http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm

Is a link to a demo of GW according to he BBC.

However to me it looks more like they have the left hand lamp offset a bit
so it doesn't heat as much.

That is aside from the fact that CO2 will have different conductive and
convective properties which are nothing to do with GW's greenhouse effect.

Just how desperate are these people that want to fake results? 8-)

Roger Chapman wrote:
Matty F wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm

Is a link to a demo of GW according to he BBC.

However to me it looks more like they have the left hand lamp offset
a bit
so it doesn't heat as much.

I thought the same thing. However the claimed effect is quite
enormous, so it should be easy enough to devise a proper scientific
experiment. The bottles should be flushed with air and CO2 added to
the other bottle using the same lamp.
I would want to see the results for a range of CO2 percentages, e.g.
0.04%, 0.08%, 1%, 5% 10%. I suspect the BBC may have had near 100%
CO2.

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.

The BBC of course is on the alarmist side. They have recently
published over 40 articles blaming all kinds of things on Global
Warming. Anyone want to see the list?

Does it differ in any way from all the alarming stuff the Met Office
publish?

And they get it wrong, big style.

Dave

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 7, 9:02 am, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm

Is a link to a demo of GW according to he BBC.

However to me it looks more like they have the left hand lamp
offset a bit so it doesn't heat as much.

It's a simple experiment Dennis. Surely simple enough for a man of
your calibre to repeat. That way you will be able to discover how
much of a mismatch is required before the temperature increases are
equal.
That is aside from the fact that CO2 will have different conductive
and convective properties which are nothing to do with GW's
greenhouse effect.

That is a fine collection of straws you are clutching at there, but
none of them with even a single figure attached. Please enumerate
the differences between normal atmosphere and normal atmosphere
with an unknown (but presumably substantial) quantity of CO2 added.

Just how desperate are these people that want to fake results? 8-)

Not half as desperate as deniers like you.

Here we go again with the 'deniers' ploy commonly used by tree
huggers.

They just can't accept that someone could possibly disagree so they
use a term deliberately chosen to resonate with "holocaust deniers"
to make us look bad.

My point exactly. Thank you.


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

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 9:00 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm

Is a link to a demo of GW according to he BBC.

However to me it looks more like they have the left hand lamp offset a
bit
so it doesn't heat as much.

I thought the same thing. However the claimed effect is quite
enormous, so it should be easy enough to devise a proper scientific
experiment. The bottles should be flushed with air and CO2 added to
the other bottle using the same lamp.
I would want to see the results for a range of CO2 percentages, e.g.
0.04%, 0.08%, 1%, 5% 10%. I suspect the BBC may have had near 100%
CO2.

The BBC of course is on the alarmist side. They have recently
published over 40 articles blaming all kinds of things on Global
Warming. Anyone want to see the list?

Yes please.

Show the list.

Adam

The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

Just how desperate are these people that want to fake results? 8-)

Not half as desperate as deniers like you.

Here we go again with the 'deniers' ploy commonly used by tree
huggers.

Hmm, 'tree huggers' and 'deniers'in one sentence. Given the paragraph
from MBQ below that now looks as though TMH was attempting to smear the
global warmers by association with both the holocaust and the green meanies.

They just can't accept that someone could possibly disagree so they
use a term deliberately chosen to resonate with "holocaust deniers"
to make us look bad.

My point exactly. Thank you.

You get called deniers for an obvious reason and that reason has nothing
at all with murdering several million Jews. The association is all in
your minds - a guilty conscience perhaps.

Dave wrote:

snip

Does it differ in any way from all the alarming stuff the Met Office
publish?

And they get it wrong, big style.

Who got what wrong?

ARWadsworth wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 9:00 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm

Is a link to a demo of GW according to he BBC.

However to me it looks more like they have the left hand lamp
offset a bit
so it doesn't heat as much.

