On Saturday, 23 January 2016 14:37:30 UTC, dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 2:23:20 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 07:14:36 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:09:40 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Friday, 22 January 2016 08:28:40 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:08:13 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



The whole thing is absolutely bizarre with thes people.

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the above nonsense.

Mr Olgilvie, or should I call you Dawlish. What do you actually disagree with?

I disagree with people who can't spell my name and I disagree with people who are stupid
enough to believe that I am Dawlish. And if they're stupid enough to believe that AND to
keep on attempting to argue against the incontrovertible evidence for AGW, then they fully
deserve the epithet "idiot".

But I never denied global warming did I Ooglevie,we all know the planet has warmed....

Do you? Why do you quote whatever you can to attempt to tell us that it has not warmed since 1998, that the evidence backs this and thus there is no need to examine a cause?

That's why you get called, quite correctly, an idiot.

But it has warmed but 2015 isn't the hottest, t was an attempt to push home what transpire s anyway to be the feeble agenda of the Copthat Paris fossil burning shebang.

Why do you feel the need the lie and twist the troth so when you by your own lifestyle example feel that AGW is not a problem?

You proof that you are using renewable energy supplies like solar and wind then at least I would respect your position. But for now the only wind your associate with is that flatulent blast that that is ever present as you continue to talk out your arse.


By the way : I note that you answered on Talcum's behalf rather swiftly.

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 2:47:35 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 14:37:30 UTC, dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 2:23:20 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 07:14:36 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:09:40 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Friday, 22 January 2016 08:28:40 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:08:13 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



The whole thing is absolutely bizarre with thes people.

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the above nonsense.

Mr Olgilvie, or should I call you Dawlish. What do you actually disagree with?

I disagree with people who can't spell my name and I disagree with people who are stupid
enough to believe that I am Dawlish. And if they're stupid enough to believe that AND to
keep on attempting to argue against the incontrovertible evidence for AGW, then they fully
deserve the epithet "idiot".

But I never denied global warming did I Ooglevie,we all know the planet has warmed....

Do you? Why do you quote whatever you can to attempt to tell us that it has not warmed since 1998, that the evidence backs this and thus there is no need to examine a cause?

That's why you get called, quite correctly, an idiot.

But it has warmed but 2015 isn't the hottest, t was an attempt to push home what transpire s anyway to be the feeble agenda of the Copthat Paris fossil burning shebang.

Why do you feel the need the lie and twist the troth so when you by your own lifestyle example feel that AGW is not a problem?

You proof that you are using renewable energy supplies like solar and wind then at least I would respect your position. But for now the only wind your associate with is that flatulent blast that that is ever present as you continue to talk out your arse.


By the way : I note that you answered on Talcum's behalf rather swiftly.

Idiot.

On Saturday, 23 January 2016 14:55:12 UTC, dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 2:47:35 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 14:37:30 UTC, dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 2:23:20 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 07:14:36 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:09:40 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Friday, 22 January 2016 08:28:40 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:08:13 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



The whole thing is absolutely bizarre with thes people.

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the above nonsense.

Mr Olgilvie, or should I call you Dawlish. What do you actually disagree with?

I disagree with people who can't spell my name and I disagree with people who are stupid
enough to believe that I am Dawlish. And if they're stupid enough to believe that AND to
keep on attempting to argue against the incontrovertible evidence for AGW, then they fully
deserve the epithet "idiot".

But I never denied global warming did I Ooglevie,we all know the planet has warmed....

Do you? Why do you quote whatever you can to attempt to tell us that it has not warmed since 1998, that the evidence backs this and thus there is no need to examine a cause?

That's why you get called, quite correctly, an idiot.

But it has warmed but 2015 isn't the hottest, t was an attempt to push home what transpire s anyway to be the feeble agenda of the Copthat Paris fossil burning shebang.

Why do you feel the need the lie and twist the troth so when you by your own lifestyle example feel that AGW is not a problem?

You proof that you are using renewable energy supplies like solar and wind then at least I would respect your position. But for now the only wind your associate with is that flatulent blast that that is ever present as you continue to talk out your arse.


By the way : I note that you answered on Talcum's behalf rather swiftly..

Idiot.

Ghat got your tongue again?

On Saturday, 23 January 2016 14:37:30 UTC, dawlish wrote:

But I never denied global warming did I Ooglevie,we all know the planet has warmed....

Do you? Why do you quote whatever you can to attempt to tell us that it has not warmed since 1998, that the evidence backs this and thus there is no need to examine a cause?

That's why you get called, quite correctly, an idiot.

