"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .


Snip


None of which, dragging the thread back, should be regarded
as so unusual as to require a "global climate change"
explanation.

But, Philip, this is an example of why you are regarded as a
GW skeptic.

How unusual does the weather have to get before it meets your
criteria for a global climate change explanation? Don't you see
that when those criteria are met, then it will be too late to stop a
rapidly deteriorating situation?

I have no criteria. Weather is irrelevant. Climate is what counts.

Climate consists purely of weather. I don't see how you can say
weather is irrelevant. Even if you consider climate as only average
weather, then record high, and even long periods of above average,
temperatures will alter that mean and signal a climate change. You
appear to be making the error of thinking that because weather and
climate are different they must be mutually exclusive. They are not.
They are just two (overlapping?) bands in a time based spectrum of
atmospheric behaviour.

You didn't answer my second question about how you would
explain to your readers why you had not warned them of the
disasters climate change will wreak. Do you really think they
will accept that because you were an expert in weather you
could not warn about a change in climate because "weather
is irrelevant"?

Cheers, Alastair.


Cheers, Alastair.