In message
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2016 12:51:35 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2016 00:10:14 UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 11:08:57 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 10:22:49 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
In the March issue of Weather, the 'Weather news' section has an
article headed 'Will climate change delay transatlantic flights?' Now
I assumed from the title and the prevailing thoughts on the effects of
climate change that, contrary to the CEP Brooks article in Weather in
1950, the differential warming between the Arctic and the Tropics would
weaken the jet-stream, this delay to flights would be referring to
eastbound flights. On reading the article, I see my assumptions were
wrong.

The article says that eastbound flights will speed up due to the
strengthening jet-stream but west-bound ones will slow. It says that
unless emissions are cut, jet-stream winds along the flight route
between Heathrow and JFK are 'predicted to to become 15% faster in
winter, increasing from 77 to 89km/h, with similar increases in the
other seasons.'


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

And?


We all know the globs warmed ever so slightly and well within the wild
swings of the past. Are you saying only human produced C02 can reach
the parts natural forcing's can't reach.

Anyway if the jet stream is strengthening even though the extremes
between heat and cold is very so slightly less how do you know
another mechanism is not at work that is strengthening the jet stream
and causing a slight warming.

You have hijacked this thread with your stupid unhelpful remark.
Thus we now have the insufferable Martin Dixon banging on trying to
show us what a clever-clogs he is and all the usual trolls having
their two penn'orth and all of it nothing to do with the subject
which is the apparently paradoxical increase in strength in the jet
with global warming. This is far too detailed, far too boring, needs
actual meteorological knowledge. Let's talk GW, meteorology for the
non-meteorologist. Any ignorant herbert can join in. What a rabble.
This place needs a chairman.

Tudor Hughes

In the cold light of day Tudor, you come across as a tad toffee nosed
over the issue. If someone raises a thread on AGW then surely anyone
should be able to comment. In the case of Graham he obviously takes
that stand point that AGW exclusively is happening and its affecting
the speed of the jet stream (funnily enough as I type I'm playing
some music on the PC software and its West Side story and the 2Jet
Song! how odd all totally random.

Anyhow I find you're comments on Richard uncalled for, but since
Richard has come out the closet so to speak and declared some
scepticism over this issue he has possibly polarised some people

Richard? What's a Dixon between friends? Sure it wasn't PC George?

Look, I'm getting thoroughly ****ed off with you anti-AGW nutters.
Not only do you (plural) talk complete and utter ******** but you
selfishly hijack other threads for your own ends. Global Warming is a
subject for people whose knowledge of weather can be summed up as
"Bugger all, m'lud." There is ample and widespread evidence of that
in all spheres of life. There are plenty of places where you can rant
and rave to your heart's content. Find one. Or you could send a
carefully reasoned letter to the University of East Anglia.

Tudor Hughes.

Ah, but not all of those things have a political dimension. In a
coutry where there is pleny of money to fight climate change and
middle eastern wars, but not enough to support diabled people. And
"fighting climate change" is costing us a pretty penny. It had better
be worth it. But one suspects those making the decisions know they
won't be around when the chickens come home to roost.

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

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

In message
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2016 17:28:08 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Look, I'm getting thoroughly ****ed off with you anti-AGW nutters.
Not only do you (plural) talk complete and utter ******** but you
selfishly hijack other threads for your own ends. Global Warming is a
subject for people whose knowledge of weather can be summed up as
"Bugger all, m'lud." There is ample and widespread evidence of that
in all spheres of life. There are plenty of places where you can rant
and rave to your heart's content. Find one. Or you could send a
carefully reasoned letter to the University of East Anglia.

Tudor Hughes.

Well you do have a point but the thread was about AGW and the
strengthening of the jet stream. If you are saying only qualified
people should comment then maybe you have a point and the riff raff
should know their place. We're not as educated as you.

Where did I say or even imply that only qualified people should
comment? I am complaining that no-one (except Alastair) has commented
on the actual topic at all. No-one is interested. Practically all the
posts have been about GW itself.
My level of education is irrelevant. I am interested in the topic
and would like to know more about what happens to the jet stream in a
warmer world regardless of the cause of that warming. Fat chance
here.

Tudor Hughes.
This is probably not the best place to find out about that. It is
interesting that there is a relationship between el nino and the jet
stream. I'm not sure I understand it, but what is clear that our
warm December and cool March are about the jet stream. I'm not
convinced that overall warming makes any difference, why should it?
The jet stream had always fluctuated and always will. I'm not sure we
understand why.


--
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, 28 March 2016 23:57:15 UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2016 17:28:08 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Look, I'm getting thoroughly ****ed off with you anti-AGW nutters.
Not only do you (plural) talk complete and utter ******** but you
selfishly hijack other threads for your own ends. Global Warming is a
subject for people whose knowledge of weather can be summed up as
"Bugger all, m'lud." There is ample and widespread evidence of that
in all spheres of life. There are plenty of places where you can rant
and rave to your heart's content. Find one. Or you could send a
carefully reasoned letter to the University of East Anglia.

Tudor Hughes.

Well you do have a point but the thread was about AGW and the
strengthening of the jet stream. If you are saying only qualified
people should comment then maybe you have a point and the riff raff
should know their place. We're not as educated as you.

Where did I say or even imply that only qualified people should
comment? I am complaining that no-one (except Alastair) has commented
on the actual topic at all. No-one is interested. Practically all the
posts have been about GW itself.
My level of education is irrelevant. I am interested in the topic
and would like to know more about what happens to the jet stream in a
warmer world regardless of the cause of that warming. Fat chance
here.

Tudor Hughes.

This is probably not the best place to find out about that.

No, it wouldn't be, wouldn't be, would it, not with pretentious people
like you around, distracting everyone with streams of half-baked knowledge, while trying to sound like a great philosopher. The best way to the truth is to immerse yourself in the subject and gain knowledge, lots of it, an approach that you appear to treat with some disdain.


It is
interesting that there is a relationship between el nino and the jet
stream. I'm not sure I understand it, but what is clear that our
warm December and cool March are about the jet stream. I'm not
convinced that overall warming makes any difference, why should it?
The jet stream had always fluctuated and always will. I'm not sure we
understand why.

This is not about the jet stream fluctuating but about its predicted mean strength (and position) in a warmer world.
So you're not convinced that overall warming will make any difference. On what basis? The current view is that there will be some strengthening so you'd better have some pretty hard data to deny it.

What you have written is pure waffle and says nothing.

Tudor Hughes

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 11:42:15 PM UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Paul Garvey wrote:

The scientific method does not require proof. Indeed, proof is
impossible. If you are not convinced by the avalanche of evidence, you
have moved beyond sceptic and onto denier territory.

If not CO2, what else? Evidence for that, not speculation, like larrys
silly denier foray into underwater volcanoes.


Yes, it doesn't prove anything. But a bit like evolution, the best
theory we have is generally accepted, even if it has its flaws.

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

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

You dodged the question. If not CO2, what else?

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 11:42:15 PM UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Paul Garvey wrote:

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 12:12:36 PM UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Friday, 25 March 2016 11:08:57 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 10:22:49 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
In the March issue of Weather, the 'Weather news' section has an
article headed 'Will climate change delay transatlantic flights?' Now
I assumed from the title and the prevailing thoughts on the effects of
climate change that, contrary to the CEP Brooks article in Weather in
1950, the differential warming between the Arctic and the Tropics would
weaken the jet-stream, this delay to flights would be referring to
eastbound flights. On reading the article, I see my assumptions were
wrong.

The article says that eastbound flights will speed up due to the
strengthening jet-stream but west-bound ones will slow. It says that
unless emissions are cut, jet-stream winds along the flight route
between Heathrow and JFK are 'predicted to to become 15% faster in
winter, increasing from 77 to 89km/h, with similar increases in the
other seasons.'


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

And?


We all know the globs warmed ever so slightly and well within the wild
swings of the past. Are you saying only human produced C02 can reach
the parts natural forcing's can't reach.

Anyway if the jet stream is strengthening even though the extremes
between heat and cold is very so slightly less how do you know
another mechanism is not at work that is strengthening the jet stream
and causing a slight warming.

You have hijacked this thread with your stupid unhelpful remark.
Thus we now have the insufferable Martin Dixon banging on trying to
show us what a clever-clogs he is and all the usual trolls having
their two penn'orth and all of it nothing to do with the subject
which is the apparently paradoxical increase in strength in the jet
with global warming. This is far too detailed, far too boring, needs
actual meteorological knowledge. Let's talk GW, meteorology for the
non-meteorologist. Any ignorant herbert can join in. What a rabble.
This place needs a chairman.

Tudor Hughes

You mean a moderator? Or a censor, to remove all non politically
correct posts. If you can't stand your science being questioned, it
isn't very good science. We need to admit there s a lot we don't
know. Forget the arrogant posturing, it is no disgrace to admit we
don't know. And that is the first step towards increasing our
knowledge. If we assume we do know, and adopt an entrenched position,
they it is much harder to learn and progress. Most likely the
consensus is correct, but I need to be convinced, and so far I am not.



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

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

I'm with you on that. hughes would like to *be* the moderator Martin
and has tried it many times before. Unfortunately he can't be.

We should all expect our views to be challenged. The real difficulties
on here happen when views are challenged and challenged robustly, then
the person is not allowed off the hook (nothing wrong with that). Then
some can't bear it, throw their toys out of the pram, become
foul-mouthed. dreadfully abusive and threaten others. That's what we
can do without.

I like your phrase' 'Most likely the consensus is correct'. I'd just
go 'very highly likely correct'. I'm not convinced either, which is
why I feel Alastair's position of 'AGW is a fact' utterly wrong.
However, I'd say I am 99% convinced. About where the consensus
probably is and my conviction has increased with the evidence in the
last 5 years from being around 95% convinced.

Yes, it's true I like to play the devil's advocate a bit. But it is a
good thing to do, since as you say, the more robust the science is the
better. Those who run scared, who are afraid to debate the issues
don't help at all when it comes to getting to the truth. I'm still
not sure what the truth is, don't get me wrong, I'm probably, in fact
I'm sure I'm less convinced than you are Paul. I would love to see
some solid proof one way or the other, but it seems that is not
forthcoming, at least not yet. It seems to me it all depends on what
happens in the next few years. If the warming continues, once this el
nino is over, the consensus is right. If it doesn't, or if cooling
happens, it is wrong. We should know within the next 5 years.

There are some who say that because 90mumble percent of academics
believe something, so should I. I can never swallow that, and I treat
it with the comtempt is deserves. It is appealing to the herd
instinct. You have to convince me, based on real world observations
and physics, that you have a case. Nobody has done that, on either
side of the argument. But I would hate to play the political game of
counting those who believe one way or the other. Science is about the
scientific method, and voting is no part of that.


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

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

You can't have proof, Martin. No-one can. If proof is required wait for that, the problems will have happened a century ago and science still be waiting for that proof. Science simply doesn't deal in proof. Scientists deal in weight of evidence to support a theory. If something happens that the theory does not predict. we'll need a new theory.

Whether you currently believe that the tidal wave of existing evidence points to the theory being correct, is up to you.

Calendar's theory, published in 1938 has proved accurate - so far. If someone comes up with a better theory for why our planet is warming, I'll happily listen, but the evidence to support it is *huge*. It's not a herd instinct to support that. It is sense. If you wish to go against the 'herd' of scientists who accept the theory of gravity, jump from your roof. Hope your ankles and wrists are strong. 😀😀😀

Or you could believe in a flat Earth. I'm with the 'herd' who don't.

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 11:42:18 PM UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Paul Garvey wrote:

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 1:46:32 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2016 13:31:44 UTC+1, Paul Garvey wrote:
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 12:12:36 PM UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Friday, 25 March 2016 11:08:57 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 10:22:49 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
In the March issue of Weather, the 'Weather news' section has an
article headed 'Will climate change delay transatlantic flights?' Now
I assumed from the title and the prevailing thoughts on the effects of
climate change that, contrary to the CEP Brooks article in Weather in
1950, the differential warming between the Arctic and the Tropics would
weaken the jet-stream, this delay to flights would be referring to
eastbound flights. On reading the article, I see my assumptions were
wrong.

The article says that eastbound flights will speed up due to the
strengthening jet-stream but west-bound ones will slow. It says that
unless emissions are cut, jet-stream winds along the flight route
between Heathrow and JFK are 'predicted to to become 15% faster in
winter, increasing from 77 to 89km/h, with similar increases in the
other seasons.'


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

And?


We all know the globs warmed ever so slightly and well within the wild
swings of the past. Are you saying only human produced C02 can reach
the parts natural forcing's can't reach.

Anyway if the jet stream is strengthening even though the extremes
between heat and cold is very so slightly less how do you know
another mechanism is not at work that is strengthening the jet stream
and causing a slight warming.

You have hijacked this thread with your stupid unhelpful remark.
Thus we now have the insufferable Martin Dixon banging on trying to
show us what a clever-clogs he is and all the usual trolls having
their two penn'orth and all of it nothing to do with the subject
which is the apparently paradoxical increase in strength in the jet
with global warming. This is far too detailed, far too boring, needs
actual meteorological knowledge. Let's talk GW, meteorology for the
non-meteorologist. Any ignorant herbert can join in. What a rabble.
This place needs a chairman.

Tudor Hughes

You mean a moderator? Or a censor, to remove all non politically
correct posts. If you can't stand your science being questioned, it
isn't very good science. We need to admit there s a lot we don't
know. Forget the arrogant posturing, it is no disgrace to admit we
don't know. And that is the first step towards increasing our
knowledge. If we assume we do know, and adopt an entrenched position,
they it is much harder to learn and progress. Most likely the
consensus is correct, but I need to be convinced, and so far I am not.

On Monday, 28 March 2016 23:27:14 UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
Alastair wrote:

So why shouldn't we be free to make idiots of ourselves?

You are! (and so is Dawlish)

Yes, there is a lot I don't know. I admit it. Does that shock you?
But I would suggest that even those who call themselves "real
scientists" don't know everything. And BTW, I have a science degree
and a 50 year career in engineering without any major disasters
(although a few near misses I'll admit). So don't try to tell me that
"real scientists" know everything. They don't. Full stop. And if
they think they have nothing to learn, they are not fit to be called
scientists in my opinion.

I quite agree that "real scientists" don't know everything, but they do know the real science, not the pseudo science you find on the Watts site.

The figure I rmember is 33C, but let it go. It is an estimate anyway.

That's is 30C to 1 significant figure.

The water vapour content of the air depends on its temperature and so
its greenhouse effect is part of a positive feedback loop.

Not entirely unless the air is saturated.

That is not entirely true either. Relative humidity tends to remain constant.

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 7:08:58 AM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2016 23:27:14 UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
Alastair wrote:

So why shouldn't we be free to make idiots of ourselves?

You are! (and so is Dawlish)

'AGW is a fact'. It is not. Like 'cold radiation is a fact'. It is most definitely not. You are arguing from a scientific fallacy, but you cannot recognise it. You do this from time to time and it shows there are some odd ideas floating around in your head.

'You can never prove anything'. Well you can in mathematics, but science is a different kettle of fish, so a 'fact' is something waiting for the next theory.

On Monday, 28 March 2016 23:57:16 UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2016 12:51:35 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2016 00:10:14 UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 11:08:57 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 10:22:49 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
In the March issue of Weather, the 'Weather news' section has an
article headed 'Will climate change delay transatlantic flights?' Now
I assumed from the title and the prevailing thoughts on the effects of
climate change that, contrary to the CEP Brooks article in Weather in
1950, the differential warming between the Arctic and the Tropics would
weaken the jet-stream, this delay to flights would be referring to
eastbound flights. On reading the article, I see my assumptions were
wrong.

The article says that eastbound flights will speed up due to the
strengthening jet-stream but west-bound ones will slow. It says that
unless emissions are cut, jet-stream winds along the flight route
between Heathrow and JFK are 'predicted to to become 15% faster in
winter, increasing from 77 to 89km/h, with similar increases in the
other seasons.'


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

And?


We all know the globs warmed ever so slightly and well within the wild
swings of the past. Are you saying only human produced C02 can reach
the parts natural forcing's can't reach.

Anyway if the jet stream is strengthening even though the extremes
between heat and cold is very so slightly less how do you know
another mechanism is not at work that is strengthening the jet stream
and causing a slight warming.

You have hijacked this thread with your stupid unhelpful remark.
Thus we now have the insufferable Martin Dixon banging on trying to
show us what a clever-clogs he is and all the usual trolls having
their two penn'orth and all of it nothing to do with the subject
which is the apparently paradoxical increase in strength in the jet
with global warming. This is far too detailed, far too boring, needs
actual meteorological knowledge. Let's talk GW, meteorology for the
non-meteorologist. Any ignorant herbert can join in. What a rabble.
This place needs a chairman.

Tudor Hughes

In the cold light of day Tudor, you come across as a tad toffee nosed
over the issue. If someone raises a thread on AGW then surely anyone
should be able to comment. In the case of Graham he obviously takes
that stand point that AGW exclusively is happening and its affecting
the speed of the jet stream (funnily enough as I type I'm playing
some music on the PC software and its West Side story and the 2Jet
Song! how odd all totally random.

Anyhow I find you're comments on Richard uncalled for, but since
Richard has come out the closet so to speak and declared some
scepticism over this issue he has possibly polarised some people

Richard? What's a Dixon between friends? Sure it wasn't PC George?

Look, I'm getting thoroughly ****ed off with you anti-AGW nutters.
Not only do you (plural) talk complete and utter ******** but you
selfishly hijack other threads for your own ends. Global Warming is a
subject for people whose knowledge of weather can be summed up as
"Bugger all, m'lud." There is ample and widespread evidence of that
in all spheres of life. There are plenty of places where you can rant
and rave to your heart's content. Find one. Or you could send a
carefully reasoned letter to the University of East Anglia.

Tudor Hughes.

Ah, but not all of those things have a political dimension. In a
coutry where there is pleny of money to fight climate change and
middle eastern wars, but not enough to support diabled people. And
"fighting climate change" is costing us a pretty penny. It had better
be worth it. But one suspects those making the decisions know they
won't be around when the chickens come home to roost.

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

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

Martin although OT&OT your remark "not enough to support disabled people" although a good point in highlighting money wasted of AGW subsidies the mantra that goes around saying the disabled are treated poorly is a fallacy in fact disabled people are treated very well in this country probably one of the best countries on the planet for disabled people.

If you are on Income support which has now switched to ESA and if you then qualify for disability living allowance which has now switching over to PIP .

Well if you are on the middle rate DLA/PIP Care component or the high rate component then you will receive over £17,000.00 per year income with the knock on benefits of severe disablement allowance and enhanced .


Now to have 17,000.00 in your pocket after tax and NI and then after your rent or mortgage has been paid (that's separate HB) and to have your 'white goods paid for plus all repairs and transport costs were taken into consideration you would have to be on a salary of around 60 thousand , especially in London.

Fortunes are being spent on the severely disabled in fact t many people have to keep their savings below £16000 or housing benefit will stop..

Don't get me wrong it 's awful for a family or youself to be severely disabled but this country via social services I can quote one case where I've toted up the costs of personal benefits, housing benefit and then care costs . The total to keep two severely disabled mentally adults living is a residential two bedroom flat is nearly half a million pounds per year.

The recent argument about IDS was that the DLA care was being switched over to PIP and there was a plan to drop the lower payment however that had no bearing on the two higher rates that then trigger two more payments.

Sorry to go off beam but I see so much misinformation on this topic that its has to be set straight, You only have to mention 'disabled', global warming , 'poverty', deprived children and so on and all rationale goes out the window.


I have much to say but I'm keeping quite .

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12:37:15 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2016 23:57:16 UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2016 12:51:35 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2016 00:10:14 UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 11:08:57 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 10:22:49 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
In the March issue of Weather, the 'Weather news' section has an
article headed 'Will climate change delay transatlantic flights?' Now
I assumed from the title and the prevailing thoughts on the effects of
climate change that, contrary to the CEP Brooks article in Weather in
1950, the differential warming between the Arctic and the Tropics would
weaken the jet-stream, this delay to flights would be referring to
eastbound flights. On reading the article, I see my assumptions were
wrong.

The article says that eastbound flights will speed up due to the
strengthening jet-stream but west-bound ones will slow. It says that
unless emissions are cut, jet-stream winds along the flight route
between Heathrow and JFK are 'predicted to to become 15% faster in
winter, increasing from 77 to 89km/h, with similar increases in the
other seasons.'


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

And?


We all know the globs warmed ever so slightly and well within the wild
swings of the past. Are you saying only human produced C02 can reach
the parts natural forcing's can't reach.

Anyway if the jet stream is strengthening even though the extremes
between heat and cold is very so slightly less how do you know
another mechanism is not at work that is strengthening the jet stream
and causing a slight warming.

You have hijacked this thread with your stupid unhelpful remark.
Thus we now have the insufferable Martin Dixon banging on trying to
show us what a clever-clogs he is and all the usual trolls having
their two penn'orth and all of it nothing to do with the subject
which is the apparently paradoxical increase in strength in the jet
with global warming. This is far too detailed, far too boring, needs
actual meteorological knowledge. Let's talk GW, meteorology for the
non-meteorologist. Any ignorant herbert can join in. What a rabble.
This place needs a chairman.

Tudor Hughes

In the cold light of day Tudor, you come across as a tad toffee nosed
over the issue. If someone raises a thread on AGW then surely anyone
should be able to comment. In the case of Graham he obviously takes
that stand point that AGW exclusively is happening and its affecting
the speed of the jet stream (funnily enough as I type I'm playing
some music on the PC software and its West Side story and the 2Jet
Song! how odd all totally random.

Anyhow I find you're comments on Richard uncalled for, but since
Richard has come out the closet so to speak and declared some
scepticism over this issue he has possibly polarised some people

Richard? What's a Dixon between friends? Sure it wasn't PC George?

Look, I'm getting thoroughly ****ed off with you anti-AGW nutters.
Not only do you (plural) talk complete and utter ******** but you
selfishly hijack other threads for your own ends. Global Warming is a
subject for people whose knowledge of weather can be summed up as
"Bugger all, m'lud." There is ample and widespread evidence of that
in all spheres of life. There are plenty of places where you can rant
and rave to your heart's content. Find one. Or you could send a
carefully reasoned letter to the University of East Anglia.

Tudor Hughes.

Ah, but not all of those things have a political dimension. In a
coutry where there is pleny of money to fight climate change and
middle eastern wars, but not enough to support diabled people. And
"fighting climate change" is costing us a pretty penny. It had better
be worth it. But one suspects those making the decisions know they
won't be around when the chickens come home to roost.

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

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

Martin although OT&OT your remark "not enough to support disabled people" although a good point in highlighting money wasted of AGW subsidies the mantra that goes around saying the disabled are treated poorly is a fallacy in fact disabled people are treated very well in this country probably one of the best countries on the planet for disabled people.

If you are on Income support which has now switched to ESA and if you then qualify for disability living allowance which has now switching over to PIP .

Well if you are on the middle rate DLA/PIP Care component or the high rate component then you will receive over £17,000.00 per year income with the knock on benefits of severe disablement allowance and enhanced .


Now to have 17,000.00 in your pocket after tax and NI and then after your rent or mortgage has been paid (that's separate HB) and to have your 'white goods paid for plus all repairs and transport costs were taken into consideration you would have to be on a salary of around 60 thousand , especially in London.

Fortunes are being spent on the severely disabled in fact t many people have to keep their savings below £16000 or housing benefit will stop..

Don't get me wrong it 's awful for a family or youself to be severely disabled but this country via social services I can quote one case where I've toted up the costs of personal benefits, housing benefit and then care costs . The total to keep two severely disabled mentally adults living is a residential two bedroom flat is nearly half a million pounds per year.

The recent argument about IDS was that the DLA care was being switched over to PIP and there was a plan to drop the lower payment however that had no bearing on the two higher rates that then trigger two more payments.

Sorry to go off beam but I see so much misinformation on this topic that its has to be set straight, You only have to mention 'disabled', global warming , 'poverty', deprived children and so on and all rationale goes out the window.


I have much to say but I'm keeping quite .

What you just did is called conflation. I call it far right wing idiocy and complete denial. Funny though.

PS I'm keeping quite well too.