Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Snip bollox & insults


You really are the complete ****wit aren't you? Your pathetic
attempts to avoid the argument simply make you look like a complete
prat.

So you keep on saying but how even often you repeat your lies they
remain lies.

So, now I'm a liar as well? Because I don't hold the same opion as you?

You can't answer the simple question; how come we had freak climate
change in the past when the population wasn't large enough to create
enough CO2?

Oh is that one of the questions that you keep on lying about?

Now how many times in this thread have I referred to the natural
variability of the climate?

None that I can recall amongst all the insults & evasion.

Thats the black swan. For about the 20th time I'm asking you to
answer a simple question. But you can't, because it isn't in the
ecobollox handbook and you can't find a Wikipedia page to support it.

That isn't a black swan never mind an eyrar of black swans.

Of course it is idiot. It disprooves you assertation that climate change is
man made.

SNIP

You no doubt believe that anything that conflicts with your faith is
"of dubious origin". Wikipedia is fair game but you have so far at
least avoided rubbishing the other sources I have cited (Met Office,
Nasa, etc.) which have much the same message. Why? A smear too far
even for you or have you just blanked out in your mind all these
unpleasant facts?

"You no doubt believe that anything that conflicts with your faith is of
dubious origin". Take a look at the second post you made in this thread.
You won't except anything that doesnt confirm to you beliefs.

and to slag off anyone who dares to disagree.

If you want to put up any evidence to support your point of view I
will consider it. Meanwhile your output of endless insults
interspersed with mumbo jumbo will get treated with the contempt it
deserves.

As will your considerably larger output.

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.

Which goes to show what a complete idiot you are. The concept of
the black swan argument clearly escapes you. Probably because you
are not bright enough to understand it.

I tend to keep clear of philosophy as it is a subject I have never
studied but it was you who introduced black swans and subsequently
Popper so I had to respond. One of us is clearly wrong and I think
that someone is you.

I think you steer clear of philosophy because you are too thick to
understand simple concepts.

Try 'zombie belief'. You might find it on Wikipedia.

Anywho, unlike you I have better things to do that argue with zombies, so
I'm off.

Please have the last word, just so everyone can see how desperate you are.


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