Hi Hassie,

You ask "blamed by who>"

By reputable historians,
and many Indian people, including British soldiers
and members of the British armed forces.
Read the link I cited earlier. There's many
other links on the web. Google them.

Dear mhaze,

You claim with such surety “Paul laughingly suggests that the British were shipping food out of India. That's rubbish and is just a case of Paul's inner Marxist speaking. They might not have been importing food in the quantities required (did I mention there was a war on) but they definitely weren't exporting food.”

The facts are that in the first 7 months of 1943 70,000 tons of rice were exported from India along with 23,000 tons of wheat.

Homework young chap, homework.

As to our Bill and Ben of climate change deniers both think the greenhouse effect is a myth which allows them to trot off on flights of fantasy about other potential causes.

Just for the record, do you currently and without reservation think the greenhouse effect is real or not?

As to me going through your past posts it only really takes 30 seconds. Do a quick view all and a control f and there we are, your past deeds flagged in all their glory.

Foxy writes: " The entire link is worth
a read to grasp and understand the situation - including
Churchill's role in it."

Yes, but I'm wondering if Foxy actually read the entire link. Here's another section she somehow missed..."he [Churchill] did try to help and delays were a result of conditions during the war."

Interesting? Did I mention there was a war going on at the time? You know, things like millions of refugees fleeing the Japanese army and entering India. Merchant ships being torpedoed. Indian cities being bombed, with the population scattering thus making getting food to them that much more difficult. Oh and Britain's very existence still up for grabs.

Oh and the weather. Cyclones, storm surges. Resulting in a failed Bengal harvest.

Oh and did I mention there was a war going on?

The non-historian will look at an issue and see one aspect of it, generally completely out of context. (eg SR thinks he's found something when he says 23000 tonees of wheat was exported from India, while failing to note or even know that close on 1 million tons were imported from Australia). But true historic research means understanding all the issues of the time and understanding the perspective of the people in that day. Its all very well to say more could have been done. Its entirely different to say how more could have been done under the circumstances.

But lack of perspective gives many people comfort. They think they understand the issue while in fact understanding a minor aspect of it

SR again misses the point.
CO2 does cause warming and the human co2 since the start of the
industrial revolution has caused a 0.1 deg C rise to date.
This all came about due to assuming the rise was all due to the human
burning of fossil fuels. History shows that CO2 has many times been
very mush higher than it is now.
The error has long been shown to be present by Kauppenin and others.
The sensitivity of earth temperature to co2 was set at too high a figure.
Do your Homework quote sr.
The IPCC, governments etc etc Greens etc cannot acknowledge this
problem, just imagine the upheaval, law suites, demonstartions, even
suicides, and all the commitments to global warming laws and money
spent so far if it was all in vain !

IT IS THE SUN STUPID !

mhaze,

You're again looking for an argument.
I made it quite clear that the entire link
needs to be read to understand the situation and Churchill's
role in it. You don't have to try to justify anything.
It's there in the link as well as heaps of others on the web.

SR emotes: "As to our Bill and Ben of climate change deniers both think the greenhouse effect is a myth...."

Yes, I get it SR. They say things you don't want to be true and therefore they must be wrong. You don't know how they're wrong so just assert they are wrong based on what others have told you.

They might be wrong and time will tell. There are hundreds of papers each year that offer critiques of the climate change hysteria and they can't all be right.

SR asks: "Just for the record, do you currently and without reservation think the greenhouse effect is real or not?"

You've never understood the issue, have you? Yes the greenhouse effect is real. Its been real for millions of years. Without the greenhouse effect the earth's average temperature would be minus 20c instead of plus 14c. The natural greenhouse effect is primarily due to water vapour with a little help from CO2, methane etc.

The issue however is whether CO2 alone causes an ENHANCED greenhouse effect. On that I'm more equivocal. The current thinking is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm will cause an increase in temperature of 1.3c (whereas the paper that has your knickers in a knot says, effectively, 0c). I'm prepared to accept that figure (1.3c) at the moment while noting that it's a guess at best and the guesses have been constantly falling as we better understand the climate, such that it's likely to fall even further with time.

Noting that we are unlikely to even get to a doubling of CO2, 1.3c increases are entirely manageable and not even close to catastrophic.

So I'll answer you question thusly:

Global warming from the greenhouse effect - yes it exists and has done for many millions of years.

Anthropological enhanced GW from CO2 - yes it exists but is minor and nothing to worry about.

Catastrophic anthropological enhanced GW from CO2 - Nup, not going to happen. It's hype as the article I mentioned above points out.