On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 22:16:37 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:49:49 PM UTC, Adam Lea wrote:



Well said, however I would exercise caution in any claims that the



current flooding is related to climate change before any attribution



study has been conducted. Otherwise, it is no different to claiming that



the run of cold winters in the UK prior to this year demonstrates a



cooling trend.



snipped for clarity



Me too and as would any scientist. However, sensibly, no scientist has claimed that the current UK flooding *is* due to climate change.


They have implied it is, as you well know, and the media has picked it up and turned it into an absolute.

Dont you think that unless a scientist had some very firm evidence it was due to CO2 he ought to keep his trap shut?

But no, the clowns at the Met Office come out with their mealymouthed statements about CO2 'being a factor' or it being 'likely' and in so doing give the impression that CO2 is the cause when in fact there is absolutely no evidence at all that it is. Principally because the current rainfall has been exceeded in the past when CO2 can not have been a factor.

Of course I dont expect you to even admit this, you will apply your usual 'all the worlds scientists' line, even though that is palpably wrong. as you have been shown many many times.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 12:47:22 UTC+1, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 11/02/2014 10:52, matt_sykes wrote:

On Monday, 10 February 2014 07:34:27 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:31:12 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:







Hundreds of thousands of climate scientist.







No; hundreds of thousands of climate scientists.





Hundreds of thousands? SO why did only 219 sign the Bali letter?





Idiot.



Good point.



I despair at how much money would be wasted at those sort of numbers.

How much does it cost to employ a 'climate scientist'? Well it depends

on your definition of course, and there are chiefs and indians in

varying numbers. Prof. Slingo is reportedly paid over £135k as the

MetO Chief Scientist.



Lets not go too far over the top, suppose there are 100,000 scientists

working in the field (worldwide), let's assume they are well qualified

so they are probably getting of the order of £30k per annum, so ball

park £300m p.a. That figure could be tripled by adding in costs of

ancillary staff, buildings, equipment, travel to exotic locations, etc.



So in total the planet might be spending about a billion (short scale) £

per year on climate science. In some ways that's not much - the UK

spends about £100Bn on the NHS, £40Bn on defence - but at least we get

some benefit from the NHS (and defence, though there are a lot of people

who might argue with that). The Department for Business, Innovation and

Skills (which includes the MetO) spends about £16.5Bn per year, though

only a small part would go to climate studies.



If you spend £1Bn per year on medical research you will probably get

several useful breakthroughs which could be really beneficial.



Spending a similar amount on climate science will probably tell us that

the climate is changing (which we already know), that it might be

life-threatening (which we already know), that we need to be prepared

(which we already know), that we ought to take action to slow it down or

mitigate the effects (which we already know). Does it really make much

difference if 100 climate scientists tell us it's getting warmer or that

100,000 do so. Note that by 'us' I don't really mean us the great

unwashed, but rather the people who take the decisions for us. The

politicians can't go against public opinion too much though, 'cos then

we won't elect them, so maybe we do need 100,000 people beavering

away on their laptops.





--



Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

That famous '97% of all scientists' study only questioned 10000, and of those only 40% agreed to the two questions, which themselves only asked if mans role was 'significant' and not 'dominant'. Significant at a statistical level means measurable, or relevant, so could be 5% say.

They took this 10000 and whittled it down to 79 to get their 97%. So thats it. 76 scientists, 2 of whoom thought it hadnt warmed since 1900, the other of the two questions.

Garvey is a childish fool. Hundreds of thousands indeed, its utter garbage..

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 23:53:02 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote in message

...

On Monday, 10 February 2014 07:34:27 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:31:12 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:







Hundreds of thousands of climate scientist.







No; hundreds of thousands of climate scientists.





Hundreds of thousands? SO why did only 219 sign the Bali letter?



What Bali letter? The answer is probably that they did't sign it because

they did not know it was happening.



Cheers, Alastair.

Are you seriously suggesting that the entire worlds climate apparatus didnt know about the Bali Conference a few years a ago? Remember, the one where they flew so many delegates in they didnt have the space to psrk the planes up, so they flew them empty to a neighboring island?

Are you saying that the entire worlds climate science community DIDNT know ut was going on?


Idiot.

On Monday, 10 February 2014 20:45:53 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2014 8:47:28 AM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:





As I said, I'm not here to criticise 'deniers'.



What are you here for?



Brian W Lawrence



Wantage



Oxfordshire

To point out your stupidity.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 15:09:01 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:47:22 AM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:

On 11/02/2014 10:52, matt_sykes wrote:



On Monday, 10 February 2014 07:34:27 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:



On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:31:12 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:















Hundreds of thousands of climate scientist.















No; hundreds of thousands of climate scientists.











Hundreds of thousands? SO why did only 219 sign the Bali letter?











Idiot.







Good point.







I despair at how much money would be wasted at those sort of numbers.



How much does it cost to employ a 'climate scientist'? Well it depends



on your definition of course, and there are chiefs and indians in



varying numbers. Prof. Slingo is reportedly paid over £135k as the



MetO Chief Scientist.



Brian W Lawrence



Wantage



Oxfordshire



Her qualifications, experience, knowledge and reputation warrant that salary. You appear jealous - and very suspicious of science and scientists.

You think the total inability of the MetO to predict weather because of its obsession with CO2 is worth that kind of salary?

Sorry, when I pay an expert and expert salary I want an experts advise, not a load of crap.

On 12/02/2014 09:28, matt_sykes wrote:

That famous '97% of all scientists' study only questioned 10000, and of those
only 40% agreed to the two questions, which themselves only asked if mans role
was 'significant' and not 'dominant'. Significant at a statistical level means
measurable, or relevant, so could be 5% say.

They took this 10000 and whittled it down to 79 to get their 97%. So thats it.
76 scientists, 2 of whoom thought it hadnt warmed since 1900, the other of the
two questions.

Garvey is a childish fool. Hundreds of thousands indeed, its utter garbage..

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment :-)

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:17:00 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 12/02/2014 09:28, matt_sykes wrote:



That famous '97% of all scientists' study only questioned 10000, and of those

only 40% agreed to the two questions, which themselves only asked if mans role

was 'significant' and not 'dominant'. Significant at a statistical level means

measurable, or relevant, so could be 5% say.



They took this 10000 and whittled it down to 79 to get their 97%. So thats it.

76 scientists, 2 of whoom thought it hadnt warmed since 1900, the other of the

two questions.



Garvey is a childish fool. Hundreds of thousands indeed, its utter garbage..



You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment :-)



--



Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

You'd like to though. The person you are replying to is a cross-posting troll. The only reason he posts here is because he can't stand me deciding not to post somewhere else - because he and the other deniers there are stupid and simply not worth it. I don't reply to him on here. I think you might fit in well, on Alt.global-warming Brian, but I couldn't possibly say outright. *))

On 12/02/2014 13:38, Dawlish wrote:

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment :-)

You'd like to though.

Really? You DO SO want me to don't you? Sorry, not playing.

The person you are replying to is a cross-posting troll.

Yeah, and ... Am I not allowed to reply to trolls if I wish?

The only reason he posts here is because he can't stand me deciding not to post
somewhere else - because he and the other deniers there are stupid and simply not
worth it. I don't reply to him on here.

I think you might fit in well, on Alt.global-warming Brian, but I couldn't possibly
say outright. *))

Been there, done that. Your contributions there were much appreciated too.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:01:23 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 08:21:33 UTC, Malcolm wrote:

In article ,



Lawrence Jenkins writes



On Sunday, 9 February 2014 01:14:47 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:











Someone talking ******** on Usenet, what a surprise - NOT.







Adam we are entering a massive cooling phase-come to terms with it.







Lawrence, that is as much nonsense as the article Joe posted here. It's



time you came to terms with the fact that we are NOT "entering a massive



cooling phase". If so, why was 2013 the 6th warmest year since records



began in 1880?







--



Malcolm



Nope on what I know , deducting the AGW bandwagon nonsense and using the science of the ice core samples, I truly believe global cooling is our future; that is my opinion and you are entitled to rubbish it as I am to hold it.

People believe in fairies and believe still that the earth is flat. They too are idiots. It must be horrible to have that pointed out to you, I know, but this is science, not belief.

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 14:38:30 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:17:00 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:

On 12/02/2014 09:28, matt_sykes wrote:







That famous '97% of all scientists' study only questioned 10000, and of those



only 40% agreed to the two questions, which themselves only asked if mans role



was 'significant' and not 'dominant'. Significant at a statistical level means



measurable, or relevant, so could be 5% say.







They took this 10000 and whittled it down to 79 to get their 97%. So thats it.



76 scientists, 2 of whoom thought it hadnt warmed since 1900, the other of the



two questions.







Garvey is a childish fool. Hundreds of thousands indeed, its utter garbage..







You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment :-)







--







Brian W Lawrence



Wantage



Oxfordshire



You'd like to though. The person you are replying to is a cross-posting troll. The only reason he posts here is because he can't stand me deciding not to post somewhere else - because he and the other deniers there are stupid and simply not worth it. I don't reply to him on here. I think you might fit in well, on Alt.global-warming Brian, but I couldn't possibly say outright. *))

You mean I drove you out of alt.global-warming by calling you on your BS and I intend to do it here aswell.