The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

It doesn't seem to matter to TMH whether the science is dumbed down or
not. Either way he doesn't understand it.

More proof of that below.

snip

'Deniers' and 'Lunacy'? The facts of the matter are that the green
tree hugger pressure groups have created an industry devoted to
proving that (a) global warming actually exists and (b) that it is
caused by man made CO2 emissions.

I suspect that the real fact of this particular matter is that TMH is
a clueless idiot.

Whats your ****ing problem Mr Angry?

Talking to yourself? But please keep on digging.

As I've already said, you are not necessarily right and being a tree hugger
doens't give you the moral high ground.

There are some things I am right about and many things I am probably
right about. The things I am right about include the fact that the
greenhouse effect is real and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas both of which
you claim contradict plain old common sense.

An as for being a tree hugger. Don't make me laugh. I have lost count of
the number of times one of my neighbours has asked how can I sleep at
night after I have cut down another tree. Perhaps you missed my
reference somewhere up thread (or in the related thread) about the green
meanies.

Neither of which have been conclusively proven & both of which
contradict plain old common sense.

Sad that TMH is totally lacking in plain old common sense. The
mainstream scientific view is very much that global warming is
happening and that man made CO2 is playing a part.

The mainstream evidence? Oh, is that like the conclusive evidence that the
hole in the ozone level was going to kill us all?

The hole in the ozone layer plays only a minor part in global warming
and I think you will find it has the opposite effect to that which might
be expected. However I presume that you actually mean the notion (which
is fact) that if the holes had expanded over heavily populated areas it
would have hugely increase the death rate from skin cancer unless people
actively avoided exposure to direct sunlight. But don't worry. As a
smoker in this country you are much more likely to die of lung cancer
than skin cancer.

The mainstream evidence in the 40 articles published by the BBC? (Thanks
Matty F).

The BBC is a purveyor of news, not science. The underlying body of
science is vast and there are only a few maverick scientists prepared to
dispute even parts of it. Reminds me of the lung cancer controversy back
in the 50s when the tobacco companies fought tooth and nail to prove
that there was no connection between their product and lung cancer.

Your incredible arrogance in calling them 'presumptions' is just
that & doesn't give you the moral high ground or make you right.
I was being generous. Saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or the
greenhouse effect doesn't exist are bare faced lies. Neither claim
has any basis in fact.

Sorry to say not eveyone agrees with green bollox. You appear to have
swallowed it whole.

As I have said before the green house effect and CO2 being a greenhouse
gas are both established fact. That you are prepared to go on denying
such facts makes you a laughing stock but doesn't alter the said facts.

SNIP DRIVEL

'Green' has two meanings; Environmentally aware or extremely
gullible.
Only two? Aren't you forgetting something vitally important?

No, only one meaning in your case - extremely gullible.

Surely it would be obvious to anyone but a complete idiot that the
primary meaning of Green is as a colour.