one (alt.global
warming).

That's what I have done.

The "marked read" problem is proving very elusive to solve: only some
posts are being marked read, not all. None of Rogers get marked read
before reading. :-)

I have to add the quote marks by hand onto your posts. I wonder if the
marks in my replies are telling your news reader that the message is
read. Roger does not quote.

And Campbell is not one of our most admired ministers, he tends to
waver in the breeze a bit. I still tend to believe, despite all the
doom and gloom alt.global warming postings, that the Kyoto Accords are
largely a waste of time, effort and money that would be better spent
elsewhere, and that our technology initiatives with China & the US
show some promise of providing better bang for the buck in eventually
solving (or at least alleviating) the climate problems, whether it be
the current global warming or a possible future ice age.

The technology initiatives are just a fig leaf to get George W.Bush and
John Howard out of signing up to Kyoto. They are cheaoer and so they
will achieve even less than Kyoto, which was only a small first step
and was not designed to solve anything. It was in effect a pilot study,
with the main program, which was to have included India and China
being negotiated after. However, it is too late now. We are all doomed!

Trenberth, an Australian and senior member of the IPCC has broken
ranks and implied that global warming made the hurricane Katrina
worse. See;
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/d...nTrenberth.pdf
So if global warming is now showing its ugly face, how bad will it be
by the time we mitigate it by cutting emissions, or adapt to it by
introducing new technology initiatives? Both techniques are needed
but neither has yet been started!

Cheers, Alastair.