"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .

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 .....

I suggest you don't put words in my mouth. Individual weather
events do not require a global climate change explanation any more
than the money that happens to be in my pocket this evening
requires in explanation in terms of the state of the national economy.
Now, an improvement or a deterioration in the UK's economy may well
have an impact on the amount of money in my pocket, but that is a
different subject ... not the one I was responding to. Perhaps you don't
see the difference. Clearly other contributors to this thread don't
either.

...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"?

If you think that then you haven't read much of what I've
written. I've been writing about the disasters that climate change
may (not will) bring about since at least 1988, and I spent three
chapters in this year's book on this very subject. Can't really blame
you though if you haven't; it's really not much cop. And I only
get 90p per copy.

Philip Eden