"Martin Jay" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:59:24 GMT, Paul Hyett
wrote:

Am I the only one who instantly changes channel as soon as they start
wittering on about man-made global warming being responsible for every
little climate fluctuation?

No you're not. I stopped believing the (man made) global warming
nonsense a long time ago.

It amuses me when people talk about saving the planet. The planet is
more than capable of looking after itself.
--
Martin Jay



Yes, and it will no doubt support microbes, bacteria, and even cockroaches
for millennia to come.

Get used to asexual reproduction and living off other microbes then.

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:46:50 +0100, "Light of Aria"
wrote:

Get used to asexual reproduction

Is that another term for marriage?

--
Angus Rodgers

Paul Hyett wrote:
Am I the only one who instantly changes channel as soon as they start
wittering on about man-made global warming being responsible for every
little climate fluctuation?

Maybe the real cause of the warming is all that infra-red?

In article 62b1c975-3458-4e8e-9801-9ac9143889b9
@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...

On 9 Apr, 08:59, Paul Hyett wrote:
Am I the only one who instantly changes channel as soon as they start
wittering on about man-made global warming being responsible for every
little climate fluctuation?

IMO, the warming trend, if it is in fact real rather than a statistical
artefact, is overwhelming natural.

Is this increase in the number of climate documentaries man-made or a
natural phenomenom?

Even if it is man-made, I don't think there's anything we can do about
it.
--
SAm.

Sam Nelson wrote:
In article 62b1c975-3458-4e8e-9801-9ac9143889b9
@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...
On 9 Apr, 08:59, Paul Hyett wrote:
Am I the only one who instantly changes channel as soon as they start
wittering on about man-made global warming being responsible for every
little climate fluctuation?

IMO, the warming trend, if it is in fact real rather than a statistical
artefact, is overwhelming natural.
Is this increase in the number of climate documentaries man-made or a
natural phenomenom?

Even if it is man-made, I don't think there's anything we can do about
it.

There is a lot less localised pollution than 35 years ago thats for
sure, I see more Buzzards , Heron and Kingfishers than I ever did as a
child in the urban Canals. In the canals there are huge shoals of very
large fish - I see them regularly as well as myriads of nesting birds
including swans. When I was small it was yellow and had oil slicks on it
from discharged slurry oils .

Angus Rodgers wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:14:22 +0100, "For example: John Smith"
wrote:

Paul Hyett wrote:
Am I the only one who instantly changes channel as soon as they start
wittering on about man-made global warming being responsible for every
little climate fluctuation?

IMO, the warming trend, if it is in fact real rather than a
statistical artefact, is overwhelming natural.

If you're so uninterested in the topic that you instantly switch
channel when it is discussed, then why express an opinion on it?

According to Occam (.... the simplest explanation is the most likely), it IS
most likely to be natural.

However, even the scientific sceptics admit that after about 1970 it
impossible to balance the Earth's energy budget without incorporating
AGW greenhouse gas forcing into the models. They say something different
when they are acting as mouthpieces for the ultra-right wing American
think tanks and oil companies that sponsor denialist propaganda.

Roughly half the warming over the past century is natural in origin and
the other half which occurred in the last four decades is attributed to
AGW. Note that during this period we have accurate solar flux
measurements from satellites so you cannot magic it away with hand
waving arguments about the sun getting brighter.


Just supposing that I can bear to actually try to learn anything
about this important subject, does anyone have any book and/or
website recommendations? (But don't waste too much effort trying
to educate me, while I'm still so unwilling to educate myself!)

The IPCC science case from WG1 is available online for free (or as a
book you have to pay for). The summary for policymakers is easier to
read if you don't have a scientific background.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

And a very good introduction to the policy and practical implications of
trying to save and find alternative energy sources written by David
MacKay of Cambridge University is available to buy as a book or free
online at

http://www.withouthotair.com/

You might also find it interesting to attach an OWL energy monitor to
your household electricity supply. Knowing how much you are using in
real time should knock at 10-25% of your base load electricity bill.

http://www.electricity-monitor.com/w...l-c-37_30.html

LCD TVs with the internal DTV decoder running continuously waste 20W for
instance even in standby (and many do that by default).

My worst offending appliance is a computer 5+1 amplifier which draws 19W
when physically switched off at the front panel and 20W when on!

The wasteful devices are now automatically powered down when not in use.
The pay back is in well under a year if you can shave 40W off your
continuous usage.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:14:22 +0100
"For example: John Smith" wrote:


Paul Hyett wrote:
Am I the only one who instantly changes channel as soon as they start
wittering on about man-made global warming being responsible for every
little climate fluctuation?

IMO, the warming trend, if it is in fact real rather than a
statistical artefact, is overwhelming natural.

