Dawlish wrote:

Oh no! Not the conspracy theory angle!!

The truth is out there........for those that wish to know it.

It's a small minority that wish to know it, however. The science
points to CO2 being the main cause of the warming. Why should there be
a conspiracy theory in believing anything else. It seems like
commonsense to believe that CO2 will probably be proven to be the main
cause of GW and that, as a result, politicians should begin to
organise to take action now.

Sense?

No. You seem to know very little about the climate, its complexity and our
inability to fully understand it.

Gaz


Paul

On Jul 22, 5:13*pm, "Gaz" wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
Oh no! Not the conspracy theory angle!!

The truth is out there........for those that wish to know it.

It's a small minority that wish to know it, however. The science
points to CO2 being the main cause of the warming. Why should there be
a conspiracy theory in believing anything else. It seems like
commonsense to believe that CO2 will probably be proven to be the main
cause of GW and that, as a result, politicians should begin to
organise to take action now.

Sense?

No. You seem to know very little about the climate, its complexity and our
inability to fully understand it.

Gaz



Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I feel that the vast majority of climate scientists, including the
IPCC, who believe that GW is probably (not certainly) being caused by
CO2 and with whom I agree, know far more than most of the small
minority with whom you agree. *))

Paul

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 at 00:28:19, Dawlish wrote in
uk.sci.weather :

On Jul 22, 8:07*am, Paul Hyett wrote:

One of far too few to stand out against the new GW 'religion' - hence
its advocates desire to discredit it...

Perhaps there are "far too few" because there are, indeed, actually
very few that actually don't believe that CO2 is likely to be the main
cause of the warming we have seen.

But how many people believe it because they are sheep, rather than
because they have critically examined the evidence?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:13 pm, "Gaz" wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
Oh no! Not the conspracy theory angle!!
The truth is out there........for those that wish to know it.
It's a small minority that wish to know it, however. The science
points to CO2 being the main cause of the warming. Why should there be
a conspiracy theory in believing anything else. It seems like
commonsense to believe that CO2 will probably be proven to be the main
cause of GW and that, as a result, politicians should begin to
organise to take action now.
Sense?
No. You seem to know very little about the climate, its complexity and our
inability to fully understand it.

Gaz



Paul- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I feel that the vast majority of climate scientists, including the
IPCC, who believe that GW is probably (not certainly) being caused by
CO2 and with whom I agree, know far more than most of the small
minority with whom you agree. *))

Paul




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWRqQ_iI7qQ

On Jul 22, 5:21*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:13*pm, "Gaz" wrote:

I feel that the vast majority of climate scientists, including the
IPCC, who believe that GW is probably (not certainly) being caused by
CO2 and with whom I agree, know far more than most of the small
minority with whom you agree. *))

Since when has science been a matter of belief? You are confusing it
with a religion.

We are talking of billions of pounds worth of money here and not a
little of it publically provided and sea chnages in public policy. It
should be underpinned by a bit more than belief.

The truth is that no scientific experiment as ever been undertaken
that shows that any increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will induce global warming. Until one is the theory of anthropogenic
global warming remains just that, a theory.

Consideration of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which are well
known would appear to conflict with that theory.

On Jul 22, 7:02*pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:21*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Jul 22, 5:13*pm, "Gaz" wrote:
I feel that the vast majority of climate scientists, including the
IPCC, who believe that GW is probably (not certainly) being caused by
CO2 and with whom I agree, know far more than most of the small
minority with whom you agree. *))

Since when has science been a matter of belief? You are confusing it
with a religion.

We are talking of billions of pounds worth of money here and not a
little of it publically provided and sea chnages in public policy. It
should be underpinned by a bit more than belief.

The truth is that no scientific experiment as ever been undertaken
that shows that any increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will induce global warming. Until one is the theory of anthropogenic
global warming remains just that, a theory.

Consideration of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which are well
known would appear to conflict with that theory.

It's underpinned by some good science Mel. Science that is far better
than the theories that try to counter CO2 being the major cause of the
warming. Hence, I believe that CO2 is probably the main cause of the
present GW. Of course AGW is still a theory and it will remain so
until proven. However, that theory is far more believable and is
believed by far more scientists, than don't believe it.

As a result of the science and the subscription to that science by so
many scientists, it is time to begin to spend those "billions" that
you are talking about. The voice of a small minority that have
decided, on the basis of some very iffy science that GW is definitely
(and I mean definitely here; there's little room for compromise in the
views that are expressed from that minority) not the cause of the
current warming, should be ignored and fortunately is being ignored.
Unfortunately that doesn't go down well with that minority. In this
instance, tough.

Paul

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:02:54 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
wrote:

On Jul 22, 5:21*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:13*pm, "Gaz" wrote:

I feel that the vast majority of climate scientists, including the
IPCC, who believe that GW is probably (not certainly) being caused by
CO2 and with whom I agree, know far more than most of the small
minority with whom you agree. *))

Since when has science been a matter of belief? You are confusing it
with a religion.

We are talking of billions of pounds worth of money here and not a
little of it publically provided and sea chnages in public policy. It
should be underpinned by a bit more than belief.

The truth is that no scientific experiment as ever been undertaken
that shows that any increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will induce global warming.

i don't believe it
well not exactly global warming...that experiment appears
to be underway!

Until one is the theory of anthropogenic
global warming remains just that, a theory.

Consideration of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which are well
known would appear to conflict with that theory.

i don't believe it
btw what's wrong with the experiment on venus?

meanwhile this will probably interest you
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0..._carbon_220708

regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:02 pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
Since when has science been a matter of belief? You are confusing it
with a religion.

We are talking of billions of pounds worth of money here and not a
little of it publically provided and sea chnages in public policy. It
should be underpinned by a bit more than belief.

The truth is that no scientific experiment as ever been undertaken
that shows that any increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will induce global warming. Until one is the theory of anthropogenic
global warming remains just that, a theory.

Consideration of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which are well
known would appear to conflict with that theory.

It's underpinned by some good science Mel. Science that is far better
than the theories that try to counter CO2 being the major cause of the
warming. Hence, I believe that CO2 is probably the main cause of the
present GW. Of course AGW is still a theory and it will remain so
until proven. However, that theory is far more believable and is
believed by far more scientists, than don't believe it.

Yep, that's the logic of faith.

I'm reminded of the man thought stealing so he is watched.
But when ever they check his boxes there is nothing in them.
And then the box company find themselves a billion boxes light.
That's weather scientists. All they do is check, look at the weather.
When they're not trying to be soothsayers or playing cassandras.
They don't actually fix anything, they just tick boxes.

'Oh the weather will doom us this way, oh no wait, the weather will
doom us that way'. All in an attempt to make themselves more important
than what they are and to give themelves a wage. Just like the bone
chuckers of old.

No, we shouldn't listen to them. We shouldn't chuck any more money
to find out just what the tiny fraction is that man affects the climate.
We shouldn't charge in splashing the cash at every unproven scare story.
Because that way does lead to certain bankruptcy and doom.

As a result of the science and the subscription to that science by so
many scientists, it is time to begin to spend those "billions" that
you are talking about.

We've got Hospitals with people dying in them now. The planet has millions
dying on it now. Why on earth should billions, that we don't have,
go chasing after CO2, that if extracted totally from the planet would kill us all.
What next, dry up all the oceans because of water vapor?

On 22 Jul, 01:34, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert S

This isn't science. Or the popularizing of science. It's excrement.

what for....
you're babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you were previously babbling about sunspots.....

the original; 'hockey stick' stuff is from *northern hemisphere*
surrogates going back a long way....
the northern hemisphere is not 'global'

The problem isn't that it's northern hemisphere.

that means it isn't claiming insistently that it is applicable
globally

Doesn't matter what it claims to be if the graph is garbage.

Doesn't matter what it's called in the scientific paper if it's used
as an alarmist PR tool elsewhere.

The problem is a
bizarre weighting system which produces the graph. Which the author
has been apparently very reluctant to divulge. Common sense weightings
of data haven't been able to reproduce the graph.

that is not in accord with my readings....

you clearly have little understanding of statistics...or you wouldn't
be babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you clearly have an agenda....

The point of the "hockey stick graph", aka MBH99, aka the citation I
just gave you, it that it is used as fact (when it it not) in
communications with the general public.

I.e. in Gore's film and book, and an influential IPCC report.

