"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In message , Dave
Cornwell writes

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in
message ...
The following site is quite interesting

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best spent
on
finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes rather than
pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find ways of reducing
the
growth in emissions by a few percent. But I suppose that drawing up a
plan
for the evacuation of Central London within the next 50-100 years is not
exactly a short-term vote winner :-)

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England
-------------------------------

The graph on CFC's is interesting. Seems to be a clear decline since The
Montreal Protocol in 1989 so it shows that in some cases things can be
done.
Dave


And note that CFCs have longer atmospheric residence times; cutting
emissions of other greenhouse gases would have faster effects.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
-----------------------------
What I don't understand is why there has to be a them and us standpoint. I
can see absolutely no advantage in individuals and governments not trying to
reduce emissions irrespective of which side of the fence you decide to stand
and whether it makes a difference or not. It's a bit like deliberately
swimming in a dangerous area with a red flag flying because the "nanny
state" is telling me not to. I have taken a more prudent approach and have
also saved money. I've not stopped flying abroad for my holiday etc. but
have gone in for as many ways of doing "my bit" that have not caused me any
hardship. Surely it is obvious that even if man-made global warming turns
out to be a complete myth we would be better off by taking some action. We
will have a less polluted world, our beloved fossil fuels which have done so
much good (as well as harm) will last longer and we will potentially save a
good deal of money. What's the problem?

Dave

Dave