I agree. One doesn't have to venture much of an opinion on such minutia in
order to get a heated response.



"Mr. Bill" wrote in message
.. .

On 1-Feb-2006, "James" wrote:

Global warming is a political issue. It's been around ever since they
talked
about a new ice age coming back in the 70s. They changed that because of
no
interest and global warming replaced it. Kyoto was supposed to be the
answer
and now it's all but dead. The signees of the treaty have not reduced
any
of
their emissions but they still blame the U.S. for it's failure even
though
everybody acjknowedges it wouldn't cure anything. The whole movement is
seen
by many to be a continuous money supply in order to keep all those
"experts"
from having to drive cabs for a living.

The warming may be somewhat real to some degree but it has been
explained
by
many knowledgeable people as climate cycles (and there are many of them)
and
cycles within cycles. Sun output, orbital variations and other known
factors
have been cited but no one really knows how and why climate has changed
natuarally over the eons. Climate change is always happening.


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed --and
hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless
series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken

Thank you for a little voice of reason here. You will probably get flamed
by the more emotional who have been convinced (rightly or not) that global
warming will be our demise. I say if global warming is going to put an
end
to us all then let's just go ahead and build a whole crapload of nuclear
reactors and at least breathe easier as we meet our end. Oh wait that may
reduce greenhouse emissions! Oh noooo! Then global warming might not
come
around quickly enough to be our demise.... Oh but then the nuclear waste
will kill us!

And if you copy and worward this email to everybody on your list Bill
Gates
will give you a hundred dollars!

Really this is not the place to have this discussion anyway. You see it
has
turned into a political discussion. This is a gardening group.

Just my two pennies worth, whatever it is worth. Duh, tow pennies of
course? What was I thinking?

Mr. Bill

"James" wrote in message
...

Persephone wrote in message ...
...or *something*!


Global warming is a political issue. It's been around ever since they
talked
about a new ice age coming back in the 70s. They changed that because of
no
interest and global warming replaced it. Kyoto was supposed to be the
answer
and now it's all but dead. The signees of the treaty have not reduced any
of
their emissions but they still blame the U.S. for it's failure even though
everybody acjknowedges it wouldn't cure anything. The whole movement is
seen
by many to be a continuous money supply in order to keep all those
"experts"
from having to drive cabs for a living.

The warming may be somewhat real to some degree but it has been explained
by
many knowledgeable people as climate cycles (and there are many of them)
and
cycles within cycles. Sun output, orbital variations and other known
factors
have been cited but no one really knows how and why climate has changed
natuarally over the eons. Climate change is always happening.


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed --and
hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken



Agree completely with your assessment and logic you present, James. When I
was in grade school the fear was an Ice Age coming again and *soon*. When
that didn't generate any bucks the tone changed. Amazing how many people
can be duped by this. I believe there is a problem though and it is the
fact of the population explosion.
I will say that the 6 billion + humans on the earth today is 50% more than
when I was a freshman in H.S. Hmm 50% increase in CO2 emissions in 28
years? Every day... 50% increase in CO2 exhalation and steadily rising from
this point forward? - forever? Wow that MUST be having an alarming effect
on greenhouse gases?
What to do about it though? That is the real question. Fact is that the
human race will indeed overcome this planet's sustaining capability.
Population explosion is the problem.

"James" wrote in message
...

Persephone wrote in message ...
...or *something*!


Global warming is a political issue. It's been around ever since they
talked
about a new ice age coming back in the 70s. They changed that because of
no
interest and global warming replaced it.

The "ice age" theory was never signed onto by the majority of climatologists
and earth scientists, because it didn't have sufficient data to support it.
Global warming does have sufficient data and virtually the entire
climatology scientific community agrees that is is real. To pretend
otherwise reminds me of the current debate about evolution in the US, in
which the fundamentalists who favor creationism pretend that there are equal
numbers of reputable scientists on both sides of the question. But, if you
prefer to bury your head in the sand out of some interesting notion that
denial is healthy, please be my guest.......

The message
from "James" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
.. Kyoto was supposed to be
the
answer
and now it's all but dead. The signees of the treaty have not
reduced
any of
their emissions

You're mistaken. KYOTO is only the tip of the iceberg; it's
acknowledged here as too little too late. FYI, the whole of Europe is
committed to much tighter emission reductions than KYOTO. In Britain,
we're working on three different reduction commitments ,international


Yes. I know Europe is much more rabid about it than we are. But from
what
I've read, no one has yet met their Kyoto targets.

That's unsurprising since the target date is still 4 years away.
Latest assessments are that Britain and Sweden are on target to meet
their Kyoto commitment by 2010 with Austria a close third.


As I understand it, there are target dates year by year and none have been
met. Britain started out pretty well when they converted to natural gas but
failed to meet their target.

Then you're misinformed. The Kyoto agreement happened 1997-99, 30
years AFTER Britain converted to natural gas. Our undersea gas fields
are now declining. Next year we'll become a net importer of natural gas
:-(, so that's another unsustainable, expensive, limited energy source
which we need to reduce dependence on (like coal before it, and oil
currently). Especially after what just happened in Georgia.


Janet

I agree with Bill, the Garden Banter is for gardening, not politics. As much as I like to talk politics, I am going to refrain as of today. Top of the day to all!

love this phrase. do I have permission to steal it? Ingrid

"presley" wrote:

But, if you
prefer to bury your head in the sand out of some interesting notion that
denial is healthy, please be my guest.......



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?...s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for
any of the recommendations I make.
AND I DID NOT AUTHORIZE ADS AT THE OLD PUREGOLD SITE

"presley" wrote in message
...

"James" wrote in message
...

Persephone wrote in message
...
...or *something*!


Global warming is a political issue. It's been around ever since they
talked
about a new ice age coming back in the 70s. They changed that because of
no
interest and global warming replaced it.

The "ice age" theory was never signed onto by the majority of
climatologists
and earth scientists, because it didn't have sufficient data to support
it.
Global warming does have sufficient data and virtually the entire
climatology scientific community agrees that is is real. To pretend
otherwise reminds me of the current debate about evolution in the US, in
which the fundamentalists who favor creationism pretend that there are
equal
numbers of reputable scientists on both sides of the question. But, if you
prefer to bury your head in the sand out of some interesting notion that
denial is healthy, please be my guest.......


The "new ice age" story was a trial balloon. If it had gotten any traction,
the data would have come. That's why there were never any real scientific
papers issued on it.

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "James" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
. Kyoto was supposed to be
the
answer
and now it's all but dead. The signees of the treaty have not
reduced
any of
their emissions

You're mistaken. KYOTO is only the tip of the iceberg; it's
acknowledged here as too little too late. FYI, the whole of
Europe is
committed to much tighter emission reductions than KYOTO. In
Britain,
we're working on three different reduction commitments
,international


Yes. I know Europe is much more rabid about it than we are. But from
what
I've read, no one has yet met their Kyoto targets.

That's unsurprising since the target date is still 4 years away.
Latest assessments are that Britain and Sweden are on target to meet
their Kyoto commitment by 2010 with Austria a close third.


As I understand it, there are target dates year by year and none have
been
met. Britain started out pretty well when they converted to natural gas
but
failed to meet their target.

Then you're misinformed. The Kyoto agreement happened 1997-99, 30
years AFTER Britain converted to natural gas. Our undersea gas fields
are now declining. Next year we'll become a net importer of natural gas
:-(, so that's another unsustainable, expensive, limited energy source
which we need to reduce dependence on (like coal before it, and oil
currently). Especially after what just happened in Georgia.


The conversion occurred in the early 90s. The targets are shooting for 1990
levels. The UK's legally binding Kyoto target is to reduce emissions of six
greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the main one, to 12.5 percent below 1990
levels by 2009-2012.

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "James" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...


Then you're misinformed. The Kyoto agreement happened 1997-99, 30
years AFTER Britain converted to natural gas. Our undersea gas
fields
are now declining. Next year we'll become a net importer of natural
gas
:-(, so that's another unsustainable, expensive, limited energy source
which we need to reduce dependence on (like coal before it, and oil
currently). Especially after what just happened in Georgia.


The conversion occurred in the early 90s.

Wrong again

Britain's conversion to natural gas began in 68 and was completed by
1977.

http://www.gasmuseum.co.uk/conversion.htm


Janet (Scotland, UK)

We must be talking about two different things. Your link mentions switching
from "town gas" to natural gas in homes. I have been talking about switching
from coal fired electrical plants to gas powered electrical plants.

http://tinyurl.com/brdum

Does anyone else find this thread confusing with replies all over the place? Must be a better way.

of course, Ingrid....... I think I can trust you to use it just where it
will be needed most......
wrote in message
...
love this phrase. do I have permission to steal it? Ingrid

"presley" wrote:

But, if you
prefer to bury your head in the sand out of some interesting notion that
denial is healthy, please be my guest.......



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up:
http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?...s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for
any of the recommendations I make.
AND I DID NOT AUTHORIZE ADS AT THE OLD PUREGOLD SITE

"James" wrote in message
The "new ice age" story was a trial balloon. If it had gotten any
traction,
the data would have come. That's why there were never any real scientific
papers issued on it.

Hmmm. Quite an interesting opinion you have of scientists. To bring this
back to rec.gardens, I suppose you believe that if gardeners in the arctic
want to grow palms out of doors, or if gardeners in the tropics want to grow
delphiniums as perennials, scientists will leap out of the woodwork to prove
that it can easily be done, just because there are people who desire those
results? Why don't we posit those two theories as "trial balloons" and see
how much "traction" they get?

"golddog" wrote in message
...

James Wrote:
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "James" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...


Then you're misinformed. The Kyoto agreement happened 1997-99,
30
years AFTER Britain converted to natural gas. Our undersea gas
fields
are now declining. Next year we'll become a net importer of natural
gas
:-(, so that's another unsustainable, expensive, limited energy
source
which we need to reduce dependence on (like coal before it, and oil
currently). Especially after what just happened in Georgia.


The conversion occurred in the early 90s.

Wrong again

Britain's conversion to natural gas began in 68 and was completed
by
1977.

http://tinyurl.com/9ztey


Janet (Scotland, UK)

We must be talking about two different things. Your link mentions
switching
from "town gas" to natural gas in homes. I have been talking about
switching
from coal fired electrical plants to gas powered electrical plants.

http://tinyurl.com/brdum

Does anyone else find this thread confusing with replies all over the
place? Must be a better way.


--
golddog

Doesn't your news reader show the messages in a hierarchal fashion?

The message
from "Doug Kanter" contains these words:

Doesn't your news reader show the messages in a hierarchal fashion?

He's not using a newsreader, he's posting via a cheapskate commercial
UK web portal for numpties. Half its members are still trying to work
out if this is email or a chatroom.

Janet

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Doug Kanter" contains these words:

Doesn't your news reader show the messages in a hierarchal fashion?

He's not using a newsreader, he's posting via a cheapskate commercial
UK web portal for numpties. Half its members are still trying to work
out if this is email or a chatroom.

Janet


Sounds similar to AOL Syndrome. Incurable.