Today in the hairdressers while sat waiting for my turn I noticed OK!
magazine on the coffee table. Front cover:


OK! Magazine

10th Anniversary Special

Jade, Jeff and Baby Bobby. World Exclusive!


The longer I started at it the more depressed I became. If this is the level
of the average persons mentality then we are definitely doomed.

How do you get the man in the street to understand a topic like global
warming? I don't believe Joe Bloggs is capable of understanding the problem
let alone working towards a solution.

Without the majority of the nation calling for something to be done then no
government is going to risk losing popularity introducing measures to combat
CO2 emissions. For instance would people willingly give up their 4x4s and
make do with a CO2 friendlier car instead?

My stance on global warming is that even if there is a 1% chance of the
worst case scenario happening then I believe we should act now, just in
case. Once it is too late it is too late.

Maybe it will take a huge natural disaster to make people force their
governments to do something. A few floods and a hot summer is not enough.

Sorry needed to get this off my chest,

Bill

--
Aim to work one hour less this week than last week and get paid the same.

"Bill Gardener" wrote in message
...
Today in the hairdressers while sat waiting for my turn I noticed OK!
magazine on the coffee table. Front cover:


OK! Magazine

10th Anniversary Special

Jade, Jeff and Baby Bobby. World Exclusive!


The longer I started at it the more depressed I became. If this is the
level
of the average persons mentality then we are definitely doomed.

How do you get the man in the street to understand a topic like global
warming? I don't believe Joe Bloggs is capable of understanding the
problem
let alone working towards a solution.

Without the majority of the nation calling for something to be done then
no
government is going to risk losing popularity introducing measures to
combat
CO2 emissions. For instance would people willingly give up their 4x4s and
make do with a CO2 friendlier car instead?

My stance on global warming is that even if there is a 1% chance of the
worst case scenario happening then I believe we should act now, just in
case. Once it is too late it is too late.

Maybe it will take a huge natural disaster to make people force their
governments to do something. A few floods and a hot summer is not enough.

Sorry needed to get this off my chest,

Bill

--
Aim to work one hour less this week than last week and get paid the same.


Here, Here

I agree

So I have no meteorological background, just my own opinion to stand by,
does that mean I should be ignored?

How many square metres of forest destroyed world-wide today, yet alone this
year?

How many new buildings i.e general infrastructure completed world-wide today
and how many businesses, homes etc. destroyed by storms as I sit here
typing?

I'm safe for now while the remaining trees soak up the solar radiation,
pollutants, carbons.

But for how long...

Stepping of soapbox right now.

Tony
Newbury, Berkshire

A generally cloudy day with a max of approx. 7.5c today and a raw wind. I
need a few sunny cooler days now to blow away these remnants of flu.

It will get better. erm......

"tony_powell" wrote in message
...

"Bill Gardener" wrote in message
...
Today in the hairdressers while sat waiting for my turn I noticed OK!
magazine on the coffee table. Front cover:


OK! Magazine

10th Anniversary Special

Jade, Jeff and Baby Bobby. World Exclusive!


The longer I started at it the more depressed I became. If this is the
level
of the average persons mentality then we are definitely doomed.

How do you get the man in the street to understand a topic like global
warming? I don't believe Joe Bloggs is capable of understanding the
problem
let alone working towards a solution.

Without the majority of the nation calling for something to be done then
no
government is going to risk losing popularity introducing measures to
combat
CO2 emissions. For instance would people willingly give up their 4x4s
and
make do with a CO2 friendlier car instead?

My stance on global warming is that even if there is a 1% chance of the
worst case scenario happening then I believe we should act now, just in
case. Once it is too late it is too late.

Maybe it will take a huge natural disaster to make people force their
governments to do something. A few floods and a hot summer is not
enough.

Sorry needed to get this off my chest,

Bill

--
Aim to work one hour less this week than last week and get paid the
same.


Here, Here

I agree

So I have no meteorological background, just my own opinion to stand by,
does that mean I should be ignored?

