in 246030 20091212 004628 "The Medway Handyman" wrote:

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?

Climate is changing all the time and always has done.
What makes you think the cause is always the same?

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.

I am still waiting for you to identify the questions you claim I haven't
answered.

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..

Mind reader are you?

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.

I answered the question. You may not agree with the answer but the
question was answered and every time you continue to lie about it you
can expect to be called a liar.

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.

You shouldn't use words you don't understand. Wikipedia gave 'eyrar' as
one of a number of collective nouns for swans in an incomplete article
which asked for cites (IIRC) for every single entry. Eyrar is an archaic
word which the Shorter Oxford (that's a dictionary by the way) defines
as "A brood (of swans)". A brood of swans is a collection of cygnets.
Simple isn't it?

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?"

That isn't a black swan argument. It is just your straw man. As I see it
a black swan is a new piece of data that falsifies a conclusion based on
incomplete data. I could be wrong on that of course in which case
there may be a real philosopher along shortly to put me right.

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?

Well I don't think I have ignored it. So how about an insult or two.
Can't be bothered. I have already said just about all there is to say
about TMH's lack of intellect.

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.

Mirror mirror on the wall ...

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.

Mirror mirror on the wall ...

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.

Try posting something remotely sensible for a change.

Bob Martin wrote:
in 246030 20091212 004628 "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

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?

Climate is changing all the time and always has done.

At last! Someone admits the truth!

What makes you think the cause is always the same?

So what was the cause of the freak weather in the past then?


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Snip bollox & insults


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SNIP

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

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

and to slag off anyone who dares to disagree.

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

As will your considerably larger output.

That you think
that natural climate change is a black swan suggests to me that you
have got the notion back to front. My interpretation would be that
proof of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is the black swan that falsifies
the notion that all climate change is natural.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Bob Martin wrote:

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?
Climate is changing all the time and always has done.

At last! Someone admits the truth!

So what part of "the natural variability of the climate" did you not
understand then?

What makes you think the cause is always the same?

So what was the cause of the freak weather in the past then?

Same as always. The unfortunate combination of circumstances. Had the
weather conditions that led to the worst UK flood in the last 100 or
more years occurred one week earlier there would have been little or no
flooding and probably no loss of life at all.

But you shouldn't confuse weather with climate.

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Snip bollox & insults

You really are the complete ****wit aren't you? Your pathetic
attempts to avoid the argument simply make you look like a complete
prat.
So you keep on saying but how even often you repeat your lies they
remain lies.

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

You are being called a liar for the obvious reason that you keep on
telling lies.

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

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

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

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

So now you have memory problems to go with your lack of comprehension.
You will find a reference by me to "natural climate change" as a
re-quote from an earlier message further down this message.

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

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

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

There you go lying again. And how angry! All those spelling mistakes as
well. You really must be foaming at the mouth.

SNIP

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

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

Don't you have an original thought in your head?

and to slag off anyone who dares to disagree.

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

As will your considerably larger output.

Don't you have an original thought in your head?

That you think
that natural climate change is a black swan suggests to me that you
have got the notion back to front. My interpretation would be that
proof of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is the black swan that falsifies
the notion that all climate change is natural.

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

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

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

Don't you have an original thought in your head?

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

You shouldn't offer as a cite (or rely on) something you don't trust.

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

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

If only.