Thank you to everybody who has helped make the World Naked Bike Ride
such an incredible success.
Originally when we started this event, our dream was to have at least 3
cities in the world participate. Now there are tens of thousands of
participants and more cities than we even know about. Yay + +

Thank you !!!
Climate change and the damage that cars do to communities, people and
the ecology can't be ignored any longer, nor can body freedom.
Our event brings forward a positive celebration of the power and
magnificence of non motorized transportation.
The future of a healthier and a lot happier  world is people pedal power, 
and body freedom.

We have started organizing the 2010 ride already.
If you are a cyclists, skateboarder, roller skater or a pogo stick
commuter we need you !
Every ounce of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere is
there for at least a hundred years. There is no turning back on climate
change, or acceptance of body freedom .
Our opportunity is now.
We need to present the biggest, most positive and celebratory world
naked bike ride the world has ever seen in 2010
Bicycles are fun, healthy and good for the ecology. Nakedness is natural and 
nice.

Help us spread this message in your local town and bring the wnbr
CELEBRATION to your city.
To organize, now is the time. Send us an email and lets save this world
together.

For more info on the World Naked Bike Ride please visit
http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/

"Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message 
news:4abdbf3f$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> Thank you to everybody who has helped make the World Naked Bike Ride
> such an incredible success.
> Originally when we started this event, our dream was to have at least 3
> cities in the world participate. Now there are tens of thousands of
> participants and more cities than we even know about. Yay + +

I have always wondered why it is called a Naked Bike Ride, when you don't 
have to be naked to participate and there are many people participate in 
various forms of dress. Does this not defeat the purpose of it being a naked 
bike ride? What is the percentage of naked people taking part?

"Jim Fisher"  wrote in message 
news:h9l1bj$6ku$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message 
> news:4abdbf3f$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> Thank you to everybody who has helped make the World Naked Bike Ride
>> such an incredible success.
>> Originally when we started this event, our dream was to have at least 3
>> cities in the world participate. Now there are tens of thousands of
>> participants and more cities than we even know about. Yay + +
>
> I have always wondered why it is called a Naked Bike Ride, when you don't 
> have to be naked to participate and there are many people participate in 
> various forms of dress. Does this not defeat the purpose of it being a 
> naked bike ride? What is the percentage of naked people taking part?

WNBR is not a naturist event and it is organised by from a non-naturist 
point of view. The reason for the nakedness is to show the vulnerability of 
cyclists and to celebrate body freedom. Participants are encouraged to go 
"as bare as they dare".

The non-naturist perception of "naked" is not the same as a naturist one. 
Non-naturists will refer to "naked bodies" even if the so-called naked 
bodies are wearing clothes such as at a non-naturist beach where people are 
wearing swimming clothes. Non-naturists may even refer to naked bodies, even 
if just the legs, arms or torso is bare.

"AndyC"  wrote in message 
news:h9l4eq$t4l$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Jim Fisher"  wrote in message 
> news:h9l1bj$6ku$1@aioe.org...
>>
>> "Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message 
>> news:4abdbf3f$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>> Thank you to everybody who has helped make the World Naked Bike Ride
>>> such an incredible success.
>>> Originally when we started this event, our dream was to have at least 3
>>> cities in the world participate. Now there are tens of thousands of
>>> participants and more cities than we even know about. Yay + +
>>
>> I have always wondered why it is called a Naked Bike Ride, when you don't 
>> have to be naked to participate and there are many people participate in 
>> various forms of dress. Does this not defeat the purpose of it being a 
>> naked bike ride? What is the percentage of naked people taking part?
>
> WNBR is not a naturist event and it is organised by from a non-naturist 
> point of view. The reason for the nakedness is to show the vulnerability 
> of cyclists and to celebrate body freedom. Participants are encouraged to 
> go "as bare as they dare".
>
> The non-naturist perception of "naked" is not the same as a naturist one. 
> Non-naturists will refer to "naked bodies" even if the so-called naked 
> bodies are wearing clothes such as at a non-naturist beach where people 
> are wearing swimming clothes. Non-naturists may even refer to naked 
> bodies, even if just the legs, arms or torso is bare.
Agreed, but that said the degrees of nakedness are increasing every year.

"Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message 
news:4abe1712$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> "AndyC"  wrote in message 
> news:h9l4eq$t4l$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Jim Fisher"  wrote in message 
>> news:h9l1bj$6ku$1@aioe.org...
>>>
>>> "Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message 
>>> news:4abdbf3f$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>> Thank you to everybody who has helped make the World Naked Bike Ride
>>>> such an incredible success.
>>>> Originally when we started this event, our dream was to have at least 3
>>>> cities in the world participate. Now there are tens of thousands of
>>>> participants and more cities than we even know about. Yay + +
>>>
>>> I have always wondered why it is called a Naked Bike Ride, when you 
>>> don't have to be naked to participate and there are many people 
>>> participate in various forms of dress. Does this not defeat the purpose 
>>> of it being a naked bike ride? What is the percentage of naked people 
>>> taking part?
>>
>> WNBR is not a naturist event and it is organised by from a non-naturist 
>> point of view. The reason for the nakedness is to show the vulnerability 
>> of cyclists and to celebrate body freedom. Participants are encouraged to 
>> go "as bare as they dare".
>>
>> The non-naturist perception of "naked" is not the same as a naturist one. 
>> Non-naturists will refer to "naked bodies" even if the so-called naked 
>> bodies are wearing clothes such as at a non-naturist beach where people 
>> are wearing swimming clothes. Non-naturists may even refer to naked 
>> bodies, even if just the legs, arms or torso is bare.
> Agreed, but that said the degrees of nakedness are increasing every year.

Probably time to start a "What is the difference between naked and nude" 
thread.

It will make a change from the perennial "Nudist v Naturist" debate.

-- 

JOhn

My indecision is final.

On 27 Sep, 12:56, "John Gwalter"  wrote:
> "Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message
>
> news:4abe1712$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
>
>
> > "AndyC"  wrote in message
> >news:h9l4eq$t4l$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> "Jim Fisher"  wrote in message
> >>news:h9l1bj$6ku$1@aioe.org...
>
> >>> "Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message
> >>>news:4abdbf3f$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >>>> Thank you to everybody who has helped make the World Naked Bike Ride
> >>>> such an incredible success.
> >>>> Originally when we started this event, our dream was to have at least 3
> >>>> cities in the world participate. Now there are tens of thousands of
> >>>> participants and more cities than we even know about. Yay + +
>
> >>> I have always wondered why it is called a Naked Bike Ride, when you
> >>> don't have to be naked to participate and there are many people
> >>> participate in various forms of dress. Does this not defeat the purpose
> >>> of it being a naked bike ride? What is the percentage of naked people
> >>> taking part?
>
> >> WNBR is not a naturist event and it is organised by from a non-naturist
> >> point of view. The reason for the nakedness is to show the vulnerability
> >> of cyclists and to celebrate body freedom. Participants are encouraged to
> >> go "as bare as they dare".
>
> >> The non-naturist perception of "naked" is not the same as a naturist one.
> >> Non-naturists will refer to "naked bodies" even if the so-called naked
> >> bodies are wearing clothes such as at a non-naturist beach where people
> >> are wearing swimming clothes. Non-naturists may even refer to naked
> >> bodies, even if just the legs, arms or torso is bare.
> > Agreed, but that said the degrees of nakedness are increasing every year.
>
> Probably time to start a "What is the difference between naked and nude"
> thread.
>
> It will make a change from the perennial "Nudist v Naturist" debate.
>
> --
>
> JOhn
>
> My indecision is final.

You mean like the 'Naked Cowboy' in New York who isn't naked? A quick
trawl of Youtube will throw up the American interpretation of naked,
it most means scantily clad, not what I would call naked.

Pete

"Pete Knight"  wrote in message 
news:2d7b1b18-1d48-4969-b9d8-c126a5bd4c7f@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Sep, 12:56, "John Gwalter"  wrote:
>>
>> Probably time to start a "What is the difference between naked and nude"
>> thread.
>>
>> It will make a change from the perennial "Nudist v Naturist" debate.
>>
>> --
>>
>> JOhn
>>
>> My indecision is final.
>
> You mean like the 'Naked Cowboy' in New York who isn't naked? A quick
> trawl of Youtube will throw up the American interpretation of naked,
> it most means scantily clad, not what I would call naked.
>
> Pete
Then again there is "The Naked Chef" on UK TV which had nothing to do with 
nudity or even partial nudity.

JOhn

On 27 Sep, 23:58, "John Gwalter"  wrote:
> "Pete Knight"  wrote in message
>
> news:2d7b1b18-1d48-4969-b9d8-c126a5bd4c7f@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 27 Sep, 12:56, "John Gwalter"  wrote:
>
> >> Probably time to start a "What is the difference between naked and nude"
> >> thread.
>
> >> It will make a change from the perennial "Nudist v Naturist" debate.
>
> >> --
>
> >> JOhn
>
> >> My indecision is final.
>
> > You mean like the 'Naked Cowboy' in New York who isn't naked? A quick
> > trawl of Youtube will throw up the American interpretation of naked,
> > it most means scantily clad, not what I would call naked.
>
> > Pete
>
> Then again there is "The Naked Chef" on UK TV which had nothing to do with
> nudity or even partial nudity.
>
> JOhn

Naked does have other meanings, but Americans tend to twist the
meaning when used in the context of nudity.

Naked when used in news reports does tend to have an element of drama
to it, but nude less so, or so it appears to me.

Pete

"Pete Knight"  wrote
>
> Naked does have other meanings, but Americans tend to twist the
> meaning when used in the context of nudity.
>
> Naked when used in news reports does tend to have an element of drama
> to it, but nude less so, or so it appears to me.
>

Jenny6833A from rec.nude insists that wheras "nude" is positive, "naked" is 
negative - shameful and unwelcome. So *she* is never "naked". I don't 
entirely buy that.  To me "naked" is simply the state of being without 
clothes. One is naked in the bath or shower for example. OTOH to be "nude" 
implies a certain amount of deliberateness and display: a life model is 
"nude", as is a nude dancer.

David.

On 28 Sep, 09:27, "David Looser"  wrote:
> "Pete Knight"  wrote
>
>
>
> > Naked does have other meanings, but Americans tend to twist the
> > meaning when used in the context of nudity.
>
> > Naked when used in news reports does tend to have an element of drama
> > to it, but nude less so, or so it appears to me.
>
> Jenny6833A from rec.nude insists that wheras "nude" is positive, "naked" is
> negative - shameful and unwelcome. So *she* is never "naked". I don't
> entirely buy that.  To me "naked" is simply the state of being without
> clothes. One is naked in the bath or shower for example. OTOH to be "nude> implies a certain amount of deliberateness and display: a life model is
> "nude", as is a nude dancer.
>
> David.

Yes, both naked and nude have other meanings and connotations, but
they do meet in the middle.

A 'naked light' is in common parlance, but is far removed from the
sleaze connotation that is attached to 'naked' as used in the meja.

Britain's over exposed to American culture, predominantly through TV
and films (Not movies please!) are likely to read words differently,
as can be see in the yoof of today. I grew up on a diet of B&W
Hollywood films where everyone was gay, now they are no longer gay,
with the exception of Rock Hudson, who remained gay in it's new
connotation.

It doesn't bother me one way or the other what label I have attached,
as long as everyone is clear what the meaning is, and the meaning can
change from one person to another. The dictionary definition is
irrelevant if someone has it in their mind that nude immoral/dirty/
sordid, and yes I've met those kind of people. The moment I mention
that I'm a naturist I watch for the reaction, the look on their face
usually gives clear indication what their understanding of naturism/
nudism is, and that can often mean rampant orgies seen from the point
of disgust through to keen interest.

Pete

On Sep 26, 2:14 am, "Duncan Heenan" 
wrote:
> Thank you to everybody who has helped make the World Naked Bike Ride
> such an incredible success.
> Originally when we started this event, our dream was to have at least 3
> cities in the world participate. Now there are tens of thousands of
> participants and more cities than we even know about. Yay  
>
> Thank you !!!
> Climate change and the damage that cars do to communities, people and
> the ecology can't be ignored any longer, nor can body freedom.
> Our event brings forward a positive celebration of the power and
> magnificence of non motorized transportation.
> The future of a healthier and a lot happier  world is people pedal power,
> and body freedom.
>
> We have started organizing the 2010 ride already.
> If you are a cyclists, skateboarder, roller skater or a pogo stick
> commuter we need you !
> Every ounce of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere is
> there for at least a hundred years. There is no turning back on climate
> change, or acceptance of body freedom .
> Our opportunity is now.
> We need to present the biggest, most positive and celebratory world
> naked bike ride the world has ever seen in 2010
> Bicycles are fun, healthy and good for the ecology. Nakedness is natural and
> nice.
>
> Help us spread this message in your local town and bring the wnbr
> CELEBRATION to your city.
> To organize, now is the time. Send us an email and lets save this world
> together.
>
> For more info on the World Naked Bike Ride please visithttp://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/

Why can't we all just have fun and be naked?  Why does politics have
to enter this discussion?  Anyone with any credibility knows and
understands that carbon is insignificantly, if at all, contributing to
climate change and/or global warming.  Back in the 70's the doomsayers
were making claims that the earth was cooling rapidly and we would all
soon freeze.  When that didn't happen, these same lunatics began
hollering about global warming.  Since these idiots have been proven
wrong again , they have changed the term to climate change.   Now
these idiots can explain away whatever happens, warming, cooling,
rainy, drought, windy, etc...

Any credible scientist (credible in the field of science and not
politics) understands that the sun is the biggest factor in
determining the climate here on earth.  Credible scientists know and
understand the correlation between sunspot activity (storms) on the
sun and the changes in the climate here on the earth.

Certainly there have been changes in the climate in the past.  There
is evidence of agriculture activity under the ice in Greenland.  Wooly
mammals have been found frozen in Siberia.  Most of the 10,000 lakes
in Minnesota were formed by glaciers.  Dinosaurs once roamed this vast
land, that is until the climate changed and their existence ceased
(Maybe they were all run over by SUV's.  Isn't it a shame Neanderthal
man wasn't riding bicycles instead of driving Hummers?).

I enjoy riding my bicycle.  I ride it nude whenever I have the
opportunity.  I feel that bicycle riding is very good for a person’s
physical and mental health.  However I cringe whenever I encounter
pimple brained people who have this idiotic idea that they are going
to save the world from a catastrophe by riding a bicycle.

On 29 Sep, 14:04, sdsuncpl  wrote:

> Why can't we all just have fun and be naked?  

I was just about to post in response to Duncan Heenan's fatuous
remarks about global warming and carbon dioxide, when I spotted that
you had said it already. Right on mate. And ride on and enjoy.

Bob

Hi Bob,

For the most part I feel that the whole "Global Warming" and "Climate 
Change" buzzwords that are on everybody's lips these days are no more of a 
danger to humanity than the Y2K thing.  These 'Protests Against Global 
Warming' are useless, as you cannot tell nature what to do.  It makes as 
much sense as protesting against rain, earthquakes, tornados, tidal waves, 
and other natural disasters.  We have no control over them.

The planet's temperature has been in a state of constant fluctuation over 
the millions of years that it's been in existence, only that in the recent 
past we have accelerated it a bit with the destruction of the ozone layer as 
well as not replenishing the earth with all the trees and rainforests we 
have cut down.

Al Gore is basically a money hungry douchebag with connections to a racist 
organisation (i.e. the KKK which Ice-T made reference to on his "BodyCount" 
album).

I'm not saying that we should not take responsibility for the way we treat 
the natural environment, but political extremism regarding it is just as bad 
as religious fundamentalism.

-- 

Best wishes,

Dario Western

"In order to be what you want to be you've got to learn to be everything 
you're not" - Alicia Moore (aka P!nk)
(07) 3267-6789
(0437) 428-859

http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
http://dariowestern.bebo.com
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553251115
http://www.youtube.com/user/fatpizzaman
http://www.wayn.com/dario_western
http://www.friendster.com/dariowestern
http://www.tagged.com
http://dariowestern.hi5.com/
http://twitter.com/Dario_Western
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"bobjanes"  wrote in message 
news:66b0f180-6b8e-48a2-87db-b325f52ebf74@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On 29 Sep, 14:04, sdsuncpl  wrote:

> Why can't we all just have fun and be naked?

I was just about to post in response to Duncan Heenan's fatuous
remarks about global warming and carbon dioxide, when I spotted that
you had said it already. Right on mate. And ride on and enjoy.

Bob

"bobjanes"  wrote in message 
news:66b0f180-6b8e-48a2-87db-b325f52ebf74@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On 29 Sep, 14:04, sdsuncpl  wrote:

>> Why can't we all just have fun and be naked?

> I was just about to post in response to Duncan Heenan's fatuous
> remarks about global warming and carbon dioxide, when I spotted that
> you had said it already. Right on mate. And ride on and enjoy.

Hardly "fatuous". I realise that many people find the idea that their 
behaviour is damaging the environment hard to accept. After all who wants to 
have give up their cozy way of life? But sdsuncpl's post was as biased a 
piece of propaganda as any I've seen on this issue. The vast majority of 
climate scientists are certain that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global 
warming, so sdsuncpl's assertion that: "Anyone with any credibility knows 
and understands that carbon is insignificantly, if at all, contributing to 
climate change and/or global warming" is, quite simply, a lie.

David.
.

