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.

Someone called "David" on a railway newsgroup has said that "someone" has said this and one of the group's deniers decided to set up a straw man by copying his totally anonymous (and incorrect, if it is directed at a scientist) claim on here.

You can bet your boots that one of the group's deniers will say, at some time soon, that "scientists have said............." - probably because they read this straw man thread and believed it. shakes head. It's how they work.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

Still with the Tory heartlands now flooding they will have to pay some
attention to mitigating climate change instead of pretending that it isn't
happening. "Vote blue get green" slogan is looking very dodgy now.

They won't agree to mitigation because that will mean getting rid of their
Chelsea tractors, and losing their rural views. Just think of all those wind
farms! Instead they will call for adaption, and cricise the government for
not spending our taxes on their flood defences.

Cheers, Alastair.

"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.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 21:16:37 UTC, 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.



Someone called "David" on a railway newsgroup has said that "someone" has said this and one of the group's deniers decided to set up a straw man by copying his totally anonymous (and incorrect, if it is directed at a scientist) claim on here.



You can bet your boots that one of the group's deniers will say, at some time soon, that "scientists have said............." - probably because they read this straw man thread and believed it. shakes head. It's how they work.

Instead of criticising those that are fed up with the MSM, the AGW blogosphere and the Whitehouse blaming heat on AGW, then blaming cold on AGW, maybe you should vent your spleen on the people that exaggerate and paint pictures of global catastrophe. You know people like your mate 'Old Man in a Cave' who actually said four years ago in his blog that you ingratiated yourself; that the arctic would be ice free before 2013!!!!

But of course you will fail or better still avoid the response as it shows you up for the prat that you are. Let's face it I'm still waiting for a couple of scientists names from that remaining 99,960 of hundreds of thousands of AGW scientist.

I'll dig out the bet you offered on the arctic being ice free about 5 years ago.

On 11/02/2014 22:47, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

Still with the Tory heartlands now flooding they will have to pay some
attention to mitigating climate change instead of pretending that it isn't
happening. "Vote blue get green" slogan is looking very dodgy now.

They won't agree to mitigation because that will mean getting rid of their
Chelsea tractors, and losing their rural views. Just think of all those wind
farms! Instead they will call for adaption, and cricise the government for
not spending our taxes on their flood defences.

Cheers, Alastair.



Does anyone know if anything got done regarding flood mitigation
measures after the summer 2007 floods?

If not, is there any reason to suspect that anything will get done this
time?

I can't help thinking that when this is over people will forget about it
and carry on as normal or will brush it off as an extreme event that
won't happen again in their lifetimes, so why bother worrying about it.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 23:52:59 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:
On 11/02/2014 22:47, Alastair McDonald wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message

...



Still with the Tory heartlands now flooding they will have to pay some

attention to mitigating climate change instead of pretending that it isn't

happening. "Vote blue get green" slogan is looking very dodgy now.



They won't agree to mitigation because that will mean getting rid of their

Chelsea tractors, and losing their rural views. Just think of all those wind

farms! Instead they will call for adaption, and cricise the government for

not spending our taxes on their flood defences.



Cheers, Alastair.







Does anyone know if anything got done regarding flood mitigation

measures after the summer 2007 floods?



If not, is there any reason to suspect that anything will get done this

time?



I can't help thinking that when this is over people will forget about it

and carry on as normal or will brush it off as an extreme event that

won't happen again in their lifetimes, so why bother worrying about it.

I think it's so far something like 5000 properties affected to some extent in the levels not nice but hardly a tragedy.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 20:49:49 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:
On 11/02/2014 12:33, Martin Brown wrote: On 11/02/2014 11:18, Joe Egginton wrote: On 11/02/2014 11:02, matt_sykes wrote: 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. ROFL, so what you're saying Dullish is that science is based on faith. Science is all about evidence and proof.. What he is saying is that *proof* is only possible in mathematics. You cannot prove a scientific hypothesis in the strict sense of the word. In science you can easily disprove a hypothesis or theory by finding an experiment where the experimental results disagree with the predictions of the theory. It doesn't matter how many experiments you do that have theory and experimental results matching you never prove it. There is always the possibility that someone will find a clever experiment that breaks the standard models of the day in a novel and unexpected way. Usually such novel experiments that overthrow the scientific status quo are ground breaking and paradigm shifting like Becquerel discovering radioactivity, the Michelson-Moreley experiment (relativity), Hertz with the photoelectric effect (quantum mechanics) and Penzias & Wilson observing the microwave background (Big Bang). You can demonstrate that the likelihood that a scientific theory is correct increases with every independent and more sensitive test that the theoretical model passes but it is never absolute proof. There is no absolute proof in science only a progressively better and better approximation to reality. We codify things that we believe are so nearly true as to make no difference as the laws of physics but they are always subject to later revision when better data comes along. Hard experimental results always trump theory when they conflict. By comparison dittohead right whingers are absolutely convinced and cock sure that we can trash the planet with impunity for fun and profit. You can't attribute any one weather event to AGW but on the other hand when you have had a run of "hundred year" storms in quick succession you have to wonder how many more it will take before the lying dittoheads finally admit defeat. Nature is the final arbiter on this! Still with the Tory heartlands now flooding they will have to pay some attention to mitigating climate change instead of pretending that it isn't happening. "Vote blue get green" slogan is looking very dodgy now. 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. There are some interesting rainfall statistics for wet seasons posted on the UKWW forum: Wettest seasons on record for England+Wales: Autumn 502.7mm 2000 455.8mm 1852 438.6mm 1960 424.1mm 1935 402.4mm 1770 400.6mm 1772 399.1mm 1875 398.7mm 1768 396.8mm 1799 394.3mm 1872 391.1mm 1903 387.9mm 1825 384.6mm 1841 379.1mm 1880 378.9mm 1773 378..1mm 1954 377.8mm 1794 377.5mm 1944 Summer 409.7mm 1912 409.2mm 1879 396.3mm 1829 375.2mm 2012 Winter 423.0mm 1914-15 420.9mm 1989-90 418.3mm 1876-77 415.6mm 1994-95 388.3mm 1993-94 380.6mm 1868-69 374.3mm 1959-60 372.8mm 2013-14 up to 9th Feb As can be seen, there have been several wet seasons historically going back to the 18th century, and the current winter rainfall is far from unprecedented.

Thanks for that, Adam - interesting figures. The unusual thing about this winter is the rainfall in the south. This will be only partly reflected in the EWR figures, obviously.

My own figures are exceptional. The mean for DJF (30 years) here is 233 mm and the highest so far is 1989-90 with 420 mm but this season I have had 492.4 and would guess the final total to be at least 520 mm.

Of course our occasional river, the Caterham Bourne, has risen as it did in 2001 and flooded quite a few houses and businesses. The A22 is closed and will be so for some time.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, NE Surrey, 556 ft.

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:51:43 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 21:16:37 UTC, 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.







Someone called "David" on a railway newsgroup has said that "someone" has said this and one of the group's deniers decided to set up a straw man by copying his totally anonymous (and incorrect, if it is directed at a scientist) claim on here.







You can bet your boots that one of the group's deniers will say, at some time soon, that "scientists have said............." - probably because they read this straw man thread and believed it. shakes head. It's how they work.



Instead of criticising those that are fed up with the MSM.......

You need to be reminded of why your views are ignored. That's what I and others do. The chances of what you want to happen, happening, are extremely low. You can be as "fed up" as you wish, but it doesn't change the facts, or the fact that climate deniers are ignored by scientists.

..........the AGW blogosphere and the Whitehouse blaming heat on AGW, then blaming cold on AGW, maybe you should vent your spleen on the people that exaggerate and paint pictures of global catastrophe.

No, we've got idiots like you to make fools of themselves doing that. *))

You know people like your mate 'Old Man in a Cave' who actually said four years ago in his blog that you ingratiated yourself; that the arctic would be ice free before 2013!!!!

Another lie. Bet you can't source that comment from Fergus. He's also a blogger, not a scientist and just doesn't count. He reflects the mainstream view - which is not the lie that you've just written about him.


But of course you will fail or better still avoid the response as it shows you up for the prat that you are.

Seems you were wrong. You lied. Source your quote. Bet you can't.

Let's face it I'm still waiting for a couple of scientists names from that remaining 99,960 of hundreds of thousands of AGW scientist.

Like I said, find them yourself. there are enough to go on. No-one bothers to compile lists of scientists whose work supports CO2 being likely to be the main cause of GW, as they would go on for so long. It's everyone, except for a ragbag group of left-field scientists who simply don't agree with each other about alternatives. Start with the MetO and work wikiwards. It's easy. *))


I'll dig out the bet you offered on the arctic being ice free about 5 years ago.

Good luck on digging that out. It's another lie, of course. Deniers lie constantly to aggrandise their position. Thats two clear ones in one post. Where do you go next?

On 11/02/2014 20:25, Dawlish wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:21:19 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:

Do I? Where do you get that impression from? I can't get you to express an opinion,
as you surround your views in prevarication and meaningless circular discussions,
in which you do anything *but* express an opinion.

Should I reply or go back to lurking?

I can't really decide.


I wonder why? Not that I care one iota.

If I ever did, I would point it out to you, but every one of your many posts to me
since breaking cover (all of which I enjoy replying to) shows you care a great deal. *))

Well obviously I care deeply about many things. This newsgroup and the
juvenile posturing, etc. is not one of them.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Monday, 10 February 2014 06:05:55 UTC+1, Jim Kewley wrote:
In message ,

matt_sykes writes





Here here!





Where's that then ? Do tell us please.



--





Jim Kewley

Next door to there there, didnt you know?

And yes, I miss-spelt it, I know.