According to Occam (.... the simplest explanation is the most likely), it IS
most likely to be natural.

Actually I'd have thought the simplest explanation is that we're causing
it rather than completely coincidentaly the earth has embarked upon a
warming trend in line with rising CO2 levels from human activity.

Of course using occams razor you could say that because trees have been
falling down on their own for billions of years there obviously no such
thing as lumberjacks.

But even if it's not, the simple fact remains that the global system has
seen vastly more dramatic changes than we currently see - even until quite
recently (the Middle Ages).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The current hysteria must also be understood in the broader context of how
it began - an active and well-funded drive instigated by Thatcher to villify
CO-2, in a bid to reduce UK reliance on Middle-Eastern oil imports and
decrease public resistance to a shift to nuclear electricity generation.

Yes , obviously it all began with thatcher on this little island. International
enviromental organisations and climate scientists had nothing to do with it.

The French who now get more than 50% of its power requirements from nuclear
fission, must be laughing at the backward English.

More than likely.

B2003

wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:14:22 +0100
"For example: John Smith" wrote:


Paul Hyett wrote:
Am I the only one who instantly changes channel as soon as they
start wittering on about man-made global warming being responsible
for every little climate fluctuation?

IMO, the warming trend, if it is in fact real rather than a
statistical artefact, is overwhelming natural.

According to Occam (.... the simplest explanation is the most
likely), it IS most likely to be natural.

Actually I'd have thought the simplest explanation is that we're
causing
it rather than completely coincidentaly the earth has embarked upon a
warming trend in line with rising CO2 levels from human activity.

Your comments betray a deep ignorance of climate - and particularly CO-2.
CO-2 is a minor greenhouse gas and human production of it is utterly dwarfed
by natural sources.

I suggest you get yourself a basic scientific education before spouting
ignorant crap on a subject about which you clearly know nothing.


Of course using occams razor you could say that because trees have
been falling down on their own for billions of years there obviously
no such
thing as lumberjacks.

But even if it's not, the simple fact remains that the global system
has seen vastly more dramatic changes than we currently see - even
until quite recently (the Middle Ages).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The current hysteria must also be understood in the broader context
of how it began - an active and well-funded drive instigated by
Thatcher to villify CO-2, in a bid to reduce UK reliance on
Middle-Eastern oil imports and decrease public resistance to a shift
to nuclear electricity generation.

Yes , obviously it all began with thatcher on this little island.
International enviromental organisations and climate scientists had
nothing to do with it.

The French who now get more than 50% of its power requirements from
nuclear fission, must be laughing at the backward English.

More than likely.

B2003

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:54:22 +0100
"For example: John Smith" wrote:
Your comments betray a deep ignorance of climate - and particularly CO-2.
CO-2 is a minor greenhouse gas and human production of it is utterly dwarfed
by natural sources.

Its the 2nd biggest greenhouse gas after water vapour. Now see if you can
get your lonely braincell to figure out how an atmospheric infra red absorber
with a long half life in the atmosphere can drive the influence the of a
volatile such as water, a bit like the base of a transistor drives the
collector.


I suggest you get yourself a basic scientific education before spouting
ignorant crap on a subject about which you clearly know nothing.

Before you reply with yet more cliched witterings from Bumper Book of Insults
for Dummies, why not go read up on the carbon cycle and learn what the term
equilibrium means and how unbalancing it effects CO2 levels.

B2003

For example: John Smith wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:14:22 +0100
"For example: John Smith" wrote:

Paul Hyett wrote:
Am I the only one who instantly changes channel as soon as they
start wittering on about man-made global warming being responsible
for every little climate fluctuation?

IMO, the warming trend, if it is in fact real rather than a
statistical artefact, is overwhelming natural.
According to Occam (.... the simplest explanation is the most
likely), it IS most likely to be natural.
Actually I'd have thought the simplest explanation is that we're
causing
it rather than completely coincidentaly the earth has embarked upon a
warming trend in line with rising CO2 levels from human activity.

Your comments betray a deep ignorance of climate - and particularly CO-2.
CO-2 is a minor greenhouse gas and human production of it is utterly dwarfed
by natural sources.

No it isn't. There is a large natural flux flowing round the system but
we are releasing enough CO2 by burning fossil fuels to measurably alter
the isotopic composition of CO2 in the atmosphere. See for example:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/all...mlu_c13co2.jpg

And also to alter the CO2 concentration in the oceans making life rather
more difficult for calcium fixing corals.

And to measurably alter the O2 concentration now that routine
measurement devices with close to 6 figure accuracy are available.

I suggest you get yourself a basic scientific education before spouting
ignorant crap on a subject about which you clearly know nothing.

It is you who need a decent science education. Relying on Exxon
sponsored denialist websites will not hack it.

Regards,
Martin Brown