contrails

On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner wrote:

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become its
normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be working.
So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be extending to the
British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom? If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
object to!

Derek Copeland

delboy wrote in
:

On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner wrote:

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
extending to the British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?

No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
opinions/statements into my "mouth".


If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
object to!

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.

On 18 Jan, 01:06, Tom wrote:
delboy wrote :





On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner wrote:

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
extending to the British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?

No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
opinions/statements into my "mouth".

If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
object to!

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eric,

Obviously you must have some professional connection to the AGW scam.
Climate is surely just the long term average of weather events. Any
increase in atmospheric CO2 does not appear to have caused the
predicted increase in Global temperatures. Maybe the 'natural'
concentration of CO2 already gives the maximum greenhouse effect and
increasing it causes little or no difference. In any case CO2 is food
for plants, so I would expect to see an increase in plant growth, as
long as there are no other limiting factors.

Derek Copeland

On Jan 18, 7:44*am, delboy wrote:
On 18 Jan, 01:06, Tom wrote:



delboy wrote :

On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner wrote:

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
extending to the British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?

No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
opinions/statements into my "mouth".

If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
object to!

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eric,

Obviously you must have some professional connection to the AGW scam.

I think the same assertion could be made about you, but on the
opposing side!

On 18 Jan, 09:06, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 18, 7:44*am, delboy wrote:





On 18 Jan, 01:06, Tom wrote:

delboy wrote :

On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner wrote:

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
extending to the British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?

No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
opinions/statements into my "mouth".

If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
object to!

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eric,

Obviously you must have some professional connection to the AGW scam.

I think the same assertion could be made about you, but on the
opposing side!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not a professional climatologist, so I have no financial interest
in the topic of AGW, other than a desire not to be controlled and
taxed by my Government on the basis of CO2 emissions. I am a trained
and qualified scientist in a different field, so I am used to
evaluating data. I think I can spot dodgy and biased data being used
for political purposes when I see it.

Derek Copeland

On Jan 18, 11:10*am, delboy wrote:
I am a trained
and qualified scientist in a different field, so I am used to
evaluating data. I think I can spot dodgy and biased data being used
for political purposes when I see it.

History is littered with with eminent scientists (in one field)
making pronouncements about a different field, and falling
flat on their faces.

On Jan 18, 5:44*am, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 18, 11:10*am, delboy wrote:
*I am a trained

and qualified scientist in a different field, so I am used to
evaluating data. I think I can spot dodgy and biased data being used
for political purposes when I see it.

History is littered with with eminent scientists (in one field)
making pronouncements about a different field, and falling
flat on their faces.

Or more a more recently example would be eminent scientists cooking
the books in their own field for personal reasons or the CAUSE. It
played out like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. You start with a pile of
factual seemly unrelated pieces and try to put them together. Some fit
but others resist assembly and for those you get out the scissors. The
pieces the scissors can't handle you hide under the rug. Anyone poking
about under rugs is subject to swift attack and if they were not part
of the assembly team it isn't going to be pretty.
Only a fool would question that there has been global warming. You
only need to check the earths temperature history over the last
400,000 years to see that it has gone up 5 times. Hmm but wait that
means it has also gone down 4 times. Never mind that lets just change
the name from global warming or cooling to climate change. Now who
could argue with that since climate has been changing for as long as
records exist. Problem solved now we can get on with imposing limits
on everyone and redistributing wealth. Its for the kids you know.
Thank God the scientists came up with this one or the politicians
would have had to invented it. Now they only have to mix the cool-
aid..

On Jan 18, 12:44*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 18, 11:10*am, delboy wrote:
*I am a trained

and qualified scientist in a different field, so I am used to
evaluating data. I think I can spot dodgy and biased data being used
for political purposes when I see it.

History is littered with with eminent scientists (in one field)
making pronouncements about a different field, and falling
flat on their faces.

History is also littered with quaint and misguided groups and
individuals who have held all sorts of strange beliefs which have
later been proved to be mistaken. There was a large group of people
(and still are I understand) who believed the earth was flat and
produced scientific avidence to prove it. A large number of people,
surported by the church believed the sun orbited the earth, King
Canute believed he could order the tide to stop coming in. The
scientific community at one time believed that you could tell if a
woman was a witch by throwing her into water. All these views are now
considered crazy. The modern equivalent is of course the climate
scientists who ignore the fact that this planet has been heating up
and cooling down for millions of years without our help, and also seem
unable to understand that all life is carbon and there is no way to
get rid of it. I have just realised that these scientists are crazy
earlier than most, everyone else will of course catch up if the Mayan
End of the World does not get them.
Breaking news, our climate is driven by the sun, which we now know
does not orbit the earth, quite how the climatic scientist propose to
fit a switch on something 93 million miles away defeats me, but I
suppose it keeps them in work, good job to have, one where you can
never suceed.

On Jan 18, 2:44*am, delboy wrote:

... Maybe the 'natural'
concentration of CO2 already gives the maximum greenhouse effect and
increasing it causes little or no difference.
...

Clearly no.

Consider Venus.

--

FF

Just had a look at Rutan's site. He gives prominent display to the
Oregon Institute of Science in Cave Junction or some such. I am sure
it exists, but Cave Junction has a population of ~3000. And the 3
authors have no credentials at all.

There are lots of charts and graphs in the article though.

Mark