BBC jakes GW demo?

I have answered all the previous questions so I thought I would pose some of my own. You may not like them but they are a truthful and reasonably accurate representation of your abilities as evidenced in this thread. The lack of statistical knowledge is particularly evident. When it comes to statistics you have absolutely no knowledge at all.

Reply to
Roger Chapman
Loading thread data ...

But what if it was? I don't know enough about the finer points of the science to pull holes in the link I quoted.

That isn't exactly what I meant. I was trying to make the point that we have had an 0.4C rise in a period during which the CO2 levels rose by a much smaller amount than the doubling proposed by the sceptic.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

But you know enough to accuse anyone that questions it idiots. It says a lot about you.

Reply to
dennis

Which jury would that be? And how can you convince us that we shold trust it to give accurate answers?

#Paul

Reply to
news09paul

If only we had some kind of international team of scientists to try to work out the best answer they could manage. Surely they'd be more likely to get it right than us lot waffling and/or ranting inanely on the internet. Oh well -- if only the world were better organized, eh?

#Paul

Reply to
news09paul

Is that your best shot wanker?

You haven't answered a single question. I've repeated them several times and offered you the chance to quote the dates of the posts or repeat the answers.

You have not only failed to do so, you have become more & more abusive in a pathetic attempt to evade the questions.

So, insults failed. Answer some of the questions. If Wikipedia crashes you are buggered mind.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

snip

I answered Phil's question twice and have dealt with the black swan issue. I don't recall you asking me to answer any other questions but you have been posting so much garbage I could easily have overlooked an actual question in among all the insults.

Try looking in a mirror.

Is that another question? It doesn't actually make sense but then when does anything you write.

Here is another link for you. It seems unlikely that you will actually learn anything from it but that is because you have a closed mind, not because the cite is content free.

formatting link

Reply to
Roger Chapman

And you have become more & more abusive in a pathetic attempt to do *what*, exactly?

Reply to
Bruce

In what way are you qualified to even *have* an opinion on such a complex, intensely scientific subject?

You are fond of quoting (Lord) Nigel Lawson who, thanks to his background as a barrister, knew absolutely nothing about economics, and displayed his complete lack of knowledge and expertise as one of the most incompetent Chancellors of the Exchequer that this country has ever had.

Now Lawson brings his complete lack of knowledge and expertise to the "debate" about climate change. Coupled with the fact that he still knows less than nothing about economics, he is certainly one of the most authoritative sources of complete ignorance about the subject.

The man is a complete buffoon. So why quote him? Because he agrees with you?

It's the blind, leading the blind.

Reply to
Bruce

It's the same "jury" of assorted ultra-right wing neo-conservative kooks who are backed by Big Oil, Big Business and the US military/industrial complex. The same guys who took us into two illegal wars that have dramatically increased the risk of Islamist terror attacks on the UK.

See above. With their track record, they couldn't possibly be wrong about climate change, could they?

Still, President Palin will have the chance to prove to the world there is no such thing as human-induced climate change when she takes office in 2013. ;-)

Reply to
Bruce

OK you are absolutely right about this and I apologise for the tone of my previous posting. It was done in a hurry and I didn't engage my brain.

I was thinking about the specific case that had been under discussion of an atmosphere and what it means for there to be more storms etc. In a gas, temperature is essentially equivalent to kinetic energy.

But what are we arguing about anyway?

If we trace it back:

I said that climate change was not likely to be good for anyone because it leads to more extreme weather. This happens because of an increase of energy.

You said that the energy isn't increasing unless there is more coming from the sun.

It was then po "There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase its temperature. The energy does, however, drive storms. "

Whatever the issue about temperature, isn't this back to what I was saying in the first place?

Reply to
Bob

But it does: we've had it ever since the last ice age...

Reply to
F

Indeed. And before that Global Cooling (TM) was the excuse to hunt more woolly mammoths to make bikinis out of. I saw it on a fillum once.

So it must be true.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I am not sure. The amount of energy available to a storm depends more on the local wind conditions, water masses, etc. GW is unlikely to affect those. It may make it so the storms occur more often as there is slightly more energy to drive the recovery processes. The so called freak storms we have been having aren't statistically freaks either, its just people being alarmist. The damage is not caused by the storms but by the poor planning and building in places they shouldn't. Look at London, much of it has flooded in the past and it will flood again.

Reply to
dennis

I am intrigued with your thinking and not wishing to antagonise you at all.

Just why do you dismiss the mind of a barrister in this subject?

Dave

Reply to
Dave

I quite like that :-)

Dave

Reply to
Dave

Oh, nothing left.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

In the same way Wikiman Chapman is qualified to *have* his opinion.

What? Nigel Lawson? I've never quoted Nigel Lawson.

What are you on about?

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

Raving.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

Oh look, some of what TMH thinks is "bollox & insults" has just come back. And what is it that he didn't want to follow up so much that he wiped the slate clean? Why this silly business with black swans. His bevy of black swans which have miraculously turned into a single white cygnet. It is up to him whether he conjures the missing black swans out of his hat but as things are going at present I don't think there is much chance at all.

****************************

Deceptively simple.

You don't seem to understand that misrepresenting what people actually say harms your argument. Indeed ISTM that you don't really understand even simple English. What I have clearly and unequivocally said is that man's activities are having some effect on climate change by making it warmer than it would otherwise have been. That you think that natural climate change is a black swan suggests to me that you have got the notion back to front. My interpretation would be that proof of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is the black swan that falsifies the notion that all climate change is natural.

So that is one black swan with its neck well and truly wrung. Now where are the rest of your gaggle of swans?

******************************
Reply to
Roger Chapman

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.