miniTAX wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:miniTAX wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:No he's not mt. Moderate your language and I might read the rest of your post.
Ah ha, the facts disturb you. That's the fact's fault.
not at all. I thought you should be watching Sarkozy/Royal anyway.
It was yesterday
must admit quite fancy Segolene. But she's had several lovers...and I wasnt one
Steve 41oo wrote:must admit quite fancy Segolene. But she's had several lovers...and I wasnt one
As a Frenchman, I did'nt find her funny, but rather hopeless.
She wants
- policewomen to be accompanied home when she leaves job late in the night (she just heard of stories of a policewoman raped some days before)
- stronger unions by giving worker "union checks" to pay their membership
- no youngster without job more than 6 months, if necessary by GIVING them jobs
- retirement age brought back to 58 years and pensions payed by a new tax on stocket market benefits at a level fixed after discussion with the unions (!)
- no change on the 35h/week worktime if unions don't want to.
...
A "socialist" program that would make even British Liberals run away. Let alone American Democrats, lol.
When I tell you that even rightist Sarkosy would be at the left of Blair, you wouldn't believe me, would you ? :wink:
miniTAX wrote:
A "socialist" program that would make even British Liberals run away. Let alone American Democrats, lol.
That's why the Liberal Party was founded in 1988 (as a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party) :wink:
nice photo Walter (you are allowed to take your shoes off on British beaches btw)
One of the things that ought to convince the sceptics about global warming is that hard headed business people are taking it very seriously.
As the quote points out its hitting profits at some retailers. However as GW bites it might turn off the N Atlantic conveyor, so Europe and particularly Britain could suddenly become A LOT colder. But it certainly isnt getting cooler at the moment.
Another thing that puzzles me about the sceptics attitude is that climate change might cause immense disruption, but it also presents amazing business opportunities. The GW deniers will soon shut up when they spot a new market.
My idea is that the denyers are their trip because they are ways behind the leading nations in "climate change industry" and just trying to defend their terrain.
(The phto is copied from the paper - if it was me, you could easily recognise that by the red carpet.)
Photo I wanted to type ...
The Guardian, pages 20 and 21:
Malaria fear as global warming increases
Malaria fear as global warming increases
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 04 May 2007
Independent UK
Global warming could lead to a return of insect-borne diseases in Britain such as malaria, and increased incidence of skin cancer caused by exposure to the sun, a government report warns today.
With temperatures forecast to rise into the high 30s this summer, scientists fear Britain could be in line for at least one extreme heatwave before 2012. Tick-borne diseases are set to increase, along with the threat of other diseases associated with hotter climates.
The report by a group of scientists for the Department of Health updates earlier warnings that climate change could see heat-related deaths rise to more than 2,800 a year in Britain. Heatstroke claimed the lives of nearly 15,000 people in France in exceptional conditions in 2003, and today's report by the Department of Health warns that could be a taste of things to come in Britain.
The French deaths were caused when temperatures soared to 40C, but some forecasters have warned that Britain could be heading towards such temperatures as a result of the changing climate.
Last month was the hottest April on record and plants and wildlife are reacting to the hotter temperatures in a spring which has felt more like summer for many in the south of England.
The report comes as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prepares to release highly controversial proposals for averting the worst consequences of global warming. They include a major expansion of nuclear power, the use of GM crops to boost biofuel production and reliance on technologies which critics say are unproven.
The Department of Health's report says people are learning to live with the consequences of climate change and are taking precautions against skin cancer and other increased risks of disease, but more measures are needed to combat the threats.
One of the main threats could be vector-borne diseases transmitted by mosquitoes or ticks, which are climate-sensitive and can increase or arrive in the country as a result of climate change. There are fears that malaria could re-establish itself unless vigilance is maintained to prevent the malaria-carrying mosquitoes surviving.
Experts believe the risk of malaria becoming endemic in Britain is still remote, but more cases could be imported by travellers returning to Britain.
Climate change might also increases water-borne diseases in Britain. Secure sanitation should safeguard supplies of drinking water but possible contamination of storm-water outflows could carry disease into rivers and basements.
Global warming could also increase the number of storms and floods in Britain. An increase in the frequency of severe winter storms could lead to a rise in personal injuries from flying debris and falling trees.
But there is a silver lining - milder winters could continue to see a drop in winter deaths and ease pressure on the NHS, which used to suffer an annual winter emergency. Some estimates suggest that the number of cold-related winter deaths could fall by up to 20,000.
The main findings
* There is a one in 40 chance that south-eastern England will experience a serious heatwave by 2012, and there is a serious risk of a substantial rise in heat-related deaths.
* Increased exposure to sunshine and ultraviolet light will lead to more skin cancers.
* Risk of flooding will increase, threatening the supply of clean water in rivers.
* Vector-borne diseases are likely to become more common in the UK, with higher risk of diseases such as malaria, being imported from around the world.
* Periods of very cold weather will become less common, while we will see an increase in periods of very hot weather.
* The number of deaths occurring in winter will continue to decline as the climate warms.
A 1 in 40 chance of a serious heat wave in one of the next five years! Gosh 2.5% !!!! This must be the end of it all !
The added risk of mortality in Europe due to the rise in Malaria - as a speculated result of GW - is trivial compared to the very real fact of significantly increased mortality already occuring in Africa due to the ban on DDT imposed on it by environmentalists.
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Photo I wanted to type ...
Sorry Walter only just seen this...never spotted the typo, my (mock) surprise was that you copied it from the paper! Although I thought those feet could be yours....
Its gone quite cool here in the last 2 hours. This proves that Global Warming is a liberal/communist/pinko conspiracy, and I will have nothing more to do with it.
have a good weekend all
Not conspiracy. Swindle.
Or 'scam', if you prefer.
HokieBird wrote:Not conspiracy. Swindle.
Or 'scam', if you prefer.
Now just explain to me ms Bird, in simple words of one or two syllables...that even I can understand...how anthropogenic global warming is a "scam".
It depends on what you mean by it. A 2.5% probability of a heat wave in Britain sometime in the next decade is not the same thing as a certain global catastrophe.
Can't guarantee that I can keep it to two syllables. (In fact, got to three just saying THAT. ;p) But here's the basic anti-conspiracy theory...
Essentially, we don't know a whole lot about AGW. We're fairly sure that actual warming is occurring. We have some evidence that the warming is related to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration - both logically and empirically. Complicated computer models seem to show that there will be more warming (with assumptions of increased CO2 emissions, which seems fair to make, given that we've got billions of people who haven't even industrialized yet.) The worst-case scenarios from these models REALLY increase global temperatures. Most of the forecasts point to a much more modest degree or two C increase. That's still associated with significant damage.
However, we also have other indications of warming. Things not accounted for in the computer models may be contributing to currently-observed warming, in which case, the models are worthless for prediction ability. We've observed hotter temperatures on other planets, such as Mars (which may be due to variations in weather/atmospheric dust content) and Pluto (which doesn't HAVE weather). This points to the possibility of increased solar output as a possible cause of warming. Additionally, many temperature observation sites have become, er, progressively less and less rural as time goes on. The "heat island" effect of cities (mm, concrete) may be affecting long-term temperature analysis in ways that are difficult to model.
Even if we accept that the data is good, the computer models currently in use (or any we can expect to see for a while) are pretty incomplete. There are major contributions to climate, such as weather (!), which are not modeled, simply because they're really really really complex and we don't know how to model weather well. ("How can we trust a temperature prediction for twenty years from now when we don't even know if it will rain tomorrow?") The models compensate for these difficult-to-model factors by reducing many of them to constants; these constants are then manipulated in order to produce a model that seems to conform to past data. This is a good way to bash some kind of model together, sure, but it means that the factors you're not modeling are, well, not part of the model. To the extent that those things have an effect on your model, your model will be significantly flawed. Weather has, we should say, a not insignificant impact on the climate as a whole; in addition, there are several positive and negative feedback mechanisms with things such as concentration of water vapor and cloud albedo that have a direct impact on warming and the greenhouse effect. I'm not saying that this means that global warming doesn't exist, but the quality of the models that we're using for the "proof" is not up to a very high standard.
However, when people say things like "the argument is over, the scientists have spoken, denying AGW is like denying the Holocaust", that sort of language makes careful readers of the science hang on to their wallet. Several environmental groups advocate a drastic reduction in industry and consumption in order to reduce global CO2 emissions; several of those groups, er, favored those policies before the global warming debate was started, to put it mildly. To be fair, those making inflated claims of the dangers of global warming, the unquestionable nature of the scientific consensus, and the essential need for immediate reductions are generally not the scientists themselves...
Even assuming the data is good -and- that the models are generally accurate despite their failings, there is a significant debate to be had about exactly what steps should be taken. Will a small reduction in the rate of increase have any affect at all? (That is to say, is it one of those things where if we don't cut it to a specific amount, we're screwed anyway?) If it is, then we need to look at figures for that level of emissions, and not, say, Kyoto treaty levels, when we're debating damage amelioration versus the cost of prevention. CAN we make those reductions, especially considering the politics involved?
As I've said before, personally for me, support for fission power generation is a really good meterstick for how seriously someone takes the AGW debate. If you're really worried about global warming, there's precisely one method of power generation that releases no CO2 (other than incidentals of plant employees getting to work, yadda yadda) and actually works with modern technology, that could be rolled out on a large scale today. Wind can't do it. Solar sure can't do it. So if you're saying that we need to make emissions cuts, but you're opposed to the one sure-fire way of cutting emissions without making everybody tighten the belt, it suggests to me that you're less worried about stopping AGW than you are about making people tighten the belt. THAT sort of argumentation I have no patience for whatsoever...
Very nice post Avatar, accurate and fair in acknowledging uncertainty.
One minor point. Variations in solar activity are a known cause of climactic fluctuations. Even the 11-14 year cycle in sunspot activity (which are in fact massive flares of hot plasma) have long been detectable, even in tree ring analysis. Moreover, although the variations that are behind the repeated ice ages are not fully understood, changes in solar activity are a very likely contributor.
Avatar ADV wrote:...Essentially, we don't know a whole lot about AGW.
I got thus far until I felt the need to respond. So you accept the basic premise of anthropogenic global warming? You say we dont know a lot about it, but you accept the reality of global warming, and that its caused by man's activity? Correct? ok carry on, I'll read the rest of the post now.
I'm certainly prepared to accept the basic premise - that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that emitting more CO2 causes an increase in the greenhouse effect, and that may lead to an increase in global temperatures.
I'm not saying that CO2 is the entire cause of observed warming, nor that CO2 is the only anthropogenic element to global warming. (There's other greenhouse gases such as methane, and things like the heat island effect.) But it'd be stupid to say "no, it doesn't have anything to do with warming."
Another climate scientist chimes in:
Excerpted:THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE
