Maybe because they have spent all those years trying to stuff AGW down the throat of the small proportion of the population who visits their website. hence the *Always* bias towards heat waves, flooding, drought and any protracted period of weather that can be placed at the feet of AGW

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ju...-weather-cause



Now that's out the way. can the taxpayers have their money back for all the resources you've wasted on propaganda.

Lawrence13 wrote:
Maybe because they have spent all those years trying to stuff AGW down
the throat of the small proportion of the population who visits their
website. hence the *Always* bias towards heat waves, flooding, drought
and any protracted period of weather that can be placed at the feet of AGW

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ju...-weather-cause



Now that's out the way. can the taxpayers have their money back for all
the resources you've wasted on propaganda.




Where in that report does it say 12 out of the last 13 years forecasts have
been too warm ? Besides weather is a different matter to climate, my
mistake that concept will be too difficult for a knuckle dragger like you.

Not content with driving the intelligent contributors away you continue to
bombard this, formerly excellent, newsgroup with your obsessive extreme
swivel eyed right wing nonsense. Why not do one and join ' fascists are us
' ? You'd fit in well.

Alternatively head down to deepest Arctic Devon and join your mate smug
Little Willie. At least he's shut up, why not do the same loser ?


--
Reg

Thanks for the link Lawrence.

The article is an interesting read, but if you scroll down and read the responses below it, you will see how a balanced discussion between contributors with opposing views, can on the whole, be conducted with dignity and humility, without puerile insults.

There are some members of this fine newsgroup who might learn a lesson from this, though I doubt that they will unfortunately.

Steve J

On Friday, June 14, 2013 10:12:17 PM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:
Maybe because they have spent all those years trying to stuff AGW down the throat of the small proportion of the population who visits their website.. hence the *Always* bias towards heat waves, flooding, drought and any protracted period of weather that can be placed at the feet of AGW



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ju...-weather-cause



Now that's out the way. can the taxpayers have their money back for all the resources you've wasted on propaganda.

What is your agenda on here, Larry? Intelligent discussion or just puerile insults? You talk more ******** than my former employer - and that's saying something

On Jun 15, 4:04*am, Reverse Reg wrote:
Lawrence13 wrote:
Maybe because they have spent all those years trying to stuff AGW down
the throat of the small proportion of the population who visits their
website. hence the *Always* bias towards heat waves, flooding, drought
and any protracted period of weather that can be placed at the feet of AGW

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ju...-weather-cause

Now that's out the way. can the taxpayers have their money back for all
the resources you've wasted on propaganda.

Where in that report does it say 12 out of the last 13 years forecasts have
been too warm ? Besides weather is a different matter to climate, my
mistake that concept will be too difficult for a knuckle dragger like you..

Not content with driving the intelligent contributors away you continue to
bombard this, formerly excellent, newsgroup with your obsessive extreme
swivel eyed right wing nonsense. Why not do one and join ' fascists are us
' ? You'd fit in well.

Alternatively head down to deepest Arctic Devon and join your mate smug
Little Willie. At least he's shut up, why not do the same loser ?

--
Reg

Why didn't you confine yourself to just your first sentence with
emphasis on the word "forecasts" - so much more effective and it might
even elicit a reasoned response.
We already have someone who can't make a point without being rude
and we don't need another.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Jun 15, 12:28*pm, Steve Jackson wrote:
Thanks for the link Lawrence.

The article is an interesting read, but if you scroll down and read the responses below it, you will see how a balanced discussion between contributors with opposing views, can on the whole, be conducted with dignity and humility, without puerile insults.

There are some members of this fine newsgroup who might learn a lesson from this, though I doubt that they will unfortunately.

Spoil sport.

On Jun 15, 2:15*pm, The triumphant return of Jim Cannon
wrote:

Intelligent discussion or just puerile insults?

Now that you indicate a distinction, can you give us all a definition?
Not that I am in the anti-Piers Morgan league.

On Saturday, 15 June 2013 12:28:42 UTC+1, Steve Jackson wrote:
Thanks for the link Lawrence.



The article is an interesting read, but if you scroll down and read the responses below it, you will see how a balanced discussion between contributors with opposing views, can on the whole, be conducted with dignity and humility, without puerile insults.



There are some members of this fine newsgroup who might learn a lesson from this, though I doubt that they will unfortunately.



Steve J

Totally unrepentant because every word is true.

On Saturday, 15 June 2013 14:15:03 UTC+1, The triumphant return of Jim Cannon wrote:
On Friday, June 14, 2013 10:12:17 PM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:

Maybe because they have spent all those years trying to stuff AGW down the throat of the small proportion of the population who visits their website. hence the *Always* bias towards heat waves, flooding, drought and any protracted period of weather that can be placed at the feet of AGW







http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ju...-weather-cause







Now that's out the way. can the taxpayers have their money back for all the resources you've wasted on propaganda.



What is your agenda on here, Larry? Intelligent discussion or just puerile insults? You talk more ******** than my former employer - and that's saying something

For the sake of truth and enlightenment who is your former employer-Southwark Council?

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:35:57 AM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Saturday, 15 June 2013 14:15:03 UTC+1, The triumphant return of Jim Cannon wrote: On Friday, June 14, 2013 10:12:17 PM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote: Maybe because they have spent all those years trying to stuff AGW down the throat of the small proportion of the population who visits their website. hence the *Always* bias towards heat waves, flooding, drought and any protracted period of weather that can be placed at the feet of AGW http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ju...-weather-cause Now that's out the way. can the taxpayers have their money back for all the resources you've wasted on propaganda. What is your agenda on here, Larry? Intelligent discussion or just puerile insults? You talk more ******** than my former employer - and that's saying something For the sake of truth and enlightenment who is your former employer-Southwark Council?

No, not Southwark who get an unfairly bad press IMHO. I am formerly employed by WeatherFiction, the MD of which now won't even acknowledge that I exist. I WILL get the last word though when this horrid episode is over.