It seems you have considerable difficulty, psychological not intellectual, in accepting that Lawrie has made a valid point, if a little mischievous.. He must have accepted, to have made the posting, that GW is related to CO2 levels, anthropgenic or not. This does not suit your vision of him so you have ignored the post itself and chosen to answer another question. Then you slag him off for no reason whatever but for you that's simply a conditioned reflex. You have deliberately ignored the nature of the post in order to have a go at Lawrie.

That's why you get called, quite correctly, a ****.

Tudor Hughes.

In message ,
Lawrence Jenkins writes
On Friday, 22 January 2016 08:28:40 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
snip

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the
above nonsense.

Mr Olgilvie, or should I call you Dawlish. What do you actually disagree with?


No, you shouldn't call him Dawlish. He's been posting to Usenet since
the mid-1990s, long before Dawlish appeared.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

On 23/01/2016 18:54, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 14:37:30 UTC, dawlish wrote:

But I never denied global warming did I Ooglevie,we all know the planet has warmed....

Do you? Why do you quote whatever you can to attempt to tell us that it has not warmed since 1998, that the evidence backs this and thus there is no need to examine a cause?

That's why you get called, quite correctly, an idiot.

It seems you have considerable difficulty, psychological not intellectual, in accepting that Lawrie has made a valid point, if a little mischievous. He must have accepted, to have made the posting, that GW is related to CO2 levels, anthropgenic or not. This does not suit your vision of him so you have ignored the post itself and chosen to answer another question. Then you slag him off for no reason whatever but for you that's simply a conditioned reflex. You have deliberately ignored the nature of the post in order to have a go at Lawrie.

That's why you get called, quite correctly, a ****.

Tudor Hughes.



ROFPMSL !!!!

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

That's why you get called, quite correctly, a ****.

Actually, incorrectly. The word refers to a certain feature of
the female of the species that generally provides pleasure to
the male of the species. Being, naturally, endowed with such a
feature, I object to it being used as a pejorative term for an
undesirable male. Especially in a public place such as this.

Anne

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:17:12 +0000, John Hall wrote:

In message ,
Lawrence Jenkins writes
On Friday, 22 January 2016 08:28:40 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
snip

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the
above nonsense.

Mr Olgilvie, or should I call you Dawlish. What do you actually disagree with?


No, you shouldn't call him Dawlish. He's been posting to Usenet since
the mid-1990s, long before Dawlish appeared.

Thank you, John.

In message
Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:17:12 +0000, John Hall
wrote:

In message ,
Lawrence Jenkins writes
On Friday, 22 January 2016 08:28:40 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
snip

The only "bizarre" people are those who write and believe in the
above nonsense.

Mr Olgilvie, or should I call you Dawlish. What do you actually
disagree with?


No, you shouldn't call him Dawlish. He's been posting to Usenet since
the mid-1990s, long before Dawlish appeared.

Thank you, John.

I think all this AGW stuff is basically politicised carp. Climate
changes, it always has and always will. And man may or may not have
influenced that. But man certainly doesn't control the climate (thank
God, or it would be used as a weapon of war), we simply don't have
enough knowledge to do that, so all this stuff about limiting global
warming to 2 degrees C is basically rubbish. We can't be that precise.

As for predicting how it will change in the future, we have not been
very good at that so far, have we, despite our expensive computers.
So we need to treat such predictions with extreme scepticism.
Of course the media always projects climate change as a bad thing.
Politicians, who control the media, do too. It's a monster designed
to scare us into parting with more of our money and ceding more
authority to the powers that be. However, it might actually be a good
thing. Does anyone ever think about that. More CO2, more crops.
More warming, huge areas of tundra that might become fertile. It is
far from certain that on balance it would be bad for humanity. That
is just the spin that politicians and their lackeys put on it.

Just my two pennorth

Martin


--
Visit my weather station at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/Cumulus/index.htm

Believing is the start of everything to come. - Hayley Westenra

On 23/01/2016 22:13, Martin Dixon wrote:


I think all this AGW stuff is basically politicised carp. Climate
changes, it always has and always will. And man may or may not have
influenced that. But man certainly doesn't control the climate (thank
God, or it would be used as a weapon of war), we simply don't have
enough knowledge to do that, so all this stuff about limiting global
warming to 2 degrees C is basically rubbish. We can't be that precise.

As for predicting how it will change in the future, we have not been
very good at that so far, have we, despite our expensive computers.
So we need to treat such predictions with extreme scepticism.
Of course the media always projects climate change as a bad thing.
Politicians, who control the media, do too. It's a monster designed
to scare us into parting with more of our money and ceding more
authority to the powers that be. However, it might actually be a good
thing. Does anyone ever think about that. More CO2, more crops.
More warming, huge areas of tundra that might become fertile. It is
far from certain that on balance it would be bad for humanity. That
is just the spin that politicians and their lackeys put on it.

Just my two pennorth

You don't live on the coast, do you?


--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg