Hi Loudmouth,

I have been busy so I have only just realised in your conversation with Belly you did address me.

“Csteele, Models are great, aren't they ? But out in the real world, if I can drag you back into that for a moment, let's see if I've got this right: temperatures have risen about 0.7 degrees C in sixty years, and sea-levels have risen two inches or 5 cm in a century.”

Let's say that instead of 5cm in a century it was twice, or even four times that, and the rate was evidently accelerating. I'm wondering at what stage would you get concerned? Does it really have to be 10 times?

What number gets your attention or would you just remain flippant whatever it was?

Dear Poirot,

Sorry about the closing credits coming up so soon. I'm afraid an actor's dispute was the cause, they can be such prima donnas.

Did you have a favourite scene?

Hi csteele,

I've thought long and hard about this - and I'd have to say, poignant as it was, the part where the four frogs jumped into the pot of cold water was the most moving. That they seemed not to have the f[r]oggiest idea that chef Antoine had lit the gas beneath them, was almost heartbreaking.

And they just sat there dreaming of lilly-pads while slowly fricasseeing.

(Just as well humans aren't that dumb)

Hi CSteele,

Yes, there certainly is some sort of global warming, probably caused by excess carbon dioxide and methane and other gases released int othe atmosphere by the industrial proceses of capitalism, and by our consumerist practises. The two questions are:

* by how much ?

and

* what can governments do, what and are governments doing, about it ?

I don't see the sense of exaggerating the one, and denying the possibilities of the other. Yes, there is warming, and sea-level rise, nothing huge or worth worrying about IF governments implement the most appropriate policies to reduce emissions, and encourage renewable-energy production, and implement those policies on a massive scale.

For example, in Australia, the government could levy a tax on emission-production companies - a tax that they could expressly NOT pass on to consumers - and use that revenue SOLELY to carry out research and technological development into the most appropriate means "to reduce emissions, and encourage renewable-energy production, and implement those policies on a massive scale." Not necessarily a large tax, not one which requires some sort of return to consumers and the initiation of yet another huge bureaucracy to police it. It could be as little a 1 % of companies' profits.

The government could invest other funds in massive and century-long tree-planting projects especially in the North, where rainfall is supposed to be increasing, using the unemployed as a sort of Green National Service program - in fact, much of the funding for this could be transferred directly from the unemployment benefits budget.

I'm sure that many of the supporters of the Greens would be happy to volunteer their labour to such a project -a year here, a year there :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Thank you for your reply.

It appears we differ only in the degree of threat we perceive and the methods we consider are needed to address that threat, and even there I would find areas of agreement.

Therefore no case to answer your honour.

Just as an aside, I think you might find the current accepted figure for sea level rise over the last century was 1.5mm/yr which is 15cm. That is three times the value you stated in your question to me.

Over or under hyping is something both sides should be at pains to avoid.

Dear Poirot,

Indeed that was a good one however my favourite was the scene of the Emperor with no Clothes. When will these has been actors realise they need to read the script before they turn up? The day of the shoot is not the time to learn there will be full frontal naked shots. Even if it was an accident I do think the high dudgeon of the actor involved translated very well to the screen. Luckily for him it has been warmed than normal or it may have been even more embarrassing. Perhaps it was written in the stars.

Loudmouth, there no point in talking sense & logic to Steely. I've tried that & it didn't work. We've all tried that & it hasn't worked.

You suggested what should be done with the tax money. So did I on pages 13 & 20.
You suggested that because of the change that trees could be planted in the North. So did I. Pages 21 & 27.
I submitted a list of Questions which went unanswered.
Steelys refusal to investigate alternate views. Pages 19 & 34.

I found a problem with some people who know that they are wrong. They tend to cling closer to their beliefs & ravage those that don't hold their view.

Steely, you had better have a look at this.

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-scientists-solved-riddle-rising-sea-172928909.html