On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:13:02 GMT, Martin Dixon wrote:

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.

You've either not read, or not understood, the science behind the predictions relating to
2 degrees C..

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

So where will your "more crops" be grown when much low-lying land will be underwater,
ditto your "huge areas of tundra" much of which is also very low-lying in relation to the
sea?

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 06:23:19 -0800 (PST), 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

But then I never said you did. I used the initials "AGW" and assumed you knew what the
letter "A" stood for. So either you are even more ignorant than I thought, or this is a
deliberate attempt to claim I said something I didn't. Either reveals much about you.


Listen Malcolm you really need to stop getting your sporran in a twist, calm down and for once address the issues.

Please do address my comment above.

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 9:33:55 PM UTC, 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.

And again, thank you John. It's just mad that someone should even suggest this - but larry is an idiot; which is close.

😀

On Sunday, 24 January 2016 11:15:50 UTC+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

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

Drivel of the kind that was discredited years ago. You clearly have no understanding of the science, or the implications of warming.

On Sunday, 24 January 2016 10:51:01 UTC, RW wrote:
On Sunday, 24 January 2016 11:15:50 UTC+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

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

Drivel of the kind that was discredited years ago. You clearly have no understanding of the science, or the implications of warming.

Tell me Mr Wood where is you golden period of earth history where everything was tickety boo.

The earth has always been changing slowly and rapidly . Sea levels have been rising since the last period of glaciation so if we took the so called human co2 out of that how would we stop that sea level rise that is part of the ebb and flow of the ice ages that we all live in.

On Sunday, 24 January 2016 08:16:45 UTC, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 06:23:19 -0800 (PST), 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

But then I never said you did. I used the initials "AGW" and assumed you knew what the
letter "A" stood for. So either you are even more ignorant than I thought, or this is a
deliberate attempt to claim I said something I didn't. Either reveals much about you.


Listen Malcolm you really need to stop getting your sporran in a twist, calm down and for once address the issues.

Please do address my comment above.



Malcolm that really is a very sad point about the AGW. I said yes the world has warmed and I have never denied that the human release of Co2 hasn't contributed; I have never ever said that. What I have said is how much difference has it made and the trade of for harnessing fossil fuels has been without doubt worth it.

In message
RW wrote:

On Sunday, 24 January 2016 11:15:50 UTC+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

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

Drivel of the kind that was discredited years ago. You clearly have no
understanding of the science, or the implications of warming.

I understand that the first duty of any scientist is to be sceptical.
And that politicians will use any device they can to increase their
power and control over their "subjects". So any utterances by them or
the media they control must always be viewed in that light.

As for AGW, the fact that there are different opinions held by
climatologists means that we still don't know enough to make accurate
predictions of future climate. Estimates of climate sensitivity to
CO2 vary from insignificant to catastrophic. But this doesn't stop
the politicos from pushing their "Menken hobgoblin".

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 Monday, 25 January 2016 11:31:48 UTC+13, Martin Dixon wrote:
I understand that the first duty of any scientist is to be sceptical.
And that politicians will use any device they can to increase their
power and control over their "subjects". So any utterances by them or
the media they control must always be viewed in that light.

As for AGW, the fact that there are different opinions held by
climatologists means that we still don't know enough to make accurate
predictions of future climate. Estimates of climate sensitivity to
CO2 vary from insignificant to catastrophic. But this doesn't stop
the politicos from pushing their "Menken hobgoblin".

Martin


Stop trying to pretend that the overwhelming consensus amongst climatologists regarding AGW is anything other than that.

Not interested in wasting any more of my time after this on rubbish like your contribution.

Another "old fool" among the denialist spokespeople has bitten the dust - that intellectual giant Bob Carter.

On Sunday, 24 January 2016 22:50:22 UTC, RW wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 11:31:48 UTC+13, Martin Dixon wrote:
I understand that the first duty of any scientist is to be sceptical.
And that politicians will use any device they can to increase their
power and control over their "subjects". So any utterances by them or
the media they control must always be viewed in that light.

As for AGW, the fact that there are different opinions held by
climatologists means that we still don't know enough to make accurate
predictions of future climate. Estimates of climate sensitivity to
CO2 vary from insignificant to catastrophic. But this doesn't stop
the politicos from pushing their "Menken hobgoblin".

Martin


Stop trying to pretend that the overwhelming consensus amongst climatologists regarding AGW is anything other than that.

Not interested in wasting any more of my time after this on rubbish like your contribution.

Another "old fool" among the denialist spokespeople has bitten the dust - that intellectual giant Bob Carter.

Yes and don't you lefties revel in it


http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/


How unkind, how bitter, how intolerant and how hypocritical as per usual from a certain type of political persuasion. No wonder you and Garvey get on like a planet on fire.

On Monday, 25 January 2016 12:06:48 UTC+13, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Yes and don't you lefties revel in it


http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/


How unkind, how bitter, how intolerant and how hypocritical as per usual from a certain type of political persuasion. No wonder you and Garvey get on like a planet on fire.

Assessing the validity of science has nothing to do with politics. However it's amusing that a friend of mine with moderate right-wing views knew Carter for years and liked him - but once he started taking a belated interest in climate issues he soon realised that Carter was talking nonsense.

As for you, Mr Jenkins, you can spout politics indefinitely but you can't change climate realities or the scientific consensus.