http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they
admit they are wrong.

On 21/08/14 20:46, Dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they
admit they are wrong.

Basically the catch 22 here is that if the cycle was responsible for
cooling between WWII and 1970, it would have been reponsible for warming
between 1970 and 2000 as well.


Either way CO2 AGW is a busted flush.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/08/14 20:46, Dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they
admit they are wrong.

Basically the catch 22 here is that if the cycle was responsible for
cooling between WWII and 1970, it would have been reponsible for warming
between 1970 and 2000 as well.

Either way CO2 AGW is a busted flush.

Did you like the dramatic graphic allegedly showing 'humidity over the
Pacific' that wasn't mentioned at all in the report and had no scale
on it?

We can expect to see more of the phrase 'Rising Staircase of Warming',
although it's never been metioned before and the models (remember
them?) never predicted it and no graph has shown it.

--
Terry Fields

On 22/08/14 09:30, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:48:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/08/14 20:46, Dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they
admit they are wrong.

Basically the catch 22 here is that if the cycle was responsible for
cooling between WWII and 1970, it would have been reponsible for warming
between 1970 and 2000 as well.

Another explanation will be along tomorrow. I propose that latent heat
of melting of the icecaps and glaciers is absorbing all the heat. Or
has that been done already? ;-)

Either way CO2 AGW is a busted flush.

At one time I was an ardent believer in AGW. Although I haven't
changed my view completely, I am becoming increasingly sceptical. The
proponents of AGW do seem to be becoming more and more desperate to
maintain the theory. If this new idea has substance, such a cycle
should be visible in the historical record. After all, En Nino cycles
have been known about for decades, so why has this only just come to
light. I haven't read the original article, but if the cycle was
apparent historically, I'm sure the authors would have highlighted it
in the abstract.

The actual climate is a chaotic dynamic system - that's becoming
apparent - and if that is the case there is no 'cause' of global warming
and cooling, and no 'it's cyclic'. It's chaotic with attractors. And it
looks like there are two. One is ice age, and t'other is as now.

In between it simply wobbles about.

Water is the key. There is massive latent heat in water as vapour and ice.

Ice forms a massive albedo increase as do clouds.

That means ice can, after covering large area, get to be something that
stabilises climate at very cold.

Likewise once above freezing water vapour acts the other way, to broadly
stabilise things within the liquid with vapour phase of water.

Water vapour as cloud and warm tropical water as ocean currents are the
two main ways the poles are warmed and heat is overall lost.

Direct radiation from the surface of the earth represents about half of
the actual loss and this is what should be affected by CO2. However the
maths gives very small increases for it - less than half a degree for
doubling CO2.

In order to 'explain' why the late 20th century warming was as it was,
the AGW proponents posited an unknown amplification factor and simply
multiplied the effect of CO2 by it. They assumed that water vapours in
the air would act to increase te greenhouse effect.

Tow problems.

There was no evidence that it did - hotspots at altitude that would have
demonstrated that feedback, failed to appear.

And of course that water vapour POSITIVE feedback would have led to an
amplification of any other temperature rises or falls so a volcanic
eruption causing global cooling should have been far more severe and
longer lasting than in fact the data showed.

In fact the case seems to be that water feedback is negative. Water acts
as a giant thermostat with water vapour rising in a warming climate till
it reaches saturation, at which point upper air cloudiness increases as
radiation from high up beyond most of the CO2 occurs, the ware becomes
ice, clouds form and rain hail sleet and snow falls.

Likewise a lot of cold fresh water at the poles tends to block the ocean
current circulation, leading to less heat in the poles and thus
returning ice to the poles.

Imagine a room with half a dozen thermostats some of which open
windows, or switch on fans, all very very slow to operate and you have
some idea of the nature of the beast.


If the climate were as unstable as the warmist claim, we wouldn't be
where we are now.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The actual climate is a chaotic dynamic system - that's becoming
apparent

Strange how long it's taking to become apparent to climatologists, given
than the butterfly effect is probably the only thing related to chaos
TMITS could name.

On 22/08/14 10:21, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The actual climate is a chaotic dynamic system - that's becoming
apparent

Strange how long it's taking to become apparent to climatologists, given
than the butterfly effect is probably the only thing related to chaos
TMITS could name.


it is frightening to understand how the power of government money can
bias all research into giving the politically correct answer.

Left leaning politics loves climate change. It gives an excuse for
government to have more power, as does global terrorism.

Industry loves climate change. Its an excuse to get government money for
building and supplying useless hardware.

The oil industry loves climate change. As long as they can ensure than
only useless technology is supplied, their sales and profits are unaffected.

The mainstream media loves climate change. Scary stories no matter how
untrue, sell newspapers and improve ratings.


The general tendency therefore becomes what I call living in a tissue of
lies and a climate of fear, and no one seeks to challenge it, because
they are too scared to shoot the sacred cow.


The only people worse off are ordinary citizens, but they have no power,
just a vote every 5 years.

And since both parties have been bought lock stock and stinking barrel
by the same people with the same money, that makes no difference.

Unless they vote UKIP of course. UKIP hasn't been bought - yet..


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they
admit they are wrong.

As long as they can keep people thinking of it, and referring to it, as
a 'pause' rather than a 'stop', they can get away with it for as long as
they like.

On 22/08/2014 11:35, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they
admit they are wrong.

As long as they can keep people thinking of it, and referring to it, as
a 'pause' rather than a 'stop', they can get away with it for as long as
they like.

Not if the Russians are right and we are heading into at least half a
century of global cooling.

--
Colin Bignell

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they admit
they are wrong.

Straws being clutched at I think.
I've never bought into the idea of man made climate change, as far as I'm
concerned the climate has been changing constantly since the Earth was
formed, with or without humankind to affect anything.
There are possibly a few good things that may have come out of the whole
sorry saga, recycling is one of them - I can't see the point of burying
steel cans and glass bottles just to make more, if it is done properly, it
must be cheaper to re-use them.
Advances in solar energy is possibly another, certainly not for domestic
uses, but certainly for powering small appliances and recharging batteries
etc.
Cleaner air can't be a bad thing

FWIW, I don't think they will ever admit that they were wrong, the climate
is constantly in a state of flux and always will be, and nothing can be done
by humankind to make it better or worse for our purpose, we either adapt to
the environment or die off, just the same as every other living organism
that has ever existed.

On 22/08/14 16:31, Jethro_uk wrote:


Of course not. They'll just say that *because* of all the Greenwash of
the 90s and 00s, we averted a catastrophe.

In other news, the spray I bought in the market a few years ago is still
working at keeping elephants out of my garden. As long as I remember to
do it once a week.


I was preparing to vent the gas out of my freezer. That would have kept
quite a number of elephants out of my garden.....

--
Adrian C

In article ,
"Phil L" writes:

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they admit
they are wrong.

Straws being clutched at I think.
I've never bought into the idea of man made climate change, as far as I'm
concerned the climate has been changing constantly since the Earth was
formed, with or without humankind to affect anything.
There are possibly a few good things that may have come out of the whole
sorry saga, recycling is one of them - I can't see the point of burying
steel cans and glass bottles just to make more, if it is done properly, it
must be cheaper to re-use them.
Advances in solar energy is possibly another, certainly not for domestic
uses, but certainly for powering small appliances and recharging batteries
etc.
Cleaner air can't be a bad thing

+1

Also good to have forced more careful consideration and use of fossil
fuels, because they become increasingly more expensive to extract.

FWIW, I don't think they will ever admit that they were wrong, the climate

I think the final step will be to claim it's doing something which is
not provable (in any reasonable timescale), such as heating the really
deep ocean where we've never had any temperature monitoring, so it will
be impossible to disprove.

is constantly in a state of flux and always will be, and nothing can be done
by humankind to make it better or worse for our purpose, we either adapt to
the environment or die off, just the same as every other living organism
that has ever existed.

Since the last ice age, the earth has not yet got as warm as it did
between the previous ones, so we should be expecting it to get warmer.

BTW, tonight they are forecasting temperatures will go lower than they
ever have since records began, for this time of year. ;-)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 23/08/2014 18:09, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
BTW, tonight they are forecasting temperatures will go lower than they
ever have since records began, for this time of year.;-)

Says 7C at 06:00 tomorrow morning - is yours lower or is that a record
breaking low?

--
Rod

In article ,
polygonum writes:
On 23/08/2014 18:09, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
BTW, tonight they are forecasting temperatures will go lower than they
ever have since records began, for this time of year.;-)

Says 7C at 06:00 tomorrow morning - is yours lower or is that a record
breaking low?

