On Jul 10, 11:11*am, Steerpike wrote:
On Jul 9, 10:58*pm, kay wrote:

Steerpike;963924 Wrote:

snipped

It is reprehensible to use someone's personal tragedy to forward your
arguments. there is a time and a place for everything.

--
kay

Sadly as no one seems very much interested in making any attempt to
address the issues surrounding global warming, things like flooding
are likely to become more and more common. This has nothing to do with
any sort of "argument" on my part but is cold hard fact, which is
supported by the first hand experience of anyone who actually notices
the increasingly strange weather patterns we have been having for the
last few years..........................


Quite right.

On Jul 10, 12:58*pm, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 04:38:07 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike





wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:25*am, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 03:11:09 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike

wrote:
On Jul 9, 10:58*pm, kay wrote:
Steerpike;963924 Wrote:

snipped

It is reprehensible to use someone's personal tragedy to forward your
arguments. there is a time and a place for everything.

--
kay

Sadly as no one seems very much interested in making any attempt to
address the issues surrounding global warming, things like flooding
are likely to become more and more common. This has nothing to do with
any sort of "argument" on my part but is cold hard fact, which is
supported by the first hand experience of anyone who actually notices
the increasingly strange weather patterns we have been having for the
last few years..........................

There have always been strange weather patterns. Climate is not
static.
It appears that nobody knows precisely what the weather will be in ten
years time except you. Future climate predictions are based on
computer models not cold hard facts.
--

Martin

Its astounding that given the fact that anyone can see the weather we
are having for themselves, that propaganda distributed through the
corporate media suggesting that global warming isnt a problem or
doesnt exist, is felt to have more value than the evidence provided by
first hand personal observations!

The corporate media is owned and controlled by those who make enormous
profits related to the unchecked pollution and decimation of our
planet, so are not likely to put forward anything much even vaguely
related to providing accurate facts.

If you had lived in the 1960s would you have believed that another ice
age was imminent?
--

Martin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tch.
Climate change means that weather events considered extreme will
become the norm. Hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, windier, etc.

Not just hotter.

Baz
Bit more on the topic more recent here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/...00/9734937.stm

Not looking good.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:37:10 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

It sounds to me like your insurance company gave you less than stellar
advice the previous time if you have been hit hard again so quickly.

They probably weren't expecting the 1:50 year event to happen again quite
so quickly...

Your flood risk is clearly not normal based on the evidence so far.

Baz isn't in a recognised flood zone. It's unfortunate that there have
been two "freak" rain events close together. Taking the "1:50 year" event
that's just on average, nothing to say that the two events can't be 100
years apart or 24 hours.

It is just hellish
--
--

http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Jul 10, 6:56*pm, "Ophelia" wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message

ll.co.uk...

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:37:10 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

It sounds to me like your insurance company gave you less than stellar
advice the previous time if you have been hit hard again so quickly.

They probably weren't expecting the 1:50 year event to happen again quite
so quickly...

Your flood risk is clearly not normal based on the evidence so far.

Baz isn't in a recognised flood zone. It's unfortunate that there have
been two "freak" rain events close together. Taking the "1:50 year" event
that's just on average, nothing to say that the two events can't be 100
years apart or 24 hours.

It is just hellish
--
--

http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

It is just hellish

Indeed................seems even more reason for not believing the
corp media nonsense about global warming either not existing, or not
being any sort of problem!

But them again I guess that most posters on here take corp media crap
on the ridiculous "war on terror" to be objective and honest, so a few
lies about climate change are probably perfectly
ok.........................

On 10/07/2012 17:40, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:37:10 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

It sounds to me like your insurance company gave you less than stellar
advice the previous time if you have been hit hard again so quickly.

They probably weren't expecting the 1:50 year event to happen again quite
so quickly...

This time his house does need to be hardened against future flood risks.

It is too early to be sure but in a changing climate past performance is
no guarantee of future behaviour. We are going to have to get used to
more vicious storms and extremes of weather in the UK.

The insurers will crank up the premiums and those living in zones that
have proved empirically prone to flooding irrespective of whether or not
they are on an official river flood plain will be uninsurable.

Your flood risk is clearly not normal based on the evidence so far.

Baz isn't in a recognised flood zone. It's unfortunate that there have
been two "freak" rain events close together. Taking the "1:50 year" event
that's just on average, nothing to say that the two events can't be 100
years apart or 24 hours.

That is fine provided they are 50 year events. But we do seem to be
having a spate of 50 and 100 year floods occurring every year now and
often in the same places. Great Yorkshire Show keeled over yesterday

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 10/07/2012 16:52, David Hill wrote:
On 10/07/2012 15:49, Steerpike wrote:

How insurance companies overcome a requirement to provide cover by
law, is to set premiums so high that only a banker or MP would be able
to afford them. Once insurance premiums are set in this way it
effectively means properties are unsaleable, and I guess is something
that will be happening more and more as the effects of global warming
start to bite even harder in the coming years.


How do you keep coming up with so much Bullshit?

I think he is probably right about this part. The insurers will find a
way to avoid insuring people whose homes pose a near certainty of flash
flooding every time there is an aggressive cloudburst nearby.

The alternative is insane and encourages even more building on flood
plains and unstable coastlines with premiums rocketing up for all of us.
Insurers will always want their cut of the profits no matter what.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Jul 10, 4:43*pm, Granity
wrote:
Steerpike;963992 Wrote:



How insurance companies overcome a requirement to provide cover by
law, is to set premiums so high that only a banker or MP would be able
to afford them. Once insurance premiums are set in this way it
effectively means properties are unsaleable, and I guess is something
that will be happening more and more as the effects of global warming
start to bite even harder in the coming years.

Oh dear Steerpike, haven't your high priests at Greenpeace and the WWF
told you that CAGW is soooooo yesterday and that they have used Rio +20
to move onto a different scare?
They have realised that,as CAGW isn't happening any more, people no
longer fear it and no fear means no control. They have left a few
expendable zealots behind to fight a rear guard action (perhaps your
one) but when it finally collapses they will have managed to distance
themselves from it.
So what I can hear you asking has replaced it? Why biodiversity and
sustainable development of course.
They claim that our plant and animal species, natural resources, air and
water, and our planet are in such desperate trouble that they must take
control. They will then defend “biodiversity,” and to do this they will
decide what “sustainable development” actually means and how it must be
implemented. Oh and by the way the Rio +20 version of “biodiversity” and
“sustainability” did not include humans.

Toodle pip dear boy.

--
Granity

It's you has your head up your arse.
We are all watching extreme weather events weekly, throughout the
world.

On Jul 10, 4:43*pm, Granity
wrote:
Steerpike;963992 Wrote:



How insurance companies overcome a requirement to provide cover by
law, is to set premiums so high that only a banker or MP would be able
to afford them. Once insurance premiums are set in this way it
effectively means properties are unsaleable, and I guess is something
that will be happening more and more as the effects of global warming
start to bite even harder in the coming years.

Oh dear Steerpike, haven't your high priests at Greenpeace and the WWF
told you that CAGW is soooooo yesterday and that they have used Rio +20
to move onto a different scare?
They have realised that,as CAGW isn't happening any more, people no
longer fear it and no fear means no control. They have left a few
expendable zealots behind to fight a rear guard action (perhaps your
one) but when it finally collapses they will have managed to distance
themselves from it.
So what I can hear you asking has replaced it? Why biodiversity and
sustainable development of course.
They claim that our plant and animal species, natural resources, air and
water, and our planet are in such desperate trouble that they must take
control. They will then defend “biodiversity,” and to do this they will
decide what “sustainable development” actually means and how it must be
implemented. Oh and by the way the Rio +20 version of “biodiversity” and
“sustainability” did not include humans.

Toodle pip dear boy.

--
Granity

The post above is a very good example of just how very well corporate
media propaganda actually works! Anyone who chooses not to believe
corp media nonsense, only has to open their eyes and observe the
current weather patterns around the world, to see that predictions
about the effects of global warming seem to have been very
conservative, but nonetheless pretty much spot on in terms of
accuracy.

On Jul 11, 8:24*am, harry wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:43*pm, Granity
wrote:









Steerpike;963992 Wrote:

How insurance companies overcome a requirement to provide cover by
law, is to set premiums so high that only a banker or MP would be able
to afford them. Once insurance premiums are set in this way it
effectively means properties are unsaleable, and I guess is something
that will be happening more and more as the effects of global warming
start to bite even harder in the coming years.

Oh dear Steerpike, haven't your high priests at Greenpeace and the WWF
told you that CAGW is soooooo yesterday and that they have used Rio +20
to move onto a different scare?
They have realised that,as CAGW isn't happening any more, people no
longer fear it and no fear means no control. They have left a few
expendable zealots behind to fight a rear guard action (perhaps your
one) but when it finally collapses they will have managed to distance
themselves from it.
So what I can hear you asking has replaced it? Why biodiversity and
sustainable development of course.
They claim that our plant and animal species, natural resources, air and
water, and our planet are in such desperate trouble that they must take
control. They will then defend “biodiversity,” and to do this they will
decide what “sustainable development” actually means and how it must be
implemented. Oh and by the way the Rio +20 version of “biodiversity” and
“sustainability” did not include humans.

Toodle pip dear boy.

--
Granity

It's you has your head up your arse.
We are all watching extreme weather events weekly, throughout the
world.

Sadly even though the bewildered herd are free to observe the effects
of global warming pretty much daily, they are likely to believe lies
issued by the corporate media, rather than the evidence of their own
eyes and or personal experiences! Even in the cases of those like Baz
who may possibly be soon living in a house which is worthless, there
still seems more interest in swallowing lies, than coming to terms
with the truth of all this....................

Oh dear Steerpike you have been badly brainwashed haven't you? How is this weather down to CAGW when despite the steady increase in CO2 there has been no warming for the past 10 years and indeed the climate has been cooling over the last 2000 years

http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/bilder_p...pe_climate.jpg

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:22:12 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
wrote:


Sadly even though the bewildered herd are free to observe the effects
of global warming pretty much daily, they are likely to believe lies
issued by the corporate media, rather than the evidence of their own
eyes and or personal experiences! Even in the cases of those like Baz
who may possibly be soon living in a house which is worthless, there
still seems more interest in swallowing lies, than coming to terms
with the truth of all this....................

So really, you are wasting your time here talking to us ignorant
peasants who refuse to understand your excellent advice.

I'm sure you would find a more receptive audience on another NG. Why
don't you go and try it?

On Jul 11, 2:21*pm, Fuschia wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:22:12 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike

wrote:

Sadly even though the bewildered herd are free to observe the effects
of global warming pretty much daily, they are likely to believe lies
issued by the corporate media, rather than the evidence of their own
eyes and or personal experiences! Even in the cases of those like Baz
who may possibly be soon living in a house which is worthless, there
still seems more interest in swallowing lies, than coming to terms
with the truth of all this....................

So really, you are wasting your time here talking to us ignorant
peasants who refuse to understand your excellent advice.

I'm sure you would find a more receptive audience on another NG. Why
don't you go and try it?

I find it very worrying that even though the worlds weather patterns
are very easy to observe, corp media clap trap about no such thing as
global warming, is still felt to be more credible!

Then again I guess that those that believe what gets provided by the
corporate media, were also gullible enough to believe in 45 minute
Iraqi WMDs, which led lead directly to 100,000's of deaths and the
squandering of billions of UK taxpayers money, then its not altogether
surprising that lies about global warming are seen in the same
light...............

In article , Granity
writes
Toodle pip dear boy.


****wit - back to the daily mail with you

--
regards andyw

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:33:26 +0000, Granity
wrote:


Steerpike;964063 Wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:24*am, harry wrote:-
On Jul 10, 4:43*pm, Granity
wrote:








-
Steerpike;963992 Wrote:-
--
How insurance companies overcome a requirement to provide cover by
law, is to set premiums so high that only a banker or MP would be
able
to afford them. Once insurance premiums are set in this way it
effectively means properties are unsaleable, and I guess is
something
that will be happening more and more as the effects of global
warming
start to bite even harder in the coming years.--
-
Oh dear Steerpike, haven't your high priests at Greenpeace and the
WWF
told you that CAGW is soooooo yesterday and that they have used Rio
+20
to move onto a different scare?
They have realised that,as CAGW isn't happening any more, people no
longer fear it and no fear means no control. They have left a few
expendable zealots behind to fight a rear guard action (perhaps your
one) but when it finally collapses they will have managed to distance
themselves from it.
So what I can hear you asking has replaced it? Why biodiversity and
sustainable development of course.
They claim that our plant and animal species, natural resources, air
and
water, and our planet are in such desperate trouble that they must
take
control. They will then defend “biodiversity,” and to do this they
will
decide what “sustainable development” actually means and how it must
be
implemented. Oh and by the way the Rio +20 version of “biodiversity”
and
“sustainability” did not include humans.-
-
Toodle pip dear boy.-
-
--
Granity-

It's you has your head up your arse.
We are all watching extreme weather events weekly, throughout the
world.-

Sadly even though the bewildered herd are free to observe the effects
of global warming pretty much daily, they are likely to believe lies
issued by the corporate media, rather than the evidence of their own
eyes and or personal experiences! Even in the cases of those like Baz
who may possibly be soon living in a house which is worthless, there
still seems more interest in swallowing lies, than coming to terms
with the truth of all this....................

Oh dear Steerpike you have been badly brainwashed haven't you? How is
this weather down to CAGW when despite the steady increase in CO2 there
has been no warming for the past 10 years and indeed the climate has
been cooling over the last 2000 years

http://tinyurl.com/d94y4s6

Oh, that is so unfair of you Granity.

You're confusing the poor fellow with facts!
He's already made up his mind and can't possibly change it now.