On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:25:55 +0100
"Alastair McDonald" k wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" k
writes:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
Mark Preston writes:
ty wrote:


I understood that mankinds contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere is
still
very much in debate. The CO2 levels of the atmosphere have risen and
fallen
for millenia, this has been a natural process and shows a regular
pattern.

Why should we think now that if CO2 levels are slowly rising that it
is
mankinds fault.

Its only "in debate" in America, where the government (and I kid you
not) flatly refused to accept the scientific opinion because it was
"incompatible with political objectives" (Bush's words, supposedly).

The fact is, there is little or no scientific debate about it anywhere -
it is simply a fact of life.

This is simply untrue. I was talking to the head of climate research at a
large British University a few months ago, and he said that although
there
is little doubt that that the world is getting warmer, there is no
evidence
at all that the cause is mankind's fault.

Well, that is a pretty riduculous statement. I can only assume you are
misquoting him. There is evidence that CO2

Ah, so you know that the problem is caused by CO2, do you? Still, I guess
that
jumping to conclusions is at least an environmentally friendly method of
transportation.

[8 lines of irrelevant argument based on an incorrect
assumption snipped]

[12 lines of "what about the childr-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-n" argument snipped]

Who is this head of Climate at a large British University anyway? Why
so secret about his identity?

None of your damn business. The comments he made to me were made personally
at a social function.

Oh! So he was drunk? No wonder you don't want to give his name.
Quite right too. I would expect people I talk to to do the same!

LOL, steady people steady, does it really matter at this time what the cause
of rising CO2 levels may be. If CO2 levels are rising and it would seem that
evidence shows it is, then shouldnt we try and do something about it. Then later
we can argue why and how when the evidence of why its increasing is established.

Wether mankind is responsible or not are we really taking the rise seriously?
it seems to me some are and some are not. If we can all agree that CO2 levels
are rising, whatever the cause could we really change it, even if mankind
stop all CO2 output and the levels still rise due to natural process then
what are we going to do about it?. Just sit back and argue I supose.


If so, I think
you ought to have a listen to what all the professors at Reading
University have to say ...

Why? Do they have access to the hermetic truth?

Oh is that the problem? Your guy's name is hermetically sealed
in secrecy.

They are experts on climate too. And they are not afraid to let their
names be known. See;
http://www.metnt.rdg.ac.uk/Scripts/U...taffsearch.asp


HTH,

Cheers, Alastair.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" k
writes:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
Mark Preston writes:
ty wrote:


I understood that mankinds contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
is
still
very much in debate. The CO2 levels of the atmosphere have risen and
fallen
for millenia, this has been a natural process and shows a regular
pattern.

Why should we think now that if CO2 levels are slowly rising that it
is
mankinds fault.

Its only "in debate" in America, where the government (and I kid you
not) flatly refused to accept the scientific opinion because it was
"incompatible with political objectives" (Bush's words, supposedly).

The fact is, there is little or no scientific debate about it
anywhere -
it is simply a fact of life.

This is simply untrue. I was talking to the head of climate research at
a
large British University a few months ago, and he said that although
there
is little doubt that that the world is getting warmer, there is no
evidence
at all that the cause is mankind's fault.

Well, that is a pretty riduculous statement. I can only assume you are
misquoting him. There is evidence that CO2

Ah, so you know that the problem is caused by CO2, do you? Still, I guess
that
jumping to conclusions is at least an environmentally friendly method of
transportation.

[8 lines of irrelevant argument based on an incorrect
assumption snipped]

[12 lines of "what about the childr-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-n" argument snipped]

Who is this head of Climate at a large British University anyway? Why
so secret about his identity?

None of your damn business. The comments he made to me were made
personally
at a social function.
snipped

Quotes without named sources are not worth the time taken to read them.
No-one will take you seriously if you make vague statements without
attributing who it came from. So unless you name your source, you are
wasting my time and everyone elses, plus I suggest you decide if you want
your "views" to be taken seriously or not.

SO actually it is our "damn business"...

--
Rob

In uk.sci.weather on Sat, 17 Apr 2004 at 17:33:23, Huge wrote :

Hi Hugh - haven't seen you on uk.sci.weather before.

Scientists say what the funding organisations want to hear.

I would be most interested to hear of any reputable scientist who holds
that opinion.

Which opinion? That there is no evidence that global warming is man's
fault? Most of them, in private, I expect.

I'd be interested in their explanation for the 30% increase in CO2 in
the last 2 centuries, and why the earth has 'coincidentally' warmed up
over the same period...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

In uk.sci.weather on Sat, 17 Apr 2004 at 18:06:54, Col wrote :

"Huge" wrote in message
...

Which opinion? That there is no evidence that global warming is man's
fault? Most of them, in private, I expect.

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas.
Industrialisation releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
Increases in CO2 have been measured this period of industrialisation.
The earth is getting warmer..........

OK, it's not cast iron *proof* but it's a pretty dodgy looking suspect.
What do you want to do, wait until the water is lapping around your ankles?

Well, sea-front property is worth rather more...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Col" writes:

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


What exactly is your point?

Reveal your sources and have some credibility.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Col" writes:

"Huge" wrote in message
...

Which opinion? That there is no evidence that global warming is man's
fault? Most of them, in private, I expect.

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas.

So is water vapour.


So is methane.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk

"Huge" wrote in message
...
Mark Preston writes:
Huge wrote:
Mark Preston writes:

Its only "in debate" in America, where the government (and I kid you
not) flatly refused to accept the scientific opinion because it was
"incompatible with political objectives" (Bush's words, supposedly).

The fact is, there is little or no scientific debate about it
anywhere -
it is simply a fact of life.


This is simply untrue. I was talking to the head of climate research at
a
large British University a few months ago, and he said that although
there
is little doubt that that the world is getting warmer, there is no
evidence
at all that the cause is mankind's fault.

Scientists say what the funding organisations want to hear.

I would be most interested to hear of any reputable scientist who holds
that opinion.

Which opinion? That there is no evidence that global warming is man's
fault? Most of them, in private, I expect.

So you, an unnamed poster, provides 'evidence' from unnamed sources. Do you
expect anyone to take you seriously?

Peter


--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Col" writes:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Col" writes:

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


What exactly is your point?

That you're an idiot.

Reveal your sources and have some credibility.

Like I said, you haven't been on Usenet long, have you?

Whats that got to do with you not naming your sources? If you want to be
credible, you should name your sources. If you don't we must assume you
haven't got any and its something invented to further your own spurious
statements.

--
Rob

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Peter Hearnden" writes:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
Mark Preston writes:
Huge wrote:
Mark Preston writes:

Its only "in debate" in America, where the government (and I kid you
not) flatly refused to accept the scientific opinion because it was
"incompatible with political objectives" (Bush's words, supposedly).

The fact is, there is little or no scientific debate about it
anywhere -
it is simply a fact of life.


This is simply untrue. I was talking to the head of climate research
at
a
large British University a few months ago, and he said that although
there
is little doubt that that the world is getting warmer, there is no
evidence
at all that the cause is mankind's fault.

Scientists say what the funding organisations want to hear.

I would be most interested to hear of any reputable scientist who
holds
that opinion.

Which opinion? That there is no evidence that global warming is man's
fault? Most of them, in private, I expect.

So you, an unnamed poster, provides 'evidence' from unnamed sources. Do
you
expect anyone to take you seriously?

Another noob.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking to "Col".

You must be the newbie, as you refused to name your sources. If you had a
credible and real point to make, you wouldn't be hiding your source.
--
Rob

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Col" writes:

What exactly is your point?

That you're an idiot.

Ah yes, I must have missed your eloquently argued debate for you
to come to that conclusion.

Reveal your sources and have some credibility.

Like I said, you haven't been on Usenet long, have you?

What the bloody hell has that got to do with anything??

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk