Blog powered by Typepad

« 'HMS Darbyshire, sails full, guns blazing!' | Main | "Try and look on the bright side of life, de-da, de-da, de-da-de-da-de-da! »

Thursday, 28 September 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hi David

Considering your lack of scientific knowledge, here’s a guide from the Royal Society debunking myths about climate change. See, in particular “misleading argument 3” which is relevant to your fluctuating temp. debate with Mr Bananas. See also “misleading argument 1” to counter your obvious accusation that climate change is some kind of lefty conspiracy.

And here’s the website of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) there’s lots of graphs and things to look at, but reading the words helps too.

See in particular


p.s. I would advise everyone to click David’s link to John Daly’s website – it’s hilarious

YES, YES, YES, do go and read the reply offered under the heading of "misleading argument 3"! I have never read such a list of 'ifs, buts, and maybes', and grudging admissions that previous scientific reports were wrong, and not just a teensy-weensy bit wrong but 100% wrong! Try this one as an example and remember they're talking about a key statistic - the earth's average temperature:

"Some have questioned whether natural temperature variations in the past 1000 years have been greater than those reported in the IPCC 2001 report. For instance, von Storch and others argued in the journal Science that the natural variations in average global temperature over the last 1000 years may have reached one centigrade degree, instead of the 0.5 centigrade degree implied by previous analyses. This conclusion was supported by Moberg and others in a paper in the journal Nature, in which they reported that natural variations in temperature may have reached up to one centigrade degree over periods of centuries during the last 2000 years. But they also pointed out: “We find no evidence for any earlier periods in the last two millennia with warmer conditions then the post-1990 period – in agreement with previous similar studies.” They drew attention to the fact that *models* [my emphasis] show natural factors alone could not be responsible for the recent warming trend.'

And they call that a rebuttal!

Simon is obviously possessed of a good sense of humour if he finds the John Daly site amusing. Mostly what I linked to were the graphs derived from weather station readings. Personally I don't get the joke! But then again, neither do the false alarmists.

I haven't time just now to read more of Simon's recommendations but I enjoyed that first lame effort so much that I really must come back to it even if it comes from an 'intergovernmental agency' - so we can trust that, right?


I know this HAF stuff is fun, you know there are>serious environmental problems that need to be addressed.>Data

· Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
· Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
· Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
· DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
· Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
· Contributes to soil erosion.
· Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
· Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
· Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
· Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
· Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
· Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

David, you big old clown, I've responded under the original post. You appear to be under the impression that I intend to get into an argument with you about whether or not global temperatures are increasing. You are missing my point in spectacular fashion if you think this is the case.

You've never heard of the IPCC have you David?

Scientific knowledge aside, then, general political knowledge is also amiss here.

David, you are uttely unqualified to even express an opinion on this as such expression requires rudimetary understanding of the issues first. You don't have it.

John Daly's site is funny because...oh forget it.


This>chart is hilarious.

It sort of reminds me of a study done in the late 1800’s. At that time for every resident of city there had to be four horses to bring in the items a city needed. Each horse left ten pounds of manure a day, which had to be taken out of the city. It was projected that a normal increase of humans with the intendment increase in horses would by the 1950’s would be producing more horse manure than could be carted out of the cities - and cities would die in their own manure. This was explained with a chart like the one linked with a very sharp spike at the far right end.

The moral is when ever you see a predictive chart like that some is giving you horse manure.

The problem, as anyone in beginning course on research methods will tell you, is that when you have a system with multiple interrelated variables the change in one variable (i.e. surface temperature) will produce changes in the other variables that prevent the spike.

That chart is a warning not of global warming but poor methodology. Of course that does not disprove global warming, just that whoever put that chart together was not on ball.

I also looked at the other links you provided, at best and some are very good, they are discussions of individual parts of our understanding the atmosphere but even together they do not support the global warming theory.

Hank, please, do me a favour! I don't know how to break this to you gently but the last thing I want are *new* sources of misery and worry. I've got 'Barry Bananas' wailing and gnashing his teeth, and now that Simon Metz has lashed out with some flagellation forgetting, presumably, that prophets(!) are supposed to *self* flagellate not go around beating up harmless old men. I never thought to find myself quoting scripture at you, Hank, of all people, but: "Take no thought of the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." I shan't insult you by giving the reference!

Now to Mr. 'Bananas'! I have read your comment on the previous post and have moved the conversation up here because I would like to share some of your, er, mystical thoughts with others. I quote:

"... there is no theoretical conflict between the ice age theory and the global warming theory. They are one and the same."

"... my point above is true regardless of whether or not temperatures are _in fact_ increasing."

"Maybe the temperatures [are] increasing, maybe they aren't. Whatever, it makes no difference to my argument".

"Let me know if you have any questions"

Er, no, Barry, no, but thanks all the same!

Then Simon Metz (he's a wag!), asks me if I've ever heard of the IPCC. As it happens, I have but hitherto I have never bothered to read anything of theirs which was a big mistake. Fortunately Simon saved the day by proffering a paper issued by them admitting, through a welter of coughs, throat-clearings and much shuffling of feet, that they had, actually, in a manner of speaking, so to speak, got a key measurement 100% wrong. Never mind, chaps, 'E' for effort! I expect it was jet-lag from all that travelling to big cities round the world and staying in posh hotels in order to attend all those 'inter-governmental conferences - all of which would, of course, come to an abrupt end were they ever to say, 'sorry, we've been talking bollocks for 40 years'!