"Neosapienis"  wrote
>
> I'm not saying that we should not take responsibility for the way we treat 
> the natural environment, but political extremism regarding it is just as 
> bad as religious fundamentalism.
>

The only part of your post I agree with is the point that politicians (on 
either side of the argument) should not try and make political capital out 
of this of this. It's a matter for scientists to argue about, not 
politicians.

To claim that releasing into the atmosphere huge amounts of carbon that had 
been locked up for millions of years whilst simultaneously cutting down most 
of the worlds forests will have no, or negligible, effect is absurd.

David.

Neosapienis wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> 
> For the most part I feel that the whole "Global Warming" and "Climate 
> Change" buzzwords that are on everybody's lips these days are no more of a 
> danger to humanity than the Y2K thing.

No danger? Really, try absorbing these facts. if sea level rises ( due 
to thermal expansion ) by one metre, over half the land area of 
Bangladesh would be covered. A further large percentage would be made 
unfarmable due to salination of the land ( a current problem there due 
to floods/tidal waves).There are about 150,000,000 living there. The 
vast majority of these are Muslim.

Got all that, those are facts, not opinions or conjecture facts, feel 
free to go off and check them.


Now for a bit of conjecture and probably a bit more thinking than your 
kneejerk one dimensional mind has ever tried.


Where are all those people going to go when their land is flooded? Burma 
is probably out, they can't live in the sea, so who's next door? India.

India woudn't welcome them with open arms , there was a reason that East 
Paksistan was split from  India in 1949, religion!

If India wants to stop that many people it's going to need to use force, 
but that's not going to be tolerated by other Islamic states in the 
region such as it's neighbour Pakistan. Pakistan and India have been to 
war with each other before , but this time they are both nuclear states.
Nuclear war doesn't worry you, you don't think that's a danger?
   These 'Protests Against Global
> Warming' are useless, as you cannot tell nature what to do.  It makes as 
> much sense as protesting against rain,

Rain increases with global warming
  earthquakes, tornados,
Tornadoes increase with global warming
  tidal waves,
The effect of tidal waves increase with global warming
> and other natural disasters.  We have no control over them.

You have a very limited view of "natural disaster" , there is a very 
real argument that nature is a social construct , and the same could be 
said for "disasters"  is an earthquake a "disaster" if no one is there?
Equally, if you take a city that is relying on it's river as it's water 
supply, and that river becomes either salinated becuase of rising sea 
levels or alters it';s course because of reduction in flow and silting 
up is that a "natural disaster" to the population or a "manmade disaster"?

> 
> The planet's temperature has been in a state of constant fluctuation over 
> the millions of years that it's been in existence, only that in the recent 
> past we have accelerated it a bit
A lot.


  with the destruction of the ozone layer as

Nothing to do with Ozone or the Ozone layer.

> well as not replenishing the earth with all the trees and rainforests we 
> have cut down.

Or anything to do with that. You obviously know less than 1/2 of one 
percent of fuck all about the science that you are commenting on.
Alo>
> Al Gore is basically a money hungry douchebag with connections to a racist 
> organisation (i.e. the KKK which Ice-T made reference to on his "BodyCount" 
> album).

Good rant, fuck all to do with the subject, mush like the rest of your post.
> 
> I'm not saying that we should not take responsibility for the way we treat 
> the natural environment, but political extremism regarding it is just as bad 
> as religious fundamentalism.


I regard anyone that deliberaty won't understand the science behind 
global warming  as as close to a religous nut as not worth bothering to 
look for the difference.

In message <fwhxm.44699$ze1.17316@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, 
Neosapienis  writes
>Hi Bob,
>
>For the most part I feel that the whole "Global Warming" and "Climate
>Change" buzzwords that are on everybody's lips these days are no more of a
>danger to humanity than the Y2K thing.  These 'Protests Against Global
>Warming' are useless, as you cannot tell nature what to do.  It makes as
>much sense as protesting against rain, earthquakes, tornados, tidal waves,
>and other natural disasters.  We have no control over them.
>
>The planet's temperature has been in a state of constant fluctuation over
>the millions of years that it's been in existence, only that in the recent
>past we have accelerated it a bit with the destruction of the ozone layer as
>well as not replenishing the earth with all the trees and rainforests we
>have cut down.

I often see this argument that 'climate has changed in the past', which 
is true.

It is also true beyond any doubt that the carbon dioxide we are pumping 
into the atmosphere, by burning fossil fuels that have been buried for 
many millions of years, is raising the temperature of the planet in the 
long term. (If it turned out to be false, we'd have to rewrite a large 
part of physics.)

If you don't believe me, here is a link about real scientific evidence:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=58
(But it involves science and not the sort of opinions you hear down the 
pub.)

What is a little less certain is the exact climatic and geopolitical 
consequences of this long-term trend. But they are sure to be large.

>
>Al Gore is basically a money hungry douchebag with connections to a racist
>organisation (i.e. the KKK which Ice-T made reference to on his "BodyCount"
>album).
>
>I'm not saying that we should not take responsibility for the way we treat
>the natural environment, but political extremism regarding it is just as bad
>as religious fundamentalism.
>

-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

In message , David Looser 
 writes
>"bobjanes"  wrote in message
>news:66b0f180-6b8e-48a2-87db-b325f52ebf74@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>On 29 Sep, 14:04, sdsuncpl  wrote:
>
>>> Why can't we all just have fun and be naked?
>
>> I was just about to post in response to Duncan Heenan's fatuous
>> remarks about global warming and carbon dioxide, when I spotted that
>> you had said it already. Right on mate. And ride on and enjoy.
>
>Hardly "fatuous". I realise that many people find the idea that their
>behaviour is damaging the environment hard to accept. After all who wants to
>have give up their cozy way of life? But sdsuncpl's post was as biased a
>piece of propaganda as any I've seen on this issue. The vast majority of
>climate scientists are certain that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global
>warming, so sdsuncpl's assertion that: "Anyone with any credibility knows
>and understands that carbon is insignificantly, if at all, contributing to
>climate change and/or global warming" is, quite simply, a lie.
>
>David.
>.
It's not carbon that is the problem. It's carbon dioxide.

Richard Burnham
PhD in chemistry and pedantry
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

Richard Burnham wrote:

> I often see this argument that 'climate has changed in the past', which 
> is true.
> 
> It is also true beyond any doubt that the carbon dioxide we are pumping 
> into the atmosphere, by burning fossil fuels that have been buried for 
> many millions of years, is raising the temperature of the planet in the 
> long term. (If it turned out to be false, we'd have to rewrite a large 
> part of physics.)
> 
> If you don't believe me, here is a link about real scientific evidence:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=58
> (But it involves science and not the sort of opinions you hear down the 
> pub.)
> 
> What is a little less certain is the exact climatic and geopolitical 
> consequences of this long-term trend. But they are sure to be large.

But not necessarily negative!

-- 
Steve

Richard Burnham wrote:

> It's not carbon that is the problem. It's carbon dioxide.

Indeed. As someone (I forget who) stated - carbon is not a pollutant: 
it's the very staff of life!

-- 
Steve

On 2 Oct, 19:34, Richard Burnham  wrote:

> If you don't believe me, here is a link about real scientific evidence:http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=58
> (But it involves science and not the sort of opinions you hear down the
> pub.)

Actually, it is just the sort of crap you hear in the pub. The purpose
of this group is to discuss naturist activity, and presumably, how to
make advances. The problem is that you just want to talk bollocks
about anything, rather than deal with the issue of how we advance a
naturist agenda. As I see it, most of you know very little about
naturism. What makes you think you are qualified to talk about climate
change? You don't have minds of your own. You just soak up the shit
that other people feed you.

Bob

bobjanes wrote:
  What makes you think you are qualified to talk about climate
> change?

BSc Hons, DipHE Environmental policy.

I've shown you mine, now you show me yours, are you qualified to decide 
about "fatuous remarks about global warming and carbon dioxide"?

On 2 Oct, 08:25, "David Looser"  wrote:

>The vast majority of
> climate scientists are certain that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global
> warming, so sdsuncpl's assertion that: "Anyone with any credibility knows
> and understands that carbon is insignificantly, if at all, contributing to
> climate change and/or global warming" is, quite simply, a lie.

Actually, the vast majority agree with me and sdsuncpi that it's
bollocks. They just can't get heard because of the political agenda.
And on that subject: the International Panel on Climate Change stated
that the UK would be a net gainer from climate change. Increased
rainfall would solve our water shortage problems, and that, and higher
temperatures, would give a 10% increase in crop production. So why the
fuck should we bother reducing our carbon footprint?  Do you intend to
argue about the findings of the IPCC?

Bob

bobjanes wrote:
> On 2 Oct, 08:25, "David Looser"  wrote:
> 
>> The vast majority of
>> climate scientists are certain that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global
>> warming, so sdsuncpl's assertion that: "Anyone with any credibility knows
>> and understands that carbon is insignificantly, if at all, contributing to
>> climate change and/or global warming" is, quite simply, a lie.
> 
> Actually, the vast majority agree with me and sdsuncpi that it's
> bollocks. They just can't get heard because of the political agenda.

Feel free to provide your proof of that assertion....

> And on that subject: the International Panel on Climate Change stated
> that the UK would be a net gainer from climate change.

Really? Which paper was that?

  Increased
> rainfall would solve our water shortage problems, and that, and higher
> temperatures, would give a 10% increase in crop production. So why the
> fuck should we bother reducing our carbon footprint?  Do you intend to
> argue about the findings of the IPCC?

Not at all, as soon as you present them. Until then it's just blowhard 
bullshit.

On 3 Oct, 00:22, Marc  wrote:

> Not at all, as soon as you present them. Until then it's just blowhard
> bullshit.

Is that right fuckwit? Your source references are?

Bob

bobjanes wrote:

> And on that subject: the International Panel on Climate Change stated
> that the UK would be a net gainer from climate change. Increased
> rainfall would solve our water shortage problems, and that, and higher
> temperatures, would give a 10% increase in crop production. So why the
> fuck should we bother reducing our carbon footprint?  Do you intend to
> argue about the findings of the IPCC?

Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas?

-- 
Steve

bobjanes wrote:
> On 2 Oct, 23:56, Marc  wrote:
> 
>> BSc Hons, DipHE Environmental policy.
> 
> Yup. Soaking up the shit and regurgitating it to the satisfaction of
> the people who fed it to you. Get back to me any time you think you
> have a brain of your own.


I'll take that to mean, "I haven't got any qualifications in 
environmental science or climate change, apart from 5 pints in the pub" 
thanks for clearing that up.

On 3 Oct, 00:55, Marc  wrote:

> I'll take that to mean, "I haven't got any qualifications in
> environmental science or climate change, apart from 5 pints in the pub"
> thanks for clearing that up.

Why don't you do the research, and come back to me, and tell me that
the IPCC didn't say that. You think you can manage that smartarse?

Bob x

In message <Bbsxm.101026$OO7.28410@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Steve 
Doerr  writes
>Richard Burnham wrote:
>
>> I often see this argument that 'climate has changed in the past', 
>>which is true.
>>  It is also true beyond any doubt that the carbon dioxide we are 
>>pumping  into the atmosphere, by burning fossil fuels that have been 
>>buried for  many millions of years, is raising the temperature of the 
>>planet in the  long term. (If it turned out to be false, we'd have to 
>>rewrite a large  part of physics.)
>>  If you don't believe me, here is a link about real scientific 
>>evidence:
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=58
>> (But it involves science and not the sort of opinions you hear down 
>>the pub.)
>>  What is a little less certain is the exact climatic and geopolitical 
>>consequences of this long-term trend. But they are sure to be large.
>
>But not necessarily negative!
>

I suppose it depends whether you regard the human and economic costs of 
large numbers of people having to move because of rising sea levels and 
shifting climatic zones, and of major cities having to be protected 
against the sea, as negative or not.

-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

In message <Ucsxm.101028$OO7.51588@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Steve 
Doerr  writes
>Richard Burnham wrote:
>
>> It's not carbon that is the problem. It's carbon dioxide.
>
>Indeed. As someone (I forget who) stated - carbon is not a pollutant: 
>it's the very staff of life!
>
What the hell are you talking about?

-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

In message 
, 
bobjanes  writes
>On 2 Oct, 08:25, "David Looser"  wrote:
>
>>The vast majority of
>> climate scientists are certain that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global
>> warming, so sdsuncpl's assertion that: "Anyone with any credibility knows
>> and understands that carbon is insignificantly, if at all, contributing to
>> climate change and/or global warming" is, quite simply, a lie.
>
>Actually, the vast majority agree with me and sdsuncpi that it's
>bollocks. They just can't get heard because of the political agenda.
>And on that subject: the International Panel on Climate Change stated
>that the UK would be a net gainer from climate change. Increased
>rainfall would solve our water shortage problems, and that, and higher
>temperatures, would give a 10% increase in crop production. So why the
>fuck should we bother reducing our carbon footprint?  Do you intend to
>argue about the findings of the IPCC?
>
>Bob

Well, for a start, the UK is part of the world, and can't be insulated 
from the climatic and resulting political problems of the rest of the 
world.

And if you and your mates in the bar think what the IPCC publishes 
(which is a summary of a vast amount of published scientific research) 
is 'bollocks', why do you think the IPCC can then be cited in your 
favour when you want to?

-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

bobjanes wrote:
> On 3 Oct, 00:55, Marc  wrote:
> 
>> I'll take that to mean, "I haven't got any qualifications in
>> environmental science or climate change, apart from 5 pints in the pub"
>> thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Why don't you do the research, and come back to me, and tell me that
> the IPCC didn't say that.

Tell you that the IPCC didn't say what?  At the moment all that we have 
is your assertion that the IPCC said/wrote something, it's your 
assertion, it's your requirement to prove it.


  You think you can manage that smartarse?

Errrr no, it's impossible to prove a negative, on the other hand you 
have the much easier job , all you need to do is prove that the IPCC did 
say/write what you claim. However until you do that likkle thing then 
you will continue to be regarded as a bullshitting blowhard.



Remind me again, since it was you that brought up the subject of being 
qualified to understand the problem, what are your qualifications in the 
field of climate change?

Richard Burnham wrote:
> In message 
> , 
> bobjanes  writes
>> On 2 Oct, 08:25, "David Looser"  wrote:
>>
>>> The vast majority of
>>> climate scientists are certain that CO2 emmisions are contributing to 
>>> global
>>> warming, so sdsuncpl's assertion that: "Anyone with any credibility 
>>> knows
>>> and understands that carbon is insignificantly, if at all, 
>>> contributing to
>>> climate change and/or global warming" is, quite simply, a lie.
>>
>> Actually, the vast majority agree with me and sdsuncpi that it's
>> bollocks. They just can't get heard because of the political agenda.
>> And on that subject: the International Panel on Climate Change stated
>> that the UK would be a net gainer from climate change. Increased
>> rainfall would solve our water shortage problems, and that, and higher
>> temperatures, would give a 10% increase in crop production. So why the
>> fuck should we bother reducing our carbon footprint?  Do you intend to
>> argue about the findings of the IPCC?
>>
>> Bob
> 
> Well, for a start, the UK is part of the world, and can't be insulated 
> from the climatic and resulting political problems of the rest of the 
> world.
> 
> And if you and your mates in the bar think what the IPCC publishes 
> (which is a summary of a vast amount of published scientific research) 
> is 'bollocks', why do you think the IPCC can then be cited in your 
> favour when you want to?

4 Pints good, 2 pints bad! (Sometimes)?

In message 
, 
bobjanes  writes
>On 3 Oct, 00:55, Marc  wrote:
>
>> I'll take that to mean, "I haven't got any qualifications in
>> environmental science or climate change, apart from 5 pints in the pub"
>> thanks for clearing that up.
>
>Why don't you do the research, and come back to me, and tell me that
>the IPCC didn't say that. You think you can manage that smartarse?
>
>Bob x
>

This is an interesting take on research. Everything is true unless 
someone can prove it isn't.

BTW:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up jointly 
by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations 
Environment Programme to provide an authoritative international 
statement of scientific understanding of climate change. Its role is to 
assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the 
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to 
understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate 
change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. 
The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related 
data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessments mainly on 
peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. These 
assessments are the most comprehensive and up-to-date reports available 
on the subject, and form the standard reference for all concerned with 
climate change in academia, government and industry worldwide." UK 
Climate Impacts Programme, 
http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=306. 
[It was actually formed under pressure from the US, which wanted to tone 
down the scientific results.]

DEFRA has 'key findings' for the UK here:
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/868/531/

Note that the IPCC and individual climate research teams do not make 
absolute 'predictions'. Any forecasts are dependent on the rate at which 
CO2 is added to the atmosphere in future (so is dependent on economic 
and political factors). Also the response of the climate to increasing 
CO2 cannot be known exactly so all projections are probabilistic with 
the ranges of estimates depending on the best available quantification 
of the known sources of uncertainty.


-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

Here are a few resources for the pub:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.ph
p


This considers just about all the 'arguments' used by so-called 
'sceptics' and explains why they are wrong or irrelevant. If the 
'sceptics' can't answer these points, and just come back with the same 
points, then you know they are bullshitting.

If they are real sceptics they will move beyond these points.


Http://www.realclimate.org/

This is a site run by active climate researchers who explain some of the 
scientific points in detail. Probably to be read before you've had 3 
pints.


Http://www.skepticalscience.com/

This probably falls between the two above sites in technical detail.


-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

"bobjanes"  wrote
>
> Actually, the vast majority agree with me and sdsuncpi that it's
> bollocks. They just can't get heard because of the political agenda.


Pure conspiracy theory!

This idea that sceptical scientists "can't get heard" is an oft made 
allegation, but which side is more likely to be able to silence those who's 
ideas they find inconvenient, the well heeled world of business, in 
particular the petrochemical, automotive and aviation industries, or the 
small and impecunious environmental movement?

It's a no-brainer.

David.

In message , David Looser 
 writes
>"bobjanes"  wrote
>>
>> Actually, the vast majority agree with me and sdsuncpi that it's
>> bollocks. They just can't get heard because of the political agenda.
>
>
>Pure conspiracy theory!
>
>This idea that sceptical scientists "can't get heard" is an oft made
>allegation, but which side is more likely to be able to silence those who's
>ideas they find inconvenient, the well heeled world of business, in
>particular the petrochemical, automotive and aviation industries, or the
>small and impecunious environmental movement?
>
>It's a no-brainer.
>
>David.
>
>
A lot more important than what the well-funded lobby groups or the 
'greens' say is what the science is telling us. The industry lobby 
groups are well able to influence the debate in the pub, but they have 
no answers to the science.

-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

On 3 Oct, 09:10, Richard Burnham  wrote:

> The industry lobby
> groups are well able to influence the debate in the pub, but they have
> no answers to the science.

That would be the same scientists who were telling us in the 70's that
we were heading into a New Ice Age?

Bob

In message 
, 
bobjanes  writes
>On 3 Oct, 09:10, Richard Burnham  wrote:
>
>> The industry lobby
>> groups are well able to influence the debate in the pub, but they have
>> no answers to the science.
>
>That would be the same scientists who were telling us in the 70's that
>we were heading into a New Ice Age?
>
>Bob

No, because climate scientists were not saying in the 70s that we were 
heading into a new ice age. The physics of global warming was 
established in the 1890s and by the 1960s climate scientists were 
already pointing out that CO2 was having a significant warming effect on 
the earth (although it was masked for several decades by other 
atmospheric pollution).

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Of course you may have read in the media about the coming ice age. But 
you're a journalist, aren't you? Journalists were making things up then 
just the same way you are making 'facts' up to suit yourself right now.



-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

In message 
, 
bobjanes  writes
>On 3 Oct, 09:10, Richard Burnham  wrote:
>
>> The industry lobby
>> groups are well able to influence the debate in the pub, but they have
>> no answers to the science.
>
>That would be the same scientists who were telling us in the 70's that
>we were heading into a New Ice Age?
>
>Bob

To try to kill this one, here additionally is something I posted 
elsewhere some time ago. However, I am sure that evidence is totally 
irrelevant to your mindset, and the next time you debate this issue in 
the pub you'll be saying exactly the same things as if this exchange had 
never happened.



... someone has given attention to the myth put about by climate 
sceptics that 30 years ago climate scientists were predicting global 
cooling, by analysing the papers on the subject. It turns out that the 
consensus then as now was that warming was taking place.

There is a summary here:
http://layscience.net/node/278
with references and links.

And there is exposure of a spectacular piece of 'quote mining':

Quote text----

'Underlying the selective quotation of the past literature is an example 
of what political scientist Daniel Sarewitz calls 'scientization' of 
political debate: the selective emphasis on particular scientific 
'facts' to advance a particular set of political values [2]. In this 
case, the primary use of the myth is in the context of attempting to 
undermine public belief in and support for the contemporary scientific 
consensus about anthropogenic climate change by appeal to a past 
'consensus' on a closely related topic that is alleged to have been 
wrong"

The authors give a typical example, and anyone reading here familiar 
with lobbying materials on climate science from places like 
JunkScience.com will be aware of hundreds of similar cases.

"In a 2003 Washington Post op-ed piece, former Energy Secretary James 
Schlesinger quoted a 1972 National Science Board report as saying, 
'Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time 
of high temperatures should be drawing to an end... leading into the 
next glacial age'."

Now, even if you didn't know what the original report really said, the 
fact that the Energy Secretary is quoting from a report that is 31 years 
old is a big clue that perhaps the scientific basis for his comment is a 
little bit shakey. In fact, the very next words in the report are 
"...some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, 
that human interference has already altered the environment so much that 
the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."

You don't accidentally cut off a quote mid-sentence. The Energy 
Secretary must have known that he was lying, and he and others are 
helped in this by the general inability of the media to place scientific 
research in an appropriate context. Fortunately though, thanks to the 
efforts of people like the authors of this paper, this is yet another 
climate myth facing extinction.

end of quote----

-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

On 4 Oct, 01:09, Richard Burnham  wrote:

> Of course you may have read in the media about the coming ice age. But
> you're a journalist, aren't you? Journalists were making things up then
> just the same way you are making 'facts' up to suit yourself right now.

We just have to sell newspapers. Who funds the scientists?

Bob

On 3 Oct, 01:12, Marc  wrote:

> Tell you that the IPCC didn't say what?  At the moment all that we have
> is your assertion that the IPCC said/wrote something, it's your
> assertion, it's your requirement to prove it.

Ye gods! What do they teach kids at school these days? If I make an
assertion, and you disagree with it, then it's your job to disprove
what I am saying. I don't have to do a thing.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a somewhat grandiose
title for a disparate bunch with individual agendas, stated that
increased rainfall and warmer temperatures would alleviate the UK's
water shortages, reduce our energy requirements, and lead to a 10%
increase in crop production. The UK would therefore have a net gain
from global warming.

You seem inordinately proud of your GCSE in geography, so tell us: in
what way do you disagree with the IPCC's conclusions?

Bob

bobjanes wrote:
> On 3 Oct, 01:12, Marc  wrote:
> 
>> Tell you that the IPCC didn't say what?  At the moment all that we have
>> is your assertion that the IPCC said/wrote something, it's your
>> assertion, it's your requirement to prove it.
> 
> Ye gods! What do they teach kids at school these days? If I make an
> assertion, and you disagree with it, then it's your job to disprove
> what I am saying. I don't have to do a thing.

You have to prove your assertion...
> 
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a somewhat grandiose
> title for a disparate bunch with individual agendas, stated that
> increased rainfall and warmer temperatures would alleviate the UK's
> water shortages, reduce our energy requirements, and lead to a 10%
> increase in crop production.
Did they really? Where?


  The UK would therefore have a net gain
> from global warming.

And Russia would benefit from raised temperatures, that didn't stop them 
from signing up to agreements to try and slow ( it's too late to stop) 
climate change, of course the sidepayments from the EU helped there, 
that's (one of ) the problem(s) with global climate change it's 
complicated. Your (unproven) assertion that the IPCC stated that the UK 
would be a beneficary , will be cold comfort to those in East Anglia or 
even London who's homes are at risk of flooding because of the rising 
sea level ( Do your mates in the pub want to argue about thermal 
expansion or do they need to get onto the shorts for that?)or to those 
on the west coast whose livelehoods disapear in a fog of near perpetual 
warm drizzle. How many people fancy Barmouth in the rain?
> 
> You seem inordinately proud of your GCSE in geography,

Remind me again, how many pints of qualifications do you have in this 
subject? It was you that asked who knew anything about it, wasn't it?
  so tell us: in
> what way do you disagree with the IPCC's conclusions?


I have no idea, show me the paper. There is a paper isn't there, you 
have read it haven't you, or could it possibly be that in your befuddled 
  state when leaning against the bar, you misunderstood what one of the 
other bar blowhards had got wrong?

In message 
, 
bobjanes  writes
>On 4 Oct, 01:09, Richard Burnham  wrote:
>
>> Of course you may have read in the media about the coming ice age. But
>> you're a journalist, aren't you? Journalists were making things up then
>> just the same way you are making 'facts' up to suit yourself right now.
>
>We just have to sell newspapers. Who funds the scientists?
>
>Bob

As a journalist you ought to be able to find that out for yourself.

'Most climatologists paid by universities or governments shock horror!'

'Scandal of low pay, short-term contracts and career insecurity in 
scientific research!'

Not news.

I can see where this is leading though. It's a bit like being a teacher, 
where a child thinks he is offering a novel and convincing excuse, but 
the teacher has heard it hundreds of times before.

The energy industry has spent hundreds of millions, probably billions, 
of dollars on lobbyists, PR people and lawyers, and on misinformation to 
convince people like you, who swallow what they want to believe. For 
just a tiny fraction of that money, they could have offered secure 
pensions to a few senior researchers in climate-related fields, who 
would blow the whistle on how global warming is being faked in order to 
ensure grants and jobs for climate researchers.

But they haven't. And do you know why? Because the science is genuine. 
Science is working pretty much the way it's supposed to work, just as it 
did when other scientists developed the theories that now enable you to 
do remarkable things like communicating with random other people across 
electronic networks.




