Sorry but you can't have flown less than me so you still lose.
Maybe you have flown backwards and think that counts as negative miles?
Is the sort of thing you would believe if some eco scientist told you.
In case you don't understand the maths, 0 is not less than 0 so you are
wrong, you have not flown less miles than I have. You really shouldn't make
bets you don't intend to honour.
From time to time someone on this newsgroup demonstrates either their
total stupidity or their total disregard for the truth. I suspect you
are guilty on both counts.
The bet wasn't that I had flown less miles than you but that you hadn't
flown less miles than me.
So where does that leave your honour?
I suggest you pay up forthwith or shut up for good.
Your bet was as meaningless as everything else you say.
BTW it is possible for someone who has never flown to have flown less miles
Maybe you have used a trampoline more than I have?
such is the stupidity of what you said and tried to win.
Run out of argument so switched to insults have you. Oh well I suspect
that the only person that will impress is yourself.
And what about the 99 other impossible things you do before breakfast?
By no stretch of the imagination is trampolining flying in the same
sense as being transported by air but like flying if you think you have
done less than me then you are wrong.
As for who is being stupid I am quite content to leave that to the
others to judge.
I agree, but for different reasons. Its too far gone to stop if its
going to happen.
And we will need MORE power, not less, to deal with the effects.
That puts us at the mercy of energy exporting countries, none of whom I
This is a very good point.
At present, in the Liverpool bay, the North Hoyle exclusion zine is planted
with operating windmills, The Rhyl Flats are presently being planted with
windills and the Gwynt y mor exclusion zone is scheduled for another 250 any
There are dozens of ferries, container ships and fuel tankers passing
through the area into Liverpool each day.
Note that the navigable area between the Rhyl Flats and the Gwynt y mor
zones is quite limited. A rogue tanker in stormy condiions could do quite a
bit of damage!
I don't look to confirm or deny these multiple alternative views, as I doubt
I have the time to work out which is or is not valid. I simply see them as
evidence that the subject is badly understood, even by the experts, which,
to my mind, makes all the predictions unreliable.
The subject is certainly badly understood by some people within the
scientific community but the differing opinions don't mean they are all
wrong and some at least are obviously driven by an agenda that has
little to do with science.
Crowley (cited previously) has put a lot of effort in trying to
accurately determine the circumstances of the MWP and in doing so has
thrown light on those who would isolate one particular local aspect and
then extrapolate that as concrete evidence of a global effect.
Then there are those who would look at data and see what that want to
see regardless of the data. Dennis comes immediately to mind as well as
the joker who claimed that the satellite data (also recently cited)
shows no evidence of warming over the 20 years it covers.
Likewise the 95% water vapour school of thought who think it so obvious
that they neglect (or more probably refuse) to say how they arrived at
their figures (the Dribble approach).
The Independent today (24/9) has an article claiming that the Greenland
ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet are both melting faster than
previously thought. The source of the information is the journal Nature.
Article apparently published on-line today but I haven't managed to find
an on-line reference.
The measurements come for a Nasa satellite - ICESat (Ice, Cloud and Land
Elevation Satellite) High-resolution laser measurement rather than radar.
It's a newspaper. It has to publish something sensational in order
to sell copy and make money nowadays, so it publishes something which
sounds like a major disaster. But what does the sentence above _really_
say? Well, it says that the information you were given before is now
thought to be wrong. However, most people believed that, didn't they?
I expect most people will believe this too. Until the next sensation...
People are being bombarded with lots of single data points, which
alone mean nothing, and very many of which are incorrect anyway.
Of course, you only get bombarded with the sensationalist data
points - the most something since records began, the highest
something else in the last 10 years. Data points which aren't
scary don't make the press. You only get told of errors when
that's sensationist, i.e. it's even worse than we scared you
So how come there are so many scary records being broken?
Well, we've started monitoring a large number of data points
over the last 100 years. What happens when you do this?
Suppose you start monitoring a million data points 100 years
ago (actually it was more gradual and mostly within last 10
years, but it's simpler to consider a single starting date.)
If what you're monitoring is in steady state with noise imposed
(typical of many natural systems), in year 1, you will break
a million records "since records began", and half a million
of those will be in scary directions. In year two, you'll
break half a million records again, and a quarter of these
will be in scary directions. In year 100 (today), you'll
break 10,000 records, with 5000 being in scay directions,
and that's still well over 10 a day for the press to find
and quote sensationally. So even in a steady state system,
you can see that there's no shortage of sensationalism for
the press to get their mits on.
So when you read press articles, you really need to think
carefull and try and put the science back in which got stripped
out in the sensationalism process. Trained a scientist, I was
trained to look at issues in that way. Working as a computer
systems analyst much of the time, same rules apply - I need
to see all the evidence when investigating an issue, and one
data point is pretty useless. I was interested when listening
to an interview with Michael Mansfield QC on radio 4 last week,
where as a lawyer his automatic instict when listening to a
piece of evidence is to ask "Who benefits?" as he questions
the validity of each piece evidence in his own mind. Slightly
different take, but same idea - don't simply take things for
Oh, BTW, last winter was the coldest winter on record, since
records began 9 years ago in my back garden...
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.