The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

You really are displaying an appalling lack of scientific (and in this
particular case mathematical) knowledge. The Met Office in their
wisdom show the 95% confidence limits as well as the actual figure
for each year. If you take 95% to be +/- two standard deviations then
for the 2 to be equal a reduction of 0.3 of a standard deviation in
the higher and an increase of 0.3 in the lower (or any other
combination with the same sum) is all that is required.

In other words they are fudging the figures.

Two different years - yes or no?

You really are the most ignorant of idiots but do keep on digging. You
are providing a certain level of amusement.

On 8 Dec, 20:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Sorry to say not eveyone agrees with green bollox. *You appear to have
swallowed it whole.

As I have said before the green house effect and CO2 being a greenhouse
gas are both established fact. That you are prepared to go on denying
such facts makes you a laughing stock but doesn't alter the said facts.

Look, there is no disagreement.

1/. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2/. CO2 levels are rising.
3/. The earth is warming.


Absolutely, well put. Its best to separate the facts from the
opinions.
Trouble is, some dispute point 3. When you have long term and short
term variability superimposed, you will always get short periods when
the trend appears to be reversing. That's why analysis using for
example a rolling ten year average are required. People also seem
unable to grasp the fact that an average global warming can produce
some localized cooling.
And it doesn't help when the press make dodgy connections with global
warming, like showing a polar bear on a small iceberg in an area where
the ice has melted like that for years. Or making out that the odd hot
day confirms global warming.
Its true that the average warming over the last few decades is rather
short term and it *could* be nothing to do with man, but its a balance
of probabilities.
Finally, whats this nonsense they always spout about putting an ice
cube in a glass and it melts and the water levels stays the same. Yes
I know.
Its the ice over the land melting and draining into the sea that is
the issue.
And sea level is not the same all over the globe - you have gravity,
and earth rotation, and the moon, etc.
Simon.

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

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

You really are displaying an appalling lack of scientific (and in
this particular case mathematical) knowledge. The Met Office in
their wisdom show the 95% confidence limits as well as the actual
figure for each year. If you take 95% to be +/- two standard
deviations then for the 2 to be equal a reduction of 0.3 of a
standard deviation in the higher and an increase of 0.3 in the
lower (or any other combination with the same sum) is all that is
required.

In other words they are fudging the figures.

Two different years - yes or no?

You really are the most ignorant of idiots but do keep on digging. You
are providing a certain level of amusement.

As I said in an earlier post. Don't attempt to patronise me ****wit.

First of all, attacking me instead of my arguments shows how weak yours are.
And I take it you are the official spokesman for the entire group when you
claim I am providing amusement?

Your arrogance is staggering. Only matched by your gullibility.


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Given that the Met Office and NASA don't use exactly the same data
but still get broad agreement between their figures, particularly
over the last 20 years, you have to wonder where the deniers get
their so called facts from.

Are you sure?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...xplained5.html

"Furthermore, while the UK Met Office regards 1998 as the hottest
year yet, Nasa thinks it was 2005 (they use the same data but
interpret it differently)."

I said:

1) That they don't use exactly the same data and

They said they use the same data!

I thought it was going to be difficult for me to track down where it
was that I saw the original information but it turned out to be
ridiculously easy. There it was bold as brass in the text of the link
I gave.
"Each of the three global temperature centres uses different
observation sets, although there are large overlaps in the
information used. Each centre also has its own methods for checking
and processing data, as well as for making the final calculation."

And they still ****ed up & got different years?

You really are the most ignorant of idiots but do keep on digging. You
are providing a certain level of amusement.


--
David Lang
List Owner - Mentalists Asylum

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Why don't you answer the question directly yourself? Its a simple
straightforward question.

Because that would have led to you attempting to pick holes in my answer.

So, your answer would have holes in it? Would they be like the holes in the
ozone layer that was going to end mankind?

Thats why you didn't answer the question.

