The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

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.

I couldn't care less what part it has in global warning. The point is the
green tosers sold us all on the fact that 'we are all doomed' Capt
Mainwaring & nothing happened. In fact it repaired itself, but they kept
quiet about that slightly embarrassing fact & swept the idea under the
carpet.

Caught out crying wolf.


It seems you can't get anything right. The Ozone holes are recovering
now that CFCs have been banned but there is a long way still to go
before the ozone levels return to where they were at the beginning of
the 80s.

The mainstream evidence in the 40 articles published by the BBC?
(Thanks Matty F).
The BBC is a purveyor of news, not science.

The BBC reports science it doesn't generate the content.

The BBC reports aspects of science. It generates comment some of which
may occasionally be wrong.

The underlying body of
science is vast and there are only a few maverick scientists prepared
to dispute even parts of it.

So if they dispute it they are 'mavericks' and their opinion isn't valid
then?

They are mavericks because they dispute mainstream opinion and have all
too often to deny established fact in order to make their case. That is
when they are not cherry picking the evidence they approve of while
ignoring anything that they don't.

snip

They are only established facts in your deluded imagination.

That you continue to deny that the greenhouse effect exists or that C02
is a greenhouse gas labels you as a complete nutter.

Only a complete idiot would be as gullible as you are.

Speak for yourself. I don't recall you coming up with any real facts to
back up your delusions. You seem content to rubbish anything I say
without providing anything substantial in the way of argument.

Now be a good boy and shut up for a while. I'm off to try and find out
why I thought NASA and the Met Office didn't use exactly the same data
sets and Dennis says they do.