I thought the same thing. However the claimed effect is quite
enormous, so it should be easy enough to devise a proper scientific
experiment. The bottles should be flushed with air and CO2 added to
the other bottle using the same lamp.
I would want to see the results for a range of CO2 percentages, e.g.
0.04%, 0.08%, 1%, 5% 10%. I suspect the BBC may have had near 100%
CO2.


Generally, unless there is chemical interaction, gases behave
proportionately. So a column of 1 m of 100% CO2, has the same absorption as
10 m of 10% CO2. Obviously the other 90% may also absorb infrared, but
again that should be predictable if you know the constituent gases.

Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

FWIW I don't see "Just how desperate are these people that want to
fake results? " as anything other than the use of **** to smear the
opposition with. The experiment might not be scientifically rigorous
but that is the problem with trying to dumb down the science to make
it understandable to the public at large. That TMH chose to pick up
on my counter rather than the original smear says far more about his
prejudices than it does about mine.

The fact that you think the demonstration actually has *anything* to
do with the greenhouse effect shows just how little you understand.

The fact that Dennis thinks it doesn't shows that he knows even less
about physics than I do and precious little about how to communicate
using the English Language either. The experiment would be a fake only
if CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas or the greenhouse effect didn't exist at
all. Now both these presumptions exist at significant levels among
deniers so the question arises does either Dennis or TMH actually
subscribe to either lunacy?

What year did this greenhouse gas theory come into the English language.

Dave

Roger Chapman wrote:
Dave wrote:

snip

Does it differ in any way from all the alarming stuff the Met Office
publish?

And they get it wrong, big style.

Who got what wrong?

Sorry, my bad snipping to blame here.

The met office, everytime they issue *any* forecast.

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Roger Chapman wrote:
Dave wrote:

snip

Does it differ in any way from all the alarming stuff the Met Office
publish?

And they get it wrong, big style.

Who got what wrong?

Sorry, my bad snipping to blame here.

The met office, everytime they issue *any* forecast.

The met office and NASA manage to get different results from the same data,
I wonder which is correct if either.

Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

FWIW I don't see "Just how desperate are these people that want to
fake results? " as anything other than the use of **** to smear the
opposition with. The experiment might not be scientifically rigorous
but that is the problem with trying to dumb down the science to make
it understandable to the public at large. That TMH chose to pick up
on my counter rather than the original smear says far more about his
prejudices than it does about mine.

Dumbing down the science is the problem - because politicians can only react
to dumbing down - not being bright enough to do anything else.

The fact that you think the demonstration actually has *anything* to
do with the greenhouse effect shows just how little you understand.

The fact that Dennis thinks it doesn't shows that he knows even less
about physics than I do and precious little about how to communicate
using the English Language either. The experiment would be a fake only
if CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas or the greenhouse effect didn't exist
at all. Now both these presumptions exist at significant levels among
deniers so the question arises does either Dennis or TMH actually
subscribe to either lunacy?

'Deniers' and 'Lunacy'? 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 and (b) that it is caused by man made CO2
emissions.

Neither of which have been conclusively proven & both of which contradict
plain old common sense.

Your incredible arrogance in calling them 'presumptions' is just that &
doesn't give you the moral high ground or make you right.

Any research department that comes up with data supporting the opposite view
has its funding removed.

And it will only get worse. Universities run courses in Environmental
Studies, every local authority/government dept/ quango/ large corporation
has an environmental department keen to preserve their cushy non productive
jobs.

'Green' has two meanings; Environmentally aware or extremely gullible.


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

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

snip

Does it differ in any way from all the alarming stuff the Met
Office publish?

And they get it wrong, big style.

Who got what wrong?

Sorry, my bad snipping to blame here.

The met office, everytime they issue *any* forecast.

The met office and NASA manage to get different results from the same
data, I wonder which is correct if either.

Simple Dennis. The one who gets the result that supports the green movement
issue has the correct result. The one that gets the result that doesn't
support the green issue are called deniers.


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

Just how desperate are these people that want to fake results?
8-)

Not half as desperate as deniers like you.

Here we go again with the 'deniers' ploy commonly used by tree
huggers.

Hmm, 'tree huggers' and 'deniers'in one sentence. Given the paragraph
from MBQ below that now looks as though TMH was attempting to smear
the global warmers by association with both the holocaust and the
green meanies.

It would only appear that way to an twisted idiot frankly. You attempted to
smear anyone who did not agree with your opinion by using the term
'deniers' - a deliberatly pergorative term associated with the holocost.

They just can't accept that someone could possibly disagree so they
use a term deliberately chosen to resonate with "holocaust deniers"
to make us look bad.

My point exactly. Thank you.

You get called deniers for an obvious reason and that reason has
nothing at all with murdering several million Jews. The association is all
in
your minds - a guilty conscience perhaps.

The 'obvious reason' being that we dare to disagree with your point of view?

I agree that it has nothing to do with holocost deniers - so why do you -
and it was you, use such a pergorative term?


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

On Dec 8, 8:12 am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message

The BBC of course is on the alarmist side. They have recently
published over 40 articles blaming all kinds of things on Global
Warming. Anyone want to see the list?

Yes please.

Show the list.

Adam

OK then. I've just rechecked all of the URLs. There will be many more
similar stories since I made this list.I used to admire the BBC for
their professionalism but no longer.
I'm not a member of any climate organisation, just a private citizen
being somewhat horrified by the poor quality of much of today's media.

Warmer climate will trigger more violent storms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...ing/html/3.stm
Fewer hurricanes as world warms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7404846.stm
Migrating bird huge loss could be linked to climate change
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5017346.stm
Long-haul birds 'returning early' have adapted to the world's changing
climate http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5130538.stm
Rising sea could end bittern boom
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7277861.stm
Geese decline 'caused by climate'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7963834.stm
Great tits cope well with warming
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7390109.stm
Climate accelerating bird loss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7409034.stm
Three-headed frog could have been caused by climate change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/3537617.stm
Climate change 'could kill thousands'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1161895.stm
Global warming 'may cut deaths'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7240463.stm
Soaring food prices linked to climate change
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7148880.stm
Professor visualises a car-sharing nation of vegetarians
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7666809.stm
Climate change threat to haggis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...ds/7648481.stm
Climate could devastate crops
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7220807.stm
Warming world 'means longer days'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1816860.stm
Inuit sue US over climate policy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4511556.stm
Climatic changes could lead to more outbreaks of bubonic plague
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5271502.stm
Climate change fruitful for fungi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6524013.stm
Billions face climate change risk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6532323.stm
Poorest 'in climate front line'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7113576.stm
Arctic could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
Big climate impact on UK coasts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7191196.stm
Warning on rising Med Sea levels
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7197379.stm
Warming risks Antarctic sea life
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7248025.stm
Tropics insects face extinction
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7384807.stm
Arctic sea ice melt even faster
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7461707.stm
Warming world sends plants uphill
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7477279.stm
Climate change fans Nepal fires
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7968745.stm
Global warming affecting salmon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3400155.stm
Sharks moving north... may be down to global warming
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096504.stm
Climate change to blame for a drop in the number of birds that visit
Britain
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6950711.stm
Global equality threatened by climate change
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7017415.stm
Global warming is principle cause of stinging jellyfish
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7195823.stm
Climate change is impacting bird life in Wales
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7841295.stm
Warming opens Northwest Passage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6995999.stm
Hearing of polar bears affected by melting Arctic ice
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7638321.stm
Maldives: Paradise soon to be lost
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3930765.stm
Mountaineers' fear of global warming
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6665257.stm
Tree-eating wood beetles likely to benefit from a warmer climate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...ing/html/6.stm

Dave wrote:

What year did this greenhouse gas theory come into the English language.

Which theory? The scientific one or TMH's?

And why is English significant? I have no idea whether the scientist
cited below published in English but I am sure his work would have been
well known among the wider scientific community just as Tyndall's
earlier work would have been known to Arrhenius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_...enhouse_effect

The Medway Handyman wrote:

FWIW I don't see "Just how desperate are these people that want to
fake results? " as anything other than the use of **** to smear the
opposition with. The experiment might not be scientifically rigorous
but that is the problem with trying to dumb down the science to make
it understandable to the public at large. That TMH chose to pick up
on my counter rather than the original smear says far more about his
prejudices than it does about mine.

Dumbing down the science is the problem - because politicians can only react
to dumbing down - not being bright enough to do anything else.

It doesn't seem to matter to TMH whether the science is dumbed down or
not. Either way he doesn't understand it.

The fact that you think the demonstration actually has *anything* to
do with the greenhouse effect shows just how little you understand.
The fact that Dennis thinks it doesn't shows that he knows even less
about physics than I do and precious little about how to communicate
using the English Language either. The experiment would be a fake only
if CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas or the greenhouse effect didn't exist
at all. Now both these presumptions exist at significant levels among
deniers so the question arises does either Dennis or TMH actually
subscribe to either lunacy?

'Deniers' and 'Lunacy'? 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 and (b) that it is caused by man made CO2
emissions.

I suspect that the real fact of this particular matter is that TMH is a
clueless idiot.

Neither of which have been conclusively proven & both of which contradict
plain old common sense.

Sad that TMH is totally lacking in plain old common sense. The
mainstream scientific view is very much that global warming is happening
and that man made CO2 is playing a part.

Your incredible arrogance in calling them 'presumptions' is just that &
doesn't give you the moral high ground or make you right.

I was being generous. Saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or the
greenhouse effect doesn't exist are bare faced lies. Neither claim has
any basis in fact.

Any research department that comes up with data supporting the opposite view
has its funding removed.

Care to cite the evidence for that remark?

ISTM that the USA is awash with Oil and Coal money happy to fund adverts
denigrating any notion of global warming so there is at least a
reasonable presumption that the money is there to fund research aimed at
proving GW doesn't exist. The problem there of course is that if
something doesn't exist it will never be found however much they expend
looking. Oil money can put a puppet (GWB) into the White House but it
can't prove that GW doesn't exist.

And it will only get worse. Universities run courses in Environmental
Studies, every local authority/government dept/ quango/ large corporation
has an environmental department keen to preserve their cushy non productive
jobs.

If you want to expand university education down to the average thicko
(which was Blair's aim) you have to design courses the average thicko
can cope with and that certainly doesn't include cutting edge science.

'Green' has two meanings; Environmentally aware or extremely gullible.

Only two? Aren't you forgetting something vitally important?

The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

Just how desperate are these people that want to fake results?
8-)
Not half as desperate as deniers like you.
Here we go again with the 'deniers' ploy commonly used by tree
huggers.
Hmm, 'tree huggers' and 'deniers'in one sentence. Given the paragraph
from MBQ below that now looks as though TMH was attempting to smear
the global warmers by association with both the holocaust and the
green meanies.

It would only appear that way to an twisted idiot frankly. You attempted to
smear anyone who did not agree with your opinion by using the term
'deniers' - a deliberatly pergorative term associated with the holocost.

Think about it. Your supporter brought up the holocaust, not me. My
comment above links his derivation to your use of the term denier about
me. ISTM that that makes you the twisted idiot.

They just can't accept that someone could possibly disagree so they
use a term deliberately chosen to resonate with "holocaust deniers"
to make us look bad.
My point exactly. Thank you.
You get called deniers for an obvious reason and that reason has
nothing at all with murdering several million Jews. The association is all
in
your minds - a guilty conscience perhaps.

The 'obvious reason' being that we dare to disagree with your point of view?

Obvious to you perhaps. Not so to many others.

I agree that it has nothing to do with holocost deniers - so why do you -
and it was you, use such a pergorative term?

But why did you use it?

I use it because it is common parlance. It was used in an article in the
Independent either yesterday or the day before and has certainly been
used frequently in the media in the past. Would you prefer to be known
as a Flat Earther?

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Does it differ in any way from all the alarming stuff the Met
Office publish?
And they get it wrong, big style.
Who got what wrong?
Sorry, my bad snipping to blame here.

The met office, everytime they issue *any* forecast.
The met office and NASA manage to get different results from the same
data, I wonder which is correct if either.

Simple Dennis. The one who gets the result that supports the green movement
issue has the correct result. The one that gets the result that doesn't
support the green issue are called deniers.

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.

On Dec 7, 7:12*pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message

...



On Dec 7, 9:00 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm

Is a link to a demo of GW according to he BBC.

However to me it looks more like they have the left hand lamp offset a
bit
so it doesn't heat as much.

I thought the same thing. However the claimed effect is quite
enormous, so it should be easy enough to devise a proper scientific
experiment. The bottles should be flushed with air and CO2 added to
the other bottle using the same lamp.
I would want to see the results for a range of CO2 percentages, e.g.
0.04%, 0.08%, 1%, 5% 10%. I suspect the BBC may have had near 100%
CO2.

The BBC of course is on the alarmist side. They have recently
published over 40 articles blaming all kinds of things on Global
Warming. Anyone want to see the list?

Yes please.

Show the list.

This one's even longer than the Beeb's http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
everything from Acne to Yellow Fever blamed on global warming. Even
UFOs "Some experts believe it could be linked to global warming and
craft from outer space are appearing because they are concerned about
what man is doing to this planet."

MBQ

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


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?

"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)."

is a quote from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

Sounds like you are making it up again.

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

2) they are in broad agreement.

The Met Office has 2005 as the second warmest year since records began
but the difference is not great.

is a quote from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

Sounds like you are making it up again.

I have been quoting the Met Office. I could of course have made a
mistake but feel free to follow up the link to see. If the Met Office
and the BBC differ I prefer to believe the scientists.

Roger Chapman 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?

--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008

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

Roger Chapman wrote:
Dave wrote:

What year did this greenhouse gas theory come into the English language.

Which theory? The scientific one or TMH's?

And why is English significant? I have no idea whether the scientist
cited below published in English but I am sure his work would have been
well known among the wider scientific community just as Tyndall's
earlier work would have been known to Arrhenius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_...enhouse_effect

Many thanks for that link, I'll be reading it and the links in the pages
for most of the rest of the week.

Dave

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

FWIW I don't see "Just how desperate are these people that want to
fake results? " as anything other than the use of **** to smear
the opposition with. The experiment might not be scientifically
rigorous but that is the problem with trying to dumb down the
science to make it understandable to the public at large. That
TMH chose to pick up on my counter rather than the original smear
says far more about his prejudices than it does about mine.

Dumbing down the science is the problem - because politicians can
only react to dumbing down - not being bright enough to do anything
else.

It doesn't seem to matter to TMH whether the science is dumbed down or
not. Either way he doesn't understand it.

The fact that you think the demonstration actually has *anything*
to do with the greenhouse effect shows just how little you
understand.
The fact that Dennis thinks it doesn't shows that he knows even less
about physics than I do and precious little about how to communicate
using the English Language either. The experiment would be a fake
only if CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas or the greenhouse effect didn't
exist at all. Now both these presumptions exist at significant
levels among deniers so the question arises does either Dennis or
TMH actually subscribe to either lunacy?

'Deniers' and 'Lunacy'? 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 and (b) that it is
caused by man made CO2 emissions.

I suspect that the real fact of this particular matter is that TMH is
a clueless idiot.

Whats your ****ing problem Mr Angry?

As I've already said, you are not necessarily right and being a tree hugger
doens't give you the moral high ground.

Neither of which have been conclusively proven & both of which
contradict plain old common sense.

Sad that TMH is totally lacking in plain old common sense. The
mainstream scientific view is very much that global warming is
happening and that man made CO2 is playing a part.

