On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:04:03 PM UTC, Alastair wrote:
Every day we get a post from Lawrence explaining how climate change is a

scam. It seems that his drip drip approach has been fairly successful in

persuading people that there is doubt about whether it is caused by CO2.

That is all the big oil and coal companies need - doubt - to prevent there

being an upswell from the public to persuade the govenrment to act. Here is

a message from Greenpeace for those of you who have not been fooled by

Lawrence, and his sock puppet Dawlish, into believing that AGW is just a

childish argument.



Dear All,



The devastating floods spreading across the country are causing havoc for

everyone caught in their path, and arguments about who's to blame for the

current crisis are dragging on.



Yet very few politicians or journalists are talking about what's really

causing the extremes of weather we've experienced in recent years: climate

change.



What I find particularly absurd is that environment secretary Owen

Paterson - who is a key player in shaping the government's policies on

climate change, including tackling the floods - refuses to accept climate

change is part of the problem. It doesn't make sense.



We can't afford to have a denier like Paterson in a position responsible for

climate change, so tell David Cameron to replace him with an Environment

Secretary who's serious about climate change.



A few days ago, the chief scientist at the Met Office said the evidence

suggests the floods are consistent with climate change predictions. She

knows a thing or two about climate, as do other scientific advisors, yet

Paterson has been ignoring them since he became environment secretary 18

months ago.



The evidence keeps stacking up. He hasn't had a single briefing on climate

change since he took up the job, and we've heard he won't even look at a

document that so much as mentions it.



He's made statements in public about climate change which are factually

incorrect, and also said that "people get very emotional about [climate

change] and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing

for centuries." If your house or business is currently underwater, you'd be

emotional, and understandably so.



This all explains why climate change spending in Paterson's department has

been cut almost in half since he took charge and staff working on it have

been slashed from 38 to just six.



It's insane. How can Cameron claim his government is serious about climate

change when he has a denier like Paterson is in such a crucial role?



Please sign the petition. Cameron has to get Paterson away from anything to

do with climate change - he's a complete liability who's undermining any

attempts to get a grip on the situation.



In exasperation,



Jamie



PS Very few people are making the link between climate change and the

floods. Carbon Brief analysed newspaper stories on the floods and found that

in over 3000 published since the beginning of December, only 206 mentioned

climate change. If the media aren't talking about it, it's up to us - sign

and share the petition telling David Cameron to get serious about the

impacts of climate change.

I am now a sock puppet of larry's???

Oh, I remember, I challenged your outright alarmism in saying that AGW is proven.

Both ends of that continuum are not the place I would like to be. If you wish to adopt a position outside of what is likely, I'm likely to tell you that.

PS. Remember when you said that cold radiation exists? You take strange positions on science, Alastair. Please don't expect people to follow you to places where science doesn't belong.

I think Graham Easterling may have something to say on this. From his own measurements over a long period he has stated that storminess in the last 20 years has been quite low. This has to be set against the current episode. So has AGW had a hand in this latest stuff? Maybe. Maybe not.


Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

E.g Gales in Penzance


Something I posted earlier:-

Gales in Penzance (real gales, not gusts)
1993 13
1994 14
1995 13
1996 16
1997 14
1998 22!
1999 15

then

2008 1
2009 4
2010 2
2012 2
2013 2

So which were due to AGW, 1993-1999, 2008-2013, or 2014? All apparently.

For what it's worth I am concerned by AGW and I'm a member of Greenpeace. Sadly discussions on AGW have now become impossible, there are just arguments with each side ignoring what they don't want to see, and claiming to have some full understanding which clearly nobody has.

It is the lack of clear understanding that to me is the main concern, so best to be careful how we treat the environment. A bit of common sense goes a long way.

Graham
Penzance

Alastair, please don't expect people to follow you into a boat with Dawlish.

yttiw wrote:


It is no good relying on the politicians to do anything responsible,
unless they believe there are votes in it. So, maybe these severe
weather events will serve to make the public vote for those who have
disaster prevention high on their agenda? Only then will the senior
politicians ignore their vested interest corporate lobby groups and take
notice of the people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlikely. From where I'm sitting "the people" are more likely to vote
for a lunatic party that will meet the Dail Mail's immigration agenda
than for anyone that might care about the environment in some shape or form.

On 16/02/2014 23:45, Dave Cornwell wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlikely. From where I'm sitting "the people" are more likely to vote
for a lunatic party that will meet the Dail Mail's immigration agenda

Or they might vote UKIP instead?

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

"Tudor Hughes" wrote in message
...

Since when has Dawlish been Lawrence's sock puppet and even more
inexplicably, since when has he been an AGW denier. You may not like his
style but on this subject he talks sense.

Dawlish conducts those ridiculous "You're wrong. No, you're wrong arguments"
with Lawrence which persuade the neutrals that there is a debate and that it
is futile. Vidcapper has blocked them. This is just what the fossil fuel
companies want. Their cry is "Doubt is our product."
http://global.oup.com/academic/produ...-9780195300673

I suspect that Lawrence has been planted here by those right wing US think
tanks (Stink tanks for short). He disappeared during the US Election, has
contacts in the Met Office, and says he works for a politally motivated
organisation. And his technique of continually posting anti-AGW propoganda
hs the effect of creating the sense that there is no smoke without fire.
Dawlish plays along with him, using ad hominem agruments and generally
making the pro-AGW side look ugly. I suspect he too is in the pay of the
Stink tanks. Now Lawrence has been rumbled, matt_sykes has appeared.


The fundamentalists are not all on one side, you know. While the deniers
cannot be argued with because it's a religion for them, or at least a
convenience, there are those of the Green persuasion who will
unjustifiably attribute every episode of bad weather to AGW.

Yes, but one bad greenie does not prove AGW is not happeneing, anymore that
one hot day does.

I think Graham Easterling may have something to say on this. From his
own measurements over a long period he has stated that storminess in the
last 20 years has been quite low. This has to be set against the current
episode. So has AGW had a hand in this latest stuff?

You can't use storms in one county to tell whether AGW is happening. Nor can
use the fact that the numer of storms has decreased to predict what will
happen with them in the future. Just as in that other chaotic science,
Economics, with climate change past performance is no guide to the future.

I'm not an AGW denier, BTW. There is a strong human contribution to the
warming. But does it cause stormy weather? May do. I've no idea.

The scientists are saying AGW will lead to more extreme events. We are
having more extreme events starting with Boscastle, and including
Workington. The recent flooding shows that the scientists were correct. BTW,
the previous Thames flooding in 1947 was due to snow melt not rainfall. The
snow had accumulated during the winter and then melted in a few weeks. The
effect was of two months precipitation, just like now.

BTW, I have blocked Dawlish, but I saw on Google Groups that he is still
going on about cold radiation. What does he call the black body radiation
emitted by cirrus clouds which form at a temperature 200 K?

Cheers, Alastair.

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 00:38:06 UTC, Alastair wrote:

I suspect that Lawrence has been planted here by those right wing US think tanks (Stink tanks for short). He disappeared during the US Election, has contacts in the Met Office, and says he works for a politally motivated organisation. And his technique of continually posting anti-AGW propoganda hs the effect of creating the sense that there is no smoke without fire. Dawlish plays along with him, using ad hominem agruments and generally making the pro-AGW side look ugly. I suspect he too is in the pay of the Stink tanks.

Cheers, Alastair.

I can't make the slightest sense of what you've written. AFAIK, Lawrence works for the GLC (I have met him) and the political leaning he refers to is leftist, though with Boris now in charge that may be a difficult view to sustain.
As to Dawlish being his accomplice I don't know where to begin. Nothing Dawlish has ever written suggests that he is an anti-AGW campaigner. It would take a committed conspiracy theorist to come to that conclusion. You make the McCarthyists look positively laid-back. Are you on something? Is this all a huge joke? Am I a bit slow on the uptake? You don't strike me as a flippant individual.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On 18/02/2014 00:38, Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Tudor Hughes" wrote in message
...

Since when has Dawlish been Lawrence's sock puppet and even more
inexplicably, since when has he been an AGW denier. You may not like his
style but on this subject he talks sense.

