The Medway Handyman wrote:

Oh, so now we have deniers, mavericks, nutters, lunatics - and
sceptics.

Not exactly. The deniers are all nutters and lunitics. The sceptics
are mavericks.

So, you admit that anyone who challenges your opinions about climate change
is a nutter & a lunatic?

It is becoming increasing apparent that although you are clever enough
to string words together in complete sentences you lack the ability to
comprehend even the simplest of ideas spelt out in plain English.

I draw a clear distinction between those (the deniers) who ignore the
evidence and those (the sceptics) who argue on a scientific basis.

What a reasoned attitude.

I think so.

You then carry on to attack those with a different opinion by
claiming their case is based on faith, not reason.
Only in the case of the deniers.

AKA those with an opinion different from the one you have gained from
Wikipedia?

Funnily enough my primary source of knowledge on climate change has been
the Met Office. Wikipedia is only preferred as a cite when the primary
sources (Met Office, Nasa, etc.) aren't prominent when I do a search to
check my facts.

The Medway Moron has clearly demonstrated that his beliefs are based
on faith, not reason, as he lacks the ability to understand even the
simplest science.
Insult, no intellectual content. Par for the course.
You may well find it insulting but that is a statement of fact.

Then provide some evidence. Oh I forgot, you aren't very good at that are
you?

The evidence is all in this thread. Your lack of knowledge of statistics
is only the most clear cut example. Lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you
pontificating on things you know nothing about. Indeed you seem to glory
in your lack of knowledge.

The jury is well & truly still out on climate change being man
made.
There you go again. Faith rather than reason. What is at issue is
the degree that global warming is man made.
Only accord to gulliable ecobollox cretins like you.

If I ignore the insult and translate the comment into English it would
appear that you are confirming your belief that all climate change is
natural.

Climate change is indeed natural in my, and many others, opinion. It has
occurred throught history, but you are unable to answer why.

And you wonder why you are being held up to ridicule.

You are totally unable to explain the eyrar of black swans that
abound.

If I knew what you were rabbiting on about I could at least make an
informed decision whether or not to respond. I currently see no
reason to bother with swans black or white or "eyrars" either for
that matter.

If you had any brains and didn't rely on Wikipedia for everything
you might understand. If you did respond it would no doubt be with
another link to Wikipedia.

You can look up eyrar there. Its the collective noun for a group of
swans.

And there was me thinking it was one of your all too frequent typos
just because it didn't appear in either Collins Dictionary or the
Concise Oxford. If you had used one of the several common collective
nouns for a group of swans rather than an archaic term that the Short
Oxford says means a brood of swans I might have twigged.

I doubt you would have twigged anything, you don't have the capacity for
independant thought.

So you say but like much of your argument just another lie.

I'll ignore the pathetic comment about frequest typos as yet another attempt
to attack an argument you can't answer.

I'm just gobsmacked that eyrar confused you. I must confess I didn't know
the collective noun for a group of swans, so I looked it up - on Wikipedia -
so it must be right mustn't it?

According to you Wikipedia must be wrong so you using it as a source
doesn't make sense. Wikipedia actually gives several collective nouns
for swans. All bar eyrar in common use. Ergo you used ayrar in a
deliberate attempt to obfuscate.

You have no idea what a black swan argument is? I thought you knew
everything?

Don't you ever get anything right.

I'll give you a clue. Popper.
If you want to debate philosophy try TNP. Popper it seems says that
the existence of a black swan falsifies the statement that all swans
are white. So name your bevy of black swans. Anonymous black swans
don't help at all.

Its a very simple argument, so simple I think even you could understand.

Deceptively simple.

You are making the claim that climate change is man made, due to increased
CO2 emmissions. The black swan is that climate change has occurred
frequently in the past when there was insufficient industry & population to
increase CO2 emmissions

You don't seem to understand that misrepresenting what people actually
say harms your argument. Indeed ISTM that you don't really understand
even simple English. What I have clearly and unequivocally said is that
man's activities are having some effect on climate change by making it
warmer than it would otherwise have been. That you think that natural
climate change is a black swan suggests to me that you have got the
notion back to front. My interpretation would be that proof of CO2 being
a greenhouse gas is the black swan that falsifies the notion that all
climate change is natural.

So that is one black swan with its neck well and truly wrung. Now where
are the rest of your gaggle of swans?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gullibility
Wow! A real cite at last. What a pity it has nothing to do with
climate change.
It has every thing to do with you being a ****

"The quality of readily believing information, truthful or otherwise,
usually to an absurd extent.
Now if that were true I would have have readily believed all the
garbage you and Dennis have been spouting.

You have readily believed all the ecobollox that Wikipedia spouts haven't
you?

I can readily believe that you are an ignorant idiot.