On Sunday, February 9, 2014 6:01:02 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 09/02/2014 17:23, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:18:21 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:

On 09/02/2014 08:09, Dawlish wrote:







Note the words "......is likely", in the first sentence. No scientist of

Julia's stature would currently link a particular event, like the UK

storms, or the cold in the USA, or any one the plethora of extreme weather

events to climate change, but all know the state of play - "there is no

evidence to counter the basic premise a warmer world will lead to more

intense daily and hourly rain events."



Now go on, denier, try do the usual denier ad hominem on the excellent,

world-renowned climate scientist who has, hopefully, provided some education

for you.



'World-renowned climate scientist' sounds wonderful, but the only people

who are aware of her existence are pretty much other climate

scientists - 99% of Brits have no idea who she is.



Or attack me - but I really don't care; all I do is to show you the actual

science. Actually, no-one cares whether you learn from it, or whether you

continue to get your science from denier blogs, or from "David" on UK..railway. *))



"all I do is to show you the actual science". I must have missed that.



Then read what I post about climate science, in response to these idiots, more accurately, dear boy.



Nope, I won't be wasting my time doing that.

Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

Then you will be the poorer, as I quote established science WRT climate science. To what source will you go that quotes you better science? I would imagine Julia Slingo is not a source you would pay any attention to, as I've already quoted her today. You surely don't feel she is a source to be ignored?

I suppose "David" from UK.railway, is a far better source, as you don't seem to have criticised that source at all. *))

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 17:27:34 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:38:57 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 08:46:13 UTC, Dawlish wrote:



On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:21:33 AM 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















And why the last decade was easily the warmest on record and why the two warmest years on record both fell into that decade and why current global temperatures are close to record values, despite ENSO neutral conditions and the PDO being negative and.........etc. etc. etc.















However, a climate denier like larry is capable of convincing himself of anything. "A massive colloid period" is coming. On current evidence, that's just laughable - but then again, so are larry's views on climate change.











Warmest in our records . We do know this however







In such a tiny space of time the last 2000 years saw without any argument a very warm periods where grapes were grown , Greenland was farmed and then the LIA . We know temperatures fluctuated by a couple of degrees without any influence from human co2. We also know from the ice core samples that this current inter glacial is not only one of the coolest but well overdue to end.







We also know that the global human condition up until about 200 years ago was wretched with low life expectancy and abject misery for most thirty odd years that we lived. I look at the past misery before harnessing fossil fuels on a vast scale, I look at the ice core temperature cores for the last 600 thousand years and I say hallelujah. Without energy harnessed from fossil fuels live would hardly be worth living.



The ridiculous; "tiny space of time" denier crock. Just hilarious.



Why does every single National science academy on earth feel that the present period shows anomalous warming and that the warming has very little to do with the last 2000 years.



They're all stupid, I suppose and they don't know anything..........but you and yours know ever so much more; don't you? Read the avalanche of science and it will explain this to you. Ignore the avalanche of science and focus on any tiny little part which might appear to back the denier cause, without any real scrutiny, like the OP and you can convince yourself of anything - as I've said.



Why do people like you foam at the mouth when people like me express an opinion that doesn't agree with yours.

If there was definitive evidence that any climate change was caused by the 80-120 parts per million of atmosphere that humans are releasing and that was the only driver and we could then regulate the earths temperature by cutting back on warmth, heat, electricity, gas plastics , oil you know all the things that make our lives tolerable and took our science into the stratosphere, then I might change my mind. But we can't see any evidence of catastrophic AGW , can we . Only forecasts and theories that don't reflect reality Do me a favour and show me any evidence that AGW is becoming a major concern.

On 09/02/2014 18:04, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 6:01:02 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 09/02/2014 17:23, Dawlish wrote:

"all I do is to show you the actual science". I must have missed that.

Then read what I post about climate science, in response to these idiots, more accurately, dear boy.

Nope, I won't be wasting my time doing that.

Then you will be the poorer, as I quote established science WRT climate science.
To what source will you go that quotes you better science? I would imagine Julia
Slingo is not a source you would pay any attention to, as I've already quoted her
today. You surely don't feel she is a source to be ignored?

Oh dear.

Funnily enough I can find sources for myself.

Professor Slingo has science qualifications and considerable experience
in climate science. However, the quote you posted is essentially just a
'sound bite', which contains very little science per se. If you quoted
from or posted URLs for some of her published papers that would be more
worthwhile, although hardly of any use in your aim of 'educating'.

I suppose "David" from UK.railway, is a far better source, as you don't seem to
have criticised that source at all. *))

Nothing written in newsgroups (including this one) would qualify as a
source of anything, except perhaps of the ignorance and idiocy of people
who post rubbish on subjects that they will never understand ....

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 6:20:05 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Why do people like you foam at the mouth when people like me express an opinion that doesn't agree with yours.

I think the foaming is on your part larry. Again.

If there was definitive evidence that any climate change was caused by the 80-120 parts per million of atmosphere that humans are releasing and that was the only driver and we could then regulate the earths temperature by cutting back on warmth, heat, electricity, gas plastics , oil you know all the things that make our lives tolerable and took our science into the stratosphere, then I might change my mind. But we can't see any evidence of catastrophic AGW , can we . Only forecasts and theories that don't reflect reality Do me a favour and show me any evidence that AGW is becoming a major concern.

There will never be proof. That's because this is science. Something the rest of your rant shows you simply don't understand.

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 7:10:51 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 09/02/2014 18:04, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 6:01:02 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:

On 09/02/2014 17:23, Dawlish wrote:



"all I do is to show you the actual science". I must have missed that.

On 09/02/2014 17:27, Dawlish wrote:

Why does every single National science academy on earth feel that the
present period shows anomalous warming and that the warming has very
little to do with the last 2000 years.

The UN has 193 member states. How many of those nations even have a
National Science Academy, and how many of their publications have you
read to make such a bald statement? Or did you simply read it somewhere?
Does it have any basis in fact?

'the warming has very little to do with the last 2000 years'

What on earth does that even mean? Didn't CO2 levels start to rise with
the Industrial Revolution? I'm pretty sure that happened in the last
2000 years (usually said to be between 1760 & 1840).

They're all stupid, I suppose and they don't know anything..........but
you and yours know ever so much more; don't you? Read the avalanche of
science and it will explain this to you. Ignore the avalanche of science
and focus on any tiny little part which might appear to back the denier
cause, without any real scrutiny, like the OP and you can convince yourself
of anything - as I've said.

You keep banging on about science, but what you refer to is more
correctly called 'climate science', which is mostly based on historical
and even archeological data as a basis for predictions of possible
future changes made using highly sophisticated computer models. Climate
scientists need to make use of old fashioned science such as physics,
chemistry and mathematics to enable them to make the models more
sophisticated. Climate science is still in its infancy and has some way
to go before it could be called mainstream. The route that climate
scientists take could have many changes of direction before we can be
sure that we fully understand it. These days we all think we understand
black holes, but apparently Stephen Hawking now says they don't exist.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:36:28 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 09/02/2014 17:27, Dawlish wrote:

Why does every single National science academy on earth feel that the

present period shows anomalous warming and that the warming has very

little to do with the last 2000 years.



The UN has 193 member states. How many of those nations even have a

National Science Academy, and how many of their publications have you

read to make such a bald statement? Or did you simply read it somewhere?

Does it have any basis in fact?


Look it up. wiki will help.

'the warming has very little to do with the last 2000 years'

What on earth does that even mean? Didn't CO2 levels start to rise with

the Industrial Revolution? I'm pretty sure that happened in the last

2000 years (usually said to be between 1760 & 1840).

Look back and see what larry meant. Then you'll understand my use of it.

They're all stupid, I suppose and they don't know anything..........but

you and yours know ever so much more; don't you? Read the avalanche of

science and it will explain this to you. Ignore the avalanche of science

and focus on any tiny little part which might appear to back the denier

cause, without any real scrutiny, like the OP and you can convince yourself

of anything - as I've said.

I see you've found this hard to contradict and you've opted for deflection, instead.


You keep banging on about science, but what you refer to is more

correctly called 'climate science', which is mostly based on historical

and even archeological data as a basis for predictions of possible

future changes made using highly sophisticated computer models.

Yes; so?

Climate scientists need to make use of old fashioned science such as physics,

chemistry and mathematics to enable them to make the models more

sophisticated.

Do you honestly think they don't? You must tell them. I'm sure they'd be very interested in your view.

Climate science is still in its infancy and has some way

to go before it could be called mainstream.

Really? Why does every one of the hundreds of thousands of climate scientists and every single national science academy (look it up, wiki really will help) know it is mainstream science. What deniers propound is not even in the long grass when it comse to mainstream, but you don't seem to want to criticise them.

The route that climate scientists take could have many changes of direction before we can be
sure that we fully understand it.

Yes it could. I agree. So could physics, chemistry and mathematics, Brian.

These days we all think we understand

black holes, but apparently Stephen Hawking now says they don't exist.

Do some research and then you won't have to say "apparently" and you've lost the thread here, haven't you?

Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

Now consider criticising the OP. Or is it perfectly good science, in your view?

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 22:01:04 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:36:28 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:

On 09/02/2014 17:27, Dawlish wrote:



Why does every single National science academy on earth feel that the



present period shows anomalous warming and that the warming has very



little to do with the last 2000 years.







The UN has 193 member states. How many of those nations even have a



National Science Academy, and how many of their publications have you



read to make such a bald statement? Or did you simply read it somewhere?



Does it have any basis in fact?





Look it up. wiki will help.



'the warming has very little to do with the last 2000 years'



What on earth does that even mean? Didn't CO2 levels start to rise with



the Industrial Revolution? I'm pretty sure that happened in the last



2000 years (usually said to be between 1760 & 1840).



Look back and see what larry meant. Then you'll understand my use of it.



They're all stupid, I suppose and they don't know anything..........but



you and yours know ever so much more; don't you? Read the avalanche of



science and it will explain this to you. Ignore the avalanche of science



and focus on any tiny little part which might appear to back the denier



cause, without any real scrutiny, like the OP and you can convince yourself



of anything - as I've said.



I see you've found this hard to contradict and you've opted for deflection, instead.





You keep banging on about science, but what you refer to is more



correctly called 'climate science', which is mostly based on historical



and even archeological data as a basis for predictions of possible



future changes made using highly sophisticated computer models.



Yes; so?



Climate scientists need to make use of old fashioned science such as physics,



chemistry and mathematics to enable them to make the models more



sophisticated.



Do you honestly think they don't? You must tell them. I'm sure they'd be very interested in your view.



Climate science is still in its infancy and has some way



to go before it could be called mainstream.



Really? Why does every one of the hundreds of thousands of climate scientists and every single national science academy (look it up, wiki really will help) know it is mainstream science. What deniers propound is not even in the long grass when it comse to mainstream, but you don't seem to want to criticise them.



The route that climate scientists take could have many changes of direction before we can be

sure that we fully understand it.



Yes it could. I agree. So could physics, chemistry and mathematics, Brian..



These days we all think we understand



black holes, but apparently Stephen Hawking now says they don't exist.



Do some research and then you won't have to say "apparently" and you've lost the thread here, haven't you?



Brian W Lawrence



Wantage



Oxfordshire



Now consider criticising the OP. Or is it perfectly good science, in your view?



Hundreds of thousands of climate scientist. You bloody idiot you don't have a fffing clue.



Name one hundred as a starter tyou cretin.

As Dick Lindzen said over thirty years ago you couldn't name more than ten.


Tell me Dullish what constitutes a climate scientist.



You really are the posing preening but know nothing Mrs Bucket of news Groups

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 01:18:07 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

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

You missed a phase-state out.
It went:
New Ice Age Global Freshwater Shortage Glowballs.
So we are obviously back on for redesertification before Glowballs is fully rescinded. Of course we still have Great Plagues and Years Without Summers to interest us in the interdecadals or whatever.

Is their such a thing as an anti-redesertification club for the dawlish to join?
Adam Lea, being our resident neckspurt on the internet, might be able to tell us.
Over to you young man:

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 11:05:52 UTC, Natsman wrote:

Dullish, why are you such an ignorant pillock?

Because he tries harder than Malcolm.
Who else do you always see in the same room at the same time?
(You'd think someone would have told him by now...
Oh wait...
Um!)

Well obviously, if they are going to tell the wrong one the sock won't be listening so....
Errrrmmmm...
Let me get back to you...