David Hansen wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:10:32 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

Just for the record very little of what you have been saying could be
classed as science if you apply the same test to what you say as you do
to what I have said.

I also have yet to notice a single link from any of these sayings to
a reference. It is entirely possible that there is one (or more)
somewhere which I have missed, in which case I apologise, but so far
all I have seen are vague claims like the "Met Office web site".

"Met Office forecast for global temperature for 2008

Global temperature for 2008 is expected to be 0.37 °C above the
long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, the coolest year since 2000,
when the value was 0.24 °C."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20080103.html

Note that temperatures fell from 1945 - 1970 (global warming
proponents figures) so the prediction of a rise of 0.37degC is from an
unusually low figure. Pick a different range, and you could find the
planet is cooling. Why didn't they pick, say 1980 to 2000? Is it
because that would show the planet as cooling?

Easy, eh?

For the big one, go he

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...greenhouse.pdf

and look at the graph at the top of page 21.

Note that of twelve mechanisms shown, five are cooling effects, one
straddles the zero line, and eight of them are classed as "Very Low
level of scientific understanding".

How bad can it be for the proponents of the CO2/global warming debate?
At best, they can only say that they don't know what they're talking
about.

But judging by some of the posters on here, that wouldn't matter.

HTH