http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...te-change.html

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:22:33 +0000, harryagain wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ange/10458235/
Rocks-hold-the-truth-about-climate-change.html

Global warming/climate change is all tosh, m8.

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:22:33 AM UTC+13, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...te-change.html

The majority of the statements in that article are simply lies. There is just not enough time to refute the lies of those propagandists.

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:22:33 AM UTC+13, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...te-change.html

The majority of the statements in that article are simply lies. There is
just not enough time to refute the lies of those propagandists.

Oh and you're an expert?

harryagain wrote:


"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:22:33 AM UTC+13, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...te-change.html

The majority of the statements in that article are simply lies. There is
just not enough time to refute the lies of those propagandists.

Oh and you're an expert?

"The IPCC has said this in the first of the three reports it intends
to release this year and next. Its attitude is unequivocal."

Well, it would be, wouldn't it. This is one mighty gravy train.

"The world is warming"

No it isn't

"sea levels are rising"

Are they?

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer

"there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than at any time in
the past 800,000 years"

But only just up from the minimum and a very long way from the
maximum. CO2 release follows, not leads, increases in temperature. We
are still emerging from the last ice-age.

"and even the most optimistic computer model shows more of the same in
the near future"

I take it these are the same models that can't predict the past and
haven't predicted the present now being relied on to predict the
future?

"The IPCC says it is €œ95 per cent certain€� €“ which
is the same as saying that the odds are 19 to one that the science
is right. Science is rarely surer of itself than this"

Based on what?

Some people will believe anything.

--
Terry Fields

On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:
....

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

As have both sea and land ice in Antarctica.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:
...

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

There's no lies you won't tell is there?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/01/

http://my.firedoglake.com/weatherdem...-above-normal/

harryagain wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:
...

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

There's no lies you won't tell is there?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/01/

http://my.firedoglake.com/weatherdem...-above-normal/

You're behind the times, harry:

" On September 4, NSIDC, based at the University of Colorado, stated
on its website that in August 2013 the Arctic ice cover recovered by
a record 2.38 million sq km €“ 919,000 sq miles €“ from its 2012 low.
News of this figure was widely reported €“ including by Mailonline -
on September 8. But on September 10, the NSIDC quietly changed it to
1.38 million sq km (533,000 sq miles) €“ and replaced the original
document so the old figure no longer shows up on a main Google
search. It can now only be found on an old €˜cached page."

The latter, corrected, figure, means a 29% increase in Arctic sea ice
this summer.

--
Terry Fields

On 20/11/2013 17:02, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:
...

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

There's no lies you won't tell is there?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/01/

http://my.firedoglake.com/weatherdem...-above-normal/


Do try to get your attributions right. I only mentioned the
Antarctic. However, if you look at this year's figures, instead
of last year's that you quote, you will see that Terry Fields
was correct:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-29-year.html

Colin Bignell

harryagain wrote:
The majority of the statements in that article are simply lies. There is
just not enough time to refute the lies of those propagandists.

Oh and you're an expert?

The likelihood of anyone here (on any of the sides of the argument)
being any kind of climate expert is pretty minimal. But here

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Arctic ice/Jeffries Overland Arctic new normal%23.pdf

is something semi-technical about arctic sea ice that was published
in reputable physics magazine. Might be interesting.

I doubt very much it contains any lies, although some here might (perhaps)
take issue with some parts. If so, note that the letters section of Physics
Today often contains quite robust technical discussion, so feel free
to write in with a criticism at whatever level of detail you fancy.

Lastly, please do not confuse news reporting of science with the science
itself: I expect you can see a difference in style quite easily between
stuff in the telegraph/guardian/indy/whatever and the linked pdf. Also,
note that the article I link to is not even in itself a scientific journal
article, it is a less technical version aimed at a general audience of
physicists.

Have fun,

#Paul

How about setting up a new usenet group along the lines of
uk.discussion.global-warming

Then people who like to mumble about this topic can wibble to their
hearts content and not pretend it's anything to do with DIY.

Just an idea.


--
Sam

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:10:31 +0000, Sam Plusnet wrote:

How about setting up a new usenet group along the lines of
uk.discussion.global-warming

Then people who like to mumble about this topic can wibble to their
hearts content and not pretend it's anything to do with DIY.

