GPS FORUM

>PC Paul wrote:
>> Halmyre wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Melting glaciers --> more cold water into Atlantic --> buggers up the
>>> Gulf stream --> UK climate becomes more Scandinavian. Thats one
>>> theory, anyway.
>>
>> Scandinavian? Moscow, more like.
>>
>> Fancy -30C for a few months every winter?
>
>For Scotland? yes please though it will never be quite that cold being
>maratime. This last 5 years has fairly fucked up the ski prospects. I
>can think of 3 sites which would make lovely new resorts.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And, even if one quibbles about the extent of mans involvement, there
>>>>>>>is no doubt that man can do at least something to slow the process down
>>>>>>>and, for his own good, should do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Im not saying I disagree with you, but Id be interested in you
>>>>>>explaining *why* man should do something.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because of the dire consequences of rising sea level, for one.
>>>>
>>>>Dire in what sense? Probably dire for certain islanders (including
>>>>this island) - but how important will it seem in a 1000 years? Or a
>>>>million?
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. The importance is now and the immediate (say 50-100 years)
>>>future.
>>
>>Ill be long gone in 100 years. Probably in 50 too.
>
>So, thats all right then!

>
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 07:11:40 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
> > > > Irrelevant. The importance is now and the immediate (say 50-100
> > > > years) future.
> > >
> > > Ill be long gone in 100 years. Probably in 50 too.
> >
> > So, thats all right then!
>
> Thats sort of my point.
> I want you to articulate whats wrong with that view.

> >>Ill be long gone in 100 years. Probably in 50 too.
> >
> >So, thats all right then!
>
> Thats sort of my point.
>
> I want you to articulate whats wrong with that view.
>

>On Wed, 17 May 2006 07:11:40 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And, even if one quibbles about the extent of mans involvement, there
>>>>>>>>is no doubt that man can do at least something to slow the process down
>>>>>>>>and, for his own good, should do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Im not saying I disagree with you, but Id be interested in you
>>>>>>>explaining *why* man should do something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because of the dire consequences of rising sea level, for one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dire in what sense? Probably dire for certain islanders (including
>>>>>this island) - but how important will it seem in a 1000 years? Or a
>>>>>million?
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant. The importance is now and the immediate (say 50-100 years)
>>>>future.
>>>
>>>Ill be long gone in 100 years. Probably in 50 too.
>>
>>So, thats all right then!
>
>Thats sort of my point.
>
>I want you to articulate whats wrong with that view.

>I should have kept my house in Scotland, built on the highest point in
>Strathclyde (as was). I could have watched the innundation from Glasgow
>through to Edinburgh.

> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Hog
> saying something like:
>
>> I should have kept my house in Scotland, built on the highest point
>> in Strathclyde (as was). I could have watched the innundation from
>> Glasgow through to Edinburgh.
>
> Island living is a pain in the arse, though. All very well surviving
> the flood, but getting bread and beer in is a nuisance.

>We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember Hog
>saying something like:
>
>>I should have kept my house in Scotland, built on the highest point in
>>Strathclyde (as was). I could have watched the innundation from Glasgow
>>through to Edinburgh.
>
>Island living is a pain in the arse, though. All very well surviving the
>flood, but getting bread and beer in is a nuisance.