You do that, Nowt wrong with procrastination, best way to get things done for sure

I would suggest that trying to deal with the effects without addressing the causes is a tad shortsighted.

I was wondering about that. ISTR that the Thames flood barrier was built because of this tilt where the southern end of the british mainland was sinking and the north was rising for geological reasons - nothing to do with climate change. An inconvenient truth

I don't think anyone suggested the tilt was due to climate change, did they?

It's just another item in the discussion.

Not if the causes are cosmic and beyond our control - which may well be the case. For example the close proximity of gigantic nuclear explosion (aka the Sun) which has observably been very active in last 50years but has recently become relatively dormant.

But the current floods in southern Britain are being blamed on climate change and not geological tilt.

There was a report on the suns activities in the media a few days ago - I cant find the link now, but something to do with the mini ice age/Maunder Minimum in the 1600s and low solar flares detected then, which are similar to the flares now?????

There conclusion was that we could be heading for another mini ice age.......

ooops, I've just found it...... it was in the Daily Mail - does that count lol???

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...es-plunge.html

Jo xxx

No, they didn't. But the article I linked to pointed out that the rise in Scotland would compensate for the rising sea levels (which are due to climate change) whereas the sinking land levels in the South would exacerbate the effects of the rise in sea level.

This is why I asked you to read one of the links to the physics site I gave you Jo... It directly addresses the "sun spot" theory.... And completely dispels it using.... Guess what? Yep, that's right.... Physics!!!!

I'm not interested in links like that, so its a waste of time posting them - There are just as many links with opposing views, so its pointless. You post your links, I'll post mine (I dont bother, unless to show where I saw something) and then what? Whose links are right???

Jo xxx

So physics is the new buzz word...never heard of it before no wonder Google is making such profits.

I see that some are unable to absorb the science and are resorting to rather daft "The scientists are just protecting their financial interests" and "we all believe what we want to believe" (so sod the evidence). I can't quite believe it but I've also seen "the world's climate has always changed" and "in the '70s we were worried about a mini ice-age" as if those are somehow relevant.

Two FACTS these people might like to consider if the science is too difficult...

1. 97% of climate change scientists are 95% convinced that AGW is happening and is a serious threat and

2. The vast majority of the vested interest money is with the 3% deniers who are mostly funded by petrochemical, transport and other industries.

BTW Someone a few pages back said that the polar ice caps are floating. I find it difficult to believe that someone so obviously ignorant of the facts would dare take part in a Climate Change discussion.

As you don't post links it's a bit difficult to assess their validity.

Everything you say is simply unsupported assertion.

Who was it said "Anything that can be asserted without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence"?

The key is the difference between "views" and science. Again, there is a large set of data about climate change. "Views" on them are pretty meaningless.

And it's no good just saying "I'm not interested" in reading information. If you don't read and analyse and assess, how do you ever make up your mind about anything? Are we really just going to surrender our capacity for rational thought that easily?

By whom?