In message
"Alastair McDonald" k wrote:


"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alastair McDonald k
writes:
Philip supports the policies of Margaret Thatcher, has no
qualms about writing for that Tory rag The Daily Telegraph,
and sets up a UK weather newsgroup with the restriction that
global warming should not be discussed because it is
political.

This is a distortion. First, Philip didn't set up the group, but merely
proposed it. Second, and more importantly, there is nothing in the
group's charter saying that global warming should not be discussed. All
the charter says something to the effect that discussions should be from
a scientific rather than from an environmental activist standpoint. So
if you post an article presenting scientific evidence for global
warming, there is no problem with it at all.

Well I posted a link to a scientific article which shows that scientists
have been too conservative in facing up to the dangers of global
warming.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html
Did you read it? Do you and, more to the point, does Philp Eden,
accept that the danger is not from a slow steady global warming
but from sudden climate change taking place over a timespan
of only five years?

Cheers, Alastair.



Yes los of things might possibly cause sudden climate change, thermonuclear
war, the sun going out, the earth beinghit by an asteriod, you name it.

But Philip is right, the global warming debate is political. We stand no
more chance of engineering or reversing climate change than King Canute did
of turning back the tide. Instead we should be looking at how climate change
can be managed, of how we can adapt to it, not of how we could try in vain to
prevent it. But of course we won't until it is too late. Such is the
arrogance of mankind.

But there are those who choose to use it (and the resultant scare stories)
as an excuse to promote their political beliefs, in the hope that by so doing
thaey can control the lives of others. They are beneath comtempt IMO.

But this newsgroup is not about that, and I apologise for using it to make a
political point. But I think it had to be said.

Martin




--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/

In message , Martin Dixon
writes

Yes los of things might possibly cause sudden climate change, thermonuclear
war, the sun going out, the earth beinghit by an asteriod, you name it.

But Philip is right, the global warming debate is political. We stand no
more chance of engineering or reversing climate change than King Canute did
of turning back the tide. Instead we should be looking at how climate change
can be managed, of how we can adapt to it, not of how we could try in vain to
prevent it. But of course we won't until it is too late. Such is the
arrogance of mankind.

But there are those who choose to use it (and the resultant scare stories)
as an excuse to promote their political beliefs, in the hope that by so doing
thaey can control the lives of others. They are beneath comtempt IMO.

But this newsgroup is not about that, and I apologise for using it to make a
political point. But I think it had to be said.

Martin



Yet another neo-con zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
--
Bill

"TudorHgh" wrote in message


I agree with what you say, Martin. In the current era of European
"get-togetherness" it appears increasingly out of step that we have all
these overlapping and competing national met services. It would surely
be far more cost-efficient to have a single European Weather Service.

Each of the various models gives a different output, and sometimes one is
right, at other times another one is. The fewer models in operation the slower
the rate of improvement, it would seem to me. There is a scientific case for a
certain amount of diversity.

I don't think it is possible to police the type of posts that arrive on
this newsgroup any more than for all the others is it?

For instance a certain Lunartic on here insists on posting his off the
wall forecasts. One is free to discuss or ignore as one sees fit. Only a
fool would ignore everything. Some experts tend to go to sleep at the
most inappropriate times. (I'm thinking of the football not the post by
Bill by the way... ...although...)

Here is an interesting clip from the first link: "1985: British
scientists detect sharp seasonal reductions in the earth's stratospheric
ozone layer."

Based on a plethora of inexperience and somnolence we now have a theory
of global warming that relies on and for the atmosphere as its source
and cause. No evidence from the sun and massed misdirection and
political shenanigans.

As an arm of the military, the Met Office has a fine tradition of muddle
and misdirection. (I think it's doing quite well considering.) What we
aught to do now is embrace everything that is good and just and open and
honest and above board in the EU and get out PDQ.

That's the cost effective way to go.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Bill" wrote in message
...
In message , Martin Dixon
writes

Yes los of things might possibly cause sudden climate change, thermonuclear
war, the sun going out, the earth beinghit by an asteriod, you name it.

But Philip is right, the global warming debate is political. We stand no
more chance of engineering or reversing climate change than King Canute did
of turning back the tide. Instead we should be looking at how climate
change
can be managed, of how we can adapt to it, not of how we could try in vain
to
prevent it. But of course we won't until it is too late. Such is the
arrogance of mankind.

But there are those who choose to use it (and the resultant scare stories)
as an excuse to promote their political beliefs, in the hope that by so
doing
thaey can control the lives of others. They are beneath comtempt IMO.

But this newsgroup is not about that, and I apologise for using it to make
a
political point. But I think it had to be said.

Martin



Yet another neo-con zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yes! Just as the Metropolitan Police force were racists but did not
realise it, this newsgroup is an example of instutional conservatism.

Cheers, Alastair.

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alastair McDonald k
writes:
Well I posted a link to a scientific article which shows that scientists
have been too conservative in facing up to the dangers of global
warming.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html
Did you read it?

I've read it now. An interesting read.

Do you and, more to the point, does Philp Eden,
accept that the danger is not from a slow steady global warming
but from sudden climate change taking place over a timespan
of only five years?

Reading the article, there seems to be evidence that a change on that
timescale has happened in the past on at least one occasion. That does
not prove that we are going to see a dramatic change over that sort of
timespan this time. It's not impossible, but my gut feeling is that it's
unlikely. But I'm no expert (but nor does the author of that article
seem to be, as he appears to be a physicist rather than a
climatologist). If it's any consolation, I do believe that anthropogenic
global warming is occurring, and that it's certainly possible that its
future progress may be neither slow or steady.

The point is that I am "an expert" and can see that when the Arctic
sea-ice melts there will be a rapid warming. However, because
everyone else has a gut feeling that it is unlikely, they find my ideas
unacceptable, They seem to be unaware that their objections are
purely political predujice.

Cheers, Alastair.