ISTR somewhere was predicted to be 2C, but I wasn't paying enough
attention to remember where that was - probably Scotland somewhere.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 23/08/2014 19:18, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
polygonum writes:
On 23/08/2014 18:09, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
BTW, tonight they are forecasting temperatures will go lower than they
ever have since records began, for this time of year.;-)

Says 7C at 06:00 tomorrow morning - is yours lower or is that a record
breaking low?

ISTR somewhere was predicted to be 2C, but I wasn't paying enough
attention to remember where that was - probably Scotland somewhere.

The other day (think it was Thursday, but could be a day or two out) we
actually got a touch of frost on very exposed parts like tops of sheds -
somewhere around 05:30. No - I was not the observer, merely reporting
onwards. This is in Bucks.

--
Rod

In article ,
(Andrew Gabriel) writes:
In article ,
polygonum writes:
On 23/08/2014 18:09, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
BTW, tonight they are forecasting temperatures will go lower than they
ever have since records began, for this time of year.;-)

Says 7C at 06:00 tomorrow morning - is yours lower or is that a record
breaking low?

ISTR somewhere was predicted to be 2C, but I wasn't paying enough
attention to remember where that was - probably Scotland somewhere.

Paid more attention for the 7pm forecast, which is now predicting
even lower. 0C in Scotland, and 1C in Northern England.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 23/08/2014 20:04, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Paid more attention for the 7pm forecast, which is now predicting
even lower. 0C in Scotland, and 1C in Northern England.

That's quite cool for August!

--
Rod

In article ,
polygonum writes:
On 23/08/2014 20:04, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Paid more attention for the 7pm forecast, which is now predicting
even lower. 0C in Scotland, and 1C in Northern England.

That's quite cool for August!

News this morning said Northern Ireland reached -1.9C, which is a
low temperature record for August. No mention of any other areas.
Only reach 9C here, but urban areas were never expected to get down
low, as there was no wind.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 18:26:56 +0100, polygonum wrote:

On 23/08/2014 18:09, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
BTW, tonight they are forecasting temperatures will go lower than they
ever have since records began, for this time of year.;-)

Says 7C at 06:00 tomorrow morning - is yours lower or is that a record
breaking low?

Here (S. Northants) we did have just a frost a few Augusts ago, end of
August IIRC, so a few days yet...
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

PeterC wrote:

Here (S. Northants) we did have just a frost a few Augusts ago, end of
August IIRC, so a few days yet...

Ground frost in Lincolnshire last night.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:30:45 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

PeterC wrote:

Here (S. Northants) we did have just a frost a few Augusts ago, end of
August IIRC, so a few days yet...

Ground frost in Lincolnshire last night.

Looks like the rest of the week will be wet and not cold at night. Tomorrow
the forecast could change.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 2014-08-21 19:46:56 +0000, Dennis@home said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they
admit they are wrong.

I thought science was welcome on a DIY forum. Should be renamed DIYS -
do it yourself science.

E.

On 24/08/14 22:58, eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-21 19:46:56 +0000, Dennis@home said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they
admit they are wrong.

I thought science was welcome on a DIY forum. Should be renamed DIYS -
do it yourself science.

Science is welcome.

The question is how long ago AGW the hypothesis ceased to be science and
became a tool for increasing government power and making ****loads of money.


You will have noticed that people woth money always manage to take more
from people with very little, and governments are ideal to make this
happen faster and in a planned way.

When the little people have been bled dry, then essentially they will be
surplus to requirements.


One can imagine a disease being set loose for which there exists an
expensive inoculation.

Leaving the very rich in a rather nice world from which all the not very
rich at all have been eliminated.


After all, with automation, who needs working people?


E.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 2014-08-24 22:24:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

On 24/08/14 22:58, eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-21 19:46:56 +0000, Dennis@home said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they
admit they are wrong.

I thought science was welcome on a DIY forum. Should be renamed DIYS -
do it yourself science.

Science is welcome.

The question is how long ago AGW the hypothesis ceased to be science
and became a tool for increasing government power and making ****loads
of money.

Wow - I thought these loony conspiracy theories were exclusivey owned
by the American far right. The infection must be spreading.

E.

On 24/08/14 23:32, eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-24 22:24:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

On 24/08/14 22:58, eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-21 19:46:56 +0000, Dennis@home said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

Now they are trying to string it out for another decade before they
admit they are wrong.

