The scientists are frighted

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-07 3:31 PM

 

Meanwhile - those of us who understand a bit about the subject and try to be honest and cite REAL data not biased BBC articles of over a decade ago will have a few chuckles at your expense and carry on as before.

 

 

Well, I had to read that three times to make sure I hadn't misunderstood it! I mention an article from 1999 SPECIFICALLY as a very readable explanation of a process and with NO comment about the statistics, which of course were out of date. When I need to refer to specific statistics, I use up-to-date links - and you, because those statistics are inconvenient for your prejudice, ignore them! You refuse to accept RECORDED data relating to surface warming on the land, deep warming in the oceans, ice melt or sea levels and now you claim to be the one who cites real data. You couldn't make it up!

 

 

And Frank, I accept what you say but I don't give up that easily. In my career I have been know to get result from people that others gave up on long ago. I still have it in the back of my mind that Clive will one day wake up and see the light! :-D

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-10-07 3:49 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-10-07 2:01 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-10-07 1:12 PM

 

John what I ACTUALLY said was this.

 

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have little to worry about"

 

 

YOU changed it to make out that I said we had "NOTHING" to worry about.

 

 

I also did not say the theory of THC was discredited - I said the Alarmist model of Ocean Drift Disruption was discredited. And cited the research published in Nature that by using the RAFOS probes proved this by way of only 8% of these Probes actually followed the route predicted by the Alarmist Models.

 

Still it made for a good film *-)

 

 

John

 

You habitually infer that I say something I have not. Your classic example where you stated i said:-

 

(That) "the oceans were big enough to cope"

 

Which I NEVER did!!

 

And then you alter what I did say to read:-

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have nothing to worry about"

 

When it is clear for all to see that I actually said:-

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have little to worry about"

 

By altering what i said you create a totally differing emphasis.

 

You Sir

 

Are being dishonest with the facts.

 

You should be ashamed

 

Altho we have our differences in this subject I was hoping that you were an honourable and honest individual.

 

The proof of the above indicates otherwise.

 

I not too that you conveniently ignore all the points and references I cite that you cannot deal with - instead you prefer to manufacture "evidence" that i said what I clearly did not.

 

And you a Teacher!

 

Like I say - you should be ashamed!

 

And you try to infer that I am a dangerous man!

 

I am appalled at your actions.

 

I refer you to my previous citations and references and suggest that you read these and take some time to think about and contemplate your actions.

 

I really didn't want to get involved in this but you really need someone to tell you what you're doing here, which is totally losing the plot or becoming so desperate that you'll stoop to this level of character assassination just to try to score points.

 

John47 didn't try to alter your post, he actually quoted it in full and yes, you did say 'little'. He replied and used the word 'nothing'.

 

He wasn't being devious at all. If I told someone that we have little to worry about regarding Islamic extremism for instance and later he accused me of believing that Islamic extremism is nothing to worry about I couldn't give a toss. It's semantics and you making such a song and dance about a word, possibly written in haste, is pathetic.

 

During this entire debate John47 tried to keep it civilized but you started the insults (or ad hominem as you always pompously call it) by continually insulting him and calling him a silly ,silly man etc.

 

And this from a man who is continually upbraiding people about such behaviour. You really are the worst kind of hypocrite!

 

I posted earlier about a bulk carrier making it through the NW Passage for the first time in decades and what do you do? You bang on about small passenger liners doing the same thing for ages and conveniently ignore the main point of the article which was that it was a VERY BIG ship that successfully made the journey. Now that was devious!

 

Finally, for God's sake learn the difference between imply and infer. Your use of the wrong word makes a nonsense of many of your posts.

 

I see that you haven't changed in my absence!

 

Note to John47 - give up on this man, you will never win, even when you're right. He is so determined to keep up what he sees is his role on here, which is the resident know-all, that he will never admit that he may be wrong. I and others have leaned that it's pointless and eventually you'll do the same.

 

 

 

Oh dear - Frank - your attention to detail is not so good anymore is it!

 

You say -

 

"I posted earlier about a bulk carrier making it through the NW Passage for the first time in decades and what do you do? You bang on about small passenger liners doing the same thing for ages and conveniently ignore the main point of the article which was that it was a VERY BIG ship that successfully made the journey. Now that was devious! "

 

You accuse me of "banging on about small passenger liners doing the same thing for ages......"

 

When I made it quite clear in my post that it was not me that made that comment - it was made under the article you linked to and I simply re-posted it.

 

It was posted by a chap called :-

 

Kevin Griffin

on Sep. 28, 2013

at 8:50 AM

 

And you go on to accuse me of being "devious"

 

pot kettle black *-)

 

 

 

God Almighty! Once more you're just desperate to score points! Where did I ever deny that the report on small ships had been written by someone else? You yourself drew our attention to that point, which I had read by the way but discounted it, as I can tell the difference between huge bulk carriers and small passenger ships, something that you clearly hadn't grasped!

 

So I used the phrase 'banging on'! So what? If someone makes a point and you regurgitate it I'm clearly entitled to say that you banged on about it! It's semantics again, which you jump on to make silly, weak debating points to divert attention from your deliberate avoidance of the whole point of the article, which is that Arctic ice is now much less than it was.

 

You really are getting unbelievably and pathetically childish in all this fuss about a word or so, and because people use a word that you don't approve of you accuse them of dishonesty and deviousness. The only deviousness here is from you, as ever, when in your attempt to denigrate your opponents you stoop to the tactics of the gutter. Shame on you!

 

John47 constantly exposes your deviousness and your entire lack of understanding on this subject so you change tack and attack his method of posting and minor variations in language in order to divert from the fact that you're in a huge hole.

 

You're in denial and it's time you woke up and admitted it. There's no shame in not being an expert on everything!

 

And in case your vain 'CliveH, King of Chatterbox ' brain hasn't noticed, the reason that I'm supporting John H is that there's only you, him and now me in the bloody thread, you've bored the pants of everyone else!

 

Do us all a favour and find a new subject that you can try to impress the hoi polloi with.

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Franks back :D .....................We can expect some serious damage to the CB ozone layer now 8-)

[Guest Had Enough]

pelmetman - 2013-10-07 4:20 PM

 

Franks back :D .....................We can expect some serious damage to the CB ozone layer now 8-)

 

Ah, another PM intelligent contribution to a debate! I suspect that the bullsh*t emanating from you may be responsible for a huge hole in the ozone layer over Lincolnshire!

 

Anyway, I'm back but I'm also off again. I can only stand so much of that sanctimonious and devious know all CliveH! From his lifestyle it seems that, for a man who knows so much about everything, he certainly doesn't seem to have put it to much use. If he really was so brilliant one would think he'd be a multi-millionaire by now or at least the prime minister, instead of being nearly as skint as you! (lol) (lol)

 

Cheerio!

[CliveH]

John 47 - 2013-10-07 3:49 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-10-07 1:12 PM

 

John what I ACTUALLY said was this.

 

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have little to worry about"

 

 

YOU changed it to make out that I said we had "NOTHING" to worry about.

 

 

Well, for somebody who seems not to know the difference between something cooling down and something warming up at a reduced rate, I find your hair-splitting over terminology quite simply comical.

 

Your dismissal of the increase in temperature of the ocean deeps (whatever language you use) was very clear - and equally very silly.

 

Similarly with your wriggling to try to get out of your comments about THC, about not knowing any scientist who could distinguish between Monoxide and Dioxide, about Scottish geriatricians being in favour of global warming and about ice melt. You don't understand the meaning of the word "pollution" and you seem to believe that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can go on increasing ad nauseam without any detrimental consequences. You posts links to scientific papers without understanding them and draw conclusions that are in marked contradiction to the actual measured facts. I'd be very interested to hear from those you have linked to as to what they think of these statements from you!

Somehow I don't think you'd get much support.

 

I think you said earlier that you were trained in micro-biology. Well I don't know much about that world but if the links between cause and effect in it are as simplistic as you imply, I can only inform you that on the global scale of climatology the picture is very much more complex and very delicate. We most definitely have much more than a little to be worried about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yet you dismiss all those referenced individuals who I cited and linked to.

 

Instead you prefer to ignore the likes of the Nature articles and call me "silly" whilst you rely on BBC article - one of which was 14 year old! 8-)

 

There is no wriggling on the THC data - you just failed to read the paper - or did read it and failed to understand it - I am not sure which is worse?

 

As regards CO and CO2 I actually stated Climate Scientist and Global Warming Activist (I may have used 'Alarmist' as well) - how typical that you alter this to the generic term "Scientist" that of course infers a totally different "truth" to that which I originally set out.

 

Re CO and CO2 - you failed to read the piece re the EPA and its ridiculous demonisation of CO2 whilst citing the characteristics of CO! I named circa 20 Climatologists and scientists from other linked specialities and referenced their comments re what the EPA did. It seems clear you again either did not read or did not understand.

 

I do understand the term pollution and again I state that you should refer to the comments of those 20 or so Scientists that commented on the crazy action of the US EPA is classifying CO2 and a pollutant / poison.

 

Pollution is NOT a term that can be applied to CO2 - read the information - because yet again it seems clear that you either did not read it or did no understand what was written.

 

YOU LIE WHEN YOU ACCUSE ME OF SAYING THAT I SAID CO2 CAN GO ON INCREASING 'AD NAUSEUM' ! :-S - have you no shame? - you are just making things up now - in what seems a rather desperate way.

 

I never said that – you know I didn’t and that makes you a liar

 

I stated that levels are currently c 0.0389% and that Market Gardeners increase CO2 levels to over 0.1% to increase crop yield.

 

Did you read the article I cited are referenced that stated that plants do better ar far higher CO2 levels and that animals show no ill effects up to circa 0.12% CO2 of 1200ppm?

 

Submariners often exist in even higher for far longer.

 

And it has not escaped my notice that you have been very quiet on the specific topic of the feedback between CO2 and H2O – where the models are now getting HUGE scrutiny is that the models all assume a positive feedback loop whereas the actual data indicates a neutral to negative feedback. What you did say on this was sketchy at best so again I would have to assume that if you did read the data – understanding it was difficult for you.

 

And you do like your little Ad Homs – you say that you would like to contact some of those I cite to see if they would “support me” - who real PLAYGROUND POLITICS here kids!!!! – did they not teach you at teachers trainingcollege what using such tactics portrays about the instigator?

 

So ……it seems you forget that a Dr Normon Page (Geologist) did actually make a post on here to point out another graph he thought was more powerful to the one I cited on his site.

 

And no, you clearly do not know much about Microbiology, which is more Biochemistry than biology when you get down to cellular level. And when you make the silly statements like those above John - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - believe me - - - sadly for you- - - - it shows.

 

 

 

[John 47]

I would like to say that, while I appreciate Frank's ability to see through the muddled arguments from Clive I disassociate myself totally from his inability to accept a joke (from Pelmetman) and his unnecessary comments about other people's wealth or lack of it. What that has to do with their ability (or lack of it) to sustain a logical argument is beyond me. I would never judge anybody by the amount of money they have - only by what they say or do.

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-10-07 4:31 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-10-07 4:20 PM

 

Franks back :D .....................We can expect some serious damage to the CB ozone layer now 8-)

 

Ah, another PM intelligent contribution to a debate! I suspect that the bullsh*t emanating from you may be responsible for a huge hole in the ozone layer over Lincolnshire!

 

Anyway, I'm back but I'm also off again. I can only stand so much of that sanctimonious and devious know all CliveH! From his lifestyle it seems that, for a man who knows so much about everything, he certainly doesn't seem to have put it to much use. If he really was so brilliant one would think he'd be a multi-millionaire by now or at least the prime minister, instead of being nearly as skint as you! (lol) (lol)

 

Cheerio!

 

Just enjoying myself before the end of the world arrives Frank :D...............

 

Its either that.... or carry on working and paying green taxes ;-).......

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-10-07 4:31 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-10-07 4:20 PM

 

Franks back :D .....................We can expect some serious damage to the CB ozone layer now 8-)

 

Ah, another PM intelligent contribution to a debate! I suspect that the bullsh*t emanating from you may be responsible for a huge hole in the ozone layer over Lincolnshire!

 

Anyway, I'm back but I'm also off again. I can only stand so much of that sanctimonious and devious know all CliveH! From his lifestyle it seems that, for a man who knows so much about everything, he certainly doesn't seem to have put it to much use. If he really was so brilliant one would think he'd be a multi-millionaire by now or at least the prime minister, instead of being nearly as skint as you! (lol) (lol)

 

Cheerio!

 

Amazing - Frank is another individual that is quite happy to make things up.

 

I am not boasting but we own our ow house and have other properties as well. I have a good sized pension pot as well as investments. And a stake in a business that has nearly £40M of client money under management.

 

whereas Franks camerashops?

 

The do not do that bad - but retail? - not something anyone recommends currently

 

"The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 28/02/2013 reported 'cash at bank' of £433,315, 'liabilities' worth £690,001, 'net worth' of £1,521,500 and 'assets' worth £2,021,858. Frank Wilkinson Cameras Limited's risk score was amended on 10/07/2013."

 

You have a few issues there Franky boy -

 

 

 

[CliveH]

John 47 - 2013-10-07 4:41 PM

 

I would like to say that, while I appreciate Frank's ability to see through the muddled arguments from Clive I disassociate myself totally from his inability to accept a joke (from Pelmetman) and his unnecessary comments about other people's wealth or lack of it. What that has to do with their ability (or lack of it) to sustain a logical argument is beyond me. I would never judge anybody by the amount of money they have - only by what they say or do.

 

Fair Comment John - I agree totally.

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-10-07 4:47 PM

 

 

Amazing - Frank is another individual that is quite happy to make things up.

 

I am not boasting but we own our ow house and have other properties as well. I have a good sized pension pot as well as investments. And a stake in a business that has nearly £40M of client money under management.

 

whereas Franks camerashops?

 

The do not do that bad - but retail? - not something anyone recommends currently

 

"The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 28/02/2013 reported 'cash at bank' of £433,315, 'liabilities' worth £690,001, 'net worth' of £1,521,500 and 'assets' worth £2,021,858. Frank Wilkinson Cameras Limited's risk score was amended on 10/07/2013."

 

You have a few issues there Franky boy -

 

 

 

What are the issues then Clive? ;-) No debts apart from our normal suppliers who are paid on the nail. Which they direct debit from us by the way! £690K is three weeks turnover! And our credit rating is A1, something you failed to mention.

 

Now your firm has £40 million of other people's money (funny, you told me it was £21 million only a couple of months ago) but that's the point, it's other people's!

 

You're on sticky ground Clive when you start comparing your little £10K firm with mine! ;-) You should print your firms accounts now for everyone to see!

 

And as you say, I'm a retailer so it's even more competitive than most trades and the bulk of our competitors, Jessops, Jacobs etc. have folded. We must be doing something right!

 

And as for not recommending retail, what should I do Clive, shut it down? I've been in it all my life and I'm stuck with I'm afraid and very happy to be in that position as it does very well for me! (lol)

 

Off out now so cheerio!

 

Anyway, you've stopped banging on about climate change. I'm sure everyone is grateful!

[nowtelse2do]

From the eminent scientist and finance expert and forgive me, for want of a better word 'singer' Bob Geldof, said the world is warming up so much that in twenty years we could all be dead, so a lot of hot air there. This from man (who was nearly bankrupt) when he founded the charity supergroup Band Aid and is now a millionaire again. So he must know what he is saying and definitely knows what he is doing. 8-) :-D

 

Dave

 

I forgot to mention the snowstorms across the American Mid-West at the moment......BOB !! If you're reading this, get out there and warm them up. B-)

[Guest Had Enough]

John 47 - 2013-10-07 4:41 PM

 

I would like to say that, while I appreciate Frank's ability to see through the muddled arguments from Clive I disassociate myself totally from his inability to accept a joke (from Pelmetman) and his unnecessary comments about other people's wealth or lack of it. What that has to do with their ability (or lack of it) to sustain a logical argument is beyond me. I would never judge anybody by the amount of money they have - only by what they say or do.

 

I agree, but it's nice to wind him up! But it does puzzle me though that a man who is so knowledgeable about every subject under the sun isn't a multi-millionaire, especially as he was in the money business! (lol)

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-07 4:40 PM

 

1. Pollution is NOT a term that can be applied to CO2 - read the information - because yet again it seems clear that you either did not read it or did no understand what was written.

 

2. YOU LIE WHEN YOU ACCUSE ME OF SAYING THAT I SAID CO2 CAN GO ON INCREASING 'AD NAUSEUM' ! :-S - have you no shame? - you are just making things up now - in what seems a rather desperate way.

 

I never said that – you know I didn’t and that makes you a liar

 

I stated that levels are currently c 0.0389% and that Market Gardeners increase CO2 levels to over 0.1% to increase crop yield.

 

Did you read the article I cited are referenced that stated that plants do better ar far higher CO2 levels and that animals show no ill effects up to circa 0.12% CO2 of 1200ppm?

 

Submariners often exist in even higher for far longer.

 

3. And it has not escaped my notice that you have been very quiet on the specific topic of the feedback between CO2 and H2O – where the models are now getting HUGE scrutiny is that the models all assume a positive feedback loop whereas the actual data indicates a neutral to negative feedback. What you did say on this was sketchy at best so again I would have to assume that if you did read the data – understanding it was difficult for you.

 

4. And you do like your little Ad Homs – you say that you would like to contact some of those I cite to see if they would “support me” - who real PLAYGROUND POLITICS here kids!!!! – did they not teach you at teachers trainingcollege what using such tactics portrays about the instigator?

 

5. So ……it seems you forget that a Dr Normon Page (Geologist) did actually make a post on here to point out another graph he thought was more powerful to the one I cited on his site.

 

 

Dear, oh dear.

 

1. Pollution is not a term that can be applied to CO2???? Pollution is a term that can be applied to almost anything! Since you don't understand complex issues, I'll try to simplify it for you once again. Oil is of major benefit to mankind. It keeps us warm in winter and keeps our motorhomes on the road. However, oil on a beach is pollution. Anything in the wrong place and in the wrong amounts IS pollution. To deny that CO2 can be a pollutant is simply ridiculous.

 

2. We may be getting somewhere here. If you don't think it can go on rising ad nauseam, then that means you are beginning to accept that there are levels that are unsafe. Please give us the benefit of your wisdom and tell when the levels become unsafe. Incidentally, there is an inherent contradiction in your two statements here. If CO2 can't be a pollutant then why is it unsafe for it to go on rising? Further, your silly point about the levels of CO2 that plants and animals can tolerate assumes all this happens in isolation. You have conveniently ignored in these simple figures that CO2 levels affect other things as well - such as warming (a point that very few people other than you would dispute).

