Roger Chapman wrote:
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.

So, the first world spent endless cash on new fridges & propellant changes
in aerosols, whilst the second & third worlds - the majority of the worlds
population - did bugger all, and it healed anyway.

It was a temporary blip which sorted itself out

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.

It has commented on dozens that are completely & utterly wrong - the ones
that claim the same idiotic things that you do.

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.

Oh heaven forbid that anyone should dispute 'mainstream opinion'. And since
you don't like their opinions they are also 'deniers'?

That is when they are not cherry picking the evidence they approve
of while ignoring anything that they don't.

Rather like the East Anglia University people then?

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.

Or someone with a different, but equally valid opinion.

I think I will label you as a complete nutter because you believe it.

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.

Thats because the burden of proof is on you, and you can't supply any proof
other than your blind faith in the ecobollox handbook. Delusions? Look at
yourself pal.

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.

Don't attempt to patronise me ****wit.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk