On Sunday, 21 April 2013 15:51:57 UTC+1, Buchan Meteo wrote:
Lawrence13 scrive:





Yes the *******s force it on you don't they. You know I bet every time

you take one of your cars to a petrol station some bugger fills it up

despite you kicking and screaming "No, no please don't do that because

we are all going to die." and you cry all the way back home to your

house the one without solar panels.



That reminds me, I have to fill up tomorrow. Rumour has it that the price

has fallen by two cents per litre. Yay ... more miles to the pound.



"We've got fuel to burn, we got roads to drive. Keep on rockin' in the

free world."



Oh well, back to work. I can finish at 1700 on a Sunday. Lucky me.



--

Gianna

Peterhead, Scotland

Well maybe Neil now regrets driving Mort up and down from Canada to California.

hey Gianna

We've been through
Some things together
With trunks of memories
Still to come
We found things to do
In stormy weather
Long may you run.



When I was filling up last year, for some reason their five pound rucksack caught my eye, no not literally. Anyhow I purchased it and took it home and it was a piece of Crap

On Sunday, 21 April 2013 15:42:43 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:30:01 PM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:

On Sunday, 21 April 2013 14:54:39 UTC+1, aka sutart-thingy yttiw wrote:



On 2013-04-21 13:25:54 +0000, Ian Bingham said:















"Dawlish" wrote in message







...















On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:14:58 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:







"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...































There is a video here where a climate scientist gives his views of the















state we are in with regards to global warming.















http://vimeo.com/43012713















Of course, those who should watch it won't :-(































Cheers, Alastair.































On the other hand, read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Prof. Robert















M.Carter, an erudite work which comes to some rather different conclusions.















I believe it is reviewed by readers on Amazon. With the experts so much at















variance I think one has to keep a strictly open mind on this vexed topic.















It doesn't even seem to be decided whether increased CO2 causes global















warming or whether it is the other way round.































Ian Bingham,















Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.















"Experts are certainly not "at variance" and that's a book written from







a particular perspective and certainly not a peer-reviewed study. Your







comments are a *very* poor reflection on the consensus.















This paper, Doran and Zimmermann 2009 will help you to see that. It







also mentions Oreskes 2004 and the scientific consensus appears to have







hardened markedly since then:















http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...09EO030002/pdf















In addition, a recent, huge, review of scientific literature, by Powell







(Dec 2012) showed almost 14,000 papers agreeing with the consensus and







only 24 that didn't. Powell concluded this (not peer reviewed, AFAIK,







but an enormous sample):















What can we conclude from this study?















1. In the scientific literature, there is virtually no disagreement







that humans are causing global warming.















Please counter those studies, if you want to advocate that scientists







don't agree on this. You'll struggle. They do. A tiny minority,







including Prof Bob Carter, don't.























Dawlish, how can you deny that scientists are at variance on global







warming? If the science was so clear and unequivocal and the findings







of scientists so unanimous, there wouldn’t be all the controversy that







there is; no-one would dare to be a denier under those circumstances.







Although, speaking for myself, and I suspect many others, when I see







any sort of bandwagon, I am instinctively suspicious because I’ve







noticed that there is a certain type of person who loves to have a







self-righteous stick to beat the rest of us with, the modern equivalent







of the old hell-fire preacher. I’ll continue to read as widely as I







have time for and keep an open mind.















Ian Bingham,







Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.















I think that is a very wise approach.















Especially as there are lots of people who stand to make billions from







us continuing to burn vast amounts of fossil fuels.







Yes the *******s force it on you don't they. You know I bet every time you take one of your cars to a petrol station some bugger fills it up despite you kicking and screaming "No, no please don't do that because we are all going to die." and you cry all the way back home to your house the one without solar panels.



Oh dear. That just reflects the climate denier position perfectly. A combination of almost total ignorance combined with outright indignation that people could possibly understand more than they do.



It's funny that anyone could react in this way and I'm so pleased that no-one with an ounce of influence listens to people like this when they spout this stuff, but I'm even more pleased that my grandchildren's children's future is not in the hands of people like this.


I'm sure you being their grandfather will put any further future disasters they may face into perspective.

