On 09/02/2014 22:01, 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.

Well Wikpedia has a list of 'National Academies' but surprisingly it
doesn't tell me if it is your source or not.

'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.

I was more interested in what you meant.


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.

What's to contradict?

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.

It was a statement of fact, not a suggestion, or a criticism.

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.

I have no need to criticise 'deniers' - it's a pointless exercise, and
certainly so in this forum. You might want to consider that, but then we
all enjoy doing pointless things, don't we?

You don't answer questions, but I'll ask anyway - how many Nobel Prizes
have been won by climate scientists?

'Hundreds of thousands'? Really? They might be better employed doing
something useful.

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?

It's all about winning the thread is it? How shallow.

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

As I said, I'm not here to criticise 'deniers'. I'm not sure what 'it'
you mean - the OP quoted a post from a railway NG, which had no science
content at all.

How's the list of Prof. Slingo's papers coming?

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire