"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .


Snip


None of which, dragging the thread back, should be regarded
as so unusual as to require a "global climate change"
explanation.

But, Philip, this is an example of why you are regarded as a
GW skeptic.

How unusual does the weather have to get before it meets your
criteria for a global climate change explanation? Don't you see
that when those criteria are met, then it will be too late to stop a
rapidly deteriorating situation?

It may be 'scientific' to insist on proof positive before accepting
a theory as true, but in the case of real life if it starts raining we
shelter. We do not argue that there is no proof that this storm
will continue therefore we would be stupid to act. It is pretty
obvious to everyone that the world's climate is warming, and
we know why. Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing, so the
warming is bound to accelerate. Over 10,000 people died in
France and 4,000 in India this year from heat. How will you face
your readership when something similiar happens in Britain
in the near future? Are ten thousand lives the criteria you
need to accept then that GW is a serious problem, or will
you then write that it is not unusual, it happened in France in
2003?

Curious, Alastair.