On Monday, 22 April 2013 01:25:54 UTC+12, Ian Bingham wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message ... On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:14:58 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote: "Alastair McDonald" wrote in message .... There is a video here where a climate scientist gives his views of the state we are in with regards to global warming. http://vimeo.com/43012713 Of course, those who should watch it won't :-( Cheers, Alastair. On the other hand, read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Prof. Robert M.Carter, an erudite work which comes to some rather different conclusions. I believe it is reviewed by readers on Amazon. With the experts so much at variance I think one has to keep a strictly open mind on this vexed topic. It doesn't even seem to be decided whether increased CO2 causes global warming or whether it is the other way round. Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire. "Experts are certainly not "at variance" and that's a book written from a particular perspective and certainly not a peer-reviewed study. Your comments are a *very* poor reflection on the consensus. This paper, Doran and Zimmermann 2009 will help you to see that. It also mentions Oreskes 2004 and the scientific consensus appears to have hardened markedly since then: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...09EO030002/pdf In addition, a recent, huge, review of scientific literature, by Powell (Dec 2012) showed almost 14,000 papers agreeing with the consensus and only 24 that didn't. Powell concluded this (not peer reviewed, AFAIK, but an enormous sample): What can we conclude from this study? 1. In the scientific literature, there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing global warming. Please counter those studies, if you want to advocate that scientists don't agree on this. You'll struggle. They do. A tiny minority, including Prof Bob Carter, don't. Dawlish, how can you deny that scientists are at variance on global warming? If the science was so clear and unequivocal and the findings of scientists so unanimous, there wouldn’t be all the controversy that there is; no-one would dare to be a denier under those circumstances. Although, speaking for myself, and I suspect many others, when I see any sort of bandwagon, I am instinctively suspicious because I’ve noticed that there is a certain type of person who loves to have a self-righteous stick to beat the rest of us with, the modern equivalent of the old hell-fire preacher. I’ll continue to read as widely as I have time for and keep an open mind. Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

You are dead wrong - and those above (for example) who cite a discredited has-been like Lindzen are not up with the play at all. The "dissenters" are a small minority in the scientific community, but include plenty of scientists who have no expertise whatever in any aspect of meteorological science, but are more than willing (along with conservative TV station weather hosts!) to make confident assertions about the "facts".

I suggets you spend more time looking at these sites (below) for example - but don't expect to be treated politely if you start quoting from the uninformed.

The "controversy" is politically-inspired tripe emanating from vested interests acting in the same way as the tobacco lobbyists, and media organs who think it's reasonable (convenient, in reality) to treat all arguments as equally valid. The media gave that discombobulated loon Monckton air time he didn't deserve in his recent visits down under.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://hot-topic.co.nz/

I look forward to your contributions/questions.

On Saturday, 20 April 2013 21:12:25 UTC+12, Alastair wrote:

Apologies about unedited mess in my previous post - internet connection went strange for a while and couldn't alter it.

PS re dissenting scientists - the esteemed Bob Carter has produced a load of risible rubbish on warming and CO2, and has been well and truly exposed as an ignoramus on the matter. Next one please?

On Monday, 22 April 2013 01:25:54 UTC+12, Ian Bingham wrote:
Dawlish, how can you deny that scientists are at variance on global warming? If the science was so clear and unequivocal and the findings of scientists so unanimous, there wouldn’t be all the controversy that there is; no-one would dare to be a denier under those circumstances. Although, speaking for myself, and I suspect many others, when I see any sort of bandwagon, I am instinctively suspicious because I’ve noticed that there is a certain type of person who loves to have a self-righteous stick to beat the rest of us with, the modern equivalent of the old hell-fire preacher. I’ll continue to read as widely as I have time for and keep an open mind. Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

You are wrong. And those who cite a discredited has-been like Lindzen are not up with the play at all. The "dissenters" are a small minority in the scientific community, but still include plenty of scientists who have no expertise whatever in any aspect of meteorology, but are more than willing (along with conservative TV station weather hosts!) to make confident assertions about the "facts".

The "controversy" is politically-inspired tripe emanating from vested interests acting in the same way as the tobacco lobbyists, and media organs who think it's reasonable (convenient, in reality) to treat all arguments as equally valid. The media gave that discombobulated loon Monckton air time he didn't deserve in his recent visits down under.

I suggest you spend more time looking at these sites (below) for example - but don't expect to be treated too politely if you want to start quoting the uninformed.

The esteemed Bob Carter has produced a load of risible rubbish on warming and CO2, and has been well and truly exposed as an ignoramus on the matter.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://hot-topic.co.nz/

On Sunday, 21 April 2013 21:25:58 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 22 April 2013 01:25:54 UTC+12, Ian Bingham wrote:

Dawlish, how can you deny that scientists are at variance on global warming? If the science was so clear and unequivocal and the findings of scientists so unanimous, there wouldn’t be all the controversy that there is; no-one would dare to be a denier under those circumstances. Although, speaking for myself, and I suspect many others, when I see any sort of bandwagon, I am instinctively suspicious because I’ve noticed that there is a certain type of person who loves to have a self-righteous stick to beat the rest of us with, the modern equivalent of the old hell-fire preacher. I’ll continue to read as widely as I have time for and keep an open mind. Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.



You are wrong. And those who cite a discredited has-been like Lindzen are not up with the play at all. The "dissenters" are a small minority in the scientific community, but still include plenty of scientists who have no expertise whatever in any aspect of meteorology, but are more than willing (along with conservative TV station weather hosts!) to make confident assertions about the "facts".



The "controversy" is politically-inspired tripe emanating from vested interests acting in the same way as the tobacco lobbyists, and media organs who think it's reasonable (convenient, in reality) to treat all arguments as equally valid. The media gave that discombobulated loon Monckton air time he didn't deserve in his recent visits down under.



I suggest you spend more time looking at these sites (below) for example - but don't expect to be treated too politely if you want to start quoting the uninformed.



The esteemed Bob Carter has produced a load of risible rubbish on warming and CO2, and has been well and truly exposed as an ignoramus on the matter..



http://www.skepticalscience.com/



http://hot-topic.co.nz/



The Antarctic sea ice still growing-due to warming
Arctic sea ice returning
Snow once a thing of the past is now driving people in Russia, Europe and the USA nuts.
Temperatures have stopped rising

These are not signs of a runaway greenhouse effect are they.

Also why so insulting with the names.

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:52:57 PM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Sunday, 21 April 2013 21:25:58 UTC+1, wrote:

On Monday, 22 April 2013 01:25:54 UTC+12, Ian Bingham wrote:



Dawlish, how can you deny that scientists are at variance on global warming? If the science was so clear and unequivocal and the findings of scientists so unanimous, there wouldn’t be all the controversy that there is; no-one would dare to be a denier under those circumstances. Although, speaking for myself, and I suspect many others, when I see any sort of bandwagon, I am instinctively suspicious because I’ve noticed that there is a certain type of person who loves to have a self-righteous stick to beat the rest of us with, the modern equivalent of the old hell-fire preacher. I’ll continue to read as widely as I have time for and keep an open mind. Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.







You are wrong. And those who cite a discredited has-been like Lindzen are not up with the play at all. The "dissenters" are a small minority in the scientific community, but still include plenty of scientists who have no expertise whatever in any aspect of meteorology, but are more than willing (along with conservative TV station weather hosts!) to make confident assertions about the "facts".







The "controversy" is politically-inspired tripe emanating from vested interests acting in the same way as the tobacco lobbyists, and media organs who think it's reasonable (convenient, in reality) to treat all arguments as equally valid. The media gave that discombobulated loon Monckton air time he didn't deserve in his recent visits down under.







I suggest you spend more time looking at these sites (below) for example - but don't expect to be treated too politely if you want to start quoting the uninformed.







The esteemed Bob Carter has produced a load of risible rubbish on warming and CO2, and has been well and truly exposed as an ignoramus on the matter.







http://www.skepticalscience.com/







http://hot-topic.co.nz/







The Antarctic sea ice still growing-due to warming

Arctic sea ice returning

Snow once a thing of the past is now driving people in Russia, Europe and the USA nuts.

Temperatures have stopped rising



These are not signs of a runaway greenhouse effect are they.



Also why so insulting with the names.

You are ignorant of facts, aren't you?

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:25:58 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 22 April 2013 01:25:54 UTC+12, Ian Bingham wrote:

Dawlish, how can you deny that scientists are at variance on global warming? If the science was so clear and unequivocal and the findings of scientists so unanimous, there wouldn’t be all the controversy that there is; no-one would dare to be a denier under those circumstances. Although, speaking for myself, and I suspect many others, when I see any sort of bandwagon, I am instinctively suspicious because I’ve noticed that there is a certain type of person who loves to have a self-righteous stick to beat the rest of us with, the modern equivalent of the old hell-fire preacher. I’ll continue to read as widely as I have time for and keep an open mind. Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.



You are wrong. And those who cite a discredited has-been like Lindzen are not up with the play at all. The "dissenters" are a small minority in the scientific community, but still include plenty of scientists who have no expertise whatever in any aspect of meteorology, but are more than willing (along with conservative TV station weather hosts!) to make confident assertions about the "facts".



The "controversy" is politically-inspired tripe emanating from vested interests acting in the same way as the tobacco lobbyists, and media organs who think it's reasonable (convenient, in reality) to treat all arguments as equally valid. The media gave that discombobulated loon Monckton air time he didn't deserve in his recent visits down under.



I suggest you spend more time looking at these sites (below) for example - but don't expect to be treated too politely if you want to start quoting the uninformed.



The esteemed Bob Carter has produced a load of risible rubbish on warming and CO2, and has been well and truly exposed as an ignoramus on the matter..



http://www.skepticalscience.com/



http://hot-topic.co.nz/

*)) Nice to see you Rupert.

On Monday, 22 April 2013 09:23:11 UTC+12, Dawlish wrote:
*)) Nice to see you Rupert.

Hello again!

On Monday, 22 April 2013 08:52:57 UTC+12, Lawrence13 wrote:
The Antarctic sea ice still growing-due to warming Arctic sea ice returning Snow once a thing of the past is now driving people in Russia, Europe and the USA nuts. Temperatures have stopped rising These are not signs of a runaway greenhouse effect are they. Also why so insulting with the names.

Just to respond to a couple of your points Lawrence: Temperatures have not stopped rising - that's a standard piece of denier disinformation.

The matter of Antarctic sea ice (and the continuing large loss of landmass ice there) has been well-covered already. You can find detailed expositions in either of the sites I provided links for, why not go and read them. Ditto re Arctic ice.

Carter {and Lindzen in his less recent times (but he is quieter now that his prognostications have been so unsuccessful)} has been extremely impolite to climate scientists and has earned no kid-glove treatment. His output is a mixture of confusion, illogic and downright falsehoods.