"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael adams
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , michael adams
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
et...
In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
news:081220152250132617%timstreater@greenbee .net...

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about. The OP says that what we have seen so far
isn't it, and I agree with him.

That would probably depend on what counts as "apocalyptic" nowadays.
As compared with say the Black Death. No more heated towel rails
perhaps?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making apocalyptic
pronouncements.

Because you're the one who's prepared to accept that global warming
may exist in the "apocolyptic" sense." Not me. I never mentioned
apocalypses. That was you.

And so its incumbent on you to explain exactly what you mean by apocalyptic
in this context.

No, dummy, don't ask me. Ask those who make the apocalyptic
pronouncements.

But you're the one who just now agreed that global warming

"*may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense that the warmists warn about"

Now you seem to be saying, that you don't actually know what
you were agreeing to.

Stop trying to be a smartarse. You're playing some kind of rhetorical
trick here which I don't have time to bother with. If you want to know
what sort of apocalypse the warmists propose, you can ask them.

But you're the one who agrees that they may be right. Not me.

I merely pointed out that whether a person regards something as "apocalyptic"
or not, is highly subjective and may largely depend on their own outlook
on life and experiences. So that people who've survived bombing,
earthquakes or similar natural calamities will have a different view
on the matter compared to others who haven't

I can't really see any reason for you to be throwing your toys out
of the pram over this.



a) "Intuitively, getting heads 10 out of 10 times is very implausible"


And so it is, intuitively.

Whereas in reality, its no more implausible than is any other sequence of ten
coin tosses. They're all equally "implausible" in fact.

You're still nodding off, I see. No one gathering stats by tossing
coins looks at the sequence. They look at how many of each they get and
that is what is being discussed.

Eh ? Why would anyone need to gather stats about tossing coins ?

The probablility of tossing any particular sequence of ten tosses, is 2 to the
power of 10, 1024


michael adams

....