On Sunday, 9 February 2014 22:01:04 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:36:28 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:

On 09/02/2014 17:27, Dawlish wrote:



Why does every single National science academy on earth feel that the



present period shows anomalous warming and that the warming has very



little to do with the last 2000 years.







The UN has 193 member states. How many of those nations even have a



National Science Academy, and how many of their publications have you



read to make such a bald statement? Or did you simply read it somewhere?



Does it have any basis in fact?





Look it up. wiki will help.



'the warming has very little to do with the last 2000 years'



What on earth does that even mean? Didn't CO2 levels start to rise with



the Industrial Revolution? I'm pretty sure that happened in the last



2000 years (usually said to be between 1760 & 1840).



Look back and see what larry meant. Then you'll understand my use of it.



They're all stupid, I suppose and they don't know anything..........but



you and yours know ever so much more; don't you? Read the avalanche of



science and it will explain this to you. Ignore the avalanche of science



and focus on any tiny little part which might appear to back the denier



cause, without any real scrutiny, like the OP and you can convince yourself



of anything - as I've said.



I see you've found this hard to contradict and you've opted for deflection, instead.





You keep banging on about science, but what you refer to is more



correctly called 'climate science', which is mostly based on historical



and even archeological data as a basis for predictions of possible



future changes made using highly sophisticated computer models.



Yes; so?



Climate scientists need to make use of old fashioned science such as physics,



chemistry and mathematics to enable them to make the models more



sophisticated.



Do you honestly think they don't? You must tell them. I'm sure they'd be very interested in your view.



Climate science is still in its infancy and has some way



to go before it could be called mainstream.



Really? Why does every one of the hundreds of thousands of climate scientists and every single national science academy (look it up, wiki really will help) know it is mainstream science. What deniers propound is not even in the long grass when it comse to mainstream, but you don't seem to want to criticise them.



The route that climate scientists take could have many changes of direction before we can be

sure that we fully understand it.



Yes it could. I agree. So could physics, chemistry and mathematics, Brian..



These days we all think we understand



black holes, but apparently Stephen Hawking now says they don't exist.



Do some research and then you won't have to say "apparently" and you've lost the thread here, haven't you?



Brian W Lawrence



Wantage



Oxfordshire



Now consider criticising the OP. Or is it perfectly good science, in your view?



Hundreds of thousands of climate scientist. You bloody idiot you don't have a fffing clue.



Name one hundred as a starter tyou cretin.

As Dick Lindzen said over thirty years ago you couldn't name more than ten.


Tell me Dullish what constitutes a climate scientist.



You really are the posing preening but know nothing Mrs Bucket of news Groups