On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:07:57 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 10 February 2014 06:34:27 UTC, 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. Again; look up the numbers working in the field, then divide that by the number who don't think anthropogenic CO2 is a worry for the planet. I know deniers like you really hate it when you beliefs are squished into that tiny box, but you have no support in science. A ball-park calculation is he

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress....limate-change/ *

You'd like to think there are "real scientists" out there that support your views, but it's a myth. Every scientist is a sceptic; the number who feel that CO2 is not responsible for the current warning and something else is can be fitted into a medium-sized living room.

*PS. If you were a scientist laughs you would be in the red sliver. *)) Rotten, eh?

Oh my poor, poor social climbing, wanting to be seen with the right crowd Hyacinth Gravy ....oops sorry Grav'y.

Awful to see a denier resort to insults under pressure, but this one never fails to deliver.......

Here is a list that yes needs some updating as names like Murry Salby and Roy Spencer don't seem to be there and here's a list of climate scientist who are opposed to co2 as the sole driver of climate change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Yes; as I said, just under 50. They'd just fit in a medium sized living room. Wouldn't be much of a party though. They'd just be complaining that the hundreds of other mainstream scientists don't take them seriously - which they don't.


Now back to the first list which actually contains sceptical scientists as well.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

All scientists are sceptical. I've already said that. I don't understand why you can't understand that fact. However, the vast majority are not climate deniers. Many of the 50 in your first list would certainly not class themselves as that, which increases the space between them in the medium-sized living room.

Now listen very carefully Hyacinth I'm going to ask you to count that first list, deduct the sceptics and then find me the remaining 99940. if you would be so kind.....ta.

All you have to do is a few sums. Hard, I know, but use wiki as a start for your research. There are a huge number of scientists working in climate science who have published. 100,000 may be an underestimate, or it may be an overestimate. Of those, *less than 50* have declared that they do not support the view, for various reasons (and they don't agree with each other's reasons) that CO2 is causing the current warming. This would leave you in a room with well under 0.2% of all published climate scientists. Horrible when your views are marginalised like that, isn't it? I make no apology for doing so, however; you need to know.

A visit to Tescos would allow you to buy enough cheap wine for the party in the medium-sized living room, for a modest outlay. The arguments amongst the partygoers would be hilarious to listen to, as they just can't agree on what the alternative to CO2 is.

PS Isn't it amazing how deniers, the end, *always* resort to what larry is doing when under pressure. The thread has attracted a few outright butters to cross-post, but no-one takes any notice of them, fortunately and they'll disappear again, soon. No science, just a string of foulness. The idiotic and utterly feeble physical threats usually come later. *))

On Monday, 10 February 2014 21:41:27 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:07:57 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Monday, 10 February 2014 06:34:27 UTC, 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. Again; look up the numbers working in the field, then divide that by the number who don't think anthropogenic CO2 is a worry for the planet. I know deniers like you really hate it when you beliefs are squished into that tiny box, but you have no support in science. A ball-park calculation is he



http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress....limate-change/ *



You'd like to think there are "real scientists" out there that support your views, but it's a myth. Every scientist is a sceptic; the number who feel that CO2 is not responsible for the current warning and something else is can be fitted into a medium-sized living room.



*PS. If you were a scientist laughs you would be in the red sliver. *)) Rotten, eh?



Oh my poor, poor social climbing, wanting to be seen with the right crowd Hyacinth Gravy ....oops sorry Grav'y.



Awful to see a denier resort to insults under pressure, but this one never fails to deliver.......



Here is a list that yes needs some updating as names like Murry Salby and Roy Spencer don't seem to be there and here's a list of climate scientist who are opposed to co2 as the sole driver of climate change



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming



Yes; as I said, just under 50. They'd just fit in a medium sized living room. Wouldn't be much of a party though. They'd just be complaining that the hundreds of other mainstream scientists don't take them seriously - which they don't.





Now back to the first list which actually contains sceptical scientists as well.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists



All scientists are sceptical. I've already said that. I don't understand why you can't understand that fact. However, the vast majority are not climate deniers. Many of the 50 in your first list would certainly not class themselves as that, which increases the space between them in the medium-sized living room.



Now listen very carefully Hyacinth I'm going to ask you to count that first list, deduct the sceptics and then find me the remaining 99940. if you would be so kind.....ta.



All you have to do is a few sums. Hard, I know, but use wiki as a start for your research. There are a huge number of scientists working in climate science who have published. 100,000 may be an underestimate, or it may be an overestimate. Of those, *less than 50* have declared that they do not support the view, for various reasons (and they don't agree with each other's reasons) that CO2 is causing the current warming. This would leave you in a room with well under 0.2% of all published climate scientists. Horrible when your views are marginalised like that, isn't it? I make no apology for doing so, however; you need to know.



A visit to Tescos would allow you to buy enough cheap wine for the party in the medium-sized living room, for a modest outlay. The arguments amongst the partygoers would be hilarious to listen to, as they just can't agree on what the alternative to CO2 is.



PS Isn't it amazing how deniers, the end, *always* resort to what larry is doing when under pressure. The thread has attracted a few outright butters to cross-post, but no-one takes any notice of them, fortunately and they'll disappear again, soon. No science, just a string of foulness. The idiotic and utterly feeble physical threats usually come later. *))

Now dear Hyacinth you do get catty very quickly...cheap wine medium sized living room......meow....

Now getting back to the gist of this exchange: You claimed there are hundreds of thousands of climate scientist who say AGW is irrefutable. So far you've named none. Now try and find me some more which shouldn't be hard and I mean climate scientist not some b tech study in the increasingly early spawning season of SE London frogs.

On Monday, February 10, 2014 10:14:24 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 10 February 2014 21:41:27 UTC, Dawlish wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:07:57 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



On Monday, 10 February 2014 06:34:27 UTC, 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. Again; look up the numbers working in the field, then divide that by the number who don't think anthropogenic CO2 is a worry for the planet. I know deniers like you really hate it when you beliefs are squished into that tiny box, but you have no support in science. A ball-park calculation is he







http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress....limate-change/ *







You'd like to think there are "real scientists" out there that support your views, but it's a myth. Every scientist is a sceptic; the number who feel that CO2 is not responsible for the current warning and something else is can be fitted into a medium-sized living room.







*PS. If you were a scientist laughs you would be in the red sliver. *)) Rotten, eh?







Oh my poor, poor social climbing, wanting to be seen with the right crowd Hyacinth Gravy ....oops sorry Grav'y.







Awful to see a denier resort to insults under pressure, but this one never fails to deliver.......







Here is a list that yes needs some updating as names like Murry Salby and Roy Spencer don't seem to be there and here's a list of climate scientist who are opposed to co2 as the sole driver of climate change







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming







Yes; as I said, just under 50. They'd just fit in a medium sized living room. Wouldn't be much of a party though. They'd just be complaining that the hundreds of other mainstream scientists don't take them seriously - which they don't.











Now back to the first list which actually contains sceptical scientists as well.















http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists







All scientists are sceptical. I've already said that. I don't understand why you can't understand that fact. However, the vast majority are not climate deniers. Many of the 50 in your first list would certainly not class themselves as that, which increases the space between them in the medium-sized living room.







Now listen very carefully Hyacinth I'm going to ask you to count that first list, deduct the sceptics and then find me the remaining 99940. if you would be so kind.....ta.







All you have to do is a few sums. Hard, I know, but use wiki as a start for your research. There are a huge number of scientists working in climate science who have published. 100,000 may be an underestimate, or it may be an overestimate. Of those, *less than 50* have declared that they do not support the view, for various reasons (and they don't agree with each other's reasons) that CO2 is causing the current warming. This would leave you in a room with well under 0.2% of all published climate scientists. Horrible when your views are marginalised like that, isn't it? I make no apology for doing so, however; you need to know.







A visit to Tescos would allow you to buy enough cheap wine for the party in the medium-sized living room, for a modest outlay. The arguments amongst the partygoers would be hilarious to listen to, as they just can't agree on what the alternative to CO2 is.







PS Isn't it amazing how deniers, the end, *always* resort to what larry is doing when under pressure. The thread has attracted a few outright butters to cross-post, but no-one takes any notice of them, fortunately and they'll disappear again, soon. No science, just a string of foulness. The idiotic and utterly feeble physical threats usually come later. *))



Now dear Hyacinth you do get catty very quickly...cheap wine medium sized living room......meow....



Now getting back to the gist of this exchange: You claimed there are hundreds of thousands of climate scientist who say AGW is irrefutable. So far you've named none. Now try and find me some more which shouldn't be hard and I mean climate scientist not some b tech study in the increasingly early spawning season of SE London frogs.

Irrefutable? I bet you can't find where I said that, but climate deniers lie all the time and that's another for the pile. Read what I say in my posts and it will help you to learn (or it won't; no-one really cares).

Find them for yourself, larry. Then realise how small is the minority that you feel are scientists we should believe, even though the enormous majority of their peers feel they are simply wrong. You may like to read about how not a single scientific institution *on earth* has dissented from the same view (but you probably won't read, as your mind is closed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

You are in a tiny minority, yet you think you are right. Why?

On 10/02/2014 20:38, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2014 8:10:30 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:

Fun.

I hope you are enjoying the comments your posts are bringing. I post for the same reason.

Whereas I lurk for 99% of the time.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

Me too.

On 11/02/2014 07:16, Dawlish wrote:

Me too.

See, that's why I read this drivel most days.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

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.

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 18:27:34 UTC+1, 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.

You are an idiot if you think the patchy and inaccurate record going back a mere 100 years is sufficient when compared to ice core data that gives a picture going back thousands of years. Put the present warming into that picture and you will see that it is insignificant.






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.


Prove it. Quote just one national science body that says todays temperatures are anomalous in the entire temperature record.

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 22:04:49 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

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


What we do understand is that we have added 47% more CO2 and at the same time had a temperature rise of about 0.7 C.


Even if you attribute all the warming to CO2, which no one does, its suggests a rather low sensitivity.

And during this time we have seen crop yields increase, human life span increase, education improve, living conditions improve, many diseases almost eradicated and more people raised from poverty than ever before.

What were you saying about it being impossible to prove Co2 is dangerous? I agree, it cant be done. It can be proved CO2 is not dangerous though, its right there, in that paragraph above.

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 23:01:04 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
Look it up. wiki will help.

= Garvey lost the argument because he couldnt provide any proof of his statement that every national academy states todays temperatures are anomalous in the temperature record.