.................*))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...nge-scepticism

Thanks to a contributer on TWO for linking and giving me a laugh!

Anything from George Monbiot is always worth a laugh






"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
.................*))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...nge-scepticism

Thanks to a contributer on TWO for linking and giving me a laugh!

On 24 Jan, 15:31, Dawlish wrote:
*.................*))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...0/jan/21/chris...

Thanks to a contributer on TWO for linking and giving me a laugh!

You may laugh now....
All you serve to do is to display which side of the socialist divide
YOU adhere to, judging by your reading material...
Said it before, I'll say it again, the dogma is crumbling, and that
sort of silliness goes a long way to indicate the desperate straits
the AGW protagonists have to resort to because their ideology is very
publicly disintegrating, and they are uncomfortable with its glaringly
obvious demise.

Dream on, Dawlish, or may I call you comrade?

CK

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
.................*))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...nge-scepticism

Thanks to a contributer on TWO for linking and giving me a laugh!

Very old article. Can I ask does Torbay Council have a Global Warming
Adviser?

On 24 Jan, 16:11, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

.................*))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...0/jan/21/chris...

Thanks to a contributer on TWO for linking and giving me a laugh!

Very old article. Can I ask does Torbay Council have a Global Warming
Adviser?

Of course, it's comrade Doorlistch

CK

On Jan 24, 2:31*pm, Dawlish wrote:
*.................*))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...0/jan/21/chris...

Thanks to a contributer on TWO for linking and giving me a laugh!

Excellent knockabout stuff and entirely deserved. Don't know
much about the winner but Booker is a top-drawer ignoramus and
deserves a good kicking. Equally Mad Mel.
None of this appeared in the print version, BTW.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On 24 Jan, 16:42, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Jan 24, 2:31*pm, Dawlish wrote:

*.................*))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...0/jan/21/chris...

Thanks to a contributer on TWO for linking and giving me a laugh!

* * * *Excellent knockabout stuff and entirely deserved. *Don't know
much about the winner but Booker is a top-drawer ignoramus and
deserves a good kicking. *Equally Mad Mel.
* * * *None of this appeared in the print version, BTW.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Can't agree with you there, Tudor - Chris Booker is tireless in his
campaign to expose everything this man-made global warming/climate
change ideology is. And, rightly, it's falling apart largely thanks
to his devotion (and that of others) to publicising this obvious
fraud, bad "science" and embedded political dogma - and no doubt when
the **** eventually hits the fan he'll be championed. Deservedly so.
The possible, eventual dissolution of the IPCC in its current form
(and perhaps the shake-up of other organisations implicit in this
scam) will be a pleasure to behold, as will be the likely downfall of
Pechauri, and others.

CK

On Jan 24, 3:58*pm, Natsman wrote:
On 24 Jan, 16:42, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Jan 24, 2:31*pm, Dawlish wrote:

*.................*))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...0/jan/21/chris....

Thanks to a contributer on TWO for linking and giving me a laugh!

* * * *Excellent knockabout stuff and entirely deserved. *Don't know
much about the winner but Booker is a top-drawer ignoramus and
deserves a good kicking. *Equally Mad Mel.
* * * *None of this appeared in the print version, BTW.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Can't agree with you there, Tudor - Chris Booker is tireless in his
campaign to expose everything this man-made global warming/climate
change ideology is. *And, rightly, it's falling apart largely thanks
to his devotion (and that of others) to publicising this obvious
fraud, bad "science" and embedded political dogma - and no doubt when
the **** eventually hits the fan he'll be championed. *Deservedly so.
The possible, eventual dissolution of the IPCC in its current form
(and perhaps the shake-up of other organisations implicit in this
scam) will be a pleasure to behold, as will be the likely downfall of
Pechauri, and others.

CK

Christopher Booker's comments are worthless, as they were
shown to be in his views about asbestos. He has no scientific
training whatever and knows next to nothing about climate, let alone
climate change. He is no more than a butterfly, a dilettante,
unencumbered by the depth of knowledge of those actually in the
business.
It does not help your case to invoke those who know nothing
about the subject and it seems to me that the vast majority of those
who deny man's role in global warming are the very such people.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

"Tudor Hughes" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 3:58 pm, Natsman wrote:
On 24 Jan, 16:42, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Jan 24, 2:31 pm, Dawlish wrote:

.................*))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...0/jan/21/chris...

Thanks to a contributer on TWO for linking and giving me a laugh!

Excellent knockabout stuff and entirely deserved. Don't know
much about the winner but Booker is a top-drawer ignoramus and
deserves a good kicking. Equally Mad Mel.
None of this appeared in the print version, BTW.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Can't agree with you there, Tudor - Chris Booker is tireless in his
campaign to expose everything this man-made global warming/climate
change ideology is. And, rightly, it's falling apart largely thanks
to his devotion (and that of others) to publicising this obvious
fraud, bad "science" and embedded political dogma - and no doubt when
the **** eventually hits the fan he'll be championed. Deservedly so.
The possible, eventual dissolution of the IPCC in its current form
(and perhaps the shake-up of other organisations implicit in this
scam) will be a pleasure to behold, as will be the likely downfall of
Pechauri, and others.

CK

Christopher Booker's comments are worthless, as they were
shown to be in his views about asbestos. He has no scientific
training whatever and knows next to nothing about climate, let alone
climate change. He is no more than a butterfly, a dilettante,
unencumbered by the depth of knowledge of those actually in the
business.
It does not help your case to invoke those who know nothing
about the subject and it seems to me that the vast majority of those
who deny man's role in global warming are the very such people.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.


Funny Tudor when my work colleague was at Camden Council when decades ago
he'd often get tenants groups asking for Asbestos doors for H&S reasons.

Recently I had to meet a major Housing Association who wanted to safe guard
against Legionellas as long as the agent ensured the meaningless checks took
place.

On Jan 24, 2:46*pm, Natsman wrote:
On 24 Jan, 15:31, Dawlish wrote:

*.................*))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...0/jan/21/chris...

Thanks to a contributer on TWO for linking and giving me a laugh!

You may laugh now....
All you serve to do is to display which side of the socialist divide
YOU adhere to, judging by your reading material...
Said it before, I'll say it again, the dogma is crumbling, and that
sort of silliness goes a long way to indicate the desperate straits
the AGW protagonists have to resort to because their ideology is very
publicly disintegrating, and they are uncomfortable with its glaringly
obvious demise.

Dream on, Dawlish, or may I call you comrade?

CK

It's the pot vs kettle that I'm laughing at as well natsman - as well
as having a giggle at your own lack of humour. One hack who knows very
little about climate science except what he gleans from blogs and
newspapers, criticising another hack who knows very little about
climate science except what he reads in blogs and newspapers!

I don't read the Grauniad dear boy and I haven't since I was a little
more idealistic in my early 20's; if you'd actually read what I wrote,
I linked to the article (which is funny; I read it again!) from a
poster on TWO. "The Times" and the "Sunday Times" are my daily reads -
which again, you'd have known if you were paying attention. Deduce my
politics from that one! Not everyone who understands that GW is likely
to be AGW, is left wing; that's such an odd perception. Also, for the
umpteenth time. I'm a sceptic about GW. That's the most sensible
position to hold in my view and even with your denialist's tunnel
vision, you must have figured that one. You do a very poor job of
categorising anyone; most of all me! *))

You enjoy your rather daft minority rants natsman; they clearly show
your own prejudices and your own political leanings. The rest of us
will get on with living in a real world that is very likely to have to
cope with the effects of GW for generations to come.