Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

This was the man who when asked about a particularly rough flight
said he was
"glad to get his feet back on Terracotta"

I hardly think, Lawrence, that you are in any position to mock anybody's
English!

Simon Bennett wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

This was the man who when asked about a particularly rough flight
said he was
"glad to get his feet back on Terracotta"

I hardly think, Lawrence, that you are in any position to mock
anybody's English!

^^^ Regrettable though Mr Prescott is, I must add!

Simon Bennett wrote:
Simon Bennett wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

This was the man who when asked about a particularly rough flight
said he was
"glad to get his feet back on Terracotta"

I hardly think, Lawrence, that you are in any position to mock
anybody's English!

^^^ Regrettable though Mr Prescott is, I must add!

I do agee with Lawrence (if I understood your argument). Why should the
finger be pointed at the US - obviously they are a rich country and
people do have cars, a/c's etc. Not surprising that they use a lot of
energy to run them. I don't believe they waste energy or don't care
about pollution. Try flying over African countries or India and you see
the amount of smoke being put into the atmosphere from poor people
burning wood to survive. I'm quite sure global warming is happening but
the solution is not to expect the Americans to turn their economy
backwards and have their people burning wood to eke out a living. The
solution will come from first world countries who will develop energy
sources that do not pollute.

"Simon Bennett" wrote in
message ...
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

This was the man who when asked about a particularly rough flight
said he was
"glad to get his feet back on Terracotta"

I hardly think, Lawrence, that you are in any position to mock anybody's
English!


I thought that was mocking his knowledge or did I misspell Terracotta? In
case you didn't grasp the fact I'm not the deputy PM giving finger wagging
lectures and then doing the complete opposite.
Good though, albeit cheap shot.

Michael Fish v Dr Gray

Who wins the first round?
Both have been in meteorology for over 50 years

As everyone knows by now, Michael Fish is very vocal now about Global
Warming.
He had an article printed in the Mirror paper this week.

Now read what Dr Gray says: Global Warming is a Hoax
http://snipurl.com/ret7

Here's a realplayer clip (about 10 mins) Dr Gray at the Governers
Hurricane Conference 2006

http://www.hurricanecity.com/ram/gray2006.ram

In Summery, he thinks Global Warming has been whipped up into a frenzy
by the media, with a lot of fear-mongering going on.

He admits that some warming has occured. He thinks it's part of a
natural cycle, and the Earth will cool again within the next 20 years

BlueLightning wrote:
Here's a realplayer clip (about 10 mins) Dr Gray at the Governers
Hurricane Conference 2006

http://www.hurricanecity.com/ram/gray2006.ram

In Summery, he thinks Global Warming has been whipped up into a frenzy
by the media, with a lot of fear-mongering going on.

He admits that some warming has occured. He thinks it's part of a
natural cycle, and the Earth will cool again within the next 20 years

He might be right, although 20 years seems rather a short timescale for
a global phenomenon to reverse the cycle. And even if it did happen, I
assume he means 'start to cool' within 20 years. However, what happens
if the warming effect overpowers the cooling one?

Whoever is right, there are going to be some areas that will be
affected by more severe conditions, and arguing or waiting to
prove/disprove someones theories is not going to help them.

What I dont understand is that after all these years of knowing the
problems associated with fossil fuel emissions and shortages, most
governments have continually dragged their feet over alternatives.
Surely, a few million in research and a decent home wind generator
could have been produced quite cheaply by now, likewise affordable
photo-voltaic roof tiles.

Someone seems to have designed an inner city wind generator, but stuck
it on a stand-alone pole! Why? We have millions of metal poles in this
country, they are called street lamps, and it is not rocket science to
design wind generators that fix onto them - surely? There are between
50 and 70 per mile on many lit sections of motorway, and even if they
did not contribute much to the national grid, they would be a start.

I sometimes wonder if it is in the interests of those in political
power, to have the world continue to rely on oil. Could this be because
it is traded in dollars, and any drop in its importance would see the
collapse of the US economy?

I would imagine that a wind generator small enough to fit on a streetlamp
would barely generate enough power to illuminate the lamp itself.
Can you imagine every streetlamp with a generator on top? How many would
take off? How many would fall over? How would residents sleep with the
cacophony of noise? Who would maintain them? In spells of calm, would there
be no street lighting? (Actually, I quite like the idea of no street
lighting...less light pollution.)
I really think this panic is going way over the top. We are looking at
shades of farce!

CD
wrote in message
oups.com...

BlueLightning wrote:
Here's a realplayer clip (about 10 mins) Dr Gray at the Governers
Hurricane Conference 2006

http://www.hurricanecity.com/ram/gray2006.ram

In Summery, he thinks Global Warming has been whipped up into a frenzy
by the media, with a lot of fear-mongering going on.

He admits that some warming has occured. He thinks it's part of a
natural cycle, and the Earth will cool again within the next 20 years

He might be right, although 20 years seems rather a short timescale for
a global phenomenon to reverse the cycle. And even if it did happen, I
assume he means 'start to cool' within 20 years. However, what happens
if the warming effect overpowers the cooling one?

Whoever is right, there are going to be some areas that will be
affected by more severe conditions, and arguing or waiting to
prove/disprove someones theories is not going to help them.

What I dont understand is that after all these years of knowing the
problems associated with fossil fuel emissions and shortages, most
governments have continually dragged their feet over alternatives.
Surely, a few million in research and a decent home wind generator
could have been produced quite cheaply by now, likewise affordable
photo-voltaic roof tiles.

Someone seems to have designed an inner city wind generator, but stuck
it on a stand-alone pole! Why? We have millions of metal poles in this
country, they are called street lamps, and it is not rocket science to
design wind generators that fix onto them - surely? There are between
50 and 70 per mile on many lit sections of motorway, and even if they
did not contribute much to the national grid, they would be a start.

I sometimes wonder if it is in the interests of those in political
power, to have the world continue to rely on oil. Could this be because
it is traded in dollars, and any drop in its importance would see the
collapse of the US economy?

wrote in message
oups.com...

BlueLightning wrote:
Here's a realplayer clip (about 10 mins) Dr Gray at the Governers
Hurricane Conference 2006

http://www.hurricanecity.com/ram/gray2006.ram

In Summery, he thinks Global Warming has been whipped up into a frenzy
by the media, with a lot of fear-mongering going on.

He admits that some warming has occured. He thinks it's part of a
natural cycle, and the Earth will cool again within the next 20 years

He might be right, although 20 years seems rather a short timescale for
a global phenomenon to reverse the cycle. And even if it did happen, I
assume he means 'start to cool' within 20 years. However, what happens
if the warming effect overpowers the cooling one?

Whoever is right, there are going to be some areas that will be
affected by more severe conditions, and arguing or waiting to
prove/disprove someones theories is not going to help them.

What I dont understand is that after all these years of knowing the
problems associated with fossil fuel emissions and shortages, most
governments have continually dragged their feet over alternatives.
Surely, a few million in research and a decent home wind generator
could have been produced quite cheaply by now, likewise affordable
photo-voltaic roof tiles.

Someone seems to have designed an inner city wind generator, but stuck
it on a stand-alone pole! Why? We have millions of metal poles in this
country, they are called street lamps, and it is not rocket science to
design wind generators that fix onto them - surely? There are between
50 and 70 per mile on many lit sections of motorway, and even if they
did not contribute much to the national grid, they would be a start.

I sometimes wonder if it is in the interests of those in political
power, to have the world continue to rely on oil. Could this be because
it is traded in dollars, and any drop in its importance would see the
collapse of the US economy?


Surely that's a major factor. A world recession would have far greater
consequences than any global warming.

That's why I feel 'many in the know' prefer a growing world economy as
opposed to one pushed into crisis. Just look at the world econimic slump of
the 1930's and it's consequences. For as sure a night follows day a world
economy plunged into major recession will always result in millions of lives
lost through war alone let alone poverty and famine on a major scale.

Now I'm not agreeing with above scenario but that's how capitalism responds.
It's the best we humans have ever had, but in a time of exponential growth
in human productivity the years we need to work in the wealthier countries
needs to increase; God help the poorer ones if Co2 controls, throw a spanner
into an already very delicate machine.

"BlueLightning" wrote in message
oups.com...
Michael Fish v Dr Gray

Who wins the first round?
Both have been in meteorology for over 50 years

As everyone knows by now, Michael Fish is very vocal now about Global
Warming.
He had an article printed in the Mirror paper this week.

Now read what Dr Gray says: Global Warming is a Hoax
http://snipurl.com/ret7


Isn't there a wonderful irony about all this

Two veteran meteorologist one believes that Global warming is hype the other
one is Michael Fish.

One of them is an expert in Hurricanes the other one is Michael Fish.