Roger 'Wikiman' Chapman wrote:


I answered the question twice. That you can't see it just makes you
The Medway Moron.

OK then ****wit, either tell me the date & time of the posts, repost
your reply, or shut the **** up.

Posting a link to a Wikipedia page IS NOT answering the question.

I know this is the panto season but I don't see the need to trade oh
yes it is/Oh no it isn't with The Medway Moron.

You don't see the need to answer questions either. All you are capable of
is throwing around pathetic insults - and you're not even any good at that.

If he wants me to stop pointing out he is posting garbage then he can
stop posting. That will cut down greatly the opportunities I have for
demonstrating his wide ranging ignorance. I don't suppose he will
though. He seems to glory in his failure to understand even simple
ideas.

So, you've lost the argument then?

******.


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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

At that level shouldn't we be concentrating on just about anything
else aimed at reducing global warming and forget about reducing CO2
output?

Well that is like it or not the biggest driver which we have potential
control over. Unless you want to reintroduce smog and industrial pollution.

But if the 0.4C rise for doubling CO2 is correct there is something else
driving the current warming phase and tinkering with CO2 levels will
have a negligible effect. Average temperatures have risen by about 0.4C
over the last 25 years.

It would of course help the sceptics argument if that (possibly
imaginary) 'something else' could be positively identified.

Smog and industrial pollution we can leave to the Chinese but seeding
the upper atmosphere to mimic a volcanic eruption is one of the more
viable alternative suggestions around although I think the apparent
preferred choice of sulphur dioxide is more than a little unfortunate.

The Medway Moron wrote:

snip


So, you've lost the argument then?

An argument in which you haven't made any attempt to adduce a single
fact and have displayed an appalling level of ignorance into the
bargain. Don't be silly.

******.

Talking about yourself again I see.

Roger 'Wikiman' Chapman wrote:
The Medway Moron wrote:

Another insult from someone who has run out or arguments.

The deniers will meanwhile go on without a care in the world as
their case is based on faith, not reason.

You could of course rephrase that as;

"Those who have a different opinion to mine....

But you deliberately choose the pergoartive term 'deniers'.

I chose to differentiate between the deniers like yourself and the
sceptics who argue from a scientific point of view.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I'll give you a clue. Popper.


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".

Sums you up perfectly.


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Moron wrote:

snip


The experiment that began this thread is
probably the sort of thing The Medway Moron would meet in primary
school science if he ever progressed that far.

Instead of insulting me in your pathetic manner, why don't you try
answering some questions?

(Without posting a link to a Wikipedia page).

Question: Does The Medway Moron understand anything about science.

Answer: No.

Question: Does The Medway Moron understand anything about statistics.

Answer: No.

Two questions posed and answered without the need to check Wikipedia
or any other reference source other than this very thread.

Two pathetic attempts at insulting me, which shows what a complete and utter
tosser you are.

If you have to resort to this you clearly have no argument left.


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

At that level shouldn't we be concentrating on just about anything
else aimed at reducing global warming and forget about reducing CO2
output?

Well that is like it or not the biggest driver which we have potential
control over. Unless you want to reintroduce smog and industrial
pollution.

But if the 0.4C rise for doubling CO2 is correct

It isn't.

there is something else
driving the current warming phase and tinkering with CO2 levels will
have a negligible effect. Average temperatures have risen by about 0.4C
over the last 25 years.


It doesn't work like that. There is a MASSIVE lag due to things like
oceans and icecaps taking a LONG time to warm up.



It would of course help the sceptics argument if that (possibly
imaginary) 'something else' could be positively identified.

Smog and industrial pollution we can leave to the Chinese but seeding
the upper atmosphere to mimic a volcanic eruption is one of the more
viable alternative suggestions around although I think the apparent
preferred choice of sulphur dioxide is more than a little unfortunate.


Indeed.

george [dicegeorge] wrote:
I keep on quoting Wikipedia for 3
reasons:

1) It is an easy source of information and so saves me time.

2) xx

3) xx
4 - if wikipedia is misleading or inaccurate it is possible to update it
thus increasing and improving the common treasury of knowledge.

It is certainly misleading. I'll kick off with my specialist subject, a
Tornado ADV.

We had an influx of ex RAF men who thought that they knew everything
about them. It took them about 2 days to find out they didn't. We had
spent (or I had) 21 years on the development of that aircraft.

The wiki entry is in ' ' quotes.

'The Panavia Tornado Air Defence Variant (ADV) is an interceptor version
of the Panavia Tornado in service with the British Royal Air Force. The
aircraft's first flight was on 27 October 1979'

This is untrue as it wasn't a true ADV It was a mish mash of an extended
Tornado IDS version. It had Tornado wings and a Tornado fin and as such,
had the outboard wing hard points that the RAF put back on in later years.


'The Tornado ADV's differences compared to the IDS include a greater
sweep angle on the inboard fixed wing sections'

Untrue again, the first 3 had IDS wings and fins. There were tiny
differences between the two styles of wings, but nothing drastic. Later
production ones were similar.


'The Tornado F2 (sometimes written as F.2) was the initial version of
the Tornado ADV in Royal Air Force service, with 18 being built. It
first flew on March 5, 1984 and was powered by the same RB.199 Mk 103
engines used by the IDS Tornado, capable of four wing sweep settings'

It was capable of any wing sweep between 25 and 67 degrees. Only later
was it given auto wing sweep depending on its flight speed, as was
described later in the wiki.


'and fitted to carry only two under wing Sidewinder missiles.'

To carry 4, it was just a wiring change through the wings from the
weapons computer and the addition of a stub to carry the additional
Sidewinder. The stub is what you might consider a small pylon connected
to the main wing pylon that the missile was mounted to. It was common to
both variants of Tornado


'Serious problems were discovered with the Foxhunter radar, which meant
that the aircraft were delivered with concrete and lead ballast
installed in the nose as an interim measure until they could be fitted
with the radar sets.'

The reason ballast is fitted is to ensure that the centre of lift is at
the same place as the centre of balance of the aircraft. If it is not at
the same place, the pilot could not control the flight path. It was made
out of steel, and no concrete, or lead was used.


'The ballast was nicknamed Blue Circle, which was a play on the Rainbow
Codes nomenclature, and a British brand of cement called Blue Circle.'

Mmmm. Close. But definitely no cigar.


'The Tornado F3 made its combat debut in the 1991 Gulf War'

It entered combat service, just after the Falklands war, after we at
British Aerospace had done a modification to give them chaff and flair
capability, to fend off un-friendly missiles. In the event, they didn't
need them, as the Argies stayed home.


'with 18 aircraft deployed to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. However, they did
not get the opportunity to engage any enemy aircraft. The F3 lacked
modern IFF and a full suite of defensive aids,'

It had the same, or better IFF (interogator, friend or foe, used to
check if another aircraft, in the area was, well, would you believe, a
friend, or an enemy) that the ids version had that was doing the
bombing. It didn't have full RHWR (radar homing and warning receiver) to
the same extent that a GR1 had and didn't have the structure built in to
mount it


'thus they flew patrols further back from Iraqi airspace where
encounters with enemy aircraft were less likely.'

This was because the Saudi's had foreseen the need for the defence for
this and had it built into the aircraft they ordered. Chaff and flair
dispensers were built into all their ADV's to prevent a chance of an
enemy missile from shooting them down.


'The CSP would see the removal of a non-standard state of aircraft;
various upgrades (notably to the Foxhunter radar) had led to the
situation described as "fleets within fleets." However the Foxhunter
radar, having overcome many of the early difficulties, was to cause
significant problems during the upgrade programme.'

These problems came about because of the various computers needing to
talk to each other. It was solved many years earlier by a data bus.

On the subject of this radar, I was asked to ground crew an F3 (this was
not my job, but I was cleared to do it.) When the aircraft landed, the
navigator came down the steps and told me that the US stealth bomber was
on its way to the UK and that he had seen it on his radar. It was coming
over for an aircraft display somewhere down South and was in the mid
Atlantic. Mmmm Should I be writing this? But there again it was some
time ago. That amazed me.

Dave

The Medway Moron wrote:

snip

But you deliberately choose the pergoartive term 'deniers'.

I chose to differentiate between the deniers like yourself and the
sceptics who argue from a scientific point of view.

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

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


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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Instead of insulting me in your pathetic manner, why don't you try
answering some questions?

(Without posting a link to a Wikipedia page).
Question: Does The Medway Moron understand anything about science.

Answer: No.

Question: Does The Medway Moron understand anything about statistics.

Answer: No.

Two questions posed and answered without the need to check Wikipedia
or any other reference source other than this very thread.

Two pathetic attempts at insulting me, which shows what a complete and utter
tosser you are.

If you have to resort to this you clearly have no argument left.

I have answered all the previous questions so I thought I would pose
some of my own. You may not like them but they are a truthful and
reasonably accurate representation of your abilities as evidenced in
this thread. The lack of statistical knowledge is particularly evident.
When it comes to statistics you have absolutely no knowledge at all.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But if the 0.4C rise for doubling CO2 is correct

It isn't.

But what if it was? I don't know enough about the finer points of the
science to pull holes in the link I quoted.

there is something else driving the current warming phase and
tinkering with CO2 levels will have a negligible effect. Average
temperatures have risen by about 0.4C over the last 25 years.


It doesn't work like that. There is a MASSIVE lag due to things like
oceans and icecaps taking a LONG time to warm up.

That isn't exactly what I meant. I was trying to make the point that we
have had an 0.4C rise in a period during which the CO2 levels rose by a
much smaller amount than the doubling proposed by the sceptic.

It would of course help the sceptics argument if that (possibly
imaginary) 'something else' could be positively identified.

