On 26/03/13 12:05, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 26, 11:31 am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 11:12, Tim Watts wrote:

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:01 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article , Bob Martin
writes

[Please could you snip your quotes? Thanks]

Just what does a spell of British weather have to do with global climate?

It may mean that we actually get weather more appropriate to our high
latitude in a world that is on average globally warmer but not for us.



But it's not just in the UK that we're experiencing weather extremes,
it's worldwide.

That can still be a sampling effect we get much better reporting of
weather extremes now than we have had in previous decades.



There's "climate change" and there're "fluctuations in weather sometimes
hitting extremes".

It is impossible to tell from any single incident, but if it keeps on
happening then I think you have to accept that the climate is changing.
When "hundred year floods" occur every couple of years I think you have
to pay attention to the risks of building new homes on flood plains.

Plenty of homes have been built on fields that locals knew were very
dodgy but that doesn't help the incomers until they get wet feet.

BTW What happened to the uninsurable flood insurance showdown?



I contend we are dealing with the latter until a majority or respectable
meteorologists agree otherwise.

The vast majority of respectable meteorologists have long since agreed
that global warming is a real effect and that CO2 and other greenhouse
gasses are responsible for driving it. It is hard to decide whether or
not the warmer world will be stormier with more extremes or not. You can
argue it either way from a physics point of view and either could be
correct depending on the circumstances - thermal gradient from pole to
equator will decrease as the poles warm faster but a warmer atmosphere
will carry more water vapour and with it latent heat. Vertically there
may be a steeper thermal gradient at some latitudes.

There is a rearguard action by US coal, Exxon and it's deniers for hire
to prevent the general public hearing what scientists have to say. They
honed their disinformation skills working for big tobacco manufacturing
doubt to keep the suckers smoking. And it is a very effective tactic.

The staff at the CRU clearly learned from them too. It cuts both ways,
just like the climate "models".

indeed. To any who care, I urge you to look up 'AgitProp' and
'propaganda' in wikipedia, see how these games are played, and start
ticking off the matches you find, not only in the skeptics camp, but in
the warmist camps.


a rough check will reveal a far far better match in the warmist camp
than the skeptics camp. Yes, there is a lot of propaganda going down,
but its not coming from the skeptics.

Who are not funded by big oil at all. That's just propaganda. The real
funding goes to the warmists. Climate change is a trillion dollar global
business.


Just like tobacco. And pharmaceuticals.


Now to understand why its the WARMISTS who cry 'propaganda' wiki the
'Big Lie'

And the picture is complete.

Who would think that a series of organizations funded totally by big
business and with massive political clout would dare accuse a paltry
collection of scientists and free thinkers with no weapons at all but
their ability to dissect material, and appeal to common sense and reason
of being in the pockets of big business?

very clued up and smart black propagandists would. Go figure.



MBQ



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.