The "Global Warming would be good for us" thread.

[Clippo]

Sorry, got to sit down for a moment, - I think I agree with John Carter -

(although at my age plenty of lust and no action is all I can manage )

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by John Carter

I strive for a future with more bikinis.

I'd prefer fewer............
:wink:

[g hall]

Based on your disdain for UCS' mission, would that include GW & nuclear war threats Eh ?

So Clippo because I highlight the fact that your chosen reference site has some preconceptions I'm all for nuclear war threats? :roll:

What causes climate change - go outside during the day and look carefully upwards see that big ball of fusion in the sky it's called "The Sun" it is a star we on the earth, along with other planets orbit it in an elliptical orbit.
The earth has an axial tilt which causes the seasons and the precession of the equinoxes and the North star to vary over approx 26000 years.

The sun has lots of activity on it's surface and beneath this causes variation in the suns output which effects all of the planets and other bodies which orbit the sun. This is why Mars is also undergoing it's polar ice caps shrinking because the suns output is rising. (either that or the martians are driving cars as well )

any road up if you want less bikinis we need to warm the water and beach up a bit because at the moment where I live the north sea is bloody cold and the wind is very idle - going through you rather then round you

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by g hall

What causes climate change - go outside during the day and look carefully upwards see that big ball of fusion in the sky it's called "The Sun"

I don't think anybody could reasonably deny that climate changes have ocurred over geological time scales.
Rate of change needs to be considered.

[Clippo]

g hall
From your number of posts & that you are a junior member I assume you are quite young. (I don’t mean that condescendingly). However, a piece of advice is that you should try to research any statement you are about to make – for your own credibility.

In page 3 of this thread, I wrote :- (my emphasis)

Mpkdavies has regularly posted perverse controversial statements in threads on this topic – the cynic would suggest he must get a backhander based on the number of replies he generates. But no matter how many times his ideas are comprehensively squashed by the likes of you & me and others, he lets it die down again and then starts up another thread with a slight variation of the hoary old chestnuts in it. (It must be time for changing solar activity to be resurrected soon). Yet again, I could step-by-step refute his arguments in the first post of this thread but really I can’t be bothered anymore.

So, a slightly intelligent reader might suspect that this issue had been discussed before.

Well, blow me down, there’s a coincidence, - if you look closely down the index list of topics in ‘Environment & energy’ you will see one called ‘Solar Radiance’ inititiated by guess who.?

During that thread I wrote :-

I draw your attention, yet again, to :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_v...Global_warming

Read it!!! or lose any credibility for any further postings on solar induced GW.

If your intelligence is so low that you can't understand the body of it, scroll to the Global warming section or failing that the very last paragraph.

I suggest you, g hall, read the Wiki reference.

By a real, genuine coincidence a few days ago, I was watching the BBC series ‘The Planets’. In particular the chapter on the Sun raised an interesting point which has parallels with the debate here – not of scientific detail, but how different people react to & accept or deny ideas change. I’ll try to cut it short so as not to bore you but :-

As recently as the early 1940’s there was no consensus what caused comet tailing as they approached the Sun, or the polar auroras. One body of thought, by a respected expert of the time, suggested it was due to the Sun’s magnetosphere or electromagnetic effects of radiation. However, another young US scientist, (can’t remember any of their names), suggested that the sun emitted ‘corpuscular’ radiation eg. ‘particles’. The original scientist and many of his adherents said ‘ridiculous’ and denied all acceptance of this theory, even until he died. In the meantime the ‘corpuscular’ scientist, though personally denigrated for a long time, went on remorselessly to prove what we now know and accept as the Solar wind.

The moral of this story is that when a new idea comes along to explain certain phenomena, (in this case man-made GW), you will always get a body of people unwilling to accept the new idea, even if the new idea progressively discovers undeniable scientific fact to support itself & thus marginalise the doubters. Consider carefully g hall which camp you might want to follow.

The North Sea is indeed cold - at any time of the year. My closest brush with death occurred of a Northumberland coast on a sunny July day. I was swimming off Cresswell Bay, I think, I had been in the water for less than 5 minutes when my whole lower body went numb due to the deceptively cold water. I managed to scramble to the shore but if I’d been just a few yards further out I may not have made it.

(Don’t even think it mpkdavies!) :evil:

[g hall]

g hall
From your number of posts & that you are a junior member I assume you are quite young. (I don’t mean that condescendingly). However, a piece of advice is that you should try to research any statement you are about to make – for your own

Clippo read your own advice

Junior member is based on my number of posts and given the evidence is quite obvious and logical - scientific reason.
Speaks volumes about how you reason and how I reason.

You are condescending and repeat drivel constantly and do not back it up with valid research.

I suggest you are a troll or someone playing at Devils Advocate

I can see why mpkdavies gets pi55ed off with you

[John Carter]

Originally Posted by g hall

Junior member is based on my number of posts and given the evidence is quite obvious and logical - scientific reason.
Speaks volumes about how you reason and how I reason.

S.M.A.C.K.D.O.W.N.!

[Millennium3]

I support MPKD's suggestion that there should be a referendum on the issue.

After all it is everyone's descendants that will suffer from GW. If this is significantly caused as a result of mankind's burning of fossil fuel, as is the mainstream scientific thought and the belief of the majority - then it should be for the electorate to decide the British response - not the politicians.

[kernow]

Originally Posted by Millennium3

I support MPKD's suggestion that there should be a referendum on the issue.

Problem I have with referendum's is, whichever way the government of the day want "Joe Public" to vote, the government has got £millions of taxpayers money to spend persuading Joe Public to vote the way the government wants them to vote, (remember "Heath" and the Common Market")
My own views on Global warming are: I think Global warming is a fact! But would have happened even if Humans hadn't appeared on the planet. I think instead of spending "£Billions" on trying to prevent global warming, we should be concentrating our efforts on how to live withglobal warming. At the moment politicians are using global warming as a brilliant excuse to scare Joe Public ****-less into paying whatever "green taxes" it comes up with to save the planet!

[Millennium3]

Yes I agree we should be spending money on how to live with GW because it is a fact - whether or not it is caused by man. However, although I accept your assertion that the government will try to influence the outcome, it is better to have a referendum than that same government deciding for us.

I am sure you would prefer a referendum on our continued membership of the EU [with all of the governments attempts to persuade] than none at all!