Smog and industrial pollution we can leave to the Chinese but seeding
the upper atmosphere to mimic a volcanic eruption is one of the more
viable alternative suggestions around although I think the apparent
preferred choice of sulphur dioxide is more than a little unfortunate.


Indeed.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But if the 0.4C rise for doubling CO2 is correct

It isn't.

But what if it was? I don't know enough about the finer points of the
science to pull holes in the link I quoted.

But you know enough to accuse anyone that questions it idiots.
It says a lot about you.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
The jury is well & truly still out on climate change being man made.

Which jury would that be? And how can you convince us that we
shold trust it to give accurate answers?

#Paul

Man at B&Q wrote:
It's the magnitude of the some that I question. How much of any
warming is due to man and how much to natural climate change?

If only we had some kind of international team of scientists
to try to work out the best answer they could manage. Surely
they'd be more likely to get it right than us lot waffling
and/or ranting inanely on the internet. Oh well -- if only the
world were better organized, eh?

#Paul

Roger 'Wikipedia' Chapman wrote:
The Medway Moron wrote:

snip


So, you've lost the argument then?

An argument in which you haven't made any attempt to adduce a single
fact and have displayed an appalling level of ignorance into the
bargain. Don't be silly.

So far in this argument you have made unsubstantiated claims about man made
climate change. When challenged you have ignored several pertinant
questions, then evaded the issue, then claimed you have answered several
questions when you haven't.

I'll remind you, the burden of proof is on the proponent of the argument.

You started off by becoming Mr Angry when a reasoned polite reply to
Dennis's post was all that was required. By your fourth post you were
raving like a madman and had started throwing insults about.

You have frequently abused anyone challenging your opinions by calling them
mavericks, deniers, lunatics, nutters & more recently sceptics. Your only
answer when challenged is to refer to Wikipedia pages that are at best
dubious in their accuracy and almost certainly biased.

When its become obvious you are losing the argument you have become abusive
and resorted to ad hominem attacks and pathetic attempts to insult people.

Its obvious you have never learnt to think for yourself.

******.

Talking about yourself again I see.

A prime example of your behavior. Unable to answer any of the questions
raised you resort to abuse. The equivilant to the schoolboy "no you" retort.
Very clever. You obviously lack the intellectual capacity to even insult
people properly.

What a sad gullible idiot you are..


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Moron wrote:

snip

But you deliberately choose the pergoartive term 'deniers'.

I chose to differentiate between the deniers like yourself and the
sceptics who argue from a scientific point of view.

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?

What a reasoned attitude.


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?

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 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.


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.

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?


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.

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

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?


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Instead of insulting me in your pathetic manner, why don't you try
answering some questions?

(Without posting a link to a Wikipedia page).
Question: Does The Medway Moron understand anything about science.

Answer: No.

Question: Does The Medway Moron understand anything about
statistics. Answer: No.

Two questions posed and answered without the need to check Wikipedia
or any other reference source other than this very thread.

Two pathetic attempts at insulting me, which shows what a complete
and utter tosser you are.

If you have to resort to this you clearly have no argument left.

I have answered all the previous questions so I thought I would pose
some of my own. You may not like them but they are a truthful and
reasonably accurate representation of your abilities as evidenced in
this thread. The lack of statistical knowledge is particularly
evident. When it comes to statistics you have absolutely no knowledge
at all.

Is that your best shot ******?

You haven't answered a single question. I've repeated them several times
and offered you the chance to quote the dates of the posts or repeat the
answers.

You have not only failed to do so, you have become more & more abusive in a
pathetic attempt to evade the questions.


So, insults failed. Answer some of the questions. If Wikipedia crashes you
are buggered mind.


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

The Medway Moron wrote:

Another pack of lies that do nothing other than emphasise the paucity of
his argument and his lack of regard for anything approaching the truth.

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.

The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

You haven't answered a single question. I've repeated them several times
and offered you the chance to quote the dates of the posts or repeat the
answers.

I answered Phil's question twice and have dealt with the black swan
issue. I don't recall you asking me to answer any other questions but
you have been posting so much garbage I could easily have overlooked an
actual question in among all the insults.

You have not only failed to do so, you have become more & more abusive in a
pathetic attempt to evade the questions.

Try looking in a mirror.

So, insults failed. Answer some of the questions. If Wikipedia crashes you
are buggered mind.

Is that another question? It doesn't actually make sense but then when
does anything you write.

Here is another link for you. It seems unlikely that you will actually
learn anything from it but that is because you have a closed mind, not
because the cite is content free.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:12:43 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

You have not only failed to do so, you have become more & more abusive in a
pathetic attempt to evade the questions.


And you have become more & more abusive
in a pathetic attempt to do *what*, exactly?

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:07:48 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Climate change is indeed natural in my, and many others, opinion.


In what way are you qualified to even *have* an opinion on such a
complex, intensely scientific subject?

You are fond of quoting (Lord) Nigel Lawson who, thanks to his
background as a barrister, knew absolutely nothing about economics,
and displayed his complete lack of knowledge and expertise as one of
the most incompetent Chancellors of the Exchequer that this country
has ever had.

Now Lawson brings his complete lack of knowledge and expertise to the
"debate" about climate change. Coupled with the fact that he still
knows less than nothing about economics, he is certainly one of the
most authoritative sources of complete ignorance about the subject.

The man is a complete buffoon. So why quote him? Because he agrees
with you?

It's the blind, leading the blind.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:35:31 +0000, wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
The jury is well & truly still out on climate change being man made.

Which jury would that be?


It's the same "jury" of assorted ultra-right wing neo-conservative
kooks who are backed by Big Oil, Big Business and the US
military/industrial complex. The same guys who took us into two
illegal wars that have dramatically increased the risk of Islamist
terror attacks on the UK.


And how can you convince us that we
shold trust it to give accurate answers?


See above. With their track record, they couldn't possibly be wrong
about climate change, could they?

Still, President Palin will have the chance to prove to the world
there is no such thing as human-induced climate change when she takes
office in 2013. ;-)

On 10 Dec, 14:46, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message

Temperature is not a measure of the energy in a system.. it is the measure
of one type of energy in a system.
I can easily put energy into a system without changing its temperature.. I
could put an AA battery on a shelf, or a stick of dynamite in there, neither
has increased its temperature but the energy has gone up.
The same with water vapour, it has energy due to its state which can be
converted to heat energy but isn't.
In fact I can lower the temperature of a system by making water vapour out
of water already in that system.

OK you are absolutely right about this and I apologise for the tone of
my previous posting. It was done in a hurry and I didn't engage my
brain.

I was thinking about the specific case that had been under discussion
of an atmosphere and what it means for there to be more storms etc.
In a gas, temperature is essentially equivalent to kinetic energy.

But what are we arguing about anyway?

If we trace it back:

I said that climate change was not likely to be good for anyone
because it leads to more extreme weather. This happens because of an
increase of energy.

You said that the energy isn't increasing unless there is more coming
from the sun.

It was then pointed out that the reason for more energy is that a
greater proportion is retained because of greenhouse gases.

Somehow the argument then got turned on its head and you said:

"There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase
its
temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms. "

Whatever the issue about temperature, isn't this back to what I was
saying in the first place?

On 08/12/2009 00:18 The Medway Handyman wrote:

The facts of the matter are that the green tree
hugger pressure groups have created an industry devoted to proving that (a)
global warming actually exists

But it does: we've had it ever since the last ice age...

--
F

On 10 Dec, 00:27, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message

A very odd feedback mechanism..
if it were simple then the first hot day we have will result in more water
vapour..
leading to higher temps..
leading to more water vapour..
leading to the end of life as we know it Jim.

First of all, do you accept that water vapour is a greenhouse gas?
I'll assume so because that was the premise of John Rumm's message.

The runaway feedback you describe clearly *doesn't* happen otherwise
we wouldn't be here to talk about it. What actually happens is that
the water vapour concentration reaches an equilibrium maximum
concentration that is dependent on temperature and pressure. Beyond
that maximum the atmosphere simply can't hold any more vapour and it
precipitates out. I don't know the details but based on mathematical
considerations I guess that there is a nonlinear relationship between
the maximum concentration and temperature that allows the feedback to
reach an equilbrium rather than running away.


In summary, water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas but it is
not a 'driver' for the process of increasing the greenhouse effect.

So it isn't a feedback mechanism then?

Yes it is, but it's a limited feedback as described above. The
difference between water vapour and CO2 is that CO2 stays in the
atmosphere and its concentration can increase. As a greenhouse gas it
has the effect of raising temperatures which then allows the water
vapour concentration to increase. This in turn has its own greehouse
effect contribution. So overall the effect of the CO2 increase is
higher than that due to CO2 alone because it is amplified by the
contribution of the water vapour. This is what I meant when I said
that the water vapour is not the 'driver' for the process.

F wrote:
On 08/12/2009 00:18 The Medway Handyman wrote:

The facts of the matter are that the green tree hugger pressure groups
have created an industry devoted to proving that (a) global warming
actually exists

But it does: we've had it ever since the last ice age...

Indeed. And before that Global Cooling (TM) was the excuse to hunt more
woolly mammoths to make bikinis out of. I saw it on a fillum once.

So it must be true.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On 10 Dec, 14:46, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message

Temperature is not a measure of the energy in a system.. it is the
measure
of one type of energy in a system.
I can easily put energy into a system without changing its temperature..
I
could put an AA battery on a shelf, or a stick of dynamite in there,
neither
has increased its temperature but the energy has gone up.
The same with water vapour, it has energy due to its state which can be
converted to heat energy but isn't.
In fact I can lower the temperature of a system by making water vapour
out
of water already in that system.

