On 22/08/2013 11:11, exmetman wrote:
Hi

Thanks for all the replies to my original post that I got. As usual
the original topic I raised was soon lost in the politics and
squabbling that seems to dog anything of interest to do with either
climate or weather on this newsgroup.

Interestingly, I posted the same topic to the UKWW forum, and
although there was slightly less interest, all the replies added
something to my original post, I was even thanked for posting to the
forum!

Which forum did you post it in - I can't find it?


--
Regards,

Paul Hyett

"Vidcapper" wrote in message ...

Which forum did you post it in - I can't find it?

Regards,

Paul Hyett

Paul, here it is...if you cut and paste to browser...

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/foru...-time-of-year/


Joe

On Thursday, 22 August 2013 08:22:06 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/08/2013 07:58, Vidcapper wrote:

On 22/08/2013 06:48, Dawlish wrote:



*Every* single National science academy, *every one* of 660

scientific institutions, *every* author of almost 14,000 recent

publications on climate science (Foster 2013), 97% of 12,000 authors

in a separate peer-reviewed study of scientific abstracts (Cook 2013)

and "every* government that attended Cancun, Doha and Rio feel

differently to you.



Why do you feel you are better positioned to say that they are all

wrong, larry?





Why did so few people defy the religious orthodoxy of the Middle Ages?



This is false comparison. Scientists are always looking to overturn the

status quo, but it can only be done if you have real *EVIDENCE*.



People like Galileo and Copernicus *did* defy the religious orthodoxy of

the Middle Ages - that is how the Age of Enlightenment got started.



For the same reason, fear of the consequences of stepping out of line -

OK, AGW sceptics aren't going to be burned at the stake, but they *will*

find it very hard to pursue a career in climatology if they don't toe

the establishment line...



Real scientific sceptics are one thing and they are still genuine

scientists who are trying to better understand the climate system and

refine our models - I would count Lindzen in that camp (but only just).



However, there is a vast raft of ultraright wing pathological liars

knowingly spreading deliberate disinformation about climate change to

the public starting with the likes of the late Prof Fred Seitz who was

the canonical "denier for hire". He cut his teeth on denying tobacco

causes cancer before moving on to deny that CO2 causes climate change.



Thanks to the US public access information of the tobacco lobby we can

actually see what his employers thought of him even before he became

involved in cooking up the "Oregon Petition" of ignorant also rans.



http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023266534.html



It isn't hard to spot deniers for hire. Check their previous positions

on tobacco causing cancer, CFCs damaging the ozone layer...



--

Regards,

Martin Brown


The argument that AGW deniers are for tobacco is absolute generalised tripe and you know that and should be ashamed of such stupid remarks

By the way the Al Gore family made their fortune growing tobacco so put that in your pipe

On 22/08/2013 19:15, JCW wrote:
"Vidcapper" wrote in message ...

Which forum did you post it in - I can't find it?

Regards,

Paul Hyett

Paul, here it is...if you cut and paste to browser...

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/foru...-time-of-year/


Didn't think to look there - in fact, didn't even know that one existed!

I guess I should scroll down the home page a bit...



--
Regards,

Paul Hyett