On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:49:51 +0100, Broadback
wrote:

John M. wrote:
On Aug 20, 12:08 pm, Broadback wrote:
Robert Seago wrote:
In article ,
Broadback wrote:
Snip
Come off it, the vast majority of these are Nimbies, not global warming
protesters. Anyway, apart from the media hype what makes you think that
a) there is global warming
Most of the media hype has been on the other side. This was the
overriding publicity for over 30 years. There is extensive data for a
period of several hundred years that demonstrate a warning steady until
somewhere around 1910 and then upturning, giving it a hockey stick
profile. Even the CCC acknowledge the actual warming.
The much quoted medieval warm spell was not global, just northern Europe.
The cooling for a time after the second world war is usually understood to
be the result of particulate pollution mostly sulphates.
b) if there is it is caused by us burning fossil fuels
the fact of more CO2 in the atmosphere building year on year is not
disputed, it is monitored in Hawaii.
Extra CO2 from whatever source will produce a greenhouse effect from
whatever source.
c) that global warming will have the effect on the weather predicted?
I am old enough to remember the prediction of these effects before they
were measurable. The vested interests at that time denied any effect.
Indeed with the cooling of the fifties it was easy to brush it aside.
While the science behind this is not complete, there is steadily more and
more data which suggests that the deposition of more and more CO2 is
causing the more energetically charged atmosphere which will lead to more
turbulent and thus unpredictable climate.
Do you listen to the weather forecasts? The "scientists" cannot get
tomorrow right, never mind the distant future.
Short term local details are likely always to be the most difficult to
predict.
You talk of media hype. Are you not embarrased by the Channel 4
documentary. Would you not think they could put forward an anti case
without misquoting a scientist on there and without hiding the public
domain data which completely opposed their central thesis that sunspots
were in some way able to explain the warming, a fact incidentally which
they did not seek to deny.
Perhaps you should do a little research of your own, not rely on the
media. I have, and I am not convinced that there is global warming, even
if there is that is is caused by man. Look up the facts about the ice on
this planet, then look up the temperatures of Antarctica. Plenty more
facts if you look for them that do not point to global warming. Also
why do the global warming lobby ignore the sun's output, surely that has
the biggest effect on our climate? If it is warming Mars then maybe it
is warming the Earth.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A little science knowledge is
a really, really dangerous thing. It encourages its afficionados to
openly challenge the results compiled by thousands of people using
hundreds of hours of time and millions of brain cells.

With opinionated but ignorant people to work on, Germany's 1930s
National Socialists came within a whisker of world domination. So next
time wise-up before you speak up.

Perhaps if you read a little on Eugenics it may show you that
scientists, polictions and the media do get it wrong. Or perhaps you
agree deep down that the USA, Churchill and Hitler, among others, were
correct and the gene pool is going to pot and sterilisation and
euthenasia (in this case a posh word for murder) is the right way forward.

They get away with it in the CONservation world against wildlife so
why not? CONservation hooliganism follows Nazi principals almost to
the letter.