On Jan 18, 12:23*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Natsman" wrote in message

...
On 18 Jan, 05:14, Philip Adams wrote:





weatherwonderman wrote:
Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts about
the
glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if
it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment
over
the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.
Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the old
,so
you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels
It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the new
to
it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?
WEATHERWONDERMAN (leeds)

You are obviously expecting some 'cutting edge' remarks.

At least you did not issue David Christainsen's imperative command
"discuss fully".

I do not know why you would think that more sensitive/accurate readings
be higher?

I seem to recall that in my 1960's school days inspired and expired air
CO2 levels were quoted at 0.4% and 4%. If Dr Keeling's figures are
correct then we have not yet reached that 1960's level. Either the
biologists or the meteorologists are telling porkies. Since this is a
weather group inhabited by the latter with far greater knowledge than I,
a mere chemist, I am going to swiftly duck below the parapet again.

--
Philip Adams
W. Norfolk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More porkies from that nice (rich) Dr. Pachauri, and his corrupt
IPCC. *All in all, they no longer look very convincing, do they? (Not
that they ever did, mind...)
House of cards, and all that.

Hide the decline.

CK

As usual why let the facts remove to wheels from a just bandwagon once its
got rolling.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To wheels on my just bandwagon and I'm still rolling along........!"

In article
,
Weatherlawyer writes:
On Jan 18, 2:32*am, "weatherwonderman" wrote:

WEATHERWONDERMAN *(leeds)

Let's just make things clear shall we?

You are not Weatherlawyer. You just wish to usurp the name.

Surely no-one would be confused. The only similarity is that both names
contain "weather", hardly a surprising coincidence for posters to this
group. I can see no indication in the contents of his post that he was
making any attempt to pass himself off as you.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 18, 2:32 am, "weatherwonderman" wrote:

WEATHERWONDERMAN (leeds)

Let's just make things clear shall we?

You are not Weatherlawyer. You just wish to usurp the name.


Yes they sound so alike

Weatherlawyer and WEATHERWONDERMAN its easy to see how people could confuse
the two-you muppet.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jan 18, 12:23 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Natsman" wrote in message

...
On 18 Jan, 05:14, Philip Adams wrote:





weatherwonderman wrote:
Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts
about
the
glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if
it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment
over
the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.
Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the
old
,so
you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels
It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the
new
to
it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?
WEATHERWONDERMAN (leeds)

You are obviously expecting some 'cutting edge' remarks.

At least you did not issue David Christainsen's imperative command
"discuss fully".

I do not know why you would think that more sensitive/accurate readings
be higher?

I seem to recall that in my 1960's school days inspired and expired air
CO2 levels were quoted at 0.4% and 4%. If Dr Keeling's figures are
correct then we have not yet reached that 1960's level. Either the
biologists or the meteorologists are telling porkies. Since this is a
weather group inhabited by the latter with far greater knowledge than I,
a mere chemist, I am going to swiftly duck below the parapet again.

--
Philip Adams
W. Norfolk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More porkies from that nice (rich) Dr. Pachauri, and his corrupt
IPCC. All in all, they no longer look very convincing, do they? (Not
that they ever did, mind...)
House of cards, and all that.

Hide the decline.

CK

As usual why let the facts remove to wheels from a just bandwagon once its
got rolling.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To wheels on my just bandwagon and I'm still rolling along........!"

Yes and the same two you.

Martin, thank you for your informative post.

Cheers

Nick.
______________________
Nick
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amsl
http:\\www.ottervalley.co.uk

Well thanks guys and gals (if there are any),that certainly provoked a
response ,not sure where the problem with the names weatherwonderman and
weather lawyer arose ,---just off topic .
Its amazing how some of you have either not answered my question or imposed
an incorrect interpretation on it.
This I suppose is not surprising as the whole world and especially
climatologists seem able to make a living doing this.
For the record I`m a practicing dentist with A level physics and chemistry
and O level geology to help me interprete scientific articles ,"so not much
climatology or meteorology background then "; I hear you say and you`d be
right.
WWM