Just an idea.

+1

TOJ.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:10:31 +0000, Sam Plusnet wrote:

How about setting up a new usenet group along the lines of
uk.discussion.global-warming

Then people who like to mumble about this topic can wibble to their
hearts content and not pretend it's anything to do with DIY.

Just an idea.

+1

TOJ.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:10:31 +0000, Sam Plusnet wrote:

How about setting up a new usenet group along the lines of
uk.discussion.global-warming

Then people who like to mumble about this topic can wibble to their
hearts content and not pretend it's anything to do with DIY.

Just an idea.

+1

TOJ.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:10:31 +0000, Sam Plusnet wrote:

How about setting up a new usenet group along the lines of
uk.discussion.global-warming

Then people who like to mumble about this topic can wibble to their
hearts content and not pretend it's anything to do with DIY.

Just an idea.

+1

TOJ.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:10:31 +0000, Sam Plusnet wrote:

How about setting up a new usenet group along the lines of
uk.discussion.global-warming

Then people who like to mumble about this topic can wibble to their
hearts content and not pretend it's anything to do with DIY.

Just an idea.

+1

TOJ.

On 20/11/2013 21:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
How about setting up a new usenet group along the lines of
uk.discussion.global-warming

Then people who like to mumble about this topic can wibble to their
hearts content and not pretend it's anything to do with DIY.

Just an idea.


If you want to stick to strictly DIY subjects, you are in the wrong
group. This one has developed into one where a wide range of subjects
are open for discussion, but people can also get some very good advice
about DIY, if they need it. IMO that makes it a much more interesting group.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
says...

On 20/11/2013 21:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
How about setting up a new usenet group along the lines of
uk.discussion.global-warming

Then people who like to mumble about this topic can wibble to their
hearts content and not pretend it's anything to do with DIY.

Just an idea.


If you want to stick to strictly DIY subjects, you are in the wrong
group. This one has developed into one where a wide range of subjects
are open for discussion, but people can also get some very good advice
about DIY, if they need it. IMO that makes it a much more interesting group.

I think you've misrepresented what I said.

I made no comment about sticking strictly to DIY, but this particular
topic seems to attract long threads which are quite distinct from the
other matter raised here.

Some people have strong views on this topic & like to air them over &
over.
Fine, no problem, but... why here?

Surely a separate usenet group where people can exchange views on this
topic (which generates so much heat) makes sense?

As I said, just an idea.

--
Sam

On 21/11/2013 00:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 20/11/2013 21:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
How about setting up a new usenet group along the lines of
uk.discussion.global-warming

Then people who like to mumble about this topic can wibble to their
hearts content and not pretend it's anything to do with DIY.

Just an idea.


If you want to stick to strictly DIY subjects, you are in the wrong
group. This one has developed into one where a wide range of subjects
are open for discussion, but people can also get some very good advice
about DIY, if they need it. IMO that makes it a much more interesting group.

I think you've misrepresented what I said.

I made no comment about sticking strictly to DIY, but this particular
topic seems to attract long threads which are quite distinct from the
other matter raised here.

Some people have strong views on this topic & like to air them over &
over.
Fine, no problem, but... why here?

Surely a separate usenet group where people can exchange views on this
topic (which generates so much heat) makes sense?

As I said, just an idea.


I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is just such a group.
However, I suspect it would not attract the (mostly) informed discussion
of the subject we get here. In any case, I like long threads that wander
off into different areas. If you don't, most readers allow you to mark a
thread as to be ignored.

Colin Bignell

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:
...

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

There's no lies you won't tell is there?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/01/

http://my.firedoglake.com/weatherdem...-above-normal/

You're behind the times, harry:

" On September 4, NSIDC, based at the University of Colorado, stated
on its website that in August 2013 the Arctic ice cover recovered by
a record 2.38 million sq km - 919,000 sq miles - from its 2012 low.
News of this figure was widely reported - including by Mailonline -
on September 8. But on September 10, the NSIDC quietly changed it to
1.38 million sq km (533,000 sq miles) - and replaced the original
document so the old figure no longer shows up on a main Google
search. It can now only be found on an old 'cached' page."

The latter, corrected, figure, means a 29% increase in Arctic sea ice
this summer.



Citation/link?

Or just more pub gossip?

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 17:02, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:
...

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

There's no lies you won't tell is there?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/01/

http://my.firedoglake.com/weatherdem...-above-normal/


Do try to get your attributions right. I only mentioned the
Antarctic. However, if you look at this year's figures, instead
of last year's that you quote, you will see that Terry Fields
was correct:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-29-year.html


Daily Mail? Riiiight. You believe journalists?
This year is 2013 unless you are in a time warp.

Even then one year would be just a blip.

Nightjar wrote:

On 21/11/2013 00:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:

Some people have strong views on this topic & like to air them over &
over. Fine, no problem, but... why here?

Surely a separate usenet group where people can exchange views on this
topic (which generates so much heat) makes sense?

As I said, just an idea.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is just such a group.
However, I suspect it would not attract the (mostly) informed discussion
of the subject we get here. In any case, I like long threads that wander
off into different areas. If you don't, most readers allow you to mark a
thread as to be ignored.

Perhaps instead of marking the relevant threads with "OT:", we should
prefix the Subject: line with "GW:"? Then people could filter out the
threads if they didn't want to see them.

But in order to avoid any possible confusion with Grid Watch, another
OT but fascinating subject, we should pick one of the other many and
varied initials for Global Warming, such as AGW/CAGW/CC/ACC/CACC, or
just use the latest variant as it emerges.

--
Terry Fields

On 21/11/2013 08:54, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 17:02, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:
...

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

There's no lies you won't tell is there?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/01/

http://my.firedoglake.com/weatherdem...-above-normal/


Do try to get your attributions right. I only mentioned the
Antarctic. However, if you look at this year's figures, instead
of last year's that you quote, you will see that Terry Fields
was correct:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-29-year.html


Daily Mail? Riiiight. You believe journalists?

Prefer another source?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...high-saturday/


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

harryagain wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

Do try to get your attributions right. I only mentioned the
Antarctic. However, if you look at this year's figures, instead
of last year's that you quote, you will see that Terry Fields
was correct:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-29-year.html

Daily Mail? Riiiight. You believe journalists?

Are you sayng the satellite photos have been faked?

Was it the DM that published the wrong figure for sea ice, then
quietly covered it up? Or was it the source of *your* information,
namely NSIDC?

If you're going to shoot the messenger, make sure your own one is
squeaky clean.

This year is 2013 unless you are in a time warp. Even then one
year would be just a blip.

Like we've just had 15 years of blips of no global warming?

--
Terry Fields

On 21/11/13 09:06, Terry Fields wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

On 21/11/2013 00:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:

Some people have strong views on this topic & like to air them over &
over. Fine, no problem, but... why here?

Surely a separate usenet group where people can exchange views on this
topic (which generates so much heat) makes sense?

As I said, just an idea.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is just such a group.
However, I suspect it would not attract the (mostly) informed discussion
of the subject we get here. In any case, I like long threads that wander
off into different areas. If you don't, most readers allow you to mark a
thread as to be ignored.

Perhaps instead of marking the relevant threads with "OT:", we should
prefix the Subject: line with "GW:"? Then people could filter out the
threads if they didn't want to see them.

But in order to avoid any possible confusion with Grid Watch, another
OT but fascinating subject, we should pick one of the other many and
varied initials for Global Warming, such as AGW/CAGW/CC/ACC/CACC, or
just use the latest variant as it emerges.

uk.d-i-y has always been 'men, in sheds, talking'

Anyway, as far as Gridwatch is concerned I Did It Myself, so there!

--
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.

John Rumm wrote:

On 21/11/2013 08:54, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 17:02, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:
...

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

There's no lies you won't tell is there?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/01/

http://my.firedoglake.com/weatherdem...-above-normal/

Do try to get your attributions right. I only mentioned the
Antarctic. However, if you look at this year's figures, instead
of last year's that you quote, you will see that Terry Fields
was correct:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-29-year.html

Daily Mail? Riiiight. You believe journalists?

Prefer another source?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...high-saturday/

Crikey. One more standard deviation and the growth in Arctic sea ice
will be as well founded as the IPCC CC certainty ;-)

I bet the models are working overtime to account for this second
year's anomalous behaviour. But looking at it simply, if we've just
enjoyed 15 years of no increase in global temperatures, perhaps the
Arctic sea ice is merely responding to that and finding a new
equilibrium.

--
Terry Fields

in 1271869 20131120 173451 Nightjar wrote:
On 20/11/2013 17:02, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:
...

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

There's no lies you won't tell is there?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/01/

http://my.firedoglake.com/weatherdem...arctic-below-a
nd-antarctic-above-normal/


Do try to get your attributions right. I only mentioned the
Antarctic. However, if you look at this year's figures, instead
of last year's that you quote, you will see that Terry Fields
was correct:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ap-grows-29-ye
ar.html

You have to be desperate to quote the Daily Mail ;-)

harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

There's no lies you won't tell is there?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/01/

http://my.firedoglake.com/weatherdem...-above-normal/

You're behind the times, harry:

" On September 4, NSIDC, based at the University of Colorado, stated
on its website that in August 2013 the Arctic ice cover recovered by
a record 2.38 million sq km - 919,000 sq miles - from its 2012 low.
News of this figure was widely reported - including by Mailonline -
on September 8. But on September 10, the NSIDC quietly changed it to
1.38 million sq km (533,000 sq miles) - and replaced the original
document so the old figure no longer shows up on a main Google
search. It can now only be found on an old 'cached' page."

The latter, corrected, figure, means a 29% increase in Arctic sea ice
this summer.

Citation/link? Or just more pub gossip?

It's NSIDC's figures, although I'm not sure which pub they
published them in.

--
Terry Fields

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/11/13 09:06, Terry Fields wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

Perhaps instead of marking the relevant threads with "OT:", we should
prefix the Subject: line with "GW:"? Then people could filter out the
threads if they didn't want to see them.

But in order to avoid any possible confusion with Grid Watch, another
OT but fascinating subject, we should pick one of the other many and
varied initials for Global Warming, such as AGW/CAGW/CC/ACC/CACC, or
just use the latest variant as it emerges.

uk.d-i-y has always been 'men, in sheds, talking'

Anyway, as far as Gridwatch is concerned I Did It Myself, so there!

LOL! So you did - my apologies!

--
Terry Fields

On 21/11/2013 08:54, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 17:02, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:
...

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

There's no lies you won't tell is there?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/01/

http://my.firedoglake.com/weatherdem...-above-normal/


Do try to get your attributions right. I only mentioned the
Antarctic. However, if you look at this year's figures, instead
of last year's that you quote, you will see that Terry Fields
was correct:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-29-year.html


Daily Mail? Riiiight. You believe journalists?

That was simply the first source I found. As John Rumm has posted, there
are others.

This year is 2013 unless you are in a time warp.

Your point being what? That article was published 8 September 2013 and
updated 28 September 2013. The satellite images are clearly marked, so
you can tell the difference between 2012 and 2013.

Even then one year would be just a blip.

Which would also be true of 2012. The historical evidence is that Arctic
ice has always been very variable.

This is a report to the Admiralty from 1817:

€œIt will without doubt have come to your Lordships knowledge that a
considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have
taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the
cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern
latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two
years, greatly abated.

Mr. Scoresby, a very intelligent young man who commands a whaling vessel
from Whitby observed last year that 2000 square leagues of ice with
which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N have been
hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared. The
same person who has never been before able to penetrate to the westward
of the Meridian of Greenwich in these latitudes was this year able to
proceed to 10°, 30€²W where he saw the coast of East Greenland and
entertained no doubt of being able to reach the land had not his duty to
his employers made it necessary for him to abandon the undertaking.

This, with information of a similar nature derived from other sources;
the unusual abundance of ice islands that have during the last two
summers been brought by currents from Davies Streights (sic) into the
Atlantic.

The ice which has this year surrounded the northern coast of Ireland (
see footnotes1) in unusual quantity and remained there unthawed till the
middle of August, with the floods which have during the whole summer
inundated all those parts of Germany where rivers have their sources in
snowy mountains.

This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and
give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more
accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries
may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of
science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce
of distant nations.€�

In 2010, a ship was recovered from an area that had previously been
classed as unreachable due to sea ice. even with modern icebreakers.
However, that sailing ship had reached the area in 1853.

Then there is this report, from 1922, which reports very similar
conditions to recent years:

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/...0-11-0589a.pdf

Colin Bignell

Chris Hogg wrote:

On 21 Nov 2013 09:06:54 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:


Perhaps instead of marking the relevant threads with "OT:", we should
prefix the Subject: line with "GW:"? Then people could filter out the
threads if they didn't want to see them.

But in order to avoid any possible confusion with Grid Watch, another
OT but fascinating subject, we should pick one of the other many and
varied initials for Global Warming, such as AGW/CAGW/CC/ACC/CACC, or
just use the latest variant as it emerges.

CACC might be appropriate. It is homophonic with .... well, I'm sure
you can work it out!

LOL!

--
Terry Fields

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:21:06 +0000, The Other John wrote:


+1

TOJ.

What's going on?! I only hit send once!

TOJ.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:21:06 +0000, The Other John wrote:


+1

TOJ.

What's going on?! I only hit send once!

TOJ.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:21:06 +0000, The Other John wrote:


+1

TOJ.

What's going on?! I only hit send once!

TOJ.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:50:04 +0000, The Other John wrote:

+1

TOJ.

What's going on?! I only hit send once!

TOJ.

This is being discussed over in the "Screw choice" thread at the mo...

On Tuesday, 19 November 2013 17:22:33 UTC, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...te-change.html


As little as ~30,000 years ago Britain was connected to mainland Europe, so whom was responsible for the massive CO2 emissions that caused the sea level to rise separating us from France, if you can find out please congratulate them on doing a fine job ;-)

On Wednesday, 20 November 2013 21:10:31 UTC, Sam Plusnet wrote:
How about setting up a new usenet group along the lines of

uk.discussion.global-warming



Then people who like to mumble about this topic can wibble to their

hearts content and not pretend it's anything to do with DIY.

It obviously has a lot to do with it, think of all those angle griders being used and those rechargable drills need charging.....
in my dads day drills were driven by humans.

And IF[1]we are guilty of warming the planet up then it is a DIY issue because we're Doing It Y'selves ;-)

[1] where if should be in a really large font.

On 21/11/2013 09:06, Terry Fields wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

On 21/11/2013 00:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:

Some people have strong views on this topic & like to air them over &
over. Fine, no problem, but... why here?

Surely a separate usenet group where people can exchange views on this
topic (which generates so much heat) makes sense?

As I said, just an idea.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is just such a group.
However, I suspect it would not attract the (mostly) informed discussion
of the subject we get here. In any case, I like long threads that wander
off into different areas. If you don't, most readers allow you to mark a
thread as to be ignored.

Perhaps instead of marking the relevant threads with "OT:", we should
prefix the Subject: line with "GW:"? Then people could filter out the
threads if they didn't want to see them.

Might be worth reminding thunderbird users of the "kill subthread"
(shift k - or on the Messages menu) option... Lets you ignore bits of
threads that have taken a turn for the less interesting.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 21/11/2013 09:24, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1271869 20131120 173451 Nightjar wrote:
On 20/11/2013 17:02, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2013 09:38, Terry Fields wrote:
...

"ice caps are shrinking"

Arctic sea ice has *increased* this summer...

There's no lies you won't tell is there?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/01/

http://my.firedoglake.com/weatherdem...arctic-below-a
nd-antarctic-above-normal/


Do try to get your attributions right. I only mentioned the
Antarctic. However, if you look at this year's figures, instead
of last year's that you quote, you will see that Terry Fields
was correct:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ap-grows-29-ye
ar.html

You have to be desperate to quote the Daily Mail ;-)


It has the advantage of being written in a style that almost anybody can
understand. ;-)

Colin Bignell

In article , lid says...


snip

uk.d-i-y has always been 'men, in sheds, talking'

I understand that uk.rec.sheds are about to crowd-source a patent
violation suit.


--
Sam