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

The mainstream evidence in the 40 articles published by the BBC? (Thanks
Matty F).

Your incredible arrogance in calling them 'presumptions' is just
that & doesn't give you the moral high ground or make you right.

I was being generous. Saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or the
greenhouse effect doesn't exist are bare faced lies. Neither claim
has any basis in fact.

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

SNIP DRIVEL

'Green' has two meanings; Environmentally aware or extremely
gullible.

Only two? Aren't you forgetting something vitally important?

No, only one meaning in your case - extremely gullible.


--
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

2) they are in broad agreement.

The Met Office has 2005 as the second warmest year since records began
but the difference is not great.

They get two completely different years and are in broad agreement? But
that's OK because the difference isn't great? Only a green idiot could
bellieve that.


--
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

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?



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

On Dec 8, 9:11*am, Roger Chapman wrote:

I was being generous. Saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or the
greenhouse effect doesn't exist are bare faced lies. *Neither claim has
any basis in fact.

Is that how the Oxford dictionaty of eco-bollox defines "lie"?

MBQ

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
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!

The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

It doesn't seem to matter to TMH whether the science is dumbed down or
not. Either way he doesn't understand it.

More proof of that below.

snip

'Deniers' and 'Lunacy'? 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 and (b) that it is
caused by man made CO2 emissions.

I suspect that the real fact of this particular matter is that TMH is
a clueless idiot.

Whats your ****ing problem Mr Angry?

Talking to yourself? But please keep on digging.

As I've already said, you are not necessarily right and being a tree hugger
doens't give you the moral high ground.

There are some things I am right about and many things I am probably
right about. The things I am right about include the fact that the
greenhouse effect is real and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas both of which
you claim contradict plain old common sense.

An as for being a tree hugger. Don't make me laugh. I have lost count of
the number of times one of my neighbours has asked how can I sleep at
night after I have cut down another tree. Perhaps you missed my
reference somewhere up thread (or in the related thread) about the green
meanies.

Neither of which have been conclusively proven & both of which
contradict plain old common sense.

Sad that TMH is totally lacking in plain old common sense. The
mainstream scientific view is very much that global warming is
happening and that man made CO2 is playing a part.

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. However I presume that you actually mean the notion (which
is fact) that if the holes had expanded over heavily populated areas it
would have hugely increase the death rate from skin cancer unless people
actively avoided exposure to direct sunlight. But don't worry. As a
smoker in this country you are much more likely to die of lung cancer
than skin cancer.

The mainstream evidence in the 40 articles published by the BBC? (Thanks
Matty F).

The BBC is a purveyor of news, not science. The underlying body of
science is vast and there are only a few maverick scientists prepared to
dispute even parts of it. Reminds me of the lung cancer controversy back
in the 50s when the tobacco companies fought tooth and nail to prove
that there was no connection between their product and lung cancer.

Your incredible arrogance in calling them 'presumptions' is just
that & doesn't give you the moral high ground or make you right.
I was being generous. Saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or the
greenhouse effect doesn't exist are bare faced lies. Neither claim
has any basis in fact.

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.

SNIP DRIVEL

'Green' has two meanings; Environmentally aware or extremely
gullible.
Only two? Aren't you forgetting something vitally important?

No, only one meaning in your case - extremely gullible.

Surely it would be obvious to anyone but a complete idiot that the
primary meaning of Green is as a colour.

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.

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

Now that is what is called a non sequitur.

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

It doesn't seem to matter to TMH whether the science is dumbed down
or not. Either way he doesn't understand it.

More proof of that below.

snip

'Deniers' and 'Lunacy'? 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 and (b) that it is
caused by man made CO2 emissions.

I suspect that the real fact of this particular matter is that TMH
is a clueless idiot.

Whats your ****ing problem Mr Angry?

Talking to yourself? But please keep on digging.

As I've already said, you are not necessarily right and being a tree
hugger doens't give you the moral high ground.

There are some things I am right about and many things I am probably
right about. The things I am right about include the fact that the
greenhouse effect is real and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas both of
which you claim contradict plain old common sense.

Sorry, I'm right when I say its bollox. There, simple isn't? Just say you
are right and it is so.

An as for being a tree hugger. Don't make me laugh. I have lost count
of the number of times one of my neighbours has asked how can I sleep
at night after I have cut down another tree. Perhaps you missed my
reference somewhere up thread (or in the related thread) about the
green meanies.

Neither of which have been conclusively proven & both of which
contradict plain old common sense.

Sad that TMH is totally lacking in plain old common sense. The
mainstream scientific view is very much that global warming is
happening and that man made CO2 is playing a part.

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.


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 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?

Reminds me of the lung cancer
controversy back in the 50s when the tobacco companies fought tooth
and nail to prove that there was no connection between their product
and lung cancer.

No **** sherlock. None of the UK petrol companies seem to be making much
fuss do they?

Your incredible arrogance in calling them 'presumptions' is just
that & doesn't give you the moral high ground or make you right.
I was being generous. Saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or the
greenhouse effect doesn't exist are bare faced lies. Neither claim
has any basis in fact.

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.

They are only established facts in your deluded imagination.

SNIP DRIVEL

'Green' has two meanings; Environmentally aware or extremely
gullible.
Only two? Aren't you forgetting something vitally important?

No, only one meaning in your case - extremely gullible.

Surely it would be obvious to anyone but a complete idiot that the
primary meaning of Green is as a colour.

Only a complete idiot would be as gullible as you are.


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

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.

What are the two basic bones of contention are what, if any, impact
man's activities have, and what, if anything we can do about it.

Now teh denier argument seems to be

- a lot of eco bollox is bollox. So far no disagreement.
- because its bollox, climate change is bollox (strongluy disagree)
- even if it isn't, and climate change is happening, because its not
necessarily man made, we *shouldn't* do anything ability it. And cant do
anything about it. This I find extraordinary. Doe sman made CO2 have
absolutely NO effect? can the deniers prove that?

Hmm.

BUT the final point is, that at a sane political level (which is not
always the case) the question really boils down, as does most pragmatic
thinking, into:

"Which is cheaper, to cut carbon now, or deal with the consequences later?"

That to me is the crucial question, and I am not sure I have an answer.

So much depends on how much of the warming us due to CO2, how many
positive feedback mechanisms like methane release are involved, wnd
whether we are talking about 2 degrees or 6, 2 is OK, 6 is civilisation
shattering.

What is of course perfectly clear is that the best way to save carbon is
not to burn fuel. Eco lightbulbs do **** all. Especially when 27% of
electricity is carbon neutral (nuclear + biofuel/waste incineration)
Simply cutting down the shopping trips to one a week saves far more. Not
flying abroad for a holiday nets you ten years of CFL lightbulbs., or
more. Think how much fuel this computer cost to get to you from tai
wong. Don't buy a new one. etc.

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.

Beacuse you don't have an argument. Haven't you reached that page in the
ecobollox manual yet?

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

Now that is what is called a non sequitur.

Not by anybody with half a brain it isn't.


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

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

2) they are in broad agreement.

The Met Office has 2005 as the second warmest year since records began
but the difference is not great.

They get two completely different years and are in broad agreement? But
that's OK because the difference isn't great? Only a green idiot could
bellieve that.

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.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...

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 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.

Rather the opposite of crying wolf and an "embarrassing fact" - the wolf
turned out to be real and the actions people were persuaded into taking were
shown to be useful.

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.

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.

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. That is
when they are not cherry picking the evidence they approve of while
ignoring anything that they don't.

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.

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.

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.

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."

"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.

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

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

2) they are in broad agreement.

The Met Office has 2005 as the second warmest year since records
began but the difference is not great.

They get two completely different years and are in broad agreement? But
that's OK because the difference isn't great? Only a green
idiot could bellieve that.

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?


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