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

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

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

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

On Mar 12, 11:52*pm, "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?

Scientists are always conservative in their predictions, especially
after getting the impending ice age wrong. That article is saying
that even they are admitting that their previous estimates were
conservative. But they are still scientists and still conservative.
What is happening is even worse than they describe!

* *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!

Well since I was critcised for making personal remarks about Dr Vicky
Pope I won't use the obvious pun in the case of Joe. However, no
matter how much you respect him, do you reall think his views should
carry more weight than those of:

Professor Sir John Houghton, Professor Sir David King, Professor John
Mitchell, Professor Chris Rapley, Professor Peter Cox, Dr Tim Palmer
FRS, and the American Professor Stephen Schneider?

See Royal Meteorlogial Society web site
http://www.rmets.org/video/talking-heads/rmets.html

Or the Royal Society web pages at :
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4607

The overwhelming majority of respected scientists are warning about
the dangers of climate change. Why listen to an obscure American
weatherman?

Personally, although climate change is a natural thing, it's a case of
whether this bought is self induced or not?

All climate change in the past was natural, and was often associated
with changes in the level of carbon dioxide. We have increased the
level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a third over the last 150
years. That is not natural, and although the consequences will be
natural: heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires, melting glaciers, sea
level rises, etc. their cause will not. It is man made, caused by
burning fossil fuels that took 500 million years to form and half of
which we have already destroyed.

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair" wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 11:52 pm, "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?

Scientists are always conservative in their predictions, especially
after getting the impending ice age wrong. That article is saying
that even they are admitting that their previous estimates were
conservative. But they are still scientists and still conservative.
What is happening is even worse than they describe!

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!

Well since I was critcised for making personal remarks about Dr Vicky
Pope I won't use the obvious pun in the case of Joe. However, no
matter how much you respect him, do you reall think his views should
carry more weight than those of:

Professor Sir John Houghton, Professor Sir David King, Professor John
Mitchell, Professor Chris Rapley, Professor Peter Cox, Dr Tim Palmer
FRS, and the American Professor Stephen Schneider?

See Royal Meteorlogial Society web site
http://www.rmets.org/video/talking-heads/rmets.html

Or the Royal Society web pages at :
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4607

The overwhelming majority of respected scientists are warning about
the dangers of climate change. Why listen to an obscure American
weatherman?

Personally, although climate change is a natural thing, it's a case of
whether this bought is self induced or not?

All climate change in the past was natural, and was often associated
with changes in the level of carbon dioxide. We have increased the
level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a third over the last 150
years. That is not natural, and although the consequences will be
natural: heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires, melting glaciers, sea
level rises, etc. their cause will not. It is man made, caused by
burning fossil fuels that took 500 million years to form and half of
which we have already destroyed.

Cheers, Alastair.
--------------
I am staggered that people have so much respect for Joe. His latest bitter
March hasn't arrived the same as any of his other dire winter warnings. I
tend to agree with the "proper" scientists but am quite happy if they later
discover there were other factors. Why do people hold so much hate for their
factual measurements? If it pointed to cooling down they would happily say
so.
Dave

On 13 Mar, 13:47, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message

...
On Mar 12, 11:52 pm, "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?

Scientists are always conservative in their predictions, especially
after getting the impending ice age wrong. *That article is saying
that even they are admitting that their previous estimates were
conservative. *But they are still scientists and still conservative.
What is happening is even worse than they describe!

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!

Well since I was critcised for making personal remarks about Dr Vicky
Pope I won't use the obvious pun in the case of Joe. However, no
matter how much you respect him, do you reall think his views should
carry more weight than those of:

Professor Sir John Houghton, Professor Sir David King, Professor John
Mitchell, Professor Chris Rapley, Professor Peter Cox, Dr Tim Palmer
FRS, and the American *Professor Stephen Schneider?

See Royal Meteorlogial Society web sitehttp://www.rmets.org/video/talking-heads/rmets.html

Or the Royal Society web pages at :http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4607

The overwhelming majority of respected scientists are warning about
the dangers of climate change. Why listen to an obscure American
weatherman?

Personally, although climate change is a natural thing, it's a case of
whether this bought is self induced or not?

All climate change in the past was natural, and was often associated
with changes in the level of carbon dioxide. *We have increased the
level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a third over the last 150
years. That is not natural, and although the consequences will be
natural: heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires, melting glaciers, sea
level rises, etc. their cause will not. It is man made, caused by
burning fossil fuels that took 500 million years to form and half of
which we have already destroyed.

Cheers, Alastair.
--------------
I am staggered that people have so much respect for Joe. His latest bitter
March hasn't arrived the same as any of his other dire winter warnings. I
tend to agree with the "proper" scientists but am quite happy if they later
discover there were other factors. Why do people hold so much hate for their
factual measurements? If it pointed to cooling down they would happily say
so.
Dave

There are obviously vested interests in the whole 'global warming'
business - and who can blame poor meteorologists for keeping
themselves in a job with the promise of more funding for research. I
just find it appalling that politicians dish out the money without
paying any attention to the evidence. I have never seen any
disagreement with the fact that global temperatures have fallen each
year since 1998. I have just looked at a graph showing global sea ice
cover which, at a glance, shows there is certainly no less ice today
as there was in 1981. Scientists can claim all kinds of reasons why
this should be and that this is just a blip - pretty soon normal
service will be resumed. However, they and the politicians are
suggesting devastating the world economy on the off-chance that there
is going to be a dramatic increase in temperature. It's no good just
ignoring the evidence because they don't like what they see. I would
suggest that with the world in a an increasingly deep recession/
depression CO2 levels will fall dramatically with, let's see if their
theories are correct, a corresponding fall in temperature.

On Mar 13, 4:46*pm, Pete L wrote:
On 13 Mar, 13:47, "Dave Cornwell"





wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message

....
On Mar 12, 11:52 pm, "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?

Scientists are always conservative in their predictions, especially
after getting the impending ice age wrong. *That article is saying
that even they are admitting that their previous estimates were
conservative. *But they are still scientists and still conservative.
What is happening is even worse than they describe!

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!

Well since I was critcised for making personal remarks about Dr Vicky
Pope I won't use the obvious pun in the case of Joe. However, no
matter how much you respect him, do you reall think his views should
carry more weight than those of:

Professor Sir John Houghton, Professor Sir David King, Professor John
Mitchell, Professor Chris Rapley, Professor Peter Cox, Dr Tim Palmer
FRS, and the American *Professor Stephen Schneider?

See Royal Meteorlogial Society web sitehttp://www.rmets.org/video/talking-heads/rmets.html

Or the Royal Society web pages at :http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4607

The overwhelming majority of respected scientists are warning about
the dangers of climate change. Why listen to an obscure American
weatherman?

Personally, although climate change is a natural thing, it's a case of
whether this bought is self induced or not?

All climate change in the past was natural, and was often associated
with changes in the level of carbon dioxide. *We have increased the
level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a third over the last 150
years. That is not natural, and although the consequences will be
natural: heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires, melting glaciers, sea
level rises, etc. their cause will not. It is man made, caused by
burning fossil fuels that took 500 million years to form and half of
which we have already destroyed.

Cheers, Alastair.
--------------
I am staggered that people have so much respect for Joe. His latest bitter
March hasn't arrived the same as any of his other dire winter warnings. I
tend to agree with the "proper" scientists but am quite happy if they later
discover there were other factors. Why do people hold so much hate for their
factual measurements? If it pointed to cooling down they would happily say
so.
Dave

There are obviously vested interests in the whole 'global warming'
business - and who can blame poor meteorologists for keeping
themselves in a job with the promise of more funding for research. I
just find it appalling that politicians dish out the money without
paying any attention to the evidence. I have never seen any
disagreement with the fact that global temperatures have fallen each
year since 1998. I have just looked at a graph showing global sea ice
cover which, at a glance, shows there is certainly no less ice today
as there was in 1981. Scientists can claim all kinds of reasons why
this should be and that this is just a blip - pretty soon normal
service will be resumed. However, they and the politicians are
suggesting devastating the world economy on the off-chance that there
is going to be a dramatic increase in temperature. It's no good just
ignoring the evidence because they don't like what they see. I would
suggest that with the world in a an increasingly deep recession/
depression CO2 levels will fall dramatically with, let's see if their
theories are correct, a corresponding fall in temperature.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You really should read James Heartlock's book, the vanishing face of
gaia. I am
still reeling from his predictions.

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:46:30 -0700, Pete L wrote:

There are obviously vested interests in the whole 'global warming'
business - and who can blame poor meteorologists for keeping themselves
in a job with the promise of more funding for research.
snip

Sorry, but I'm getting really fed up with this line. Scientists do
science, and if their conclusions aren't what others want to hear, then
that's something they have to live with. It's the politicians who twist
words to suit their vested interests. As an interested (in both senses of
the word) but non-specialist observer, I'll go with the weight of
scientific opinion, even though as a human being like everyone else I'm
often sticking my fingers in my ears and going "la-la-la" very loudly to
avoid hearing the very uncomfortable things those scientists tell me.

--
Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

Mike McMillan wrote:

On Mar 13, 4:46 pm, Pete L wrote:
On 13 Mar, 13:47, "Dave Cornwell"





wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message

...
On Mar 12, 11:52 pm, "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?


You really should read James Heartlock's book, the vanishing face of
gaia. I am
still reeling from his predictions.

All sides in this should consider and evaluate the evidence and
discussion thrown up by http://wattsupwiththat.com/