In this week's Mail on Sunday, so by definition, every word must be a lie,
but presented here for the amusement of the group, anyway ... :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

In this week's Mail on Sunday, so by definition, every word must be a lie,
but presented here for the amusement of the group, anyway ... :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

Arfa

There's plenty in there for Java Jive to get his teeth into.

He could start with his claims of 'most scientists...' and 'the
science is settled...', and go from there to tell us why the Met
Office takes the (extreme) view that it does.

--
Terry Fields

Well, the actual issue here to me at least is that whatever the reason, we
really do not want an Earth warming at the current rate, so anything we can
do to slow it down is going to be good for the survival of our species.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
In this week's Mail on Sunday, so by definition, every word must be a lie,
but presented here for the amusement of the group, anyway ... :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

Arfa

Brian Gaff wrote:

Well, the actual issue here to me at least is that whatever the reason, we
really do not want an Earth warming at the current rate, so anything we can
do to slow it down is going to be good for the survival of our species.

The trouble is that the phrase 'the current rate' means many things to
many people, and there isn't one 'rate'. There may be no 'rate' at
all.
--
Terry Fields

Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Terry Fields wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:

In this week's Mail on Sunday, so by definition, every word must be a lie,
but presented here for the amusement of the group, anyway ... :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-just-HALF-sai
d-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wro
ng.html

Arfa

There's plenty in there for Java Jive to get his teeth into.

He could start with his claims of 'most scientists...' and 'the
science is settled...', and go from there to tell us why the Met
Office takes the (extreme) view that it does.

"The science is settled" is of course an oxymoron. Science is *never*
settled - anything that claims to be "settled" is not science.

Well, exactly. When one hear's that dreadful phrase, one knows that at
best the claimant is being disingenuous.

The science of the solar system was settled for centuries, until some
dam' upstart showed that it was totally wrong, and got house arrest
for his pains. In modern terms, he must have been an earth-centric
denier. Scientists all but fought duels over the relative atomic
weight of chlorine at 34.45, as the thinking at the time was that
these must be whole numbers if the substance was an element, and the
debate raged as to whether it was or not. The discovery of isotopes
was many decades away. I quoted the case elsewhere of 'wireless' being
declared a settled art in 1903, yet I was reading that even today
some specialist radio systems have propagation modes that can't
be explained, and the equipment is built by radio hams rather than
professionals.

--
Terry Fields

Arfa Daily explained on 17/09/2013 :
In this week's Mail on Sunday, so by definition, every word must be a lie,
but presented here for the amusement of the group, anyway ... :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

Arfa

In that case where do we start the queue for a refund of all the
billions this warming fiasco has caused?

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 17/09/13 09:30, Tim Streater wrote:

"The science is settled" is of course an oxymoron. Science is *never*
settled - anything that claims to be "settled" is not science.
Cf 'sustainable growth', 'sustainable energy', '99% of scientists
agree', 'washes whiter than white' ,'harry thinks' etc. etc.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 17/09/13 08:41, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, the actual issue here to me at least is that whatever the reason, we
really do not want an Earth warming at the current rate, so anything we can
do to slow it down is going to be good for the survival of our species.
Brian

The Earth isnt currently warming Brian, its just about doing bugger all.
Flatlining. And all my delicate plants that lasted 20 years are now dead
after two bitter winters...sigh. Back to cabbages and Rye..


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 17/09/13 15:08, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
In that case where do we start the queue for a refund of all the
billions this warming fiasco has caused?
At the ballot box, where a vote for UKIP may ram the message home to
the punch and judy show in parliament that we are getting ****ed off
with their perpetual debates and meetings and could they please actually
roll their sleeves up and get down to some hard work to govern the
country, or we will sling them out

If you want a punch and judy show, Farage is a damn sight more fun to
watch that that drip miliband and 'fat boy' cameron.

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20...e%20battle.jpg


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

I suspect that most of this will come down to natural short term
variability and placing too much reliance on the modelling, which
everyone knows is insufficiently accurate to have such a degree of
reliance placed upon it, especially over short time spans where the
natural variability masks any underlying long term trend.

Meanwhile, wrt to the ECS and the related rate of warming per decade,
it's worth pointing out that the BEST results, which show a good long
term correlation between CO2 and temperature, represent 0.06 degrees
per decade over the last 259 years, and 0.15 degrees per decade over
the last 60, and that my own ball-park calculations comparing these
rates with the Vostok ice data shows that nevertheless such rates of
change are comparatively rare, especially the latter, 18% and 3%
respectively.

I shall look forward to the actual report itself with interest, but
would advise taking a more balanced view than the siren trumpeting of
headlines practices by rags such as the DM - I note that there is no
part in the report that says that the IPCC got such and such right,
only the points where they didn't. That is not balanced journalism.

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:38:46 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:

shall look forward to the actual report itself with interest, but
would advise taking a more balanced view than the siren trumpeting of
headlines practices by rags such as the DM - I note that there is no
part in the report that says that the IPCC got such and such right,
only the points where they didn't. That is not balanced journalism.

Tell that to the BBC, perhaps, who are keen to tell us what the IPCC
gets right but not the points they don't. That isn't balanced
journalism either.

--
Terry Fields

On 17/09/2013 17:11, Java Jive wrote:
I suspect that most of this will come down to natural short term
variability and placing too much reliance on the modelling, which
everyone knows is insufficiently accurate to have such a degree of
reliance placed upon it, especially over short time spans where the
natural variability masks any underlying long term trend.

What models?
You don't need models to give the actual temperatures as measured over
the last few decades and they got those wrong.

Arfa Daily wrote:
In this week's Mail on Sunday, so by definition, every word must be a
lie, but presented here for the amusement of the group, anyway ... :-)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

Arfa

Climate change is a branch of science in which the present state of
knowledge is so meagre that the uncertainties make any predictions
very liable to subsequent large corrections.

Jim Hawkins

Do you have an example pertaining to this report?

On 17 Sep 2013 17:54:24 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Tell that to the BBC, perhaps, who are keen to tell us what the IPCC
gets right but not the points they don't. That isn't balanced
journalism either.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

I suggest you reread it.

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:30:38 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

What models?
You don't need models to give the actual temperatures as measured over
the last few decades and they got those wrong.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

No, it's that if you vote for ****, you will certainly get it.

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:52:12 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Trouble is, vote kipper and get you get Red Ed.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

I shall be happy to pass comment on the report when it actually comes
out.

On 17 Sep 2013 07:39:04 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

There's plenty in there for Java Jive to get his teeth into.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:

Do you have an example pertaining to this report?

On 17 Sep 2013 17:54:24 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Tell that to the BBC, perhaps, who are keen to tell us what the IPCC
gets right but not the points they don't. That isn't balanced
journalism either.

Why? Don't you have one?

--
Terry Fields

On 17/09/13 19:35, Jim Hawkins wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
In this week's Mail on Sunday, so by definition, every word must be a
lie, but presented here for the amusement of the group, anyway ... :-)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

Arfa
Climate change is a branch of science in which the present state of
knowledge is so meagre that the uncertainties make any predictions
very liable to subsequent large corrections.
Nah the science is settled. And if temperatures do not match the dire
alarmist predictions, well the temperatures are plain WRONG.

And they call us deniers...
Jim Hawkins






--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

As I currently have no TV, I have no way of knowing whether the BBC
have reported on the IPCC leak, and if so how.

On 17 Sep 2013 21:57:53 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Why? Don't you have one?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Arfa Daily explained on 17/09/2013 :
In this week's Mail on Sunday, so by definition, every word must be a
lie, but presented here for the amusement of the group, anyway ...
:-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

Arfa

In that case where do we start the queue for a refund of all the billions
this warming fiasco has caused?

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk


Outside the offices of your local MP and your MEP, I would venture to
suggest ... ? :-)

Arfa

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 17/09/13 15:08, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
In that case where do we start the queue for a refund of all the
billions this warming fiasco has caused?
At the ballot box, where a vote for UKIP may ram the message home to the
punch and judy show in parliament that we are getting ****ed off with
their perpetual debates and meetings and could they please actually roll
their sleeves up and get down to some hard work to govern the country, or
we will sling them out

If you want a punch and judy show, Farage is a damn sight more fun to
watch that that drip miliband and 'fat boy' cameron.

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20...e%20battle.jpg

Trouble is, vote kipper and get you get Red Ed.

--
Tim


That is the obvious conclusion, and the one that Cameron's Clowns would have
us believe, but you never know. Stranger things happen ...

Arfa

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
Java Jive wrote:

shall look forward to the actual report itself with interest, but
would advise taking a more balanced view than the siren trumpeting of
headlines practices by rags such as the DM - I note that there is no
part in the report that says that the IPCC got such and such right,
only the points where they didn't. That is not balanced journalism.

Tell that to the BBC, perhaps, who are keen to tell us what the IPCC
gets right but not the points they don't. That isn't balanced
journalism either.

--
Terry Fields



+1

Arfa

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
As I currently have no TV, I have no way of knowing whether the BBC
have reported on the IPCC leak, and if so how.


I see you still haven't quite got the hang of posting despite how many
different people have told you how to do it properly ...

Arfa

"Jim Hawkins" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
In this week's Mail on Sunday, so by definition, every word must be a
lie, but presented here for the amusement of the group, anyway ... :-)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

Arfa

Climate change is a branch of science in which the present state of
knowledge is so meagre that the uncertainties make any predictions
very liable to subsequent large corrections.

Jim Hawkins


In which case, governments shouldn't be being conned into placing so much
faith in it for the purposes of setting policy and levying taxes. Perhaps
they ought to make some large corrections to the amounts of money that they
are extorting from us by way of these green taxes, and give us a bunch of
money back ...

Arfa

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 02:29:45 +0100 Arfa Daily wrote :
In which case, governments shouldn't be being conned into placing so much
faith in it for the purposes of setting policy and levying taxes. Perhaps
they ought to make some large corrections to the amounts of money that they
are extorting from us by way of these green taxes, and give us a bunch of
money back ...

A successful green tax doesn't make any money. Rather it changes people's
behaviour so that they don't have to pay it. It happened c.2001 when company
car tax was changed to be CO2 based. The Daily Mail (who else) carried wild
stories as to how people would be bankrupted by the change. What actually
happened IIRC is that BMW et al added low CO2 diesel versions to their range
and within a couple of years company car tax was raising less than before the
change. My last two UK cars were Honda Jazzs chosen because they fell in the
15% tax bracket.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On 17/09/2013 20:43, Java Jive wrote:
I suggest you reread it.

I suggest you do and then you can state what was wrong about what I said.

As it stands they got the actual temperature rises wrong not the
modelled ones.
The modelled ones were then wrong anyway and will still be wrong if they
use the correct data.


On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:30:38 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

What models?
You don't need models to give the actual temperatures as measured over
the last few decades and they got those wrong.

Java Jive wrote:


On 17 Sep 2013 21:57:53 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Why? Don't you have one?

As I currently have no TV, I have no way of knowing whether the BBC
have reported on the IPCC leak, and if so how.

So you also have no radio, no internet, no newspapers, and never
visit your local library.

That's not good for someone who does information research.

--
Terry Fields

On 18/09/13 04:00, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 02:29:45 +0100 Arfa Daily wrote :
In which case, governments shouldn't be being conned into placing so much
faith in it for the purposes of setting policy and levying taxes. Perhaps
they ought to make some large corrections to the amounts of money that they
are extorting from us by way of these green taxes, and give us a bunch of
money back ...
A successful green tax doesn't make any money. Rather it changes people's
behaviour so that they don't have to pay it. It happened c.2001 when company
car tax was changed to be CO2 based. The Daily Mail (who else) carried wild
stories as to how people would be bankrupted by the change. What actually
happened IIRC is that BMW et al added low CO2 diesel versions to their range
and within a couple of years company car tax was raising less than before the
change. My last two UK cars were Honda Jazzs chosen because they fell in the
15% tax bracket.

Ah thats the car tax that forces me to have one gaz guzzler instead of a
gas guzzler and a economical car, because I cant afford to tax two cars,
and I occasionally need the gas guzzler.?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 18/09/13 04:00, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 02:29:45 +0100 Arfa Daily wrote :
In which case, governments shouldn't be being conned into placing so much
faith in it for the purposes of setting policy and levying taxes. Perhaps
they ought to make some large corrections to the amounts of money that they
are extorting from us by way of these green taxes, and give us a bunch of
money back ...
A successful green tax doesn't make any money. Rather it changes people's
behaviour so that they don't have to pay it. It happened c.2001 when company
car tax was changed to be CO2 based. The Daily Mail (who else) carried wild
stories as to how people would be bankrupted by the change. What actually
happened IIRC is that BMW et al added low CO2 diesel versions to their range
and within a couple of years company car tax was raising less than before the
change. My last two UK cars were Honda Jazzs chosen because they fell in the
15% tax bracket.

Ah thats the car tax that forces me to have one gaz guzzler instead of a
gas guzzler and a economical car, because I cant afford to tax two cars,
and I occasionally need the gas guzzler.?




Yep almost the same here with a car we hardly use but need on the odd
occasion..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Arfa Daily wrote:
In this week's Mail on Sunday, so by definition, every word must be a lie,

Pretty much. Either that or they actually think 92% is "HALF".

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro..._sunday .html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknap...keeps-warming/
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-ice-delusions

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:40:05 +0100 Tony sayer wrote :
Yep almost the same here with a car we hardly use but need on the odd
occasion..

I own a Prius compact, but on the rare occasions I need something larger
I can use the local carshare Nissan XTrail wagon

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

In article , Tony Bryer
scribeth thus
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:40:05 +0100 Tony sayer wrote :
Yep almost the same here with a car we hardly use but need on the odd
occasion..

I own a Prius compact, but on the rare occasions I need something larger



I can use the local carshare Nissan XTrail wagon

Interesting, what's that work like?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Tim Streater wrote:
"The science is settled" is of course an oxymoron. Science is *never*
settled - anything that claims to be "settled" is not science.

Any scientific theory, no matter how well supported by the evidence, is
capable of being falsified, as many have been over the centuries. Very
often, as for instance with Newton's Laws, the newer theory (General
Relativity IIRC) can be shown to contain the older theory and reduce to
it under particular circumstances. In the case of Newton and Relativity,
it's when the gravitational field is not too strong.

But at the same time, anyone who uses "the science of gravity is not
settled" as an excuse for building a structure that calculations show
can't support it's own weight is an idiot, and you should not stand
underneath anything they build.

How do you draw any of those conclusions from my stating that
currently I have no working TV? In particular, how did I post above
without internet connectivity? Logic is not your strong point, is it?

On 18 Sep 2013 07:46:59 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

So you also have no radio, no internet, no newspapers, and never
visit your local library.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

No they didn't. Reread it again, this time properly with a critical
mind.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:25:32 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

I suggest you do and then you can state what was wrong about what I said.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 18/09/13 15:07, Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Tim Streater wrote:
"The science is settled" is of course an oxymoron. Science is *never*
settled - anything that claims to be "settled" is not science.

Any scientific theory, no matter how well supported by the evidence, is
capable of being falsified, as many have been over the centuries. Very
often, as for instance with Newton's Laws, the newer theory (General
Relativity IIRC) can be shown to contain the older theory and reduce to
it under particular circumstances. In the case of Newton and Relativity,
it's when the gravitational field is not too strong.
But at the same time, anyone who uses "the science of gravity is not
settled" as an excuse for building a structure that calculations show
can't support it's own weight is an idiot, and you should not stand
underneath anything they build.
On the other hand relying on a model that calculates bridge strength in
terms of pixieses per square centimetre, is not one I'd walk on either.,

You have to understand that AGW is not, and has not been for 15years a
'scientific' theory.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 18/09/13 15:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
(Alan Braggins) wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
"The science is settled" is of course an oxymoron. Science is
*never* settled - anything that claims to be "settled" is not science.

Any scientific theory, no matter how well supported by the evidence,
is capable of being falsified, as many have been over the centuries.
Very often, as for instance with Newton's Laws, the newer theory
(General Relativity IIRC) can be shown to contain the older theory
and reduce to it under particular circumstances. In the case of
Newton and Relativity, it's when the gravitational field is not too
strong.

But at the same time, anyone who uses "the science of gravity is not
settled" as an excuse for building a structure that calculations show
can't support it's own weight is an idiot, and you should not stand
underneath anything they build.

Of course, because so far, over the last 400 years, the only examples
of Newton failing come in regions of extreme gravitational field, such
as near a massive body like the Sun. The orbit of Mercury is an
example. Elsewhere, such as the rest of the Solar System, you can get
away with just using Newton, which is what NASA does for sending
probes into space.

NB the science of gravity is still not settled.

You can say that again..

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Java Jive wrote:

On 18 Sep 2013 07:46:59 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

So you also have no radio, no internet, no newspapers, and never
visit your local library.

How do you draw any of those conclusions from my stating that
currently I have no working TV? In particular, how did I post above
without internet connectivity? Logic is not your strong point, is it?

Ding!

You should read your own posts, the ones that people reply to, to see
what you originally said.

I'm in a kind mood at the moment, so I am happy to tell you that you
originally said "I have no way of knowing whether the BBC have
reported on the IPCC leak, and if so how", predicated on the fact
that you currently have no TV. But you could, for example, listen to
the radio, search on the internet, read a newspaper, or visit your
local library. I take it you seem not to have thought of these
things. Surely you don't always wait to be told what to think by the
BBC.

Logic would not appear to be your strong point, perhaps?

--
Terry Fields

On 17/09/2013 17:11, Java Jive wrote:
.. I note that there is no
part in the report that says that the IPCC got such and such right,
only the points where they didn't. That is not balanced journalism...

It is if they couldn't find anything the IPCC got right.

Colin Bignell