![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
contrails | No Name | Aviation Photos | 3 | June 22nd 07 01:47 PM |
Contrails | Darkwing | Piloting | 21 | March 23rd 07 05:58 PM |
Contrails | Kevin Dunlevy | Piloting | 4 | December 13th 06 08:31 PM |
Contrails | Steven P. McNicoll | Piloting | 17 | December 10th 03 10:23 PM |