 

3. Let us assume for a moment that you are right on this point (and there is a great deal of dispute on it). There IS a feedback. The feedback may or may not be precisely as previously thought but it exists. The thing that gets up my nose about your nonsense is that you assume neutrality to all our actions. Feedbacks have consequences. Some of those consequences will have detrimental effects on human life. You seem to think we can ignore them; I don't.

 

4. What on earth is "playground politics" about saying that the bases of your argument are so simplistic and so silly that I believe the experts you cite would have trouble supporting them?

 

5. No - I haven't forgotten that but it seems you might have because what he said was in marked contrast to your claims that there are no significant effects from rising CO2! Look at it very carefully again. :-)

 

But keep going, we are slowly moving towards a position where you will be forced to accept that actions have consequences and that any sensible person should want to know what those consequences are.

[CliveH]

£21M is under direct mangement by ourselves

 

With Discretionary Fund Managers - Rathbones, Thesis etc - that comes to the total cited. Under the RDR this all nows comes under one profit centre.

 

I would not want to be in retail Frank.

 

You are far too vulnerable - and your figs really are not that good when you consider the forcast for retail in the UK - I take no pleasure in citing this research - I think the Government are barmy and Local Government more so in allowing our high streets to falter as they are.

 

Still Eric Pickles has the right idea - but when it comes to investing in retail - it is a big BIG No NO!

 

Retail Futures 2018 forecasts that by 2018:

 

Total store numbers will fall by 22%, from 281,930 today to 220,000 in 2018.

 

Job losses could be around 316,000 compared to today

 

The share of online retail sales will rise from 12.7% (2012) to 21.5% by 2018 or the end of the decade.

 

There will be a further 164 major or medium-sized companies going into administration, involving the loss of 22,600 stores and 140,000 employees. Many of these companies will survive but at the cost of closing more than half their stores.

 

In spite of the Portas Pilots, the High Street will continue to suffer: around 41% of town centres will lose 27,638 stores in the next five years.

 

UK retailing has the highest proportion of online retail sales, so what happens here is being closed watched by foreign observers as Britain becomes a test bed for retail innovation.

 

Key catalysts for the looming retail crisis:

 

Consumer spending has increase by 12% since 2006 outstripped by retail operating costs (including rates) which have risen by 20%. It will be several more years until the UK returns to previous levels of growth: in fact GDP/head has not yet returned to the level it was in 2008/.

 

Customers are shunning the high street: their share of consumer spending has declined from 50% in 2000 to a predicted 40.2% next year.

 

As fewer shop in stores, online retail is set to account for 21.5% of total retail sales by 2018 from 12.7% today, the highest online retail share in the world

 

With such a high number of transactions carried out online, retailers with a strong web offering now need just 70 high street stores to create a national presence compared to 250 in the mid 2000's

 

.............................

 

As you do both you may be well poised to make the transition.

 

But retail is very much like you Frank - bit of a Dinosaur. (lol)

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Don't forget that every retail premises North of the Watford Gap is now subsidizing the business rates of those South of it *-).....................The Conservatives don't give a fig for anyone outside of the home counties >:-).............Look at Scotland :D

[CliveH]

John 47 - 2013-10-07 5:09 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-10-07 4:40 PM

 

1. Pollution is NOT a term that can be applied to CO2 - read the information - because yet again it seems clear that you either did not read it or did no understand what was written.

 

2. YOU LIE WHEN YOU ACCUSE ME OF SAYING THAT I SAID CO2 CAN GO ON INCREASING 'AD NAUSEUM' ! :-S - have you no shame? - you are just making things up now - in what seems a rather desperate way.

 

I never said that – you know I didn’t and that makes you a liar

 

I stated that levels are currently c 0.0389% and that Market Gardeners increase CO2 levels to over 0.1% to increase crop yield.

 

Did you read the article I cited are referenced that stated that plants do better ar far higher CO2 levels and that animals show no ill effects up to circa 0.12% CO2 of 1200ppm?

 

Submariners often exist in even higher for far longer.

 

3. And it has not escaped my notice that you have been very quiet on the specific topic of the feedback between CO2 and H2O – where the models are now getting HUGE scrutiny is that the models all assume a positive feedback loop whereas the actual data indicates a neutral to negative feedback. What you did say on this was sketchy at best so again I would have to assume that if you did read the data – understanding it was difficult for you.

 

4. And you do like your little Ad Homs – you say that you would like to contact some of those I cite to see if they would “support me” - who real PLAYGROUND POLITICS here kids!!!! – did they not teach you at teachers trainingcollege what using such tactics portrays about the instigator?

 

5. So ……it seems you forget that a Dr Normon Page (Geologist) did actually make a post on here to point out another graph he thought was more powerful to the one I cited on his site.

 

 

Dear, oh dear.

 

1. Pollution is not a term that can be applied to CO2???? Pollution is a term that can be applied to almost anything! Since you don't understand complex issues, I'll try to simplify it for you once again. Oil is of major benefit to mankind. It keeps us warm in winter and keeps our motorhomes on the road. However, oil on a beach is pollution. Anything in the wrong place and in the wrong amounts IS pollution. To deny that CO2 can be a pollutant is simply ridiculous.

 

2. We may be getting somewhere here. If you don't think it can go on rising ad nauseam, then that means you are beginning to accept that there are levels that are unsafe. Please give us the benefit of your wisdom and tell when the levels become unsafe. Incidentally, there is an inherent contradiction in your two statements here. If CO2 can't be a pollutant then why is it unsafe for it to go on rising? Further, your silly point about the levels of CO2 that plants and animals can tolerate assumes all this happens in isolation. You have conveniently ignored in these simple figures that CO2 levels affect other things as well - such as warming (a point that very few people other than you would dispute).

 

3. Let us assume for a moment that you are right on this point (and there is a great deal of dispute on it). There IS a feedback. The feedback may or may not be precisely as previously thought but it exists. The thing that gets up my nose about your nonsense is that you assume neutrality to all our actions. Feedbacks have consequences. Some of those consequences will have detrimental effects on human life. You seem to think we can ignore them; I don't.

 

4. What on earth is "playground politics" about saying that the bases of your argument are so simplistic and so silly that I believe the experts you cite would have trouble supporting them?

 

5. No - I haven't forgotten that but it seems you might have because what he said was in marked contrast to your claims that there are no significant effects from rising CO2! Look at it very carefully again. :-)

 

But keep going, we are slowly moving towards a position where you will be forced to accept that actions have consequences and that any sensible person should want to know what those consequences are.

 

Oh good grief - are you sure you are not being taught at your school rather than teaching in it John?

 

1) Please read what those scientist said about CO2 and if you can make a comment on what anyone of them says? As for Oil - crude oil is a carcinogen you muppet! - - just loo at the barrier gloves etc even mechanics that service your car have to wear to stop them coming into contact with it!!

 

 

Whereas Market Gardeners increase the CO2 levels substantially with no ill effects other than increased crop yield - You really should try to get to grips with the basics of biochemistry before you start stating nonsence such as CO2 is a pollutant. Just because a group of US civil servants at the EPA went all unnecessary and dropped a bo!!ock - does not mean that you have to be equally stupid.

 

2 ) Oh good grief 2 - Look at the CO2 Market Gardening website I posted earlier it states that 6000ppm would be dangerous in an enclosed space because you would suffocate!

 

The correct term for the way CO2 kills you is as an asphyxiant! - Which is NOT the same as a polutant or a poison.

 

3) Yes we are getting somewhere at last John - of course feedback mechanisms can be positive negative or neutral - The models all assume a positive feedback where when CO2 reaches a certain level the far more powerful greenhouse gas that is water vapour then goes into run away mode and the planet cooks. But it is postulated that the models ignore the fact that this water vapour forms clouds and these clouds then shade the planet - personally i see this a s a tad too simplistic but you have to admit that the models have got it wrong for the last 17 years - CO2 HAS increased but the temperature has "Paused"

 

4) Playground politics is - to my mind - where a person plays with the words to alter the meaning of what another has said and then uses those altered meanings to attack the person who never said what was inferred in the first place!

 

John - you are guilty of this - and you know it!

 

5) I never said that our actions never had consequences - in fact I have cited one consequence of our actions to try to limit CO2 that absolutely appalls and disgusts me. And that is the setting of CO2 targets for Europe such that we meet them by getting other countries to slash and burn Rain Forest so we can convert the Palm Oil they then grow to make Bio Diesel.

 

I get very tired of dealing with the likes of you that when this fact is pointed out to them make silly noises like "well Palm Oil is used as a foodstuff as well, and the wildlife was under threat anyway" - as tho that fact matters a toss! :-S

 

What I want the Alarmist to realise is that by ONLY blaming CO2 for the world ills, the consequences are likely to be MORE catastrophic than allowing CO2 levels to rise!

 

In fact the consequences of increased CO2 levels - based upon the data of the past 17 years is NOT what the catastrophe the Alarmist models predicted.

 

And it is that fact that is having the likes of the CRU at the UoEA, the met office and of course the IPCC having to rethink the models.

 

Thankfully even the mainstream media is now moving away from the slavish adherence to the alarmist viewpoint.

 

Booker in the Torygraph made a good analysis and interestingly Clive James has had a pop at the alarmists. So far from myself as sceptic of the catastrophic belief that is AGW being isolated - more and more are LOOKING at the data and making their own judgements.

 

You seem to be simply regurgitating something you did at A-level or took in whilst watching Al Gores Inconvenient Truth.

 

A film that a UK Judge stated had no less that 9 serious untruths in it and should not be shown to children without these facts being given to them.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html

 

 

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-10-07 5:07 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-10-07 4:41 PM

 

I would like to say that, while I appreciate Frank's ability to see through the muddled arguments from Clive I disassociate myself totally from his inability to accept a joke (from Pelmetman) and his unnecessary comments about other people's wealth or lack of it. What that has to do with their ability (or lack of it) to sustain a logical argument is beyond me. I would never judge anybody by the amount of money they have - only by what they say or do.

 

I agree, but it's nice to wind him up! But it does puzzle me though that a man who is so knowledgeable about every subject under the sun isn't a multi-millionaire, especially as he was in the money business! (lol)

 

And Pharmaceutical development and property development to name just two

 

But Frank would not know reality if it bit him in the ar$e - he just talks with his. Not a bad trick, but you end up wondering where the unpleasant smell emanates from.

 

The product Mintec could be good for you Frank - pure pepperment oil in an enteric coat works well for Irritable Bowel. But take too much and the side effect is Minty Farts.

 

Quite a party trick I can assure you.

 

But with your affliction - it would be a godsend! B-)

 

 

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-07 5:56 PM

1. Playground politics is - to my mind - where a person plays with the words to alter the meaning of what another has said and then uses those altered meanings to attack the person who never said what was inferred in the first place!

 

John - you are guilty of this - and you know it!

 

2. I get very tired of dealing with the likes of you that when this fact is pointed out to them make silly noises like "well Palm Oil is used as a foodstuff as well, and the wildlife was under threat anyway" - as tho that fact matters a toss! :-S

 

3. What I want the Alarmist to realise is that by ONLY blaming CO2 for the world ills, the consequences are likely to be MORE catastrophic than allowing CO2 levels to rise!

 

 

Well, you are good for a laugh - I'll give you that!

 

1. As Frank pointed out, I have not misquoted you - but you do find it inconvenient when people throw your own words back at you!

 

2. You complain, incorrectly, that you are misquoted and then you accuse me of saying this nonsense!

 

3. ....and you go on to accuse over 1300 of the world's top climatologists of also saying something that they have never done! You really take the biscuit, don't you?

 

You keep asking the same questions over and over again - presumably in the hope that people will ignore the fact that answers have already been given. Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they are not there!

 

You continue to misunderstand the word "pollution" and try to discredit my analogy because the example I used is also a carcinogen. Well, try substituting water f or oil and explain that one away! ANYTHING in the wrong place and in the wrong quantities can be regarded as a pollutant. That is the DEFINITION of the word!

 

You also misunderstand what predictions are all about. By their nature, they cannot be 100% certain and they depend on inputs and variables and are subject to levels of probability. As time goes on, models are improved to give more reliable results but to dismiss them because the highest range on one has not been met is sheer nonsense. Where I am, the weather forecast for yesterday said there was a 20% possibility of rain. It rained. Does that mean we are wasting money on supporting the Met Office? presumably in "Clive's World" it does.

 

And you consistently ignore recorded facts. I have posted evidence relating to current surface warming of the land, to deep warming of the oceans, to melting of the polar ice caps, to sea levels rising and so on. These FACTS are inconvenient for you and you dismiss them with glib and nonsensical statements such as a model said they should be higher by now!

 

You misunderstand that climate changes in cycles and think that a short-term reduction (or even reversal) of rates nullifies the medium-term trend to an increase.

 

Finally, you seem to think that because you can increase the quantity of something in a very specific and small-scale way then there are no other influences that we need to be concerned about if that increase occurs on a global scale. Your submarine and market garden examples demonstrate that this problem is far to big for your mind to encompass. I repeat what I said earlier - thank goodness you are not in charge of anything. If that were so, I really would get worried!

[CliveH]

Errr - you changed what i actually said! And cited words i did not use

 

I repeat the questions because you have so far failed to answer then.

 

But then you could not bring yourself to even answer the relative concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere right at the the start so no change from you throughout it seems.

 

As for all those others you claim are still "believers" - well the MSM is waking up to the debacle.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10356276/Climate-change-scientists-are-just-another-pressure-group.html

 

A snippit:-

 

"Since then the IPCC and its five major reports have essentially been shaped by a surprisingly small, close-knit group of scientists, all similarly dedicated to the cause. They have been determined not just to assemble all the evidence they could find to support their theory, however dubious it might be (as in the case of that notorious “hockey stick” graph); but, as we saw from the Climategate emails, to deride or ignore any that contradicted it.

 

In years to come this will be looked back on as the most astonishing example in history of how the prestige of “science” can be used to promote a particular belief system, in this case with the aid of those skewed computer models that can be seen ever more clearly not to accord with the observed evidence."

 

...................

 

 

A good example of peoples analysis of the Alarmists was a comment i heard a while back

 

"Yes - the planet does have a potential problem with emissions, but the data indicates this problem is akin to a "nosebleed" whereas the "cure" proposed by the Alarmists is a tourniquet round the planets neck"

 

As for my questions of you - I have asked repeatedly for a comment from you on the stupidity of Europe having a CO2 quota such that we have to get other countries to slash and burn their indigenous rain forests so we can import the Palm Oil they produce. The Knock on effect on that environment is truly horrendous and it is all done via the belief system born of the Alarmist Hype.

 

Answer me honestly John, if you can, what are your views on this?

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-10-07 5:21 PM

 

But retail is very much like you Frank - bit of a Dinosaur. (lol)

 

 

Oh dear, wrong again Clive!

 

http://goo.gl/U9vG3O

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Ps How's your advice about not buying Royal Mail shares holding up? ;-)

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-08 11:52 AM

 

1. ......you could not bring yourself to even answer the relative concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere right at the the start so no change from you throughout it seems.

 

2. As for my questions of you - I have asked repeatedly for a comment from you on the stupidity of Europe having a CO2 quota such that we have to get other countries to slash and burn their indigenous rain forests so we can import the Palm Oil they produce. The Knock on effect on that environment is truly horrendous and it is all done via the belief system born of the Alarmist Hype.

 

Answer me honestly John, if you can, what are your views on this?

 

So much nonsense but once again I will pick out the most nonsensical among them.

 

1. Your question about how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere displays more than anything else how you misunderstand the whole thing. It was clearly asked in the hope that others reading this would say "that's not much, so what's the problem". It was a silly question so it deserved to be ignored. What is important is not that the concentration in the atmosphere is around a third of one percent. What is important is the effect that amount has on us and how much it has increased or decreased over time. Thus the significant figure is the 20% MEASURED increase over the past 50 years and how this is effecting the behaviour of the climate machine. To use a simple analogy, we all have many minute trace elements in our bodies. They are essential to life but too much of them can have fatal consequences.

 

2. I haven't noticed that question before but since you ask it, I believe that the quotas are nonsense - so that is at least one thing we can agree on. However, I have never said that the human response to climate change is always sensible and you cannot justify ignoring the whole problem because of one bad measure. And I note you are still referring to the findings of over 1300 of the world's top climate scientists as "Alarmist". Silly man.

 

I also note that your "evidence" is now reduced to an opinion column in the Daily Telegraph and a comment you heard a while ago - was it in the local pub by any chance? Or perhaps the back of a taxi? (lol)

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-10-08 11:56 AM

Oh dear, wrong again Clive!

 

http://goo.gl/U9vG3O

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Ps How's your advice about not buying Royal Mail shares holding up? ;-)

 

I don't profess to know anything about the world of business but reading your link made me realise that as a micro-scientist, Clive seems to have trouble with anything on a global scale. :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-10-08 12:18 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-10-08 11:56 AM

Oh dear, wrong again Clive!

 

http://goo.gl/U9vG3O

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Ps How's your advice about not buying Royal Mail shares holding up? ;-)

 

I don't profess to know anything about the world of business but reading your link made me realise that as a micro-scientist, Clive seems to have trouble with anything on a global scale. :-D

 

What else would a CEO of a retail business say? ;-).....................they're hardly going to dis their own business *-).............

 

Or as they call it in the trade ;-)..............."Doing a Ratner" (lol) (lol) (lol)

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-10-08 11:56 AM

 

CliveH - 2013-10-07 5:21 PM

 

But retail is very much like you Frank - bit of a Dinosaur. (lol)

 

 

Oh dear, wrong again Clive!

 

http://goo.gl/U9vG3O

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Ps How's your advice about not buying Royal Mail shares holding up? ;-)

 

You do make me laugh Frank - like a group of "Global Retail Bosses" would say any different!

 

Frankly Frank! - who are you trying to kid!

 

RM shares - for you I would recommend them - the clapped out business model and liabilities are right up your street! (lol) (lol) (lol)

[CliveH]

John 47 - 2013-10-08 12:18 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-10-08 11:56 AM

Oh dear, wrong again Clive!

 

http://goo.gl/U9vG3O

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Ps How's your advice about not buying Royal Mail shares holding up? ;-)

 

I don't profess to know anything about the world of business but reading your link made me realise that as a micro-scientist, Clive seems to have trouble with anything on a global scale. :-D

 

OH dear - another Ad Hom because John is caught out when asked a simply question - you lack the ability to deal with anything in depth John.

 

As for the Global/Micro issue - not very bright are you John.

 

When you are trying to be clever - in the real world (for you john - that is "global") try looking at what industry is saying about the stupidity of Carbon Taxes:-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10358461/Carbon-tax-too-expensive-says-industry.html

 

What is it about the "tourniquet round the neck of the planet to cure a nose bleed" analogy that you fail to appreciate?

 

*-)