I thought science was welcome on a DIY forum. Should be renamed DIYS -
do it yourself science.

Science is welcome.

The question is how long ago AGW the hypothesis ceased to be science
and became a tool for increasing government power and making ****loads
of money.

Wow - I thought these loony conspiracy theories were exclusivey owned by
the American far right. The infection must be spreading.

No dear, reality is spreading.

Judge a man, or a group, not by what they say, but what they do.

If you really think people are not lying to you on the media 95% of the
time you must be green and wet behind the ears.



E.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In message , Andy
Burns writes
PeterC wrote:

Here (S. Northants) we did have just a frost a few Augusts ago, end of
August IIRC, so a few days yet...

Ground frost in Lincolnshire last night.

Temp here (Aberdeenshire) is 0.7 this morning.
--
Graeme

Adrian C wrote:
On 22/08/14 16:31, Jethro_uk wrote:


Of course not. They'll just say that *because* of all the Greenwash of
the 90s and 00s, we averted a catastrophe.

In other news, the spray I bought in the market a few years ago is still
working at keeping elephants out of my garden. As long as I remember to
do it once a week.


I was preparing to vent the gas out of my freezer. That would have kept
quite a number of elephants out of my garden.....


Want to know something funny, it is an offence to vent 134a
(Tetrafluoroethane)to atmosphere from your auto air con,(big fine), you
can buy cans of stuff to blow the rubbish off your keyboard or freeze
things (electronics) and often it is 134a,

http://www.falconsafety.com/wp-conte...VHaqn5BXTvQKS0

http://tinyurl.com/o6byu2x

It was once used as a propellant in asthma puffers.

On 2014-08-25 08:14:23 +0000, Chris Hogg said:

there's a significant body who don't accept it.

No they are not significant. That's the point.

E.

On 2014-08-25 11:03:00 +0000, Chris Hogg said:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:35:21 +0100, eastender
wrote:

On 2014-08-25 08:14:23 +0000, Chris Hogg said:

there's a significant body who don't accept it.

No they are not significant. That's the point.

E.

Your opinion. Not everyone's.

This link references a long list of eminent atmospheric and
meteorological scientists from all over the world who question the AGW
theory. http://tinyurl.com/m6zvdu8
They may be right, they may be wrong, but to describe them as 'not
significant' is blinkered and unscientific, and ignores their academic
status within their own institutions.

By all means keep posting propaganda funded by American conservatives
bankrolled by Exxon etc - that's what they want you to do.

E.

On 2014-08-25 12:43:36 +0000, Chris Hogg said:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:18:23 +0100, eastender
wrote:

On 2014-08-25 11:03:00 +0000, Chris Hogg said:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:35:21 +0100, eastender
wrote:

On 2014-08-25 08:14:23 +0000, Chris Hogg said:

there's a significant body who don't accept it.

No they are not significant. That's the point.

E.

Your opinion. Not everyone's.

This link references a long list of eminent atmospheric and
meteorological scientists from all over the world who question the AGW
theory. http://tinyurl.com/m6zvdu8
They may be right, they may be wrong, but to describe them as 'not
significant' is blinkered and unscientific, and ignores their academic
status within their own institutions.

By all means keep posting propaganda funded by American conservatives
bankrolled by Exxon etc - that's what they want you to do.

E.

Oh, you silly man!

Me silly? In what way is Climate Depot not run by CFACT (Committee For
A Constructive Tomorrow):

"Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is an
anti-environmentalist pressure group founded by David Rothbard and
Craig Rucker in 1985. They both have the academic backgrounds,
lifestyles, addresses and PR Guru mugshots of serious lobbyists. Three
of the primary funders of CFACT are the Carthage Foundation, Exxon
Mobil, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. A whole host of prominent
deniers have sat on its board of advisers at some time, including
Sallie Baliunas, Roger Bate, E. Calvin Beisner, Michael Fumento,
Sherwood B. Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz. The
organization funds Climate Depot, Marc Morano's online denialist
outlet. In 2009, they helped to organize the Copenhagen Climate
Challenge, the denialist response to the United Nations' Copenhagen
Summit."
As I said, it's OK to believe in that the vast majority of the world's
scientists and governments are out to get you but if you haven't done
so I think you should look at where you get your beliefs from. Bear in
mind they don't just lie about climate change but also about many other
enviromental protection issues.

Meanwhile, I'll post a method of making a DIY tinfoil hat.

E.

On 2014-08-25 14:31:26 +0000, Chris Hogg said:


With an intemperate rant like that, you make my point. No
consideration of the arguments, whether predictions based on
Milankovic cycles are valid or not, or whether the climate is or is
not just a chaotic system with attractors. Just abuse of those who
hold a differing view about GW. Silly man. You should try and be more
objective.

You can have a 'differing view' - but once you try and call it science
you might just as well sacrifice a chicken to see if AGW is real for
all the worth your view has.

All you've done is confirmed you're in the virtual pocket of the
industrial polluters and anarchist American liberterians.

E.

On 25/08/2014 16:20, eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-25 14:31:26 +0000, Chris Hogg said:


With an intemperate rant like that, you make my point. No
consideration of the arguments, whether predictions based on
Milankovic cycles are valid or not, or whether the climate is or is
not just a chaotic system with attractors. Just abuse of those who
hold a differing view about GW. Silly man. You should try and be more
objective.

You can have a 'differing view' - but once you try and call it science
you might just as well sacrifice a chicken to see if AGW is real for all
the worth your view has.

All you've done is confirmed you're in the virtual pocket of the
industrial polluters and anarchist American liberterians.

E.

Another climate scaremonger or just a nym change?

There is no evidence that AGW is true.
The models used to predict it and its effects don't work and that can be
shown to be a fact as they have failed to predict the current state and
I see no reason to believe they will predict what will happen in 50
years time.
When you can predict what will happen in a few years time then come back
and present the evidence, until then its just an unproven theory not
scientific fact.

On 2014-08-25 15:39:32 +0000, Dennis@home said:

On 25/08/2014 16:20, eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-25 14:31:26 +0000, Chris Hogg said:


With an intemperate rant like that, you make my point. No
consideration of the arguments, whether predictions based on
Milankovic cycles are valid or not, or whether the climate is or is
not just a chaotic system with attractors. Just abuse of those who
hold a differing view about GW. Silly man. You should try and be more
objective.

You can have a 'differing view' - but once you try and call it science
you might just as well sacrifice a chicken to see if AGW is real for all
the worth your view has.

All you've done is confirmed you're in the virtual pocket of the
industrial polluters and anarchist American liberterians.

E.

Another climate scaremonger or just a nym change?

There is no evidence that AGW is true.

So organisations such as the Royal Society are lying then? Go read this
lot - I'll put you in the 'perplexed' basket in absence of data that
you're a shill for the free market at any cost crowd.

In the words of the Royal Society:
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to
make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing
global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this
will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate
science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well
enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The
science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to
cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast
as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We
must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are
already inevitable.
€¢ The Royal Society has produced answers to eight misleading arguments
about climate change in their publication €˜Climate change
controversies: a simple guide
€¢ New Scientist has €˜Climate change: a guide for the perplexed.
€¢ The Skeptical Science website examines the science of global warming
scepticism and includes 74 sceptics arguments, ranked by frequency of
occurrence.
€¢ RealClimate also has a set of €˜Responses to common contrarian arguments.

eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-25 15:39:32 +0000, Dennis@home said:

On 25/08/2014 16:20, eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-25 14:31:26 +0000, Chris Hogg said:


With an intemperate rant like that, you make my point. No
consideration of the arguments, whether predictions based on
Milankovic cycles are valid or not, or whether the climate is or is
not just a chaotic system with attractors. Just abuse of those who
hold a differing view about GW. Silly man. You should try and be more
objective.

You can have a 'differing view' - but once you try and call it science
you might just as well sacrifice a chicken to see if AGW is real for all
the worth your view has.

All you've done is confirmed you're in the virtual pocket of the
industrial polluters and anarchist American liberterians.

E.

Another climate scaremonger or just a nym change?

There is no evidence that AGW is true.

So organisations such as the Royal Society are lying then? Go read this
lot - I'll put you in the 'perplexed' basket in absence of data that
you're a shill for the free market at any cost crowd.

In the words of the Royal Society:
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to
make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing
global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this
will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate
science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well
enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The
science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to
cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as
possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must
also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are
already inevitable.
€¢ The Royal Society has produced answers to eight misleading
arguments about climate change in their publication €˜Climate change
controversies: a simple guide
€¢ New Scientist has €˜Climate change: a guide for the perplexed.
€¢ The Skeptical Science website examines the science of global
warming scepticism and includes 74 sceptics arguments, ranked by
frequency of occurrence.
€¢ RealClimate also has a set of €˜Responses to common contrarian
arguments.


You've obviously missed reading the motto of the RS. Would suggest you
do so before continuing to make yourself look a huge fool!

On 2014-08-25 16:23:50 +0000, Capitol said:

You've obviously missed reading the motto of the RS. Would suggest you
do so before continuing to make yourself look a huge fool!

Ok - so we have:

"The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' roughly translates as
'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination
of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all
statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment."

Which is how the world's scientists have arrived at the consensus on
AGW. What you don't seem to compredend is that 'authority' in so many
cases is big business and government - have you any idea how resistant
many governments have been to accepting the evidence? To take another
example, have you a clue about how long it took environmental activists
to get rid of lead in petrol?

I'm surprised that a DIY group habours such a seething nest of science
deniers in the UK. But thinking about it, DIYers are those more likely
to hunker in a homemade bunker with an ample supply of tinned food to
avoid government regulation. I expect there are plenty more at
uk.rec.sheds.

E.

On 2014-08-25 17:35:12 +0000, Tim Streater said:

ISo what experiments have been done then? What predictions have been
made on the basis of theory which have repeatably been shown to be
verified?

Ah you got me there. Yes, the only work reported is from Joe Bloggs
from his back garden in South Ruislip using a weather station designed
in 1922.

E.

On 25/08/2014 18:35, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 2014082518080346259-nospam@nospamcom, eastender
wrote:

On 2014-08-25 16:23:50 +0000, Capitol said:

You've obviously missed reading the motto of the RS. Would suggest
you do so before continuing to make yourself look a huge fool!

Ok - so we have:

"The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' roughly translates as
'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination
of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all
statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment."

Which is how the world's scientists have arrived at the consensus on AGW.

So what experiments have been done then? What predictions have been
made on the basis of theory which have repeatably been shown to be
verified?


He doesn't have a clue what you are talking about, he is just another
sheep following the rest. He falls into the "you can fool some of the
people all the time" category.

He is like harry and won't produce any actual facts, just the same
propaganda.

On 2014-08-25 18:26:32 +0000, Chris Hogg said:

It's just a pity that the climate hasn't warmed
for getting on for fifteen years, despite a continuing rise in CO2
levels, and no-one has yet produced a credible explanation.

That's nonsense. Go read this:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...e-models-right


E.

On 2014-08-25 21:12:18 +0000, Tim Streater said:

In article 2014082518473121733-nospam@nospamcom, eastender
wrote:

On 2014-08-25 17:35:12 +0000, Tim Streater said:

ISo what experiments have been done then? What predictions have been
made on the basis of theory which have repeatably been shown to be
verified?

Ah you got me there. Yes, the only work reported is from Joe Bloggs
from his back garden in South Ruislip using a weather station designed
in 1922.

I'll take that as "none", then. Which would be about right as this
field is more speculative than not. Not that this is necessarily in and
of itself a bad thing, after all we believe in evolution. Difference is
that for that the evidence is a *lot* harder.

Yes, the entire body of climate research is a total and utter
fabrication designed to make people like you very cross.

E.

eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-25 18:26:32 +0000, Chris Hogg said:

It's just a pity that the climate hasn't warmed
for getting on for fifteen years, despite a continuing rise in CO2
levels, and no-one has yet produced a credible explanation.

That's nonsense. Go read this:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...e-models-right


E.

Harry has a new identity?

On 25/08/14 12:18, eastender wrote:
On 2014-08-25 11:03:00 +0000, Chris Hogg said:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:35:21 +0100, eastender
wrote:

On 2014-08-25 08:14:23 +0000, Chris Hogg said:

there's a significant body who don't accept it.

No they are not significant. That's the point.

E.

Your opinion. Not everyone's.

This link references a long list of eminent atmospheric and
meteorological scientists from all over the world who question the AGW
theory. http://tinyurl.com/m6zvdu8
They may be right, they may be wrong, but to describe them as 'not
significant' is blinkered and unscientific, and ignores their academic
status within their own institutions.

By all means keep posting propaganda funded by American conservatives
bankrolled by Exxon etc - that's what they want you to do.

E.
sigh. Another conspiracy theory nutcase...


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll