wrote:

On 13 Mar, 00:52, "Keith (Southend)"
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7940532.stm

Can these scientists be making this stuff up, or is it really happening?
So many conflicting opinions on this subject I end up dreading making
a comment one way or the other without getting shot down in flames by
one camp or another. I have much time for Joe *******i, but he's doesn't
beleive any of it!

Personally, although climate change is a natural thing, it's a case of
whether this bought is self induced or not?
--
Keith (Southend)http://www.southendweather.net
e-mail: kreh at southendweather dot net

Personally, I am firmly in the sceptic camp. I've read so much about
this, that it's coming out of my ears! But on balance, I am strongly
inclined to believe more in the concept of global cooling being the
current favourite - the earth has probably reached it's warming peak
in its current cycle, and the next little ice age approacheth. And
none of this, I am convinced, is due to any help from mankind. It's
cyclical, always has been, always will be. There are far more
cataclysmic events in history which have affected the climate, and I
don't believe the recent arrival of man is one of them.

CK

AGW Theory, which is is over a hundred years old, predicted increased
increasing CO2 would raise global temperatures. Theory based on cyclical
change predicted the 1990s would be much cooler than the 1940s. I wonder why
the post-1940s cooling was shorter and much weaker than forecast by the
cyclical theory? Gosh, that's a difficult one! Could it possibly be that the
increased CO2 was somehow responsible?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy