Graham P Davis wrote:


AGW has over a century of scientific research behind it. The forecasts for
the global warming were made over thirty years ago. These forecasts are now
being proved.



I'm always surprised how many people are so desperate to deny global
warming.

I normally don't enter GW threads, as there doesn't seem much point.
Sadly many people don't care, after all they have to deny it, accepting
it may mean they should consider a lifestyle change. So everything
inconvenient is denied, whether it be GW, or the 100's (yes 100's) of
dolphins washed up dead on the coast of Cornwall every year (many cut
in half in an attempt to make them sink at sea) because of fishing
methods which happen to knock 2% off the price of fish.
http://www.cornwallwildlifetrust.org...ws/news142.php

I accept there is some argument over how much of GW is due to man's
activities, but we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Surely it's common
sense to try to minimise the effect we are having on the environment.

Graham
Penzance

"Graham Easterling" wrote in message
ups.com...


I'm always surprised how many people are so desperate to deny global
warming.

I normally don't enter GW threads, as there doesn't seem much point.
Sadly many people don't care, after all they have to deny it, accepting
it may mean they should consider a lifestyle change. So everything
inconvenient is denied, whether it be GW,

I suppose that I would be labelled as a denier.

It's not that I don't care, I'm passionate about our environment and
especially passionate about the right of other species to share the world
with us.

So what am I denying? Well, I deny that any proposed solution to the status
quo will make a detectable difference to climate. I deny that world
governments would enforce their solutions in a fair and sensible manner. I
deny that the forecasts of doom are even vaguely honest. I deny that all of
what is being presented as scientific fact is either fact or science. I deny
that man can continue to expand so long as we stop burning oil.

Lets, instead, worry about the destruction of the rain forests - they aren't
being chopped down and burnt by GW. Lets worry about the impending
extinction of our closest relatives - the great apes. Lets worry about ALL
the issues of overpopulation. There are more urgent environmental issues to
hand that won't be addressed by the proposed solutions to AGW

We're off to hell in a handcart and most people are only worried about the
tyres getting a little warm.

Paulus

paulus wrote:

"Graham Easterling" wrote in message
ups.com...


I'm always surprised how many people are so desperate to deny global
warming.

I normally don't enter GW threads, as there doesn't seem much point.
Sadly many people don't care, after all they have to deny it, accepting
it may mean they should consider a lifestyle change. So everything
inconvenient is denied, whether it be GW,

I suppose that I would be labelled as a denier.

It's not that I don't care, I'm passionate about our environment and
especially passionate about the right of other species to share the world
with us.

So what am I denying? Well, I deny that any proposed solution to the status
quo will make a detectable difference to climate. I deny that world
governments would enforce their solutions in a fair and sensible manner. I
deny that the forecasts of doom are even vaguely honest. I deny that all of
what is being presented as scientific fact is either fact or science. I deny
that man can continue to expand so long as we stop burning oil.

Lets, instead, worry about the destruction of the rain forests - they aren't
being chopped down and burnt by GW. Lets worry about the impending
extinction of our closest relatives - the great apes. Lets worry about ALL
the issues of overpopulation. There are more urgent environmental issues to
hand that won't be addressed by the proposed solutions to AGW

We're off to hell in a handcart and most people are only worried about the
tyres getting a little warm.

Paulus

My comments weren't aimed at you (after all you don't seem to be
denying GW, just our ability to do anything about it) they were just a
general observation. There is much of what you say that I'd agree with.
I would agree that polticians are using GW for there own ends, and
reducing destruction of the rain forests is vital.

What I am saying is that we should always aim to minimise our impact on
the environment as much as possible. It's also important not to be
defeatist.

Graham
Penzance (where it's been a pleasantly warm, sunny morning)

"JPG" wrote in message
ups.com...

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Gianna" wrote in message
...
Linda B wrote:


There is a school of thought in America that as the world is coming to
an
end shortly anyway, there is no need for Americans to risk damaging
their
economy in the meantime by taking action to reduce any man-made effect
upon GW.

It was hoped that the film might snap some people out of that
particular
stupor.


--
Gianna

What stupour would that be Gianna

I think that it's variously called "the rapture" or the "end of days".
Sadly, there are some Americans so religiously deluded that they
believe that AGW, Islamist terrorism, a nuclear Middle East war will
bring about Armageddon so they take a "so-what" attitude.

So I suppose these chaps were purely carrying out market research for
Mothercare

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6266399.stm#suspects

Now that's what call an inconvenient truth!

Please note, however, that "An Inconvenient Truth" is science-based
whereas Intelligent Design (ID) is religion cloaked as science.

Global warming, by equal measure, could also be described as religion cloaked as
science (sic)

Absolute ********. Global warming is serious scientific theory backed
up by extensive observation, modelling and data. Intelligent Design
has no serious peer-reviewed research and is little more than
watered-down creationism introduced by American fundamentalists to
circumvent the teaching of Darwinian evolution in biology lessons.

I totally support this last comment. Jenkins and his ilk are simply
using vulgar politically motivated
attacks from the Right to hide the poverty of their "arguments".

I find the standard of debate is higher on UKWW - there only a couple
of fruitcakes dispute GW,
the rest of the discussion is entirely based on AGW and the size of the
human contribution
[on that forum there are not even many who say that the AGW factor is
zero]

A disgraceful event in this countr'ys media occurred with the
re-publication of INVALID temperature
in NZ locations over the last 100 years or so - those concerned know
the data is wrong, having had
the errors pointed out already. They were trying to "establish" that NZ
had not warmed in the last 100
years.

"Gianna" wrote in message
...
JPG wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Gianna" wrote in message
...
Linda B wrote:

There is a school of thought in America that as the world is coming to
an
end shortly anyway, there is no need for Americans to risk damaging
their
economy in the meantime by taking action to reduce any man-made effect
upon GW.

It was hoped that the film might snap some people out of that
particular
stupor.


--
Gianna
What stupour would that be Gianna

I think that it's variously called "the rapture" or the "end of days".
Sadly, there are some Americans so religiously deluded that they
believe that AGW, Islamist terrorism, a nuclear Middle East war will
bring about Armageddon so they take a "so-what" attitude.


Thanks for that post - I do not see Looney Larry's posts but that question
did need responding to. I am particularly amused when the people in
question state that their book of revelation tells them that the
apocalypse is coming (given that the book of revelation IS the
apocalypse). Anyway, back to rebuilding the temple ...


--
Gianna

Looney Larry! I foolishly thought that there could something special
between us. Me with my rants and you with your pagan wicca, our union could
have produced some sort of inrantations between us.

If your still interested here's my telephone no: 020 3228 2345