Phils question was delightfully simple, I'll re post it so you can't ignore
it;

"If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say that it had
been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it mankind's fault, when
the world population 300 - 400 years ago was a tiny fraction of what it is
now, and virtually none of them used fossil fuels?"

Got any answers ****wit?



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

Roger Chapman wrote:
Phil L wrote:

At the basic level it demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
(despite what Dennis claims) but then that is not exactly news. The
greenhouse effect has been known about for at least 100 years.

If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say that
it had been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it
mankind's fault, when the world population 300 - 400 years ago was a
tiny fraction of what it is now, and virtually none of them used
fossil fuels?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Right. If its on Wikipedia it must be true.

I wonder who wrote it?


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

dennis@home wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...


It didn't just repair itself. It was pointed out that we were
chucking nasty things into the atmosphere, people stopped doing some
of that and then it started to repair itself.

I think you will find the "hole" was repairing itself before a
significant drop in the CFCs occurred.

Gasp! Dennis - how dare you bring facts into an ecobollox argument!


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

On 8 Dec, 19:14, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
Phil L wrote:

At the basic level it demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
(despite what Dennis claims) but then that is not exactly news. The
greenhouse effect has been known about for at least 100 years.

If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say that
it had been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it
mankind's fault, when the world population 300 - 400 years ago was a
tiny fraction of what it is now, and virtually none of them used
fossil fuels?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Why don't you answer the question directly yourself? *Its a simple
straightforward question.

Or are you trying to avoid an annoying hole in the green argument?


Going back to Phil's question, the point isn't that it was 'noticed'
100 years ago but that the basic physics was described. If I recall,
some of the earliest science in this area was formulated by Fourier so
in fact that would have been well over 100 years ago.

This is the crux of the matter really. The greenhouse effect is basic,
established physics. At the same time, we know that CO2 levels are
increasing. The uncertainty is in modelling and predicting the
*precise* consequences of that. However there is general agreement on
broad trends and it does not provide good news. If anything
predictions that have been made seem to have been on the optimistic
side.

I don't understand why people feel that when it comes to certain
topics, science is a matter of opinion. Why don't we get threads
about general relativity or something? A lot of the climate change
sceptic stuff that I see on the internet reminds me of the
creationist, anti-evolution opinions that I come across and seems to
employ similar tactics:

- putting forward spurious arguments that have been refuted time after
time
- picking holes in small areas, ignoring the fact that in practice
science relies on real world measurements that contain outliers and
need to be analysed using (again very well understood and
established ) statistical methods
- most importantly, doing the above while not putting forward good
quality peer-reviewed science of their own

Unfortunately these tactics seem to work. Most people are happy to be
ignorant and when the scientific message is as unappealing as it is in
this case, are happy to accept dissenting voices without scepticism.

On 8 Dec, 22:56, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

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 want to stay out of the name calling, but you raise an important
point here because it is something I hear more and more these days and
which seems to be reinforced by the media. Just because there is a
dissenting opinion does not make it equally valid. We're not talking
about opinions about footballers or something here. We're talking
about something that is established by the scientific method versus
something that is just opinion without the underpinning science. It
was this sort of attitude that gave equal air time to that MMR idiot.

On 8 Dec, 22:17, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:

You really are displaying an appalling lack of scientific (and in this
particular case mathematical) knowledge. The Met Office in their
wisdom show the 95% confidence limits as well as the actual figure
for each year. If you take 95% to be +/- two standard deviations then
for the 2 to be equal a reduction of 0.3 of a standard deviation in
the higher and an increase of 0.3 in the lower (or any other
combination with the same sum) is all that is required.

In other words they are fudging the figures.

Two different years - yes or no?


What Roger is saying is that you are not going to get a definitive
temperature to 10 decimal places for each year so you can't compare
years like that. You have to take into account the statistics of the
data sets and there will be some fluctuations around the broad
trends. This means that one data set may show a different warmest
year from another while still demonstrating the same general trend.
Roger showed that the data is indeed in general agreement.

Bob wrote:
On 8 Dec, 22:56, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

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 want to stay out of the name calling, but you raise an important
point here because it is something I hear more and more these days and
which seems to be reinforced by the media. Just because there is a
dissenting opinion does not make it equally valid.

Why should it not be equally valid?

We're not talking
about opinions about footballers or something here. We're talking
about something that is established by the scientific method versus
something that is just opinion without the underpinning science.

But that is the point, the scientific method is seriously flawed.

It
was this sort of attitude that gave equal air time to that MMR idiot.

I'd agree 100% with that. The evidence to support MMR was good, the
evidence against was emotive & unscientific. The opposite to the climate
change argument.


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

Bob wrote:
On 8 Dec, 22:17, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:

You really are displaying an appalling lack of scientific (and in
this particular case mathematical) knowledge. The Met Office in
their wisdom show the 95% confidence limits as well as the actual
figure for each year. If you take 95% to be +/- two standard
deviations then for the 2 to be equal a reduction of 0.3 of a
standard deviation in the higher and an increase of 0.3 in the
lower (or any other combination with the same sum) is all that is
required.

In other words they are fudging the figures.

Two different years - yes or no?


What Roger is saying is that you are not going to get a definitive
temperature to 10 decimal places for each year so you can't compare
years like that.

But they are comparing years and are proposing changes that affect people
lives based on flakey evidence.

You have to take into account the statistics of the
data sets and there will be some fluctuations around the broad
trends. This means that one data set may show a different warmest
year from another while still demonstrating the same general trend.

The figures conveniently ignore history.

Roger showed that the data is indeed in general agreement.

General agreement from people who earn their living from being green is
biased.


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

"Bob" wrote in message
...

This is the crux of the matter really. The greenhouse effect is basic,
established physics. At the same time, we know that CO2 levels are
increasing.

Even that is not proven.
The greenhouse effect relies on the CO2 concentrations in the upper
atmosphere and we don't have any measurements dating back more than a decade
or three.

The uncertainty is in modelling and predicting the
*precise* consequences of that. However there is general agreement on
broad trends and it does not provide good news. If anything
predictions that have been made seem to have been on the optimistic
side.

It is well known that there are benefits from climate change as well as bad
things.
You cannot state that it will be bad for the majority as nobody knows at
this time.


I don't understand why people feel that when it comes to certain
topics, science is a matter of opinion. Why don't we get threads
about general relativity or something? A lot of the climate change
sceptic stuff that I see on the internet reminds me of the
creationist, anti-evolution opinions that I come across and seems to
employ similar tactics:

Well generally believers in relativity don't come here and start telling
everyone that they have to fix the world.


- putting forward spurious arguments that have been refuted time after
time
- picking holes in small areas, ignoring the fact that in practice
science relies on real world measurements that contain outliers and
need to be analysed using (again very well understood and
established ) statistical methods
- most importantly, doing the above while not putting forward good
quality peer-reviewed science of their own

Unfortunately these tactics seem to work. Most people are happy to be
ignorant and when the scientific message is as unappealing as it is in
this case, are happy to accept dissenting voices without scepticism.

Except the good science doesn't show that GW is actually happening or that
it will be bad if it were.
You have just committed the vary offence you accuse others of.. bad science.

On Dec 9, 12:09 pm, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
Phil L wrote:

At the basic level it demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
(despite what Dennis claims) but then that is not exactly news. The
greenhouse effect has been known about for at least 100 years.

If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say that
it had been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it
mankind's fault, when the world population 300 - 400 years ago was a
tiny fraction of what it is now, and virtually none of them used
fossil fuels?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Right. If its on Wikipedia it must be true.

I wonder who wrote it?

Wikipedia is known to be biased towards climate alarmists, so is
useless as a source of climate information.
A number of moderators sit around all day and get rid of changes that
they don't like. e.g. have a look at what William M. Connolley has
done on 8 Dec 09:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...m_M._Connolley

On 9 Dec, 00:11, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Why should it not be equally valid?

Because it has to be backed up to the same degree. I could have an
opinion that the moon is made of green cheese but that doesn't make my
opinion equally valid to the one that says it isn't.


But that is the point, the scientific method is seriously flawed.

Yes it's amazing how little progress has been made in the last 200
years or so!

Come on, you can't just come out with something like that!

in 245042 20091208 190907 "The Medway Handyman" wrote:

The mainstream evidence? Oh, is that like the conclusive evidence that the
hole in the ozone level was going to kill us all?

Tell that to an Australian :
http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmart...andfigures.htm

The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

Phils question was delightfully simple, I'll re post it so you can't ignore
it;

"If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say that it had
been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it mankind's fault, when
the world population 300 - 400 years ago was a tiny fraction of what it is
now, and virtually none of them used fossil fuels?"

Got any answers ****wit?

With every post you get further and further into insanity. Phil got an
answer and hasn't come back again. If I had ignored it Phil wouldn't
have got that answer.

You can churn out as many lies as you like but none of them alter the
reality or the fact that you are a clueless idiot who doesn't understand
the first thing about science.

The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

"Each of the three global temperature centres uses different
observation sets, although there are large overlaps in the
information used. Each centre also has its own methods for checking
and processing data, as well as for making the final calculation."

And they still ****ed up & got different years?

You really are the most ignorant of idiots but do keep on digging. You
are providing a certain level of amusement.

Your verbal diarrhoea is no substitute for rational thought.

in 245119 20091208 230329 "The Medway Handyman" wrote:

You really are the most ignorant of idiots but do keep on digging. You
are providing a certain level of amusement.

Not half as much as you are!

The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

You really are displaying an appalling lack of scientific (and in this
particular case mathematical) knowledge. The Met Office in their
wisdom show the 95% confidence limits as well as the actual figure
for each year. If you take 95% to be +/- two standard deviations then
for the 2 to be equal a reduction of 0.3 of a standard deviation in
the higher and an increase of 0.3 in the lower (or any other
combination with the same sum) is all that is required.

In other words they are fudging the figures.

They are applying proven scientific methods. You on the other hand are
just continuing to be a clueless idiot.

Two different years - yes or no?

You have had the rational explanation. That you chose not to accept it,
or anything else you don't like, comes as no surprise. You are an empty
barrel making a great deal of noise but not any sense.

dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...


It didn't just repair itself. It was pointed out that we were chucking
nasty things into the atmosphere, people stopped doing some of that
and then it started to repair itself.

I think you will find the "hole" was repairing itself before a
significant drop in the CFCs occurred.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Min_ozone.jpg

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
m...
in 245042 20091208 190907 "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

The mainstream evidence? Oh, is that like the conclusive evidence that
the
hole in the ozone level was going to kill us all?

Tell that to an Australian :
http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmart...andfigures.htm

The Australians are prime candidates for skin cancer..

They spend too much time in the sun.
The Earth is closer during the Australian summer
They are of European ancestry

The ozone hole adds little to it.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...


It didn't just repair itself. It was pointed out that we were chucking
nasty things into the atmosphere, people stopped doing some of that and
then it started to repair itself.

I think you will find the "hole" was repairing itself before a
significant drop in the CFCs occurred.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Min_ozone.jpg

Posting half the story again.
The half that supports your view.

A hint.. how big is the hole or how much less O3 is there in mass?

dennis@home wrote:



It didn't just repair itself. It was pointed out that we were
chucking nasty things into the atmosphere, people stopped doing some
of that and then it started to repair itself.

I think you will find the "hole" was repairing itself before a
significant drop in the CFCs occurred.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Min_ozone.jpg

Posting half the story again.
The half that supports your view.

A hint.. how big is the hole or how much less O3 is there in mass?

Why don't you tell us then?

I posted that link so you could see for yourself how well (or not) the
repair had been going. If either you or TMH have evidence to back up
your claims now is the time to provide it.

On Dec 8, 8:37*pm, "The Medway Handyman"

As I have said before the green house effect and CO2 being a
greenhouse gas are both established fact. That you are prepared to go
on denying such facts makes you a laughing stock but doesn't alter
the said facts.

They are only established facts in your deluded imagination.

Now you are being a little stupid.

The greenhouse effect is well understood and an established fact.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is an established fact. It is not,
however the most abundant greenhouse "gas" in the atmosphere.

Climate change (both cooling and warming) is an established fact.

What hasn't been proven to any degree if certainty is:
- The magnitude of the contribution to warming (or cooling) of any of
the various atmospheric constituents that cause warming
- Is the warming/cooling caused by man or natural processes
- is there anything we can do about it
- is it even worth trying to do anything about it.

MBQ

On Dec 9, 8:23*am, Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Clive George" wrote in message
news:u6KdnTC7p4rYIoPWnZ2dnUVZ8kidnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...

It didn't just repair itself. It was pointed out that we were chucking
nasty things into the atmosphere, people stopped doing some of that
and then it started to repair itself.

I think you will find the "hole" was repairing itself before a
significant drop in the CFCs occurred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Min_ozone.jpg

Where's the data for pre-1979? How do YOU know there was an unnatural
hole in the ozone layer. Given the significant year-on-year variation,
that graph proves nothing except that there was a decrease from the
1979 level. It's also a classic example of truncating the vertical
axis to make it appear to the less observant that the low point was
virtually zero.

MBQ

On Dec 8, 11:50*pm, Bob wrote:
On 8 Dec, 22:56, "The Medway Handyman"

wrote:
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 want to stay out of the name calling, but you raise an important
point here because it is something I hear more and more these days and
which seems to be reinforced by the media. *Just because there is a
dissenting opinion does not make it equally valid. *

Nor does it make it a lie as some here seem to think.

It's stupid to try and argue against the greenhouse effect and CO2 as
a greenhouse gas but the remainder of the AGW debate is still just
that, open to debate. When really challenged, the AGW supporters
resort to name calling and ad-hominem attackes. If their science is so
settled why do they feel the need to do that?

We're not talking
about opinions about footballers or something here. *We're talking
about something that is established by the scientific method versus
something that is just opinion without the underpinning science. *It
was this sort of attitude that gave equal air time to that MMR idiot.

No, that was a misguided campaign by the Daily Wail. Everyone with a
scientific interest knew that Wakefield went public BEFORE the data
was peer reviewed.

It's similar in that the public are now being fed endless "caused by
GW" stories that have equally little basis in fact.

MBQ

On Dec 8, 8:42*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

What is of course perfectly clear is that the best way to save carbon is
not to burn fuel.

That's a perfectly good end in itself, conserving resources for future
generations and cutting pollution (real pollution, not "CO2
emissions"). It could very easily be achieved through the existing tax
system, without all the eco-bollox, but there is no political will to
do so.

HL Mencken “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

MBQ

On Dec 8, 11:03*pm, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Given that the Met Office and NASA don't use exactly the same data
but still get broad agreement between their figures, particularly
over the last 20 years, you have to wonder where the deniers get
their so called facts from.

Are you sure?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...ined/explained....

"Furthermore, while the UK Met Office regards 1998 as the hottest
year yet, Nasa thinks it was 2005 (they use the same data but
interpret it differently)."

I said:

1) That they don't use exactly the same data and

They said they use the same data!

I thought it was going to be difficult for me to track down where it
was that I saw the original information but it turned out to be
ridiculously easy. There it was bold as brass in the text of the link
I gave.
"Each of the three global temperature centres uses different
observation sets, although there are large overlaps in the
information used. Each centre also has its own methods for checking
and processing data, as well as for making the final calculation."

And they still ****ed up & got different years?

You really are the most ignorant of idiots but do keep on digging. You
are providing a certain level of amusement.

You really aren't doing yourself any favours. Sign up for a night
class in statistics and you may come to understand.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:

HL Mencken “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

How very true.
Interesting "Hard Talk" programme on BBCNews24. Some pompous BBC type
telling Greenland how to manage its affairs now that it's becoming a
green and pleasant land.

John Rumm wrote:

snip

One of the things that interests me is why so little attention is paid
to water vapour. IIUC this is by far the most significant "greenhouse
gas" - and concentrations of that dwarf CO2 (man made or otherwise).

(the cynic might say that perhaps its because if you include it, you
make the man made CO2 component look far less significant, and that does
not suit the agenda!)

Even the much maligned Wikipedia article acknowledges that water vapour
is the most important greenhouse gas. The actual likely limits it quotes
a

Water 36 - 70%
CO2 9 - 26%
Methane 4 - 9%
Ozone 3 - 7%

There are several reasons why the importance of water vapour seems lost
at least to the media. One of these might be that we have precious
little control over the level of water vapour in the atmosphere. Another
might be the difference in scale between the additional water vapour if
the atmosphere warms by 1 degree C and the 50% increase in atmospheric
CO2 from pre industrial times.

It is important to distinguish between the deniers for whom the whole
notion of global warming is complete ******** however compelling the
evidence and the sceptics who think the effects have been exaggerated
for political reasons. I am naturally a sceptic myself but I am being
driven into the arms of the warmers by the activities of the deniers and
the knowledge that the sceptic's case is tarnished by their general
failure to disassociate themselves from the deniers.

I repeat below what I said in the tree planting thread:

"Facts have a surprising habit of not changing without due cause. But
just for the record I will reiterate what I currently believe.

1) The world has been warming up, with only the odd blip, for at at
least the last 100 years and so far at least shows no sign of reversing
the trend.

2) CO2 has had a significant part to play in that warming and it really
is of no consequence how big a share of that is due to the activities of
humankind.

3) A warmer world is very bad news indeed for a sizeable proportion of
the world's population.

4) If the world continues to warm at some time in the not too distant
future the equilibrium will break down and we will swap the current
inter-glacial for an ice free hot world.

5) Nothing we do in this country will be enough to effect the outcome.
If countries with large populations fail to act to cut their carbon
output and, perhaps more crucially, stop breeding like rabbits, then the
rest might just as well not bother.

Now will all those "educated people in this group" who Dennis claims
disagree with me please stand up (metaphorically speaking) so I can see
who they are."

snip

On 9 Dec, 00:31, "dennis@home" wrote:
The greenhouse effect relies on the CO2 concentrations in the upper
atmosphere and we don't have any measurements dating back more than a decade
or three.

OK that's interesting. Can you provide a reference for this please?


It is well known that there are benefits from climate change as well as bad
things.
You cannot state that it will be bad for the majority as nobody knows at
this time.

It's 'well known' is it?

It is true that the term 'global warming' is misleading as it might be
taken to imply that everywhere just gets a bit hotter. And those of us
in the UK might be forgiven for thinking "that's all right. Wouldn't
mind it being a bit sunnier". The problem is that what we are talking
about is an increase of energy into weather systems. That means more
extremes and less predictability. It means more floods and more
hurricanes. It means the encroachment of desert areas and the loss of
agricultural land.

One thing that is predictable is that higher average temperatures mean
higher sea levels. That would be catastrophic for many people - there
won't be many winners there. For example, even if you're not directly
affected, think about how much of the global economy depends on
shipping. How quickly do you think new infrastructure such as ports
could be established?

Another example. Based on latitude, the UK is much warmer than it
ought to be because of the Gulf Stream. I don't how the stability of
the Gulf Stream is related to global climate. I don't know if anyone
does but do we really want to do the experiment to find out.

I don't understand why people feel that when it comes to certain
topics, science is a matter of opinion. *Why don't we get threads
about general relativity or something? *A lot of the climate change
sceptic stuff that I see on the internet reminds me of the
creationist, anti-evolution opinions that I come across and seems to
employ similar tactics:

Well generally believers in relativity don't come here and start telling
everyone that they have to fix the world.


So you are saying that because you don't like the consequences of the
science, the science is wrong?


Except the good science doesn't show that GW is actually happening or that
it will be bad if it were.
You have just committed the vary offence you accuse others of.. bad science.

Please elaborate. You are implying that the good science shows that
climate change isn't happening and that it might be OK even if it is.
Where is this body of work?

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On 9 Dec, 00:31, "dennis@home" wrote:
The greenhouse effect relies on the CO2 concentrations in the upper
atmosphere and we don't have any measurements dating back more than a
decade
or three.

OK that's interesting. Can you provide a reference for this please?


It is well known that there are benefits from climate change as well as
bad
things.
You cannot state that it will be bad for the majority as nobody knows at
this time.

It's 'well known' is it?

It is true that the term 'global warming' is misleading as it might be
taken to imply that everywhere just gets a bit hotter. And those of us
in the UK might be forgiven for thinking "that's all right. Wouldn't
mind it being a bit sunnier". The problem is that what we are talking
about is an increase of energy into weather systems.

That isn't strictly true.
Unless there is more energy arriving from the Sun there will be no more
energy than there is now.
If there is more energy from the sun then that would explain the increases
in temperature.

That means more
extremes and less predictability. It means more floods and more
hurricanes.

Some models predict less hurricanes.
The weather we have been having isn't really freak at all, we just get more
damage than we used to due to our life styles.

It means the encroachment of desert areas and the loss of
agricultural land.

That depends more on wind patterns than temperatures and the climate models
can't predict them.


One thing that is predictable is that higher average temperatures mean
higher sea levels. That would be catastrophic for many people - there
won't be many winners there. For example, even if you're not directly
affected, think about how much of the global economy depends on
shipping. How quickly do you think new infrastructure such as ports
could be established?

As fast as needed, they are not difficult to provide.


Another example. Based on latitude, the UK is much warmer than it
ought to be because of the Gulf Stream. I don't how the stability of
the Gulf Stream is related to global climate. I don't know if anyone
does but do we really want to do the experiment to find out.

The gulf stream has stopped in the past, it was cold, much like Europe is.
I don't see millions suffering/dying each year in Russia.#


I don't understand why people feel that when it comes to certain
topics, science is a matter of opinion. Why don't we get threads
about general relativity or something? A lot of the climate change
sceptic stuff that I see on the internet reminds me of the
creationist, anti-evolution opinions that I come across and seems to
employ similar tactics:

Well generally believers in relativity don't come here and start telling
everyone that they have to fix the world.


So you are saying that because you don't like the consequences of the
science, the science is wrong?

I have no problems with climate change, just the causes and how to fix it.
Climate change is a natural event and we have to live with it,
there is lots of proof that it has happened before even if you deny it.
We are *not* going to be able to prevent it and anyone that thinks we can
needs their science examining.




Except the good science doesn't show that GW is actually happening or
that
it will be bad if it were.
You have just committed the vary offence you accuse others of.. bad
science.

Please elaborate. You are implying that the good science shows that
climate change isn't happening and that it might be OK even if it is.

See what I mean, nowhere have I said climate change doesn't happen.

Where is this body of work?

In you imagination I would think.

in 245266 20091209 140503 "dennis@home" wrote:

It is true that the term 'global warming' is misleading as it might be
taken to imply that everywhere just gets a bit hotter. And those of us
in the UK might be forgiven for thinking "that's all right. Wouldn't
mind it being a bit sunnier". The problem is that what we are talking
about is an increase of energy into weather systems.

That isn't strictly true.
Unless there is more energy arriving from the Sun there will be no more
energy than there is now.
If there is more energy from the sun then that would explain the increases
in temperature.

That's too simplistic - what matters is the %age of energy arriving from the sun which is retained in the atmosphere,

Bob Martin wrote:
in 245266 20091209 140503 "dennis@home" wrote:

It is true that the term 'global warming' is misleading as it might be
taken to imply that everywhere just gets a bit hotter. And those of us
in the UK might be forgiven for thinking "that's all right. Wouldn't
mind it being a bit sunnier". The problem is that what we are talking
about is an increase of energy into weather systems.
That isn't strictly true.
Unless there is more energy arriving from the Sun there will be no more
energy than there is now.
If there is more energy from the sun then that would explain the increases
in temperature.

That's too simplistic - what matters is the %age of energy arriving from the sun which is retained in the atmosphere,

Or to look at it another way, if the atmosphere is warmer there will be
more energy in it. That after all is the only reason it is warmer.

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

Phils question was delightfully simple, I'll re post it so you can't
ignore it;

"If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say that
it had been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it
mankind's fault, when the world population 300 - 400 years ago was a
tiny fraction of what it is now, and virtually none of them used
fossil fuels?" Got any answers ****wit?

With every post you get further and further into insanity. Phil got an
answer and hasn't come back again. If I had ignored it Phil wouldn't
have got that answer.


The wiki page got boring after 2 minutes, but I didn't see any explanation
as to when this 'trend' began, or any possible causes


You can churn out as many lies as you like but none of them alter the
reality or the fact that you are a clueless idiot who doesn't
understand the first thing about science.

I'm not denying that climate change is occuring, I'm just saying that it's
highly unlikely to have anything whatsoever to do with mankind.
The earth regularly warms and cools over millions of years, or occasionally,
very rapidly. This has occured hundreds, if not thousands of times according
to scientists, and yet mankind has only been around for one, maybe two of
these cycles.

--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008

On 9 Dec, 17:13, "Phil L" wrote:
I'm not denying that climate change is occuring, I'm just saying that it's
highly unlikely to have anything whatsoever to do with mankind.
The earth regularly warms and cools over millions of years, or occasionally,
very rapidly. This has occured hundreds, if not thousands of times according
to scientists, and yet mankind has only been around for one, maybe two of
these cycles.

Right. So if (from whatever cause) we're entering another period of
rapid climate change that threatens our very existence, you're quite
happy for us to sit back and let it happen?

The important questions a does climate change pose a threat, and if
it does is there anything we can do about it? The cause (natural, man-
made or a bit of both) is largely immaterial.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

Phil L wrote:

Phils question was delightfully simple, I'll re post it so you can't
ignore it;
"If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say that
it had been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it
mankind's fault, when the world population 300 - 400 years ago was a
tiny fraction of what it is now, and virtually none of them used
fossil fuels?" Got any answers ****wit?

snip

The wiki page got boring after 2 minutes, but I didn't see any explanation
as to when this 'trend' began, or any possible causes

That is the problem with science. Far too boring to be interesting to
all too many people.

But the greenhouse effect has always been with us (at least as long as
there have been greenhouse gases in the atmosphere). Fourier, Tyndall
and Arrhenius all played their part in developing the theory.

I'm not denying that climate change is occuring, I'm just saying that it's
highly unlikely to have anything whatsoever to do with mankind.
The earth regularly warms and cools over millions of years, or occasionally,
very rapidly. This has occured hundreds, if not thousands of times according
to scientists, and yet mankind has only been around for one, maybe two of
these cycles.

The is quite a long list of things that contribute to the variability of
climate. One of these is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This
is now about 50% above the pre industrial level. You might not think
that the huge amount of CO2 resulting from human activity in the recent
past has anything to do with this rise or with climate change but the
great majority of the scientists who investigate such matters do.

On Dec 9, 6:19*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:


The is quite a long list of things that contribute to the variability of
climate. One of these is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This
is now about 50% above the pre industrial level. You might not think
that the huge amount of CO2 resulting from human activity in the recent
past has anything to do with this rise or with climate change but the
great majority of the scientists who investigate such matters do.

So? Were the majority who used to believe in the miasmatic theory of
disease correct?

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples where passionately and
strongly held majority views were eventually shown to be wrong.

What's different about AGW?

MBQ