On Mar 13, 7:16 pm, "Steve J" wrote:
Well boys and girls, what a hornets'nest last week's channel 4
programme stirred up!

As a teacher, I have to try and put both sides of an argument, and in
this debate this is difficult because all texts, even at A2 level
support the argument for AGW without ant dissent. However, TV
programmes like this, books like "State of Fear", some articles posted
on the internet and in newspapers have offered the chance to at least
attempt a balanced presentation.

However, as the various threads on this learned NG domonstrate, there
*ARE* some entrenched views, and some of us do get "hot under the
collar at times in our exasperation at an alternative view. I hold my


hat up to Gianna for some spirited points of view however, and there
should be more room to debate natural cycles of GW.
Too many are afraid to stick their head above the parapet because of
potential abuse from the 'other side'.

Anyway, some things are undeniable IMHO;

1. Global warming is a fact.
2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.
3. Man has burnt fossil fuels almost to exhaustion, so there are more
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today.
4 The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic
past.
5 Whether Man is responsible for GW or not, burning fossil fuels in
such profusion ia harmful and unsustainable.
6 The media have over-hyped the AGW scenarioa big time.
7 Governments are now driving energy policies into the 21st century
(like building more nuclear plants in the UK) to combat that overused
term 'climate change'.
8. Climate change is blamed for every "freak" natural atmospheric
hazard from flooding, to hurricanes, to heavy snowfall, to heatwaves,
to gales, to heavy rain, atcetera ad nauseam.
9. Global warming has forced us to implement energy conservation
measures and planning a sustainable future.
10. My last one, to give others a chance, neither side can yet offer
positive proof to the other that their arguments/
eveidence is incontravertible.

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,
but as an academic debate, this still has a lot of mileage in it just
yet.

Anyone else care to add to my 10 "undeniable points"?

Or will you take issue with my 10 points?

Steve Jackson
Bablake weather Station
Coventry UKwww.bablakeweather.co.uk




I believe that a point that was undersold in the documentary and
always left out here in this NG, is that of dishonesty. Let me
explain: Politicians and especially this present mob in power are
always looking for way to increase revenues in surreptitious ways,
we've had it with all aspects of health and safety in the last decade
and we are certainly going to get it via the slogan "saving the
planet".

It's not solely the domain of this government, the left in general and
I have to say this although it will cause many here to cringe, it's
purely the domain of the white Marxist middle classes who have seized
the GW banner as a way to vent their spleens in a orgiastic frenzy of
self-loathing against capitalism and of course the first capitalist
country England, the biggest capitalist country the USA and of course
their perceived stooges in the middle east-Israel. Just witness the
idiotic ranting of that creep Ken Livingstone on the subject of GW; he
has constantly attacked GW Bush and the American so called greedy life-
style of cheap oil consumption , and then the chiselling little
hypocrite boast he's done a cheap oil deal with Venezuela.

I noted that the ex editor of New Scientist Nigel Calder touched upon
this in the documentary. Since the neutering of the trade unions in
the 80's, the left like fleas who lived on the coats of the TUC
finally had to find a new host as the unions became moribund
organisations; this they found in Politics, Media (BBC)local politics,
local government, teaching and self-interest minority pressure group
and bloated egotistical rock artist. Yet all that hatred of capitalism
and their own perceived colonial, imperialist past is now vented in
the Global Warming bandwagon and how they vent it? From George
Monbidiot to that other idiot Bono who by the way is an avid Al the
goracle Gore fan. Bono by the way who hates world debt and thinks we
should all give more to bank accounts in Switzerland via Africa, has
just upped and left Ireland now that the very generous tax laws which
once made it a haven for the globally caring U2 have now been
overturned and the rich have to pay more (greedy fecking *******s)

Look I'm going on as usual, suffice to say that unprincipled
government is using GW as a stealth/guilt tax raising exercise. In
addition the Marxists have got in on the act, and you can never trust
that lot they are incapable of telling the truth. This is a primary
reason for the whole scenario becoming over-hyped. I'm willing to bet
that Sir David King is an old South African lefty-hence the knighthood
and position of chief scientific advisor. What better way to sow the
seeds of coming taxation.

Good article on the shenanigans and censorship of King here

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0407230903.asp

Signal wrote:
Gianna wrote:

Anyone else care to add to my 10 "undeniable points"?

Or will you take issue with my 10 points?

11. There has to be some armageddon-like event for the masses to worry about:
We are either heading for nuclear annihilation, an ice age, or about to
overheat (all three in my life time). But whatever the case with the climate,
and whatever the cause, the planet will correct the situation.

Is this an undeniable point? No - it's wishful thinking.


No.
11. There has to be some armageddon-like event for the masses to worry about:

That was the undeniable point. It was clearly separated from my comments, and
is certainly not something I would wish for.


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

wrote:


So where does the extra energy go when we leave our TVs on standby, or
use a conventional light bulb? The answer is it is converted to heat.
Which warms the rooms in your house. which means that your
thermostaically controlled central heating system uses correspondingly
less fuel to maintain your chosen temperature.

So by reducing the heat generated by your lighting and entertainment
systems, you increase the fuel required by your heating system. I
fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions.


Perhaps you should try it, and then check your fuel bills. I have saved quite a
lot of money, and my house is no warmer, or cooler.



--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:33:22 GMT, wrote in

snip
So by reducing the heat generated by your lighting and entertainment
systems, you increase the fuel required by your heating system. I
fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions.

And in the 8 (soon to rise as GW kicks in) months of the year when I have
no need for a heating system on?

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 13/03/2007 22:23:46 GMT

In message . com,
writes
In addition the Marxists have got in on the act, and you can never
trust that lot they are incapable of telling the truth. This is a
primary reason for the whole scenario becoming over-hyped.

Among the comments I've seen made about the programme is one alleging
that the director of the program is a Marxist.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Du...&hl=en&num=100
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Mar 13, 6:16 pm, "Steve J" wrote:
Well boys and girls,

I am not a boy or a girl.

As a teacher,

You are a **** wit.

However, as the various threads on this learned NG demonstrate, there
*ARE* some entrenched views, and some of us do get "hot under the
collar at times in our exasperation at an alternative view.

Have you got the right newsgroup?

Too many are afraid to stick their head above the parapet because of
potential abuse from the 'other side'.

Or is it that you can't make your mind up?

Anyway, some things are undeniable IMHO;

1. Global warming is a fact.

Proof?

2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.

How the **** do inert gasses do that?

3. Man has burnt fossil fuels almost to exhaustion, so there are more
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today.

Have you been paying any attention at all; even the least little bit
at the back there?

4 The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic
past.

Explain. What is "Geologic"?

5 Whether Man is responsible for GW or not, burning fossil fuels in
such profusion is harmful and unsustainable.

Do you have any idea how untenable your fact **** is?

6 The media have over-hyped the AGW scenario big time.

What is AGW? Anti Globalls?

snip czjd.

On Mar 13, 11:53 pm, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:
On Mar 13, 6:16 pm, "Steve J" wrote:

Well boys and girls,

I am not a boy or a girl.

As a teacher,

You are a **** wit.

However, as the various threads on this learned NG demonstrate, there
*ARE* some entrenched views, and some of us do get "hot under the
collar at times in our exasperation at an alternative view.

Have you got the right newsgroup?

Too many are afraid to stick their head above the parapet because of
potential abuse from the 'other side'.

Or is it that you can't make your mind up?

Anyway, some things are undeniable IMHO;

1. Global warming is a fact.

Proof?

2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.

How the **** do inert gasses do that?

3. Man has burnt fossil fuels almost to exhaustion, so there are more
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today.

Have you been paying any attention at all; even the least little bit
at the back there?

4 The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic
past.

Explain. What is "Geologic"?

5 Whether Man is responsible for GW or not, burning fossil fuels in
such profusion is harmful and unsustainable.

Do you have any idea how untenable your fact **** is?

6 The media have over-hyped the AGW scenario big time.

What is AGW? Anti Globalls?

snip czjd.

You been on the sauce again? There are some very fair comments in
there yet all you do is seek to insult.

"Signal" wrote in message
...


Wrong. They are far from equivalent. Electronic components and light
bulbs are not efficient sources of heat.


Wrong.

All the electrical energy that enters your tv while on standby ( and whilst
switched on for that matter) must be dissipated to the environment some way
or other. Mostly directly as heat from the circuitry. This is dissipated
into the room by convection, conduction and IR radiation.

If there is a standby light on the front of the set then this will emit
electromagnetic energy quite efficiently if it is an LED. However the LED
will still loose some thermal energy. The emitted light will scatter about
the room. Some will be lost through windows and open doors. Much of it will
eventually get absorbed by either the air or walls and their temperature
will increase slightly.

Either way the vast majority of the electrical energy will go towards
heating the room.

The fact that all these effects together will not result in a significantly
lower heating cost for the room demonstrates just what a minute amount of
energy is used when you leave a TV on standby.

Paulus

There are some very fair comments in there yet all you do is seek to
insult.


2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.

How the **** do inert gasses do that?

------------------
I think you'll find inert gases are more yer Helium (He), Neon (Ne), Argon
(Ar), Krypton (Kr), Xenon (Xe), and Radon (Rn) than yer greenhouse gases
such as methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2). But I'll leave it to you
armchair scientists to decide about "the facts"
Dave

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:19:24 +0000, Signal wrote:

Circuit components transfer much of their heat through matter to
regions of lower temperature - conduction. This means they are not
efficient sources of heat (for heating your environment). You could
perhaps snuggle up to the chassis of your amplifier to maximize the
potential.

But they still release fair amounts of heat into the room, relative to
the electricity input.

Also consider airflow. Take lightbulbs for example. Are they located
in floors or ceilings? Heat rises, by the way.

You take that example but there are others. My two PCs and their CRT
screens seem to be quite efficient at heating the small room they are
situated in. The heat they output rises alright... but it maintains a
nice convected circulation in the room. That circulation helps to make
the light bulb heating more efficient by dragging 'ceiling heat' back
down; convection is a wonderful thing.

But I am not trying to argue that PCs and light bulbs are AS efficient
as a well designed heating system.

In Summer and on other warm days, of course, things are very
different...

--
Dave