David, I have always considered you to be a harmless, whiskey-sodden old reactionary, but up until now I didn't actually think you were stupid.

Is that your response? Really? Quote a few of my sentences without comment? What purpose does that serve?

Do you honestly not get the point? That because the current *theory* on climate change proposes an ice age as a direct result of changes caused increasing temperatures, there has therefore not been any 180-degree theoretical turnaround as you suppose? And that, since we are talking about *theory* (and we necessarily are, since we do not have an ice age to study) it is not necessary to consider whether or not the temperatures are in fact increasing?

Honestly, this is fairly rudimentary stuff. Your original mistake was unfortunate; your subsequent failure to grasp my simple correction nothing short of mystifying; the current manifestation of your mental illness, however, is a danger to those in your immediate proximity. Get some rest, for the love of christ.

Right, no more pissing about! Barry, in my unscientific way I reckon that the earth's temperature fluctuates, sometimes comparatively violently over great swathes of time. This is caused by various natural factors over which Mankind has no control. The notion that impoverishing us all and inflicting a state-run dictatorship in order to shave 0.5 of a degree off the *current* (ie, last 200 years) average temperature is insane for anyone other than a potential dictator and his henchmen and women to contemplate. The rest of us should ignore them and worry about something we can actually affect.

And it's no good you whinge-ing if I quote your strange contradictory sentences - you wrote them!

Oh my god.

David, your entire first paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with *anything* that I've said here. Not one thing.

As for your second: please explain how the quoted sentences of mine are contradictory. I think you will find that they are not.

You really don't get my point, do you? Jesus, I can't make it any simpler. The only reason I keep coming back to this is because I find your current insanity endlessly fascinating.

Barry, you wrote this:
"I'm saying that the hypothesised ice age would have as its direct cause the rise in global temperatures. Roughly speaking, as the planet heats up, the glaciers melt, introducing fresh water into the Gulf Stream, disrupting the oceanic and atmospheric currents that give Europe its relatively temperate climate (i.e. relative to other parts of the globe that lie on the same latitude)."

I wrote this:
"I reckon that the earth's temperature fluctuates, sometimes comparatively violently over great swathes of time. This is caused by various natural factors over which Mankind has no control."

Can you please tell me, apart from my less specific description, what teh difference is between those two paragraphs.

Whilst you do that, allow me to ask you some specific questions. If (and it's a big 'if' because none of the weather stations are providing any evidence for it) the earth is warming and the glaciers melt thus cooling the seas, why would that definitely entail a new ice-age? And do you support the notion that the earth is warming because of Mankind's activities?


My apologies.

Just tying to help.

Have fun!!!!


Can I chip in here? David in your post you posed yourself as question: "why should I accept one scientific theory over the vast majority of the scientific world which says the opposite"? And you offered the answer: "I can, metaphorically, spot a Trot at twenty paces".

This position is fair enough I think. I mean it's a thoroughly braindamaged way of approaching serious issues, but at least we know where we are with it: Your opinions are entirely formed in knee-jerk opposition to the "trots". Certainly this would explain why your opinions are such a hopeless muddle of contradictions and inconsistencies. The trots say "potato", so you work yourself up into a lather, and write a pompous post about how "potahto" is, was, and ever shall be the correct pronunciation.

If only you could leave it at that, instead of pretending that you have even the faintest clue about the relevant science, then these sort of contre-temps could be avoided.

Yes, 'Teabag', you're right. It's the same "brain damaged", "knee-jerk" method that led me to support Margaret Thatcher's economics whilst the overwhelming majority of 'experts', including the 365 economists who wrote to the Times, said, in effect, "The end is nigh!"

And, again, you are right to remind me that if a 'Trot' told me the sun was shining, I'd take an umbrella!

But talking of "the relevant science", by which I mean measured entities, can you see any alarming trends in the weather station reports?

What the-? What happened there?

First you tell me that I have contradicted myself, then you defy me to point out the differences between my statements and yours? Well, which is it?

I think it's pretty rude to insist on asking me questions when you have repeatedly refused to answer mine - especially when your questions are either completely irrelevant to my point, or come loaded with sneaky little strawman words like "definitely" (remember, we're talking theory here, as I've tried to make clear to you).

All this flapping and waving and yet you still have nothing to say about my actual point: THE 180-DEGREE THEORETICAL TURNAROUND YOU TALK ABOUT DOES NOT EXIST. Your weather station reports are neither here nor there, and my thoughts on whether or not the actions of the 6bn+ people on the planet have any significant impact on the earth's atmosphere are irrelevant also.

One more time, David, you tragic buffoon: THE 180-DEGREE THEORETICAL TURNAROUND YOU TALK ABOUT DOES NOT EXIST. Have you anything to say about that?

But it is a *fact* that temperatures fluctuate, not a *theory*. I accept that fact and I also admit that I'm not sure exactly why although I very much doubt the *theory* that it is caused by Mankind.

The point is, 'Bananas', that 40-years ago 'experts' were warning that we should take steps to prevent an imminent ice-age. Now they are telling us to take steps against an imminent heat wave. You may be right that one can lead to the other but, as of this moment, which one is coming next? It's important because I don't know whether to wear my light weight linen suit or get out the heavy worsted!

This is very entertaining David. It's like watching a fight outside a pub.

Yes, I know what you mean, we're taking enormous swings at each other and missing by a mile!

I'm standing here with my chin pointed right at you, begging you to take a swing at it. But you're shouting at some other guy across the street.

The comments to this entry are closed.