How many square metres of forest destroyed world-wide today, yet alone
this
year?

How many new buildings i.e general infrastructure completed world-wide
today
and how many businesses, homes etc. destroyed by storms as I sit here
typing?

I'm safe for now while the remaining trees soak up the solar radiation,
pollutants, carbons.

But for how long...

Stepping of soapbox right now.

Tony
Newbury, Berkshire

A generally cloudy day with a max of approx. 7.5c today and a raw wind. I
need a few sunny cooler days now to blow away these remnants of flu.

It will get better. erm......

Whoops,

Replying to my own post is dodgy but no-one will read it with the mere
mention of GW anyway, I hereby correct 2 points.

Addendum 1

How many square metres of forests etc. to how many... due to increased
number of natural phenomenon's.

And

Replace I'm safe for now with we're safe for now.

Cheers

Tony

OK! Magazine

10th Anniversary Special

Jade, Jeff and Baby Bobby. World Exclusive!


The longer I started at it the more depressed I became. If this is the level
of the average persons mentality then we are definitely doomed.

Reading OK! magazine would make anyone depressed, such is its
frivolous content. But it is a mistake to assume that what hairdressers or
doctors or dentists, come to that, may think is suitable reading for those in
the waiting room is really what interests people, and the fact that they
actually may read it doesn't mean they're incapable of understanding anything
more important. You can't expect people to worry about environmental issues
when they're waiting to have their hair cut, teeth pulled or boil-on-the-bum
lanced.
I disagree with your rather doom-laden view of Global Warming. All
we know is that the world is a warmer place and will continue to get warmer,
very probably. Whether or not this will lead to "worse" weather in any other
sense than "a bit too hot" is a question that has not really been answered.
There is a good deal of evidence that cold, not warm, periods lead to greater
storminess in mid-latitudes due to the increased latitudinal temperature
gradient and the equatorward shift of the zones of baroclinicity. You won't
read about this in OK! but neither will you in the Times, Telegraph or
Guardian, particularly the last, which is my normal breakfast-time fare.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On 06 Dec 2003 01:09:29 GMT, (TudorHgh) wrote:

I disagree with your rather doom-laden view of Global Warming. All
we know is that the world is a warmer place and will continue to get warmer,
very probably. Whether or not this will lead to "worse" weather in any other
sense than "a bit too hot" is a question that has not really been answered.
There is a good deal of evidence that cold, not warm, periods lead to greater
storminess in mid-latitudes due to the increased latitudinal temperature
gradient and the equatorward shift of the zones of baroclinicity. You won't
read about this in OK! but neither will you in the Times, Telegraph or
Guardian, particularly the last, which is my normal breakfast-time fare.

Indeed, an interesting point to consider.

Also, you won't read much about the point of view that we should stop
trying to meddle with Nature (whether by increasing *or* decreasing
greenhouse gases). That is, that we should instead spend our money
learning how to *adapt* to the changing conditions we think we can
predict...

--
Dave

Bill Gardener wrote:

Today in the hairdressers while sat waiting for my turn I noticed OK!
magazine on the coffee table. Front cover:

OK! Magazine

10th Anniversary Special

Jade, Jeff and Baby Bobby. World Exclusive!

The longer I started at it the more depressed I became. If this is the level
of the average persons mentality then we are definitely doomed.

How do you get the man in the street to understand a topic like global
warming? I don't believe Joe Bloggs is capable of understanding the problem
let alone working towards a solution.

Without the majority of the nation calling for something to be done then no
government is going to risk losing popularity introducing measures to combat
CO2 emissions. For instance would people willingly give up their 4x4s and
make do with a CO2 friendlier car instead?

My stance on global warming is that even if there is a 1% chance of the
worst case scenario happening then I believe we should act now, just in
case. Once it is too late it is too late.

Maybe it will take a huge natural disaster to make people force their
governments to do something. A few floods and a hot summer is not enough.

Sorry needed to get this off my chest,

Bill

--
Aim to work one hour less this week than last week and get paid the same.

Just get to the root of the problem, TOO MANY HUMANS!!! there are only two
countries that have tried to address the problem, India giving away transistor
radios and China trying to limit size of families.
Why can't people see that reducing global population is the only answer, any
other solution e.g banning 4w drives etc is laughable and quite pathetic.
What happens when the Chinese require the same standard of living as western
nations and we all start warring over earth resources?
Rant mode off.
Bob

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On 06 Dec 2003 01:09:29 GMT, (TudorHgh) wrote:

I disagree with your rather doom-laden view of Global Warming.
All
we know is that the world is a warmer place and will continue to get
warmer,
very probably. Whether or not this will lead to "worse" weather in any
other
sense than "a bit too hot" is a question that has not really been
answered.
There is a good deal of evidence that cold, not warm, periods lead to
greater
storminess in mid-latitudes due to the increased latitudinal temperature
gradient and the equatorward shift of the zones of baroclinicity. You
won't
read about this in OK! but neither will you in the Times, Telegraph or
Guardian, particularly the last, which is my normal breakfast-time fare.

Indeed, an interesting point to consider.

Also, you won't read much about the point of view that we should stop
trying to meddle with Nature (whether by increasing *or* decreasing
greenhouse gases). That is, that we should instead spend our money
learning how to *adapt* to the changing conditions we think we can
predict...

--
Dave
But, Dave, isn't that a bit like saying 'we were wrong to heave all this
filth in this beautiful gin clear lake but we'd be wrong to stop doing it'.
Don't agree I'm afraid - at all...

In article ,
Bob writes:
Just get to the root of the problem, TOO MANY HUMANS!!! there are only two
countries that have tried to address the problem, India giving away transistor
radios and China trying to limit size of families.
Why can't people see that reducing global population is the only answer,

How do you propose to do that, short of genocide? The best that we can
hope to achieve in the short to medium term is to reduce the rate of
increase. I believe I'm right in saying that most Western European
countries already have stable or even falling populations. The big
increases are in Africa, parts of Asia and maybe Latin America. We in
the West may see that they would be better off with a stable population,
but how do we get these regions to accept this? They have been used to
expect high mortality, especially high infant mortality, and are
naturally taking time to adjust to the much improved life expectancy.

(Apologies for having been tempted to go way off topic.)
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob writes:
Just get to the root of the problem, TOO MANY HUMANS!!! there are only
two
countries that have tried to address the problem, India giving away
transistor
radios and China trying to limit size of families.
Why can't people see that reducing global population is the only answer,

How do you propose to do that, short of genocide? The best that we can
hope to achieve in the short to medium term is to reduce the rate of
increase.

I think that climate change may have a biofeedback mechanism, in that if it
brings about falling agricultural yields, this will lead to falling human
populations. Whether the populations that fall will be the ones that are
doing most of the polluting is doubtful, but famine of biblical proportions
should at least concentrate the minds, even of OK magazine readers

Jim Webster

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:29:12 -0000, "Peter Hearnden"
wrote:

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message

Also, you won't read much about the point of view that we should stop
trying to meddle with Nature (whether by increasing *or* decreasing
greenhouse gases). That is, that we should instead spend our money
learning how to *adapt* to the changing conditions we think we can
predict...

But, Dave, isn't that a bit like saying 'we were wrong to heave all this
filth in this beautiful gin clear lake but we'd be wrong to stop doing it'.
Don't agree I'm afraid - at all...

You assume that's my preferred solution; it isn't. Some people
(especially Americans) think that way, though. Anyway, the lake is
already polluted so we already need to learn how to adapt. So let's
prepare the contingency plans and costings anyway, in case we fail to
stop GW whatever we do.

Seeing the true costs of adapting to "live with GW" (or that
adaptation is impossible) might shock a few more politicians into
action.

--
Dave