Dawlish conducts those ridiculous "You're wrong. No, you're wrong arguments"
with Lawrence which persuade the neutrals that there is a debate and that it
is futile. Vidcapper has blocked them. This is just what the fossil fuel
companies want. Their cry is "Doubt is our product."
http://global.oup.com/academic/produ...-9780195300673

I suspect that Lawrence has been planted here by those right wing US think
tanks (Stink tanks for short). He disappeared during the US Election, has
contacts in the Met Office, and says he works for a politally motivated
organisation. And his technique of continually posting anti-AGW propoganda
hs the effect of creating the sense that there is no smoke without fire.
Dawlish plays along with him, using ad hominem agruments and generally
making the pro-AGW side look ugly. I suspect he too is in the pay of the
Stink tanks. Now Lawrence has been rumbled, matt_sykes has appeared.


The fundamentalists are not all on one side, you know. While the deniers
cannot be argued with because it's a religion for them, or at least a
convenience, there are those of the Green persuasion who will
unjustifiably attribute every episode of bad weather to AGW.

Yes, but one bad greenie does not prove AGW is not happeneing, anymore that
one hot day does.

I think Graham Easterling may have something to say on this. From his
own measurements over a long period he has stated that storminess in the
last 20 years has been quite low. This has to be set against the current
episode. So has AGW had a hand in this latest stuff?

You can't use storms in one county to tell whether AGW is happening. Nor can
use the fact that the numer of storms has decreased to predict what will
happen with them in the future. Just as in that other chaotic science,
Economics, with climate change past performance is no guide to the future.

I'm not an AGW denier, BTW. There is a strong human contribution to the
warming. But does it cause stormy weather? May do. I've no idea.

The scientists are saying AGW will lead to more extreme events. We are
having more extreme events starting with Boscastle, and including
Workington. The recent flooding shows that the scientists were correct. BTW,
the previous Thames flooding in 1947 was due to snow melt not rainfall. The
snow had accumulated during the winter and then melted in a few weeks. The
effect was of two months precipitation, just like now.

BTW, I have blocked Dawlish, but I saw on Google Groups that he is still
going on about cold radiation. What does he call the black body radiation
emitted by cirrus clouds which form at a temperature 200 K?

Cheers, Alastair.





Alastair, you'll regret writing that load of tripe when you wake up in
the morning with a hang over.

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:38:06 AM UTC, Alastair wrote:
"Tudor Hughes" wrote in message

...



Since when has Dawlish been Lawrence's sock puppet and even more

inexplicably, since when has he been an AGW denier. You may not like his

style but on this subject he talks sense.



Dawlish conducts those ridiculous "You're wrong. No, you're wrong arguments"

with Lawrence which persuade the neutrals that there is a debate and that it

is futile. Vidcapper has blocked them. This is just what the fossil fuel

companies want. Their cry is "Doubt is our product."

http://global.oup.com/academic/produ...-9780195300673

Cheers, Alastair.

Have you ever read anything that I've said on this newsgroup?

PS You still believe in cold radiation, don't you? You've been very quiet on that one since you proposed it a few years ago on here and you were roundly and rightly criticised for that mad view, but those kind of opinions, which completely contradict the second law of thermodynamics, mark a poster.

This will help: http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

In addition, there has been no proof that people are causing GW and there never will be. I think you have extrapolated from that particular point which I made (and again, is completely true) to thinking that I am a climate denier. *))

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 02:25:23 UTC, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 00:38:06 UTC, Alastair wrote:



I suspect that Lawrence has been planted here by those right wing US think tanks (Stink tanks for short). He disappeared during the US Election, has contacts in the Met Office, and says he works for a politally motivated organisation. And his technique of continually posting anti-AGW propoganda hs the effect of creating the sense that there is no smoke without fire. Dawlish plays along with him, using ad hominem agruments and generally making the pro-AGW side look ugly. I suspect he too is in the pay of the Stink tanks.



Cheers, Alastair.



I can't make the slightest sense of what you've written. AFAIK, Lawrence works for the GLC (I have met him) and the political leaning he refers to is leftist, though with Boris now in charge that may be a difficult view to sustain.

As to Dawlish being his accomplice I don't know where to begin. Nothing Dawlish has ever written suggests that he is an anti-AGW campaigner. It would take a committed conspiracy theorist to come to that conclusion. You make the McCarthyists look positively laid-back. Are you on something? Is this all a huge joke? Am I a bit slow on the uptake? You don't strike me as a flippant individual.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.


Bloody hell Tudor, two pints and its all a blur. I never said I worked for the GLC -which of course has now gone. Wished I did though would have had a pension like you weather people.