"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed thisaccountneverr
writes

So far there is no evidence for a generic rise in sea level or more
floods
than the norm. I can easily imagine that you might believe this is not
the
case however, given the hysterical news headlines that associate GW with
every single report of weather outside the 'norm'. A couple of examples;
...Boscastle, it only took a day before I heard someone on the news
mention
it in connection with GW...had they not heard of Lynton and Lynmouth in
the
50's? And how did they think all those valleys got there in the first
place?
...recent floods in Bangladesh, GW blamed, yet they were only of the
scale
that happens every 10-20 years.

So - are there any effects of GW? Are there likely to be? Are you saying
that it is happening but not a problem, or that it isn't happening?

I'm saying that there is no significant evidence at the present time for
global rises in sea level, or increased flooding (or droughts come to that).
Howver, if every time there is a storm, a drought, a flood, or a plague of
locusts, the media invoke the GW mantra, then pretty soon people will start
to believe it.*


My original question was is it self limiting, in that it will decrease
the number of humans who are the driving force, or, once started, is it
unstoppable? The exact mechanism by which the number of humans is
reduced is not important to that question. But if you are saying that
there won't be any ill effects on humans, then that makes the question
a nonsense.

There will undoubtedly be 'bad' and good from the planet warming up. For
example, fewer people will die of cold (ISTR that more people die of
hypothermia worldwide than heat stroke).
It is also unlikely that GW will in any way *significantly* affect the human
population, and in any event it will naturally run its course and be gone
within 100-200 years because people wont be using oil or coal any more then
(or probably in about 50 years time but it will take its time to work
through the system). And GW certainly wont affect humanity as badly as many
other things we currently suffer from globally, such as poor water supplies,
AIDS, malaria, deaths from poor cooking practices, and so forth.

--
Tumbleweed

*the interesting question about GW is "so what do you propose to do about it
then" because there is almost certainly no actual practical way of stopping
it now, assuming it does exist(1). The cure would have far worse
consequences than the disease, to coin a phrase.

(1) bearing in mind that the climate models used to model GW cant actually
tell us what the climate should be now, let alone in 100 years time.

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com