Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#91
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Weaver wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote: ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over the last however many millions of years, remains in territory already seen in nature. Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice age, would you? You do know "The Day After Tomorrow" wasn't meant as literal truth, right? -- Al [ aim: LGeezerAIM | jabber: | yahoo: LGeezer_YHO ] |
#92
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tony Day wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:39:21 +0100 someone who may be Annabel Smyth wrote this:- it is so not funny what has happened. Imagine Prescott visiting, must make everything so much worse..... Those who are busy doing things must curse some party politician deciding to impose themself on the area in the interests of furthering their political party. I think you (and just about everybody else on here) are missing the point. If Blair is out of the country (which I assume he is), Prescott is acting head of state. Ahem. Blair isn't head of state when he is in the country. Thank $DEITY. |
#93
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:28:10 +0000, Al wrote:
Paul Weaver wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote: ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over the last however many millions of years, remains in territory already seen in nature. Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice age, would you? You do know "The Day After Tomorrow" wasn't meant as literal truth, right? Err, yes, when have I ever given the impression it is? All I mentioned in my post was that a high global temperature isn't necersarilly a bad thing for me. |
#94
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:34:55 +0100, "Tony Day"
wrote: Whether such visits do any good may be arguable - the proof of the pudding will be when we see what, if any, financial assistance Government makes available to the local community to help rebuild. Hopefully his understanding has been improved by the visit (which, incidentally, the local lunchtime news described as "brief"). Interestingly, the Duke of Cornwall has been to Boscastle since Prescott visited. The former *has* promised the local community financial assistance. -- Regards Mike mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet |
#95
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:48:29 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:00:37 +0100, Paul Weaver wrote: Of course there are explanations, things like volcanic eruptions, and I'm much more worried about a couple of Krakatoa or Tambora sized volcanos (or worse, a Yellowstone) Our green anti growth chums would blame that on global warming too. That is precisely the problem. While polution from tranposrt, cars, busses, lorries, etc, is a problem (I hate their fumes, especially busses. But then I hate cigarette fumes too, of coursehthe greenies wouldn't dream of banning smoking and it's poisonous fumes), which can and will be solved, the fundamental point is the greens are luddites. They moan about fossil fuels, so we build nuclear reactors. They moan about nuclear, so we build Wind and hydro. Now they are moaning about how hydro plants disrupt the river, and wind disrupts the climate. Perhaps we'll build solar, which of coruse means producing lots of poisonous solar panels. I wonder what they'll say about the Heat Chimney proposed in Austrailia? I'm sure they'll come up with something wrong with fusion if we ever produce it. Failing anything scientific they'll just throw out some crap movies like Spiderman Two that imply a fusion plant will turn into a black hole if it's disrupted (rather then automatically shut down as fusion is not self sustaining with a plant larger then jupiter). |
#96
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Weaver wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:28:10 +0000, Al wrote: Paul Weaver wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote: ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over the last however many millions of years, remains in territory already seen in nature. Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice age, would you? You do know "The Day After Tomorrow" wasn't meant as literal truth, right? Err, yes, when have I ever given the impression it is? Just above. Your question implies complete climate change well within a lifetime, the central premise of the film. Not gonna happen. All I mentioned in my post was that a high global temperature isn't necersarilly a bad thing for me. Nor me -- I prefer high temperatures to low and would have no problem with the UK experiencing a few degrees higher. So what if we lose some deciduous trees? Palm trees make a picturesque replacement! -- Al [ aim: LGeezerAIM | jabber: | yahoo: LGeezer_YHO ] |
#97
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Paul Weaver
writes On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote: ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over the last however many millions of years, remains in territory already seen in nature. Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice age, would you? Thirty years ago, we were being promised one, which should have started about four years ago. -- Sue http://www.gresley.org.uk/overhaul.htm - updated 7 July 2004 OO gauge models from Sir Nigel Gresley Loco Trust:- http://www.gresley.org.uk/hbmodels.htm - latest update 25/05/04 |
#98
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news ![]() On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:48:29 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:00:37 +0100, Paul Weaver wrote: Of course there are explanations, things like volcanic eruptions, and I'm much more worried about a couple of Krakatoa or Tambora sized volcanos (or worse, a Yellowstone) Our green anti growth chums would blame that on global warming too. That is precisely the problem. While polution from tranposrt, cars, busses, lorries, etc, is a problem (I hate their fumes, especially busses. But then I hate cigarette fumes too, of coursehthe greenies wouldn't dream of banning smoking and it's poisonous fumes), which can and will be solved, the fundamental point is the greens are luddites. They moan about fossil fuels, so we build nuclear reactors. They moan about nuclear, so we build Wind and hydro. Now they are moaning about how hydro plants disrupt the river, and wind disrupts the climate. Perhaps we'll build solar, which of coruse means producing lots of poisonous solar panels. I wonder what they'll say about the Heat Chimney proposed in Austrailia? I'm sure they'll come up with something wrong with fusion if we ever produce it. Failing anything scientific they'll just throw out some crap movies like Spiderman Two that imply a fusion plant will turn into a black hole if it's disrupted (rather then automatically shut down as fusion is not self sustaining with a plant larger then jupiter). What a stupid post! John |
#99
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Annabel Smyth" wrote in message ... Surely every sort of weather is blamed on global warming, whether hot, cold, wet, dry or anything in between? I'm told that in the USA, all weather is blamed on El Nino or La Nina - here, of course, those particular phenomena are also blamed on global warming! There is NO doubt at all about Globalwarming otherwise we would still be in the last Iceage. Having said that it rained extremely hard yesterday (Wednesday) evening in Bolton. If we then compare this with the day I passed my driving test which was a Wednesday afternoon in August 1967. It also rained so heavily for the windscreen wipers on my Reliant Mk5 that I had to take refuge under a railway bridge in Preston (Returning from Blackpool). Therefore I conclude that the "peak" of the globalwarming cycle has passed and we are now on a downwards spiral to the next Iceage. By eck its cowd up t'north! KW |
#100
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:29:04 +0000, Al wrote:
Paul Weaver wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:28:10 +0000, Al wrote: Paul Weaver wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote: ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over the last however many millions of years, remains in territory already seen in nature. Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice age, would you? You do know "The Day After Tomorrow" wasn't meant as literal truth, right? Err, yes, when have I ever given the impression it is? Just above. Your question implies complete climate change well within a lifetime, the central premise of the film. Not gonna happen. I was thinking more of a return to 1800's tempreatures, Nor me -- I prefer high temperatures to low and would have no problem with the UK experiencing a few degrees higher. So what if we lose some deciduous trees? Palm trees make a picturesque replacement! We've had warmer climates before - medievil times |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Sling him under a train" | London Transport | |||
"Sling him under a train" | London Transport | |||
Kings Cross fire (1987) : final victim named | London Transport | |||
1987 King's Cross fire victim named | London Transport | |||
Bus stop sign covered and marked 'not in use' and a temporary bus stop sign right next to it | London Transport |