On Mar 5, 8:30*am, "Will Hand" wrote:
"Natsman" wrote in message

...
On 4 Mar, 20:27, Ouroboros Rex wrote:





On 3/4/2010 12:47 PM, Meteorologist wrote:

On Feb 28, 5:35 am, wrote:
...
Crunchy; I'm happy for you to believe that. He seems a fine scientist
and his views are interesting; hardly mainstream and certainly not
borne out by current global temperatures, but interesting. However,
next time you wish to link to an article of his, would you please
consider not putting uk.sci.weather in your distribution list as
you'll then save us from the same bunch of sparring idiots, who
generally provide foul and useless replies to you and which always
cause your threads to disintegrate into name-calling, American
politics and pure rubbish?

Pretty please and thanks.

You forgot your manners again because you can't
help yourself. However, you should reform ASAP.
So, call me by my right name, pretty please...

-----

Climate Change And The Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
Adrian K. Kerton MSc.

http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder...ge/E-E_Clr_Abs....

"Normalisation of latitude and longitude is obtained by reducing the
range of variation to
match the range of variation of temperature. For example if latitude
varies from 70 to 84 degrees
and the corresponding temperature variation is 0,8 degrees, the latitude
variation is converted to a
range starting at zero by subtracting the lowest value, 70, and is then
reduced by a factor of 0.8/14,
so that the latitude variation now becomes 0.8."

This thing is published where?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe Dawlish (and others) might like to take a look at this
discussion at The Guardian, with particular attention to a poster
known as "Lubos" - a celebrated Czech theoretical physicist with a
truly impressive background.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change...

CK
===============

Some good points made in that article, thanks CK.

Will
--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Will

Can't argue with the article. It is right on many counts. Lubos'
comments are those of a sceptic and his views are well known. He's
entitled to them and he's a well respected scientist with impeccable
credentials. There's also a chance that he may be right in his
comments about GW not being AGW.

I'd refer anyone to actual rising temperatures; the only measure of
GW. They have nothing to do with spin and they cause measurable
effects which are being experienced worldwide. In addition, the fact
that greenhouse gases will cause warming has been settled for over a
century, despite what a few oddballs would like to believe. That's not
an issue.

After reading "The Guardian" article - which is about scientific
integrity and not global temperatures and their effects - I'd refer
people to this article in "The Times" today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7050341.ece

Odd, but that's exactly the position I've moved to over this last
year. I've written before that IMO, the odds on CO2 being the main
driver of GW have shortened from 1/10 to 1/20 - a 95% chance that this
is the case. I'm not surprised that scientists at the Hadley Centre
feel the same way. If you feel differently, good luck to you and 5%
of me feels the same, but a 5% chance isn't high enough to gamble with
my descendent's future and why we must act on CO2 emissions, despite
the cost.

On Mar 5, 9:48*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:30*am, "Will Hand" wrote:





"Natsman" wrote in message

...
On 4 Mar, 20:27, Ouroboros Rex wrote:

On 3/4/2010 12:47 PM, Meteorologist wrote:

On Feb 28, 5:35 am, wrote:
...
Crunchy; I'm happy for you to believe that. He seems a fine scientist
and his views are interesting; hardly mainstream and certainly not
borne out by current global temperatures, but interesting. However,
next time you wish to link to an article of his, would you please
consider not putting uk.sci.weather in your distribution list as
you'll then save us from the same bunch of sparring idiots, who
generally provide foul and useless replies to you and which always
cause your threads to disintegrate into name-calling, American
politics and pure rubbish?

Pretty please and thanks.

You forgot your manners again because you can't
help yourself. However, you should reform ASAP.
So, call me by my right name, pretty please...

-----

Climate Change And The Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
Adrian K. Kerton MSc.

http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder...ge/E-E_Clr_Abs...

"Normalisation of latitude and longitude is obtained by reducing the
range of variation to
match the range of variation of temperature. For example if latitude
varies from 70 to 84 degrees
and the corresponding temperature variation is 0,8 degrees, the latitude
variation is converted to a
range starting at zero by subtracting the lowest value, 70, and is then
reduced by a factor of 0.8/14,
so that the latitude variation now becomes 0.8."

This thing is published where?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe Dawlish (and others) might like to take a look at this
discussion at The Guardian, with particular attention to a poster
known as "Lubos" - a celebrated Czech theoretical physicist with a
truly impressive background.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change...

CK
===============

Some good points made in that article, thanks CK.

Will
--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Will

Can't argue with the article. It is right on many counts. Lubos'
comments are those of a sceptic and his views are well known. He's
entitled to them and he's a well respected scientist with impeccable
credentials. There's also a chance that he may be right in his
comments about GW not being AGW.

I'd refer anyone to actual rising temperatures; the only measure of
GW. They have nothing to do with spin and they cause measurable
effects which are being experienced worldwide. In addition, the fact
that greenhouse gases will cause warming has been settled for over a
century, despite what a few oddballs would like to believe. That's not
an issue.

After reading "The Guardian" article - which is about scientific
integrity and not global temperatures and their effects - I'd refer
people to this article in "The Times" today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7050341.ece

Odd, but that's exactly the position I've moved to over this last
year. I've written before that IMO, the odds on CO2 being the main
driver of GW have shortened from 1/10 to 1/20 - a 95% chance that this
is the case. I'm not surprised that scientists at the Hadley Centre
feel the same way. *If you feel differently, good luck to you and 5%
of me feels the same, but a 5% chance isn't high enough to gamble with
my descendent's future and why we must act on CO2 emissions, despite
the cost.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, sorry! Crunchy - this isn't about me. It's the vast majority of
scientists and the politicians they advise that you have to convince.
I can assure you they aren't listening to you.

I also cut the distribution list to this newsgroup only, as I will. I
don't want to feed your hangers on.

On 5 Mar, 09:48, Dawlish wrote:

If you feel differently, good luck to you and 5%
of me feels the same

How much of you is 5%. (By weight not volume.)

Note the words and phrases used :
proposed
appears
strong correlations
not clear how
may result

Not exactly 100 % definetly the "truth"...........lol.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 8:30 am, "Will Hand" wrote:
"Natsman" wrote in message

...
On 4 Mar, 20:27, Ouroboros Rex wrote:





On 3/4/2010 12:47 PM, Meteorologist wrote:

On Feb 28, 5:35 am, wrote:
...
Crunchy; I'm happy for you to believe that. He seems a fine scientist
and his views are interesting; hardly mainstream and certainly not
borne out by current global temperatures, but interesting. However,
next time you wish to link to an article of his, would you please
consider not putting uk.sci.weather in your distribution list as
you'll then save us from the same bunch of sparring idiots, who
generally provide foul and useless replies to you and which always
cause your threads to disintegrate into name-calling, American
politics and pure rubbish?

Pretty please and thanks.

You forgot your manners again because you can't
help yourself. However, you should reform ASAP.
So, call me by my right name, pretty please...

-----

Climate Change And The Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
Adrian K. Kerton MSc.

http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder...ge/E-E_Clr_Abs...

"Normalisation of latitude and longitude is obtained by reducing the
range of variation to
match the range of variation of temperature. For example if latitude
varies from 70 to 84 degrees
and the corresponding temperature variation is 0,8 degrees, the latitude
variation is converted to a
range starting at zero by subtracting the lowest value, 70, and is then
reduced by a factor of 0.8/14,
so that the latitude variation now becomes 0.8."

This thing is published where?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe Dawlish (and others) might like to take a look at this
discussion at The Guardian, with particular attention to a poster
known as "Lubos" - a celebrated Czech theoretical physicist with a
truly impressive background.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change...

CK
===============

Some good points made in that article, thanks CK.

Will
--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Will

Can't argue with the article. It is right on many counts. Lubos'
comments are those of a sceptic and his views are well known. He's
entitled to them and he's a well respected scientist with impeccable
credentials. There's also a chance that he may be right in his
comments about GW not being AGW.

I'd refer anyone to actual rising temperatures; the only measure of
GW. They have nothing to do with spin and they cause measurable
effects which are being experienced worldwide. In addition, the fact
that greenhouse gases will cause warming has been settled for over a
century, despite what a few oddballs would like to believe. That's not
an issue.

After reading "The Guardian" article - which is about scientific
integrity and not global temperatures and their effects - I'd refer
people to this article in "The Times" today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7050341.ece

Odd, but that's exactly the position I've moved to over this last
year. I've written before that IMO, the odds on CO2 being the main
driver of GW have shortened from 1/10 to 1/20 - a 95% chance that this
is the case. I'm not surprised that scientists at the Hadley Centre
feel the same way. If you feel differently, good luck to you and 5%
of me feels the same, but a 5% chance isn't high enough to gamble with
my descendent's future and why we must act on CO2 emissions, despite
the cost.


Its because of the use of Co2 that you have any decendents you ****.

FFS can't people get a grip and some perspective.

WITHOUT THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS HUMANS WOULD HAVE BECOME EXTINCT TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO

"MahFL" wrote in message
...
Note the words and phrases used :
proposed
appears
strong correlations
not clear how
may result

Not exactly 100 % definetly the "truth"...........lol.




Yes sounds just like UKMO when they the discuss the perils of AGW

in 237618 20100305 172300 "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 8:30 am, "Will Hand" wrote:
"Natsman" wrote in message

...
On 4 Mar, 20:27, Ouroboros Rex wrote:





On 3/4/2010 12:47 PM, Meteorologist wrote:

On Feb 28, 5:35 am, wrote:
...
Crunchy; I'm happy for you to believe that. He seems a fine scientist
and his views are interesting; hardly mainstream and certainly not
borne out by current global temperatures, but interesting. However,
next time you wish to link to an article of his, would you please
consider not putting uk.sci.weather in your distribution list as
you'll then save us from the same bunch of sparring idiots, who
generally provide foul and useless replies to you and which always
cause your threads to disintegrate into name-calling, American
politics and pure rubbish?

Pretty please and thanks.

You forgot your manners again because you can't
help yourself. However, you should reform ASAP.
So, call me by my right name, pretty please...

-----

Climate Change And The Earth�s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
Adrian K. Kerton MSc.

http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder...ge/E-E_Clr_Abs...

"Normalisation of latitude and longitude is obtained by reducing the
range of variation to
match the range of variation of temperature. For example if latitude
varies from 70 to 84 degrees
and the corresponding temperature variation is 0,8 degrees, the latitude
variation is converted to a
range starting at zero by subtracting the lowest value, 70, and is then
reduced by a factor of 0.8/14,
so that the latitude variation now becomes 0.8."

This thing is published where?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe Dawlish (and others) might like to take a look at this
discussion at The Guardian, with particular attention to a poster
known as "Lubos" - a celebrated Czech theoretical physicist with a
truly impressive background.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change...

CK
===============

Some good points made in that article, thanks CK.

Will
--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Will

Can't argue with the article. It is right on many counts. Lubos'
comments are those of a sceptic and his views are well known. He's
entitled to them and he's a well respected scientist with impeccable
credentials. There's also a chance that he may be right in his
comments about GW not being AGW.

I'd refer anyone to actual rising temperatures; the only measure of
GW. They have nothing to do with spin and they cause measurable
effects which are being experienced worldwide. In addition, the fact
that greenhouse gases will cause warming has been settled for over a
century, despite what a few oddballs would like to believe. That's not
an issue.

After reading "The Guardian" article - which is about scientific
integrity and not global temperatures and their effects - I'd refer
people to this article in "The Times" today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7050341.ece

Odd, but that's exactly the position I've moved to over this last
year. I've written before that IMO, the odds on CO2 being the main
driver of GW have shortened from 1/10 to 1/20 - a 95% chance that this
is the case. I'm not surprised that scientists at the Hadley Centre
feel the same way. If you feel differently, good luck to you and 5%
of me feels the same, but a 5% chance isn't high enough to gamble with
my descendent's future and why we must act on CO2 emissions, despite
the cost.


Its because of the use of Co2 that you have any decendents you ****.

FFS can't people get a grip and some perspective.

WITHOUT THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS HUMANS WOULD HAVE BECOME EXTINCT TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO

Relevance?

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 237618 20100305 172300 "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 8:30 am, "Will Hand" wrote:
"Natsman" wrote in message

...
On 4 Mar, 20:27, Ouroboros Rex wrote:





On 3/4/2010 12:47 PM, Meteorologist wrote:

On Feb 28, 5:35 am, wrote:
...
Crunchy; I'm happy for you to believe that. He seems a fine
scientist
and his views are interesting; hardly mainstream and certainly not
borne out by current global temperatures, but interesting. However,
next time you wish to link to an article of his, would you please
consider not putting uk.sci.weather in your distribution list as
you'll then save us from the same bunch of sparring idiots, who
generally provide foul and useless replies to you and which always
cause your threads to disintegrate into name-calling, American
politics and pure rubbish?

Pretty please and thanks.

You forgot your manners again because you can't
help yourself. However, you should reform ASAP.
So, call me by my right name, pretty please...

-----

Climate Change And The Earth�s Magnetic Poles, A Possible
Connection
Adrian K. Kerton MSc.

http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder...ge/E-E_Clr_Abs...

"Normalisation of latitude and longitude is obtained by reducing the
range of variation to
match the range of variation of temperature. For example if latitude
varies from 70 to 84 degrees
and the corresponding temperature variation is 0,8 degrees, the
latitude
variation is converted to a
range starting at zero by subtracting the lowest value, 70, and is
then
reduced by a factor of 0.8/14,
so that the latitude variation now becomes 0.8."

This thing is published where?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe Dawlish (and others) might like to take a look at this
discussion at The Guardian, with particular attention to a poster
known as "Lubos" - a celebrated Czech theoretical physicist with a
truly impressive background.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change...

CK
===============

Some good points made in that article, thanks CK.

Will
--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Will

Can't argue with the article. It is right on many counts. Lubos'
comments are those of a sceptic and his views are well known. He's
entitled to them and he's a well respected scientist with impeccable
credentials. There's also a chance that he may be right in his
comments about GW not being AGW.

I'd refer anyone to actual rising temperatures; the only measure of
GW. They have nothing to do with spin and they cause measurable
effects which are being experienced worldwide. In addition, the fact
that greenhouse gases will cause warming has been settled for over a
century, despite what a few oddballs would like to believe. That's not
an issue.

After reading "The Guardian" article - which is about scientific
integrity and not global temperatures and their effects - I'd refer
people to this article in "The Times" today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7050341.ece

Odd, but that's exactly the position I've moved to over this last
year. I've written before that IMO, the odds on CO2 being the main
driver of GW have shortened from 1/10 to 1/20 - a 95% chance that this
is the case. I'm not surprised that scientists at the Hadley Centre
feel the same way. If you feel differently, good luck to you and 5%
of me feels the same, but a 5% chance isn't high enough to gamble with
my descendent's future and why we must act on CO2 emissions, despite
the cost.


Its because of the use of Co2 that you have any decendents you ****.

FFS can't people get a grip and some perspective.

WITHOUT THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS HUMANS WOULD HAVE BECOME EXTINCT TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO

Relevance?


No relevance we'll all thrive, all six billion and counting of us on solar
panels, joss sticks, alfalfa sprouts, carrot juice and ginseng.

Now I wonder how we'll manufacture those panels without using fossil fuels.
I know we'll all keep a supply of carbon offsets in our non animal skin not
synthetic wallets.

I vouch you make a glorious start to reducing Co2 by turning off you PC. Oh
I forgot, its powered by an organic lemon.

On Mar 5, 5:23*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

Its because of the use of Co2 that you have any decendents you ****.

Foul language. Reverting to type Lawrence? You just know the person on
the other side of the argument has lost when that's their only means
left - or in your case, their only means far, far right.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 5:23 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

Its because of the use of Co2 that you have any decendents you ****.

Foul language. Reverting to type Lawrence? You just know the person on
the other side of the argument has lost when that's their only means
left - or in your case, their only means far, far right.

No I'm just in a foul mood and got fed up reading clap trap like

"Oh lets stop using CO2 NOW" or "wouldn't it been great if wicked callous
humans hadn't have invented fire"

You obviously feel that AGW is a problem so can I nominate you as the next
martyr to turn of his PC.

Bravo a man who puts his beliefs into practise.