I can think of no other instance where such a controversial item of
scientific data has been so lavishly forced on the public.

It strikes me as curious that much of the debate in public has been
framed by GW enthusiasts on such a thing.

why cares?
there is extremely little doubt that agw is occurring...all that
is seriously under debate nowadays is how much, how soon,
what effects etc....

in all sanity we are approaching the end of the fossil fuel age...
the quicker it happens the better....

why lose so much emotion over details that are of little moment

where is the profit in discussing with you...you'll never ever
be convinced as
your mind is made up....so, why confuse you with facts?

Feel free to debate facts.

you need to start with some charting education......

No, I don't. Been there, done that.

look at the scales on those graphs....
*say* the real 'average' temperature goes from 30* to 31*

consider a side scale running from zero to 100 degrees....
or a scale from -272 to 5000 degrees....

or a scale from 30 degrees to 31 degrees....

you should try drawing these graphs on such differing
scales.......

You're a blithering idiot. Changing the scales of axes doesn't change
the shape.

The shape is the alarmist part.

This is something you learn very early in school. A far cry from
multiple gaussian fitting (which I have first hand experience of
doing). This is so, so basic, but you amazingly don't know it.

Gore gets the y-axis scales wrong in the film to the point that
negative values are up and positive down. He manages not to notice
this.

But this doesn't matter. It's the skewed upwards thrust which doesn't
match reality which matters.

the 'hockey stick' is a function of how you graph the data
before you even start worrying about what the data is....
if you draw the different graphs you may understand...

I have a damn sight more experience of graphs than you.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
wrote:

On 22 Jul, 01:34, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert S

This isn't science. Or the popularizing of science. It's excrement.

what for....
you're babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you were previously babbling about sunspots.....

the original; 'hockey stick' stuff is from *northern hemisphere*
surrogates going back a long way....
the northern hemisphere is not 'global'

The problem isn't that it's northern hemisphere.

that means it isn't claiming insistently that it is applicable
globally

Doesn't matter what it claims to be if the graph is garbage.

Doesn't matter what it's called in the scientific paper if it's used
as an alarmist PR tool elsewhere.

The problem is a
bizarre weighting system which produces the graph. Which the author
has been apparently very reluctant to divulge. Common sense weightings
of data haven't been able to reproduce the graph.

that is not in accord with my readings....

you clearly have little understanding of statistics...or you wouldn't
be babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you clearly have an agenda....

The point of the "hockey stick graph", aka MBH99, aka the citation I
just gave you, it that it is used as fact (when it it not) in
communications with the general public.

I.e. in Gore's film and book, and an influential IPCC report.

I can think of no other instance where such a controversial item of
scientific data has been so lavishly forced on the public.

It strikes me as curious that much of the debate in public has been
framed by GW enthusiasts on such a thing.

why cares?
there is extremely little doubt that agw is occurring...all that
is seriously under debate nowadays is how much, how soon,
what effects etc....

in all sanity we are approaching the end of the fossil fuel age...
the quicker it happens the better....

why lose so much emotion over details that are of little moment

where is the profit in discussing with you...you'll never ever
be convinced as
your mind is made up....so, why confuse you with facts?

Feel free to debate facts.

you need to start with some charting education......

No, I don't. Been there, done that.

look at the scales on those graphs....
*say* the real 'average' temperature goes from 30* to 31*

consider a side scale running from zero to 100 degrees....
or a scale from -272 to 5000 degrees....

or a scale from 30 degrees to 31 degrees....

you should try drawing these graphs on such differing
scales.......

You're a blithering idiot. Changing the scales of axes doesn't change
the shape.

oh go away and impress someone else with your hysteria...
maybe you'll get a nobel prize next!

The shape is the alarmist part.

This is something you learn very early in school. A far cry from
multiple gaussian fitting (which I have first hand experience of
doing). This is so, so basic, but you amazingly don't know it.

Gore gets the y-axis scales wrong in the film to the point that
negative values are up and positive down. He manages not to notice
this.

But this doesn't matter. It's the skewed upwards thrust which doesn't
match reality which matters.

the 'hockey stick' is a function of how you graph the data
before you even start worrying about what the data is....
if you draw the different graphs you may understand...

I have a damn sight more experience of graphs than you.

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------