BBC jakes GW demo?

[news09paul]

So: Which jury would that be?

And: How can you convince us that we shold trust it to give accurate answers?

#Paul

[The Medway Handyman]

You really are the complete f****it aren't you? Your pathetic attempts to avoid the argument simply make you look like a complete prat.

You can't answer the simple question; how come we had freak climate change in the past when the population wasn't large enough to create enough CO2?

Thats the black swan. For about the 20th time I'm asking you to answer a simple question. But you can't, because it isn't in the ecobollox handbook and you can't find a Wikipedia page to support it.

Except that I haven't tosser.

You have clearly and unequivocally said it - and its still bollox. Your only way of supporting this argument is to 'cite' Wikipedia pages which are of dubious origin and to slag off anyone who dares to disagree.

Which goes to show what a complete idiot you are. The concept of the black swan argument clearly escapes you. Probably because you are not bright enough to understand it.

What the f*ck is that supposed to mean idiot boy? You have, once again, failed to answer the question, probably because you can't.

One more chance to answer the question.

If climate change is man made & caused by CO2 emissions, why did climate change occur frequently in the past when (a) the population wasn't large enough to create enough CO2 emissions and (b) cars, power stations, central heating etc didn't exist?

[Bob Martin]

We've had wars in the past and no doubt there will be more wars in the future. Doesn't mean the cause is the same.

[Bob Martin]

Climate is changing all the time and always has done. What makes you think the cause is always the same?

[Roger Chapman]

So you keep on saying but how even often you repeat your lies they remain lies.

Oh is that one of the questions that you keep on lying about?

Now how many times in this thread have I referred to the natural variability of the climate?

That isn't a black swan never mind an eyrar of black swans.

As for natural variability of climate I am sure that if you looked it will be covered quite extensively in Wikipedia but if you want the information you will have to search for it yourself.

Of course you have. To cite just 2 instances - Phil's question and natural variability mentioned above.

So you keep on saying but that is what makes you a denier rather than a sceptic.

You no doubt believe that anything that conflicts with your faith is "of dubious origin". Wikipedia is fair game but you have so far at least avoided rubbishing the other sources I have cited (Met Office, Nasa, etc.) which have much the same message. Why? A smear too far even for you or have you just blanked out in your mind all these unpleasant facts?

If you want to put up any evidence to support your point of view I will consider it. Meanwhile your output of endless insults interspersed with mumbo jumbo will get treated with the contempt it deserves.

I tend to keep clear of philosophy as it is a subject I have never studied but it was you who introduced black swans and subsequently Popper so I had to respond. One of us is clearly wrong and I think that someone is you.

More lack of comprehension on your part.

And which particular question are you rabbiting on about now?

Oh that question which I have already answered several times in the past. What part of natural variability do you not understand?

And there you go ago misrepresenting my position. I do not maintain that all climate change is man made. That is just one of your numerous lies. Just above in this very message I say:

"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."

As you can't understand even that I will have to downgrade my opinion of you from moron to imbecile.

[The Medway Handyman]

At last! Someone admits the truth!

So what was the cause of the freak weather in the past then?

[The Medway Handyman]

So, now I'm a liar as well? Because I don't hold the same opion as you?

None that I can recall amongst all the insults & evasion.

Of course it is idiot. It disprooves you assertation that climate change is man made.

"You no doubt believe that anything that conflicts with your faith is of dubious origin". Take a look at the second post you made in this thread. You won't except anything that doesnt confirm to you beliefs.

As will your considerably larger output.

I think you steer clear of philosophy because you are too thick to understand simple concepts.

Try 'zombie belief'. You might find it on Wikipedia.

Anywho, unlike you I have better things to do that argue with zombies, so I'm off.

Please have the last word, just so everyone can see how desperate you are.

[Roger Chapman]

So what part of "the natural variability of the climate" did you not understand then?

Same as always. The unfortunate combination of circumstances. Had the weather conditions that led to the worst UK flood in the last 100 or more years occurred one week earlier there would have been little or no flooding and probably no loss of life at all.

But you shouldn't confuse weather with climate.

[Roger Chapman]

You are being called a liar for the obvious reason that you keep on telling lies.

So now you have memory problems to go with your lack of comprehension. You will find a reference by me to "natural climate change" as a re-quote from an earlier message further down this message.

There you go lying again. And how angry! All those spelling mistakes as well. You really must be foaming at the mouth.

Don't you have an original thought in your head?

Don't you have an original thought in your head?

Don't you have an original thought in your head?

You shouldn't offer as a cite (or rely on) something you don't trust.