OK you are absolutely right about this and I apologise for the tone of
my previous posting. It was done in a hurry and I didn't engage my
brain.

I was thinking about the specific case that had been under discussion
of an atmosphere and what it means for there to be more storms etc.
In a gas, temperature is essentially equivalent to kinetic energy.

But what are we arguing about anyway?

If we trace it back:

I said that climate change was not likely to be good for anyone
because it leads to more extreme weather. This happens because of an
increase of energy.

You said that the energy isn't increasing unless there is more coming
from the sun.

It was then pointed out that the reason for more energy is that a
greater proportion is retained because of greenhouse gases.

Somehow the argument then got turned on its head and you said:

"There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase
its
temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms. "

Whatever the issue about temperature, isn't this back to what I was
saying in the first place?


I am not sure.
The amount of energy available to a storm depends more on the local wind
conditions, water masses, etc.
GW is unlikely to affect those.
It may make it so the storms occur more often as there is slightly more
energy to drive the recovery processes.
The so called freak storms we have been having aren't statistically freaks
either, its just people being alarmist.
The damage is not caused by the storms but by the poor planning and building
in places they shouldn't.
Look at London, much of it has flooded in the past and it will flood again.

"Bob" wrote in message
...


Yes it is, but it's a limited feedback as described above. The
difference between water vapour and CO2 is that CO2 stays in the
atmosphere and its concentration can increase. As a greenhouse gas it
has the effect of raising temperatures which then allows the water
vapour concentration to increase. This in turn has its own greehouse
effect contribution. So overall the effect of the CO2 increase is
higher than that due to CO2 alone because it is amplified by the
contribution of the water vapour. This is what I meant when I said
that the water vapour is not the 'driver' for the process.

Water vapour does different things depending on where it is.
At high levels it causes clouds that reflect the suns energy.
This has a significant effect as was shown following measurements done
around 9/11 when the planes were grounded.
For a few days far higher levels of the suns energy reached the ground and
temps were up by a few degrees.

At low levels it causes rain which releases energy into the air and creates
storms, some of which may reach the upper levels and affect the clouds up
there.

Its rather complicated and chaotic.. the models simplify all this and a few
dozen other known effects.
Depending on which simplifications you chose to make you can have an ice
age, GW or just continue as you are.

Then there are the unknown mechanisms.

Bob wrote:
On 10 Dec, 00:27, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message

A very odd feedback mechanism..
if it were simple then the first hot day we have will result in more water
vapour..
leading to higher temps..
leading to more water vapour..
leading to the end of life as we know it Jim.

First of all, do you accept that water vapour is a greenhouse gas?
I'll assume so because that was the premise of John Rumm's message.

The runaway feedback you describe clearly *doesn't* happen otherwise
we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

It has happened in the past and yes, we weren't around to talk about it.

Life as we know it depends more or less on the temperatures being
somehat between 0C and 50C. Maybe 60C. water needs to go up as vapour
and come down as rain. Too hot and it wont rain. Too cold and it never
goes up in the first place.



Her is an interesting clip, for a start.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth)

"In the 1960s, Mikhail Budyko, a Russian climatologist, developed a
simple energy-balance climate model to investigate the effect of ice
cover on global climate. Using this model, Budyko found that if ice
sheets advanced far enough out of the polar regions a feedback ensued
where the increased reflectiveness (albedo) of the ice led to further
cooling and the formation of more ice until the entire Earth was covered
in ice and stabilized in a new ice-covered equilibrium.[6] While
Budyko's model showed that this ice-albedo stability could happen, he
concluded that it had never happened, because his model offered no way
to escape from such a scenario."

and

"Breaking out of global glaciation

The carbon dioxide levels necessary to unfreeze the Earth have been
estimated as being 350 times what they are today, about 13% of the
atmosphere.[52] Since the Earth was almost completely covered with ice,
carbon dioxide could not be withdrawn from the atmosphere by release of
alkaline metal ions weathering out of siliceous rocks. Over 4 to 30
million years, enough CO2 and methane, mainly emitted by volcanoes,
would accumulate to finally cause enough greenhouse effect to make
surface ice melt in the tropics until a band of permanently ice-free
land and water developed;[53] this would be darker than the ice, and
thus absorb more energy from the sun €” initiating a "positive feedback."

On the continents, the melting of glaciers would release massive amounts
of glacial deposit, which would erode and weather. The resulting
sediments supplied to the ocean would be high in nutrients such as
phosphorus, which combined with the abundance of CO2 would trigger a
cyanobacteria population explosion, which would cause a relatively rapid
reoxygenation of the atmosphere, which may have contributed to the rise
of the Ediacaran biota and the subsequent Cambrian explosion €” a higher
oxygen concentration allowing large multicellular lifeforms to develop.
This positive feedback loop would melt the ice in geological short
order, perhaps less than 1,000 years; replenishment of atmospheric
oxygen and depletion of the CO2 levels would take further millennia.

Destabilization of substantial deposits of methane hydrates locked up in
low-latitude permafrost may also have acted as a trigger and/or strong
positive feedback for deglaciation and warming.[54]

It is possible that carbon dioxide levels fell enough for Earth to
freeze again; this cycle may have repeated until the continents had
drifted to more polar latitudes."

So that's the theories surrounding global freezing



One of the best sites that i have found giving a broad overview of the
various theories attempting to account for the earth last 500 million
years of climate change has this to say also:

(http://web.me.com/uriarte/Earths_Cli...alaeocene.html)
--------------------------------------------------------
"Right on the boundary between the Palaeocene and the Eocene, around 55
million years ago, the temperature rose even higher, prompting a short
temperature peak known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.


It was a sudden global warming event which only lasted around 80,000
years, but nevertheless it had an enormous influence on the evolution of
animal life. The episode coincided with a major wave of extinctions
among the existing fauna, both on the continents and in the oceans, and
is coincident with the emergence of many new mammalian orders which have
dominated the animal kingdom ever since. Flora adapted by changing the
physiognomy of their leaves and by migrating to higher latitudes (Wing,
2005).


Continental temperatures, already high, rose again by between 5º C and
7º C. In the seas, the temperature of coastal surface waters in the
Antarctic rose from 13º C to 20º C, and in the Arctic, they reached as
high as 24º C. Although the waters of subtropical regions also became
warmer, the effect was much more noticeable in the higher latitudes.

Deep water temperatures also rose (as during the warm mid-period of the
Cretaceous) to around 12º C higher than the current day mean (Lear,
2000). This was probably due to a change in the principal location at
which deep waters were formed, which moved from the cold seas of the
southern hemisphere to the warmer ones of the northern hemisphere.
Carbon-13 analyses of sediments provide evidence pointing to this abrupt
circulatory change (Nunes, 2006).


It is believed that the PETM peak may have been caused by a sudden
increase in methane or carbon dioxide. The most reliable evidence of
this sudden increase in methane seems to lie in an abrupt high-low
oscillation of sedimentary carbon-13, since methane, due to its
biological origin, is very poor in this isotope.


The sudden release of methane into the atmosphere would have come from
the methane enclosed in ice crystals located in the sediments of the
ocean floor. The eruption of the gas may have occurred after the
temperature of oceans' deep waters passed a specific heat threshold,
thus enabling the defrosting of methane hydrates. It is possible that a
change in ocean circulation triggered this process (Tripati, 2005).


Nevertheless, the abundance of methane may also have been the result of
intense bacterial production in either the wetlands that covered vast
areas of tropical and mid-level regions during that period or the peat
bogs which formed in higher latitudes. However, the suddenness of the
episode seems to support the theory of the fusion of hydrates frozen in
the marine subsoil (Bains, 1999; Katz, 2000)."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Its this particular event that worries climate changers the most.

Since we are already releasing large quantities of methane from the now
thawing siberian permafrost.


Also, the nearest period that seems to correspond with what we might be
doing now is the Eemian interglacial, when the world was about 4-5
degrees warmer than now, and the sea level 4-5 meters higher

From the same source

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to astronomical calculations related to the Earths movements, we
know that the solar radiation received during the summer months in the
northern hemisphere reached a maximum 127,000 years ago. This would then
have been the trigger for the melting of the northern ice sheets, a
process that subsequently gained momentum due to the fact that the melt
diminished the terrestrial albedo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In that case, it was earth's orbit that led to the warm period, but the
feedback mechanism - less ice=hotter planet=less ice still holds.

That plus the methane hydrate scenario, can lead to extremely rapid
variations in climate. Until some other mechanism like algal blooms,
takes over and starts sucking the CO2 back into depositable oil and tar
formations..

What emerges from that source, is not necessarily that CO2 is the
greatest driver, but that the climate is very capable if triggered, to
quite rapidly flip between different regimes of temperature with drastic
alteration to ice, snow, rainfall and sea levels. CO2 historically has
more accompanied the changes than caused them. HOWEVER by itself, in the
sorts of levels we have to day, it is quite capable of causing them.

Tht is where climate scientists are coming from There are at least ten
mechanisms interlinked - geological, astronomical, ecological..ocean
currents, land sea and air temperatures, CO2, methane and water vapour,
and their interplay through various biological agents like alga..and to
presume that just because no one burnt all the fossil fuel 1 million
years ago and caused a heatwave, doing it today wont, is deeply stupid.

CO2 by itself wont cause that much of an effect: But then neither does a
couple of percent hotter sun. Its the knock on effects that really
accelerate the thing. I dont know how much arctic ice has retreated in
the last decades, but its a lot. That in itself multiplies the effects
of whatever caused it a few tens of times, as those areas become warmer
without reflective ice cover. Thawing permafrost releases methane,
methane oxidise to yes, more CO2 and more water vapour. All three are
greenhouse gases.

So we might say that every gramme of industrial CO2 produces another 10g
of released CO2, and every degree that lot produces gives us another
million square miles of permafrost to thaw..and there is linkage
proposed between the little ice age and the black death
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4755328.stm although I would more suppose
that a sharp drop in winter temperatures would more likel have led to
conditions ripe for a pandemic..

One thing is clear. CO2 levels are now higher than they ever have been
for hundreds of thousands of years. And oddly, asthma is more prevalent
than it has ever been. Ho hum.

And life has modified this planet before, and will do again. The only
difference is we may be smart enough to know its happening and why.

Not that that will make a blind bit of difference: Not with certain
folks around.

Bruce wrote:

In what way are you qualified to even *have* an opinion on such a
complex, intensely scientific subject?

You are fond of quoting (Lord) Nigel Lawson who, thanks to his
background as a barrister, knew absolutely nothing about economics,
and displayed his complete lack of knowledge and expertise as one of
the most incompetent Chancellors of the Exchequer that this country
has ever had.

Now Lawson brings his complete lack of knowledge and expertise to the
"debate" about climate change. Coupled with the fact that he still
knows less than nothing about economics, he is certainly one of the
most authoritative sources of complete ignorance about the subject.

The man is a complete buffoon. So why quote him? Because he agrees
with you?

It's the blind, leading the blind.

I am intrigued with your thinking and not wishing to antagonise you at all.

Just why do you dismiss the mind of a barrister in this subject?

Dave

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:35:31 +0000, wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
The jury is well & truly still out on climate change being man made.
Which jury would that be?


It's the same "jury" of assorted ultra-right wing neo-conservative
kooks who are backed by Big Oil, Big Business and the US
military/industrial complex. The same guys who took us into two
illegal wars that have dramatically increased the risk of Islamist
terror attacks on the UK.


And how can you convince us that we
shold trust it to give accurate answers?


See above. With their track record, they couldn't possibly be wrong
about climate change, could they?

Still, President Palin will have the chance to prove to the world
there is no such thing as human-induced climate change when she takes
office in 2013. ;-)

I quite like that :-)

Dave

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Moron wrote:

Another pack of lies that do nothing other than emphasise the paucity
of his argument and his lack of regard for anything approaching the
truth.

What was?

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


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Snip bollox & insults

Oh, nothing left.


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

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:07:48 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Climate change is indeed natural in my, and many others, opinion.


In what way are you qualified to even *have* an opinion on such a
complex, intensely scientific subject?

In the same way Wikiman Chapman is qualified to *have* his opinion.

You are fond of quoting (Lord) Nigel Lawson who,

What? Nigel Lawson? I've never quoted Nigel Lawson.

What are you on about?


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

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:35:31 +0000, wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
The jury is well & truly still out on climate change being man made.

Which jury would that be?


It's the same "jury" of assorted ultra-right wing neo-conservative
kooks who are backed by Big Oil, Big Business and the US
military/industrial complex. The same guys who took us into two
illegal wars that have dramatically increased the risk of Islamist
terror attacks on the UK.


And how can you convince us that we
shold trust it to give accurate answers?


See above. With their track record, they couldn't possibly be wrong
about climate change, could they?

Still, President Palin will have the chance to prove to the world
there is no such thing as human-induced climate change when she takes
office in 2013. ;-)

Raving.


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

You haven't answered a single question. I've repeated them several
times and offered you the chance to quote the dates of the posts or
repeat the answers.

I answered Phil's question twice and have dealt with the black swan
issue. I don't recall you asking me to answer any other questions but
you have been posting so much garbage I could easily have overlooked
an actual question in among all the insults.

The insults you've been posting you mean?

You have not only failed to do so, you have become more & more
abusive in a pathetic attempt to evade the questions.

Try looking in a mirror.

So thats nere ner ne ner ner again is it?

So, insults failed. Answer some of the questions. If Wikipedia
crashes you are buggered mind.

Is that another question? It doesn't actually make sense but then when
does anything you write.

So not only do you not answer questions, you don't even know what they are?

Here is another link for you. It seems unlikely that you will actually
learn anything from it but that is because you have a closed mind, not
because the cite is content free.

I have a closed mind? I'm asking the questions and your mind is so made up
you can't answer them.

Do stop making a **** of yourself.


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

You haven't answered a single question. I've repeated them several
times and offered you the chance to quote the dates of the posts or
repeat the answers.

I answered Phil's question twice and have dealt with the black swan
issue. I don't recall you asking me to answer any other questions but
you have been posting so much garbage I could easily have overlooked
an actual question in among all the insults.

The insults you've been posting you mean?

More lack of comprehension on your part. I can't actually recall you
posting anything factual at all among the reams of insults you keep
churning out.

You have not only failed to do so, you have become more & more
abusive in a pathetic attempt to evade the questions.

Try looking in a mirror.

So thats nere ner ne ner ner again is it?

Mirror mirror on the wall who is the stupidest of us all?

So, insults failed. Answer some of the questions. If Wikipedia
crashes you are buggered mind.

Is that another question? It doesn't actually make sense but then when
does anything you write.

So not only do you not answer questions, you don't even know what they are?

Let's see.

1) You have appointed yourself spokesman for Phil and claimed I haven't
answered his question. I see no reason to say anything more about that.

2) The there was your obsession with a brood of black swans but as I
didn't initially understand your cryptic reference to cygnets I passed
that one up initially although that has since been address and iI am now
waiting to see the rest of your flock of black swans. Any other
questions seem to be of the form 'what kind of idiot are you' which
aren't likely to elicit any reply other than a ritual return of insult.

Here is another link for you. It seems unlikely that you will actually
learn anything from it but that is because you have a closed mind, not
because the cite is content free.

I have a closed mind? I'm asking the questions and your mind is so made up
you can't answer them.

Did you learn anything from the link. No, I thought not.

OK so you think you have been asking questions that I won't answer. How
about repeating said questions (excluding the pair above)just in case I
have overlooked them and I will consider whether answering them will
help you in your search for knowledge.

Do stop making a **** of yourself.

That is your role in life, not mine.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Still, President Palin will have the chance to prove to the world
there is no such thing as human-induced climate change when she takes
office in 2013. ;-)

Raving.

Of course he is. But to get back to my point, you said:

The jury is well & truly still out on climate change being man made.

So: Which jury would that be?

And: How can you convince us that we
shold trust it to give accurate answers?


#Paul

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

You haven't answered a single question. I've repeated them several
times and offered you the chance to quote the dates of the posts or
repeat the answers.

I answered Phil's question twice and have dealt with the black swan
issue. I don't recall you asking me to answer any other questions
but you have been posting so much garbage I could easily have
overlooked an actual question in among all the insults.

The insults you've been posting you mean?

More lack of comprehension on your part. I can't actually recall you
posting anything factual at all among the reams of insults you keep
churning out.

You still haven't answered the question. I've asked you on several
occasions to either repeat your answers or 'cite' the posts in which they
appeared. But you won't. Instead you become more & more angry and resort
to ever more pathetic insults.

Answer the questions Wiki boy.

You have not only failed to do so, you have become more & more
abusive in a pathetic attempt to evade the questions.

Try looking in a mirror.

So thats ner ner ne ner ner again is it?

Mirror mirror on the wall who is the stupidest of us all?

Most people would agree its you ****wit..

So, insults failed. Answer some of the questions. If Wikipedia
crashes you are buggered mind.

Is that another question? It doesn't actually make sense but then
when does anything you write.

So not only do you not answer questions, you don't even know what
they are?

Let's see.

1) You have appointed yourself spokesman for Phil and claimed I
haven't answered his question. I see no reason to say anything more
about that.

A clear admission that you can't answer the simplest question unless its in
your ecobollox handbook. Phil asked a perfectly reasonable question and you
have lied about answering it & tried to evade the issue.

2) The there was your obsession with a brood of black swans but as I
didn't initially understand your cryptic reference to cygnets I passed
that one up initially although that has since been address and iI am
now waiting to see the rest of your flock of black swans.

Nice try idiot. I never mentioned cygnets as you well know. I asked you to
answer another simple question and you can't, so once again you resort to
lies.

The black swan argument is very simple. Here it is again;

"If climate change is man made & caused by CO2 emissions, why did climate
change occur frequently in the past when (a) the population wasn't large
enough to create enough CO2 emissions and (b) cars, power stations, central
heating etc didn't exist?"

What are you going to do now? Ignore the question? Claim you have already
answered it? Try a few more pathetic insults? Refer me to another Wiki
page?

Any other
questions seem to be of the form 'what kind of idiot are you' which
aren't likely to elicit any reply other than a ritual return of
insult.

Actually thats rather your technique isn't it? Your ner ner ne ner ner
tactic.

Here is another link for you. It seems unlikely that you will
actually learn anything from it but that is because you have a
closed mind, not because the cite is content free.

I have a closed mind? I'm asking the questions and your mind is so
made up you can't answer them.

Did you learn anything from the link. No, I thought not.

OK so you think you have been asking questions that I won't answer.
How about repeating said questions (excluding the pair above)just in
case I have overlooked them and I will consider whether answering
them will help you in your search for knowledge.

Oh, so you are only prepared to answer certain questions? And please stop
trying to be a patronising **** when you desperately try to avoid answering.

Do stop making a **** of yourself.

That is your role in life, not mine.

There you go again. Its the schoolboy "no you" retort. Try to grow up.


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

in 245888 20091211 132505 "dennis@home" wrote:

The so called freak storms we have been having aren't statistically freaks
either, its just people being alarmist.
The damage is not caused by the storms but by the poor planning and building
in places they shouldn't.
Look at London, much of it has flooded in the past and it will flood again.

We've had wars in the past and no doubt there will be more wars in the future.
Doesn't mean the cause is the same.