#1
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague
replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's getting out of hand isn't it". -- I remember when the internet was only in black & white. It only had a few pages but at least they all worked. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
In article , usenet01
@artybee.net says... I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's getting out of hand isn't it". I like that, I'll have to remember it for future use. -- ..paul If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not the sport for you. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
Richard Bates wrote:
I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's getting out of hand isn't it". Yep, we need to fire a rocket load of acne cream at the sun. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm Tony |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
"Richard Bates" wrote in message ... I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's getting out of hand isn't it". Yet it was warm enough to grow grapes in Yorkshire in Roman times and what melted all the ice covering Northern Europe in 10 000 BCE? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
"Simon Mason" wrote in
: Yet it was warm enough to grow grapes in Yorkshire in Roman times But would they not have been more "wild", i.e. less developed/cultivated, varieties rather than the high yielding varieties you get these days that prefer a warmer climate? and what melted all the ice covering Northern Europe in 10 000 BCE? Farting mammoths? :-) The Earth's climate does go through some fairly large, long period variations (it's been a while since they've been able to hold an "Ice Fair" on the Thames). How many people are confident enough to say that the crap we've been chucking into the air for the last hundred years or more is not responsible for the current change and it is not worth trying to change our behaviour? Graeme |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
Richard Bates writes:
I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's getting out of hand isn't it". You've obviously got a genius for a colleague, given that all the data showing the need to worry about global warming is incredibly complex and presumably requires one to be a pretty good climatologist, ideally working in front of a computer in a lab. Sorry, I thought the above paragraph was an insight into the way people think about things and how opinions are actually formed and how little they have to do with the evidence. But it's not clear from what I wrote. Ambrose |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
The Earth's climate does go through some fairly large, long period variations Indeed, and some aperiodic ones as well. Global cooling started before the black death, although the black death didn't help (it's been a while since they've been able to hold an "Ice Fair" on the Thames). Indeed. Not since they got rid of the bridge piers of old London Bridge, which restricted the tidal flow etc. I do know somebody who walked across the Thames at Oxford in 1963, though How many people are confident enough to say that the crap we've been chucking into the air for the last hundred years or more is not responsible for the current change Probably it is responsible for a chunk, but don't forget the rebound from the Little Ice Age of the 18th century. The foot and a quarter rise in high tide level at London Bridge, during the last century, however, has nothing to do all that. The water level rise is because of the see-saw effect as the Scottish end of Britain continues to bounce up owing to the recent (in geological terms) melting of all the ice-age ice up there. and it is not worth trying to change our behaviour? I'm not bothered. I haven't heard of *anyone* yet who has turned their house thermostat down. I suppose we should thank Arthur Scargill for discouraging burning of lumps of carbon in Britain, thank the East Germans similarly for all of East Germany's industry being switched off, and thank the French for building lots of nuclear power stations so they can sell clean energy to their more squeamish neighbours. Everybody seems to be against encouraging the Amreica\ns from paying to clean up the dirty industry of China. If the ice did all melt, it would be really neat to see the ecology of Siberia return to what it was before the ice age. How did all those tree behave when it got dark for three meonths in the winter? Jeremy Parker |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
Jeremy Parker:
and thank the French for building lots of nuclear power stations so they can sell clean energy to their more squeamish neighbours. No, the French built lots of nuclear power stations to stop the Germans invading and nicking their coal. d. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:09:17 GMT, Graeme
wrote: "Simon Mason" wrote in : Yet it was warm enough to grow grapes in Yorkshire in Roman times But would they not have been more "wild", i.e. less developed/cultivated, varieties rather than the high yielding varieties you get these days that prefer a warmer climate? and what melted all the ice covering Northern Europe in 10 000 BCE? Farting mammoths? :-) The Earth's climate does go through some fairly large, long period variations (it's been a while since they've been able to hold an "Ice Fair" on the Thames). How many people are confident enough to say that the crap we've been chucking into the air for the last hundred years or more is not responsible for the current change and it is not worth trying to change our behaviour? As the gamble is of such a magnitude, whether to reduce CO2 emissions is one of the few questions that should be answered with the precautionary principle. Global warming may or may not be driven by man made CO2 and we have to decide whether or not to change our behaviour and reduce CO2. Consider the implications of getting the wrong answer to the question "is manmade global warming real?" If it turns out to be spurious science but we have gone ahead and reduced C02 output, what is the downside of this incorrect assessment to individuals and society? Not much, really; the oil will last longer, people might be fitter and healthier and economic growth might have slowed. Conversely, if it turns out that manmade CO2 really is creating a atmospheric greenhouse but we have decided to do nothing, the implications for the planet, civilisation and the human species are uncontemplatable. I'm undecided as to the reality of global warming but I am very clear that we must act to reduce CO2 emissions. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Karrimor EH20 Waterproof Panniers - Global | Sarennah | UK | 3 | January 15th 04 04:40 PM |
Disc Jockey Bob Dumas Allegedly Advocates killing Bicycle Riders For Fun! | Paul Tattaglia | General | 55 | November 6th 03 06:04 PM |