"Alastair" wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 8:11 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message

...
On Jul 10, 7:28 pm, Graham Easterling
wrote:



On 10 July, 18:31, John Hall wrote:

In article
,

Alastair writes:
Over the last few hours there seem to have been no posts. I am just
checking to see if the newsgroup has gone down like some other places
I have heard of.

The newsgroup is fine, but it's possible that Google Groups isn't.
(Hopefully you'll get to see this sooner or later!)
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

Google Groups is fine

Graham
Penzance

Yes I am reading this loud and clear. What made me suspicious was that
the Meteorlogical Institute web site in Hamburg is
downhttp://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Forum.5883.0.html?&L=3
and I had heard that the US government had been hacked into yesterday.

I was also trying to make the point that:

It seems that that the more researchers look into
the local effects or regional effects of global warming, the more
complicated the picture gets. It's not simply, you're turning up the
thermostat everywhere ... Which is what makes it more difficult
to get the idea across to the general public, with individual areas
going in different directions but, you know, if that's the reality,
that's the reality.

Lawrence seems to think that if the Arctic sea ice is melting then the
Antarctic ice should follow suit. In fact he seems to think that
because the Antarctic ice is expanding then the Arctic ice is too.
But then that is a member of the general public for you :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

I put it down to Ying and Yang the two new climate modellers the IPCC are
using.

No, you've got it completely wrong again. They are Yang and Ying.

BTW, that reminds me of my latest and greatest joke. I must tell you
because no one else seem to think it is funny :-(

The Bible for climate modelers is Goody and Yung (1996.) It is a
revision of an earlier book written by Goody on his own. But as you
probably know, the climate models are wrong, because although Goody
was aware that vibrational and kinetic temperatures could be different
he ignored that when deriving his source function. As a result the
models are failing to predict the rapid melting of the Arctic ice and
it is all Goody's fault. That means Goody is the baddie!

Cheers, Alastair.

Knowing the IPCC it was probably Jade Goody,