-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

In message 
, 
bobjanes  writes
>On 3 Oct, 01:12, Marc  wrote:
>
>> Tell you that the IPCC didn't say what?  At the moment all that we have
>> is your assertion that the IPCC said/wrote something, it's your
>> assertion, it's your requirement to prove it.
>
>Ye gods! What do they teach kids at school these days? If I make an
>assertion, and you disagree with it, then it's your job to disprove
>what I am saying. I don't have to do a thing.

No wonder journalism is in a bad state.

We are talking about science, and the standard practice is to cite the 
evidence for an assertion. If you tried to publish papers without 
evidence for your claims, you'd lose your career and be ridiculed as 
well.

>
>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a somewhat grandiose
>title for a disparate bunch with individual agendas, stated that
>increased rainfall and warmer temperatures would alleviate the UK's
>water shortages, reduce our energy requirements, and lead to a 10%
>increase in crop production. The UK would therefore have a net gain
>from global warming.
>
>You seem inordinately proud of your GCSE in geography, so tell us: in
>what way do you disagree with the IPCC's conclusions?
>
>Bob

-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

Richard Burnham wrote:
> In message 
> , 
> bobjanes  writes
>> On 3 Oct, 01:12, Marc  wrote:
>>
>>> Tell you that the IPCC didn't say what?  At the moment all that we have
>>> is your assertion that the IPCC said/wrote something, it's your
>>> assertion, it's your requirement to prove it.
>>
>> Ye gods! What do they teach kids at school these days? If I make an
>> assertion, and you disagree with it, then it's your job to disprove
>> what I am saying. I don't have to do a thing.
> 
> No wonder journalism is in a bad state.
> 
> We are talking about science, and the standard practice is to cite the 
> evidence for an assertion. If you tried to publish papers without 
> evidence for your claims, you'd lose your career and be ridiculed as well.

I'm not so sure about that!

In article <lZfBO5BlekxKFwfD@not.disclosed>,
   Richard Burnham  wrote:
> In message <fwhxm.44699$ze1.17316@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, 
> Neosapienis  writes
> >Hi Bob,
> >
> >For the most part I feel that the whole "Global Warming" and "Climate
> >Change" buzzwords that are on everybody's lips these days are no more of a
> >danger to humanity than the Y2K thing.  These 'Protests Against Global
> >Warming' are useless, as you cannot tell nature what to do.  It makes as
> >much sense as protesting against rain, earthquakes, tornados, tidal waves,
> >and other natural disasters.  We have no control over them.
> >
> >The planet's temperature has been in a state of constant fluctuation over
> >the millions of years that it's been in existence, only that in the recent
> >past we have accelerated it a bit with the destruction of the ozone layer as
> >well as not replenishing the earth with all the trees and rainforests we
> >have cut down.

> I often see this argument that 'climate has changed in the past', which 
> is true.

> It is also true beyond any doubt that the carbon dioxide we are pumping 
> into the atmosphere, by burning fossil fuels that have been buried for 
> many millions of years, is raising the temperature of the planet in the 
> long term. (If it turned out to be false, we'd have to rewrite a large 
> part of physics.)

There are two mechanisms, amongst many others, at work here:

1. Increasing the <CO2> in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect
which will tend to prevent heat which escapes from ground level and the
lower atmosphere being released into space. 

2. Increasing <temperature> of the oceans' water will cause it to put out
more of the absorbed CO2. 

So. Temperature & CO2 levels correlate; no argument there. Which is driving
which is not certain, and conclusions as to this are as likely to be
politically driven as scientifically based.

Also, the increasingly active weather we are experiencing creates clouds
which rise higher than the altitudes at which most of the atmospheric CO2
is present so releasing heat above the "greenhouse" level. 

We want to cut down our CO2 emissions along with all our waste and
unnecessary use of the resources we have on our "spaceship earth". Whether
that will do anything about global temperature is, I reckon, beyond our
current ability to predict.

Jane


> If you don't believe me, here is a link about real scientific evidence:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=58
> (But it involves science and not the sort of opinions you hear down the 
> pub.)

> What is a little less certain is the exact climatic and geopolitical 
> consequences of this long-term trend. But they are sure to be large.

> >
> >Al Gore is basically a money hungry douchebag with connections to a racist
> >organisation (i.e. the KKK which Ice-T made reference to on his "BodyCount"
> >album).
> >
> >I'm not saying that we should not take responsibility for the way we treat
> >the natural environment, but political extremism regarding it is just as bad
> >as religious fundamentalism.
> >

-- 

Peter & Jane      :      Totnes      :      South Devon

Please do not reply by mail.

In article ,
   David Looser  wrote:
> "bobjanes"  wrote in message 
> news:66b0f180-6b8e-48a2-87db-b325f52ebf74@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Sep, 14:04, sdsuncpl  wrote:

> >> Why can't we all just have fun and be naked?

> > I was just about to post in response to Duncan Heenan's fatuous
> > remarks about global warming and carbon dioxide, when I spotted that
> > you had said it already. Right on mate. And ride on and enjoy.

> Hardly "fatuous". I realise that many people find the idea that their 
> behaviour is damaging the environment hard to accept. After all who wants to 
> have give up their cozy way of life? But sdsuncpl's post was as biased a 
> piece of propaganda as any I've seen on this issue. The vast majority of 
> climate scientists are certain that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global 
> warming, so sdsuncpl's assertion that: "Anyone with any credibility knows 
> and understands that carbon is insignificantly, if at all, contributing to 
> climate change and/or global warming" is, quite simply, a lie.

> David.
> . 
I've no idea whether "the vast majority of climate scientists are certain
that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global warming" or not: there are
some "big guns" both for and against and I've no idea about numbers.
However, there are feelings among scientists that getting funding for
research depends to a large extent on the likely outcome of the research
being favourable to the funding organisation. In effect this is censorship
of science to financial or political ends.

So what? So this. If the majority of scientists are supporting the idea
that manmade CO2 release is increasing global temperatures, it might just
be because to get research funds it is necessary to do work which produces
that conclusion or you won't get funded.

With this state of affairs, I cannot have any reliable idea whether (a)
global warming is due to man-made CO2 and (b) whether we can do anything
about it.

I do feel strongly that we should be taking steps to reduce waste and
unnecessary use of the limited resources we have but that applies
regardless of whether that use is contributing to global warming or not.

Jane

-- 

Peter & Jane      :      Totnes      :      South Devon

Please do not reply by mail.

"Peter & Jane"  wrote
>> .
> I've no idea whether "the vast majority of climate scientists are certain
> that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global warming" or not: there are
> some "big guns" both for and against and I've no idea about numbers.
> However, there are feelings among scientists that getting funding for
> research depends to a large extent on the likely outcome of the research
> being favourable to the funding organisation. In effect this is censorship
> of science to financial or political ends.

As has always been the case of course, it certainly isn't confined to this 
issue. But who has the real cash, the universities or industry? (which is 
mostly still hostile to the idea of reducing energy consumption). If there 
is any bias it'll be in the "nothing to worry about, as you were" direction.
>
> So what? So this. If the majority of scientists are supporting the idea
> that manmade CO2 release is increasing global temperatures, it might just
> be because to get research funds it is necessary to do work which produces
> that conclusion or you won't get funded.

I think I just answered that above. Indeed it seems ridiculous to me that so 
many people seem to be falling for that line. I would also suggest that 
although it is worth looking at the source of funding for any research when 
establishing it's reliability, what you are suggesting is a massive 
conspiracy by the entire academic world and many governments to foist a 
bogus theory onto the world.

>
> With this state of affairs, I cannot have any reliable idea whether (a)
> global warming is due to man-made CO2 and (b) whether we can do anything
> about it.
>
Since CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, and since we know we are pumping more 
of into the atmosphere (from fossil fuel burning)than is being absorbed by 
biological processes on the planet, it's absolutely certain that a least a 
portion of global warming is due to this cause.

> I do feel strongly that we should be taking steps to reduce waste and
> unnecessary use of the limited resources we have but that applies
> regardless of whether that use is contributing to global warming or not.
>
Well thank goodness for that!

David.

In message , Peter & Jane 
 writes
>> .
>I've no idea whether "the vast majority of climate scientists are certain
>that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global warming" or not: there are
>some "big guns" both for and against and I've no idea about numbers.
>However, there are feelings among scientists that getting funding for
>research depends to a large extent on the likely outcome of the research
>being favourable to the funding organisation. In effect this is censorship
>of science to financial or political ends.

Governments (particularly the US government) directly or indirectly fund 
most climatic research, and until relatively recently most governments 
were actively hostile to the idea of man-made global warming (the GW 
Bush administration actively censored the results of research carried 
out by its own agencies).

So it seems rather implausible that the scientists were generating 
results to generate more funding (as if they could) since the results 
they were finding were exactly what the funding agencies did not want!

See my earlier comment about science working as it should do. Science is 
a human institution and can make mistakes, and it's possible that much 
of the science around global warming may turn out to be mistaken, and 
it's open to anyone to question the science. (Realclimate.org in 
particular has tried to make the technical arguments as accessible as 
possible to the general reader.)

But this conspiracy theory is a ludicrous as any.

>
>So what? So this. If the majority of scientists are supporting the idea
>that manmade CO2 release is increasing global temperatures, it might just
>be because to get research funds it is necessary to do work which produces
>that conclusion or you won't get funded.
>
>With this state of affairs, I cannot have any reliable idea whether (a)
>global warming is due to man-made CO2 and (b) whether we can do anything
>about it.
>
>I do feel strongly that we should be taking steps to reduce waste and
>unnecessary use of the limited resources we have but that applies
>regardless of whether that use is contributing to global warming or not.
>
>Jane
>

-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

In message , Peter & Jane 
 writes
>In article <lZfBO5BlekxKFwfD@not.disclosed>,
>   Richard Burnham  wrote:
>> In message <fwhxm.44699$ze1.17316@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> Neosapienis  writes
>> >Hi Bob,
>> >
>> >For the most part I feel that the whole "Global Warming" and "Climate
>> >Change" buzzwords that are on everybody's lips these days are no more of a
>> >danger to humanity than the Y2K thing.  These 'Protests Against Global
>> >Warming' are useless, as you cannot tell nature what to do.  It makes as
>> >much sense as protesting against rain, earthquakes, tornados, tidal waves,
>> >and other natural disasters.  We have no control over them.
>> >
>> >The planet's temperature has been in a state of constant fluctuation over
>> >the millions of years that it's been in existence, only that in the recent
>> >past we have accelerated it a bit with the destruction of the ozone layer as
>> >well as not replenishing the earth with all the trees and rainforests we
>> >have cut down.
>
>> I often see this argument that 'climate has changed in the past', which
>> is true.
>
>> It is also true beyond any doubt that the carbon dioxide we are pumping
>> into the atmosphere, by burning fossil fuels that have been buried for
>> many millions of years, is raising the temperature of the planet in the
>> long term. (If it turned out to be false, we'd have to rewrite a large
>> part of physics.)
>
>There are two mechanisms, amongst many others, at work here:
>
>1. Increasing the <CO2> in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect
>which will tend to prevent heat which escapes from ground level and the
>lower atmosphere being released into space.
>
>2. Increasing <temperature> of the oceans' water will cause it to put out
>more of the absorbed CO2.
>
>So. Temperature & CO2 levels correlate; no argument there. Which is driving
>which is not certain, and conclusions as to this are as likely to be
>politically driven as scientifically based.

You've described a positive feedback loop. CO2 causes global warming; 
warming of the oceans (which store most of the increased heat) makes 
them less able to store CO2, which exacerbates the warming. [A link I 
gave earlier actually gives information on this oceanic stored heat.]

This is known, but it actually makes the warming worse for a given 
increase of atmospheric CO2.

And we know that humans are increasing  atmospheric CO2 from all the 
fossil fuels we have burned. This is almost entirely in the last 200 
years, increasingly in the last few decades. This has never happened 
before in the history of the earth, let alone the short history of homo 
sapiens, which only evolved in the last few hundred thousand years.

So where does politics come into it?

>
>Also, the increasingly active weather we are experiencing creates clouds
>which rise higher than the altitudes at which most of the atmospheric CO2
>is present so releasing heat above the "greenhouse" level.
>
>We want to cut down our CO2 emissions along with all our waste and
>unnecessary use of the resources we have on our "spaceship earth". Whether
>that will do anything about global temperature is, I reckon, beyond our
>current ability to predict.
>
>Jane
>
>
>> If you don't believe me, here is a link about real scientific evidence:
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=58
>> (But it involves science and not the sort of opinions you hear down the
>> pub.)
>
>> What is a little less certain is the exact climatic and geopolitical
>> consequences of this long-term trend. But they are sure to be large.
>
>> >
>> >Al Gore is basically a money hungry douchebag with connections to a racist
>> >organisation (i.e. the KKK which Ice-T made reference to on his "BodyCount"
>> >album).
>> >
>> >I'm not saying that we should not take responsibility for the way we treat
>> >the natural environment, but political extremism regarding it is just as bad
>> >as religious fundamentalism.
>> >
>

-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

In message , Peter & Jane 
 writes
>I've no idea whether "the vast majority of climate scientists are certain
>that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global warming" or not: there are
>some "big guns" both for and against and I've no idea about numbers.

Incidentally, who are the 'big guns' against?

Well-known climatologists like Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn, 
Christopher Booker, Christopher Monckton, I suppose. All well-versed in 
the latest research and completely independent of any financial 
interests.

ROFL.


-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

Richard Burnham wrote:
> In message , Peter & Jane 
>  writes
>> I've no idea whether "the vast majority of climate scientists are certain
>> that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global warming" or not: there are
>> some "big guns" both for and against and I've no idea about numbers.
> 
> Incidentally, who are the 'big guns' against?
> 
> Well-known climatologists like ...



George Walker Bush, Frank Luntz, Jeffrey Salmon, Philip Cooney, Lee 
Raymond?  Can you spell Exxon?

In message , Marc 
 writes
>Richard Burnham wrote:
>> In message , Peter & Jane 
>> writes
>>> I've no idea whether "the vast majority of climate scientists are certain
>>> that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global warming" or not: there are
>>> some "big guns" both for and against and I've no idea about numbers.
>>  Incidentally, who are the 'big guns' against?
>>  Well-known climatologists like ...
>
>
>
>George Walker Bush, Frank Luntz, Jeffrey Salmon, Philip Cooney, Lee 
>Raymond?  Can you spell Exxon?

Good climate scientists all, and completely independent of any financial 
interests. Hmmmm.

The 'climate sceptic' lobby is actually a very small group but it works 
through a network of front organisations, often run by PR agencies. 
Exxon is probably the largest funder of this network.

Joe Romm (http://climateprogress.org/) does a good job of tracking these 
organisations and individuals, including their efforts at 
'astroturfing', a USAmerican expression referring to creating something 
that aims to look like a 'grassroots' campaign but is actually directed 
by the lobby.

Because they cannot answer the science, their explicit aim (as stated by 
Frank Luntz) is to create confusion and try to make the basic science 
look more uncertain than it is.  Their efforts are aimed at the media 
and legislators. They seem to be very successful at this. If someone is 
under the impression that climate researchers are equally divided on 
whether there is global warming, or whether it is caused by 
human-generated CO2, then they have fallen for the publicity of this 
lobby.



-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

In article <Pt0LzXCFPQyKFwgw@not.disclosed>,
   Richard Burnham  wrote:
> In message , Peter & Jane 
>  writes
> >In article <lZfBO5BlekxKFwfD@not.disclosed>,
> >   Richard Burnham  wrote:
> >> In message <fwhxm.44699$ze1.17316@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> >> Neosapienis  writes
> >> >Hi Bob,
> >> >
> >> >For the most part I feel that the whole "Global Warming" and "Climate
> >> >Change" buzzwords that are on everybody's lips these days are no more of a
> >> >danger to humanity than the Y2K thing.  These 'Protests Against Global
> >> >Warming' are useless, as you cannot tell nature what to do.  It makes as
> >> >much sense as protesting against rain, earthquakes, tornados, tidal waves,
> >> >and other natural disasters.  We have no control over them.
> >> >
> >> >The planet's temperature has been in a state of constant fluctuation over
> >> >the millions of years that it's been in existence, only that in the recent
> >> >past we have accelerated it a bit with the destruction of the ozone layer as
> >> >well as not replenishing the earth with all the trees and rainforests we
> >> >have cut down.
> >
> >> I often see this argument that 'climate has changed in the past', which
> >> is true.
> >
> >> It is also true beyond any doubt that the carbon dioxide we are pumping
> >> into the atmosphere, by burning fossil fuels that have been buried for
> >> many millions of years, is raising the temperature of the planet in the
> >> long term. (If it turned out to be false, we'd have to rewrite a large
> >> part of physics.)
> >
> >There are two mechanisms, amongst many others, at work here:
> >
> >1. Increasing the <CO2> in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect
> >which will tend to prevent heat which escapes from ground level and the
> >lower atmosphere being released into space.
> >
> >2. Increasing <temperature> of the oceans' water will cause it to put out
> >more of the absorbed CO2.
> >
> >So. Temperature & CO2 levels correlate; no argument there. Which is driving
> >which is not certain, and conclusions as to this are as likely to be
> >politically driven as scientifically based.

> You've described a positive feedback loop. CO2 causes global warming; 
> warming of the oceans (which store most of the increased heat) makes 
> them less able to store CO2, which exacerbates the warming. [A link I 
> gave earlier actually gives information on this oceanic stored heat.]

> This is known, but it actually makes the warming worse for a given 
> increase of atmospheric CO2.

Absolutely. But it isn't the only mechanism. One other (one of many
probably), the cloud action, linked with the more active weather we are
seeing, opposes the mechanism by putting more heat above the greenhouse
(CO2) layer of the atmosphere. It's a complex situation and I don't think
we know enough about it for a simplistic approach to be reliable.

> And we know that humans are increasing  atmospheric CO2 from all the 
> fossil fuels we have burned. This is almost entirely in the last 200 
> years, increasingly in the last few decades. This has never happened 
> before in the history of the earth, let alone the short history of homo 
> sapiens, which only evolved in the last few hundred thousand years.

Yes. So we have no experience of what it is going to do. CO2 (and methane)
has infra-red absorption bands in the region of the spectrum where
atmospheric heat exists so a bigger band will absorb more heat. However,
those bands are already strong so minor increases in height will not result
in major extra heat retention (if something is already full you can't add
much more to it -= not a perfect analogy just an approximation). There
could be extra heating from the <widening> of the bands (ie increases in
neighbouring wavelengths) but once those are also big then that's about as
far as heat absorption will go in that mechanism AISI.

> So where does politics come into it?

Using the term loosely. Scientific research costs money; somebody has to
pay for it. ISTR Maggie Thatcher decided that it should mainly be paid for
by industry and commercial bodies. They will pay money for research where
the likely outcome benefits them; they are unlikely to pay for research
where the likely results will reduce their earning capability eg put the
public off buying their products. Politicians put their names to certain
ideas/campaigns; they have influence on commercial bodies and research
which is likely to go against what they are supporting just doesn't get
financed.

I do not mean that scientists tell lies, just that the subjects for
research are not freely chosen so you cannot make objective assessments
from the span of scientific results available. There is impressive
expertise on both sides of the argument; as a result of that split and the
bias in choice of scientific research carried out, my feeling is "not
proven beyond reasonable doubt". It might be right; you just cannot assume
it from the knowledge we currently have. 

The earth seems to be warming ATM (although I've also read of research
results which countermand that). Could be due to something we are doing;
could be entirely independent of us. Can we do anything? Dunno. 

Should we try? Yes but think about the things you are ruining in that
attempt in case the warming is something beyond our control anyway. As oil
burning seems to be cast as a major culprit then stop wasting it. And stop
other waste and stop rendering other species extinct (they may just be the
keystone in the arch of life which supports us). That doesn't need global
warming to justify it; just try to leave some sort of resources for our
children ("your children" for anybody who has children, I haven't) to
inherit.

Cheers
Jane
> >
> >Also, the increasingly active weather we are experiencing creates clouds
> >which rise higher than the altitudes at which most of the atmospheric CO2
> >is present so releasing heat above the "greenhouse" level.
> >
> >We want to cut down our CO2 emissions along with all our waste and
> >unnecessary use of the resources we have on our "spaceship earth". Whether
> >that will do anything about global temperature is, I reckon, beyond our
> >current ability to predict.
> >
> >Jane
> >
> >
> >> If you don't believe me, here is a link about real scientific evidence:
> >> http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=58
> >> (But it involves science and not the sort of opinions you hear down the
> >> pub.)
> >
> >> What is a little less certain is the exact climatic and geopolitical
> >> consequences of this long-term trend. But they are sure to be large.
> >
> >> >
> >> >Al Gore is basically a money hungry douchebag with connections to a racist
> >> >organisation (i.e. the KKK which Ice-T made reference to on his "BodyCount"
> >> >album).
> >> >
> >> >I'm not saying that we should not take responsibility for the way we treat
> >> >the natural environment, but political extremism regarding it is just as bad
> >> >as religious fundamentalism.
> >> >
> >

-- 

Peter & Jane      :      Totnes      :      South Devon

Please do not reply by mail.

In article <SsjcDqDZNRyKFwzL@not.disclosed>,
   Richard Burnham  wrote:
> In message , Peter & Jane 
>  writes
> >I've no idea whether "the vast majority of climate scientists are certain
> >that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global warming" or not: there are
> >some "big guns" both for and against and I've no idea about numbers.

> Incidentally, who are the 'big guns' against?

> Well-known climatologists like Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn, 
> Christopher Booker, Christopher Monckton, I suppose. All well-versed in 
> the latest research and completely independent of any financial 
> interests.

I'll try to find some names; they weren't names I personally recognised but
their backgound seemed to justify their authority.

> ROFL.

Enjoy.

Jane

-- 

Peter & Jane      :      Totnes      :      South Devon

Please do not reply by mail.

In article <$57HGAG56FyKFwXP@not.disclosed>,
   Richard Burnham  wrote:
> In message 
> , 
> bobjanes  writes
> >On 4 Oct, 01:09, Richard Burnham  wrote:
> >
> >> Of course you may have read in the media about the coming ice age. But
> >> you're a journalist, aren't you? Journalists were making things up then
> >> just the same way you are making 'facts' up to suit yourself right now.
> >
> >We just have to sell newspapers. Who funds the scientists?
> >
> >Bob

> As a journalist you ought to be able to find that out for yourself.

> 'Most climatologists paid by universities or governments shock horror!'

> 'Scandal of low pay, short-term contracts and career insecurity in 
> scientific research!'

> Not news.

> I can see where this is leading though. It's a bit like being a teacher, 
> where a child thinks he is offering a novel and convincing excuse, but 
> the teacher has heard it hundreds of times before.

Doesn't make it wrong, though.

> The energy industry has spent hundreds of millions, probably billions, 
> of dollars on lobbyists, PR people and lawyers, and on misinformation to 
> convince people like you, who swallow what they want to believe. For 
> just a tiny fraction of that money, they could have offered secure 
> pensions to a few senior researchers in climate-related fields, who 
> would blow the whistle on how global warming is being faked in order to 
> ensure grants and jobs for climate researchers.

> But they haven't. And do you know why? Because the science is genuine. 

Just a bit censored in its choice of research topic.

> Science is working pretty much the way it's supposed to work, just as it 
> did when other scientists developed the theories that now enable you to 
> do remarkable things like communicating with random other people across 
> electronic networks.

The science is still working; it's what it's working <on> that is liable to
be chosen to support (or not highlight) aspects according to their
commercial or politica; desirablilty.

Jane

-- 

Peter & Jane      :      Totnes      :      South Devon

Please do not reply by mail.

In message , Peter & Jane 
 writes
>In article <SsjcDqDZNRyKFwzL@not.disclosed>,
>   Richard Burnham  wrote:
>> In message , Peter & Jane
>>  writes
>> >I've no idea whether "the vast majority of climate scientists are certain
>> >that CO2 emmisions are contributing to global warming" or not: there are
>> >some "big guns" both for and against and I've no idea about numbers.
>
>> Incidentally, who are the 'big guns' against?
>
>> Well-known climatologists like Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn,
>> Christopher Booker, Christopher Monckton, I suppose. All well-versed in
>> the latest research and completely independent of any financial
>> interests.
>
>I'll try to find some names; they weren't names I personally recognised but
>their backgound seemed to justify their authority.
>
>> ROFL.
>
>Enjoy.
>
>Jane
>

I'll give you two for starters. They are real climatologists who 
disagree substantially with the 'consensus': Richard Lindzen and John 
Christy. They have real scientific grounds for disagreement although 
most of their colleagues believe they are wrong.

But I don't think you'll find that they disagree that human-generated 
CO2 is a major influence on the climate. Christy reportedly refused to 
go to a 'sceptic' conference organised by the 'Heartland Institute' 
because he believed his reputation would be damaged by associating with 
the loonies there.

-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.

"Peter & Jane"  wrote in message 
news:50a5684ac7peter.jane@ukgateway.net...
>
> Scientific research costs money; somebody has to
> pay for it. ISTR Maggie Thatcher decided that it should mainly be paid for
> by industry and commercial bodies. They will pay money for research where
> the likely outcome benefits them; they are unlikely to pay for research
> where the likely results will reduce their earning capability eg put the
> public off buying their products.

I entirely accept the above. So how do you go from that to claiming that 
scientists who are "global warming sceptics" are the ones being silenced by 
a lack of funding? Bearing in mind that action to reduce human CO2 emissions 
will  reduce the earning capability of some of the largest and most 
wealthiest industries, such as the petrochemical, automotive and airline 
industries. It simply doesn't add up IMHO.

David.

Here is another resource on the common 'arguments' against human-caused 
global warming: YouTube videos in the series 'Climate Denial Crock of 
the Week', by Peter Sinclair.

The latest one shows how the media spun the words of a noted climate 
modeller, Mojib Latif, into a totally false conclusion.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610
-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else.