Food for Thought From a Meteorologist!

Status
Not open for further replies.

---Nemo---

Striker
A further response from Vincent. I have copies of all references and graphs if required.

Dear Nemo

I suppose I had better reply and give references (attached) as he wants them.

1. It does seem that the stratosphere has stopped cooling. See attachment (Hadleyradiosurf). This is not predicted by the models.

2.The same graph shows there has been no warming since 1998 and is currently cooling. Please note these diagrams are UK Crown copyright and you are supposed to ask their permission to reproduce them.


3. The adjusted MSU when compared with the models show that the models are wrong (Douglassmod attached) for atmospheric temperature

4. Models do not work and have never predicted successfully any future climate. The IPCC admit they are merely "projections". Whatever opinions are expressed by any "critique".
.
5. Simulations are relatively easy; just adjust the frequently vaguely known parameters. The example quoted omits the most important influence on the climate ; the ocean oscillations, particularly El Niño.

6. The periodicity of global temperature is evident from the many reliable local temperature records and in corrected records from advanced nations. I attach the records from the USA (TEMPUSAGISS) and China (TEMPCHINA). They correlate with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index.

7. There is evidence that increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature. There are many references, so please follow them. A recent example you would not know about it that this is true from the recent fluctuation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

8. the climate is chaotic and it is impossible to provide reliable predictions more than a week or two ahead. Weather forecasts can be checked to see if they are true. The IPCC "projections" are always so far ahead few will ever discover that they are all wrong. Forecasts beyond a few weeks are simply impossible.

9. The "flat earth" theory which claims that the energy arriving "balances" the energy leaving, is nonsense. There is no part of the earth where the energy exchange is ever "balanced" and the thermal capacity of the earth is such that large overall imbalances one way or another can exist for very long and shorter periods, as geologists well know. The use of "averages" of all atmospheric parameters in models cannot be justified. Most are pure guesses. With others, non-linear mathematics require the use of distribution curves, not arithmetical averages. All of the distribution curves are skewed. Day and night, the seasons, latitude, all have quite different energy relationships, incapable of being simply averaged.

Since all models are based on this false theory, no model can be considered.
reliable.

Hope this helps.
I've just read this on a Greenpeace site and couldn't help thinking what role the drunk scientists and economists are playing in this.



"There is still time but it is indeed getting very late. Ominously, the climate is changing faster than we imagined and impacts coming earlier than were predicted. The costs of adaptation to inevitable changes in the next decade or so are already staggering. Sober scientists and economists are raising alarm bells that can be ignored only at great peril to us all."



Gan on somebody and tell us it's not funny!​
Despite the changes happening faster than they imagined "There is still time". Now that's what I call a precise prediction and what a stroke of luck, still time to donate. :lol:
 

Floyd

Midfield
I havent missed the point, you have named someone who you think is the "head honcho" of climate science, yet have missed the point that he is a retired scientist who's work leans towards the effects on humans that climate change has, has been wrong in the past with his claims of a new ice age, and has no peer reviewed scientific papers which support the sceptic argument. The fact that you think there is a "head honcho" on climate science displays that you do not have any grasp of the structure of the scientific community. He isnt even an anti global warming scientist, he has argued for over 40 years that global warming exists and was one of the first to do so (which incidentally is the reason he was referred to as the father of climate science, but you already know that, don't you? Do you?

Rather than just saying Bryson is the head honcho, point me in the direction of some of his research which supports AGW.

David Bellamy got out of his depth and apologies for the complete and utter inaccuracies in his article. Do you know that? He is a Professor of Botany, not a climate scientist, i'm a little surprised that you have used him as part of you argument, even by your efforts, that is poor.


"Proof" Nemo, you've hit the nail on the head right there. Evidence is numerous, but absolute proof, which many sceptics demand, is not really possible, as you have said. There is no "proof" in science, that is a property of mathematics.

Joe this does really read like someone wanting to have his cake and eat it. I said that there are many scientists who disagree with AGW who it is impossible to smear as being in the pay of the oil companies u asked me to name names and I did. U then disregard them as one who isn't a "climate" scientist and one who, ok, is a climate scientist but and has no "peer reviewed scientific papers" (a claim I find strange considering the references in the text I posted). If u'd put these as caveats in ur original demand that I name names then I'd have come up with this lot: -
Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center; UN IPCC scientist (!) Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University...

Please show me where I stated that Bryson is an "anti global warming scientist". He most certainly isn't but he most certainly ISan anti Anthropogenic global warming scientist and if u are prepared to be so dismissive of the views of the "father of climate science", then so be it, ur mind is obviously completely closed on the subject.

The openess of ur mind isn't the point in contention however, what is in contention is the oft stated fact that there is some sort of scientific consensus on a) global warming and b) anthropogenic global warming. Whilst I am prepared to concede there is evidence climate change may be happening THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on AGW. None, zip, nada. Lots and lots and lots of reputable members of the scientific community do not believe it is happening.

The ability of the AGW proponents to turn arguments on their heads never ceases to amaze me and 2 examples of this are in ur response here. It really sticks in my craw to have an AGW believer bang on about peer review. One of the basic tenets of the scientific method is that work should be reproducible by other scientists. In order for climate scientists' work to be reproduced it is necessary for their data and the computer programs which transform it into results to be freely available. There are many instances of climate scientists refusing to release data, or "losing" it. This has happened with prominent scientists and key scientific papers. So some of the most important scientific work of recent years - work which underpins the IPCC process and the doom-laden results which it announces to the world - is not capable of being replicated. A reputable scientific body would disassociate itself from suspect papers of this kind. The IPCC embraces them.

Then there is ur assertion that "many sceptics demand" "absolute proof". It is just this assertion by AGW proponents and the IPCC - that the proof IS absolute t- hat the sceptics rail against. It is this belief that they - and Al Gore - know the "truth" and that anyone who argues otherwise is either a) a complete idiot or b) even if they aren't idiots are obviously in the pay of big business / oil companies, that sceptics come up against every time they try and argue the "proof". OK, not so much on this thread I grant u, but certainly on on other threads on this subject it is easy to see the puerile insults and mud that gets slung from the AGW fascists. As an aside, whilst they seem very capable of dishing it out they're not very good at taking it. I think that it is evidential from posts on this very board that the vast majority of AGW believers honestly believe that there is incontravertible evidence, proof if u like, that man made climate change is happening. I happen to disagree and calling me and others idiots simply doesn't wash I'm afraid.

Finally Joe after crossing swords many times on this issue I can agree with u on something. As u state "proof" is indeed a property of mathematics and whilst, of course, there is proof in science too, I get where ur coming from. That really is what I have been saying since my first post on this subject.
 

Pancho

Striker
Staff member
Well thanks a lot for putting me back on your mailing list but don't judge a book by its cover! :):)
As has been pointed out by another poster on here, this can be one of my many failings.

However, at least you can say by starting this thread you have learned something.

It would appear that you've got the quote button sorted.

;)
 
T

Tony

Guest
I havent missed the point, you have named someone who you think is the "head honcho" of climate science, yet have missed the point that he is a retired scientist who's work leans towards the effects on humans that climate change has, has been wrong in the past with his claims of a new ice age, and has no peer reviewed scientific papers which support the sceptic argument. The fact that you think there is a "head honcho" on climate science displays that you do not have any grasp of the structure of the scientific community. He isnt even an anti global warming scientist, he has argued for over 40 years that global warming exists and was one of the first to do so (which incidentally is the reason he was referred to as the father of climate science, but you already know that, don't you? Do you?

Rather than just saying Bryson is the head honcho, point me in the direction of some of his research which supports AGW.

David Bellamy got out of his depth and apologies for the complete and utter inaccuracies in his article. Do you know that? He is a Professor of Botany, not a climate scientist, i'm a little surprised that you have used him as part of you argument, even by your efforts, that is poor.


"Proof" Nemo, you've hit the nail on the head right there. Evidence is numerous, but absolute proof, which many sceptics demand, is not really possible, as you have said. There is no "proof" in science, that is a property of mathematics.

Joe this does really read like someone wanting to have his cake and eat it. I said that there are many scientists who disagree with AGW who it is impossible to smear as being in the pay of the oil companies u asked me to name names and I did. U then disregard them as one who isn't a "climate" scientist and one who, ok, is a climate scientist but and has no "peer reviewed scientific papers" (a claim I find strange considering the references in the text I posted). If u'd put these as caveats in ur original demand that I name names then I'd have come up with this lot: -
Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center; UN IPCC scientist (!) Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University...

Please show me where I stated that Bryson is an "anti global warming scientist". He most certainly isn't but he most certainly ISan anti Anthropogenic global warming scientist and if u are prepared to be so dismissive of the views of the "father of climate science", then so be it, ur mind is obviously completely closed on the subject.

The openess of ur mind isn't the point in contention however, what is in contention is the oft stated fact that there is some sort of scientific consensus on a) global warming and b) anthropogenic global warming. Whilst I am prepared to concede there is evidence climate change may be happening THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on AGW. None, zip, nada. Lots and lots and lots of reputable members of the scientific community do not believe it is happening.

The ability of the AGW proponents to turn arguments on their heads never ceases to amaze me and 2 examples of this are in ur response here. It really sticks in my craw to have an AGW believer bang on about peer review. One of the basic tenets of the scientific method is that work should be reproducible by other scientists. In order for climate scientists' work to be reproduced it is necessary for their data and the computer programs which transform it into results to be freely available. There are many instances of climate scientists refusing to release data, or "losing" it. This has happened with prominent scientists and key scientific papers. So some of the most important scientific work of recent years - work which underpins the IPCC process and the doom-laden results which it announces to the world - is not capable of being replicated. A reputable scientific body would disassociate itself from suspect papers of this kind. The IPCC embraces them.

Then there is ur assertion that "many sceptics demand" "absolute proof". It is just this assertion by AGW proponents and the IPCC - that the proof IS absolute t- hat the sceptics rail against. It is this belief that they - and Al Gore - know the "truth" and that anyone who argues otherwise is either a) a complete idiot or b) even if they aren't idiots are obviously in the pay of big business / oil companies, that sceptics come up against every time they try and argue the "proof". OK, not so much on this thread I grant u, but certainly on on other threads on this subject it is easy to see the puerile insults and mud that gets slung from the AGW fascists. As an aside, whilst they seem very capable of dishing it out they're not very good at taking it. I think that it is evidential from posts on this very board that the vast majority of AGW believers honestly believe that there is incontravertible evidence, proof if u like, that man made climate change is happening. I happen to disagree and calling me and others idiots simply doesn't wash I'm afraid.

Finally Joe after crossing swords many times on this issue I can agree with u on something. As u state "proof" is indeed a property of mathematics and whilst, of course, there is proof in science too, I get where ur coming from. That really is what I have been saying since my first post on this subject.
The best post in the thread by far. Congratulations to you sir. You have said succinctly what I have been trying to say for years on this board and on this subject.
 
T

Tony

Guest
Spoke too soon.;)
Seriously! Are we to understand from that remark that you disagree with my opinion regarding the excellence of Floyd's post?

Again very seriously, (because this is important), if that is the case, in what way do you disagree?
 
Seriously! Are we to understand from that remark that you disagree with my opinion regarding the excellence of Floyd's post?

Again very seriously, (because this is important), if that is the case, in what way do you disagree?
no, he was taking the piss about your quoting :lol:

someone needs to plant 24 trees to offset the electricity needed to generate this thread anarl
 

Medulla

Striker
1. It does seem that the stratosphere has stopped cooling. See attachment (Hadleyradiosurf). This is not predicted by the models.
The graph he shows does not by any means prove this; no figures on statistical significance are reported which are necessary to determine whether cooling is continuing. Viewing the whole pattern of data and fitting a trend-line to it would, I'm confident, result in a steady cooling trend.

In fact, from the very people producing that graph: "The zonally averaged trends show that the maximum warming within the troposphere has occurred in the Northern Hemisphere over recent years. Above the troposphere the stratosphere has been cooling. This general pattern matches the expected results of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances, and this has been used to attribute recent climate change to human influences in work carried out at the Met Office Hadley Centre." :cool:

2.The same graph shows there has been no warming since 1998 and is currently cooling. Please note these diagrams are UK Crown copyright and you are supposed to ask their permission to reproduce them.
Why choose 1998? Is it because it was a year in which temperature was anomalously high due to a significantly large El Nino that year, hence making every subsequent year appear to demonstrate 'falling' temperatures despite an actual upwards trend? This trend can be seen by the fact that 2005 is the second warmest year on record after 1998, followed by 2003, 2002, 2004, 2001 as shown in this paper by the (Met Office and Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and in graphs produced through research by GISS Surface Temperature Analysis - NASA and this recent piece of peer-reviewed published research.

A good approximation of the data, which marks on both the period of the El Nino and the correlated 'spike' in temperatures in 1998 that resulted, which makes Dr Gray's choice of reference to conclude 'falling' temperature dubious:


3. The adjusted MSU when compared with the models show that the models are wrong (Douglassmod attached) for atmospheric temperature
Co-author on that paper is one Fred Singer who's financial ties to the fossil-fuel industry have been well documented. However, beyond this, the paper cited received significant criticism here, arguing that there is no clear model-data discrepancy when systematic uncertainties in data and models are better accounted for, as shown in this 2007 paper by 10 researchers from the Hadley Centre for Climate Change and the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison in the USA.

4. Models do not work and have never predicted successfully any future climate. The IPCC admit they are merely "projections". Whatever opinions are expressed by any "critique".
Well as 'successful' is entirely subjective, this provides an easy get-out. However, no comment was made on the performance of the model produced in 1988 and evaluated in the 2006 Hansen et al paper (PNAS), from which the graph was produced.

Most-likely modelled increase: 0.24+/- 0.06 deg C per decade
Observed increase: 0.24 (+/- 0.07) (station data) or 0.21 (+/- 0.06) deg C per decade (Land+Ocean data)

I'd leave judgement over how successful that is to others.

Moreover, Dr Gray raised his criticism about no successful predictions ever deriving from models (page 81, comment #8-712) whilst he was reviewer on the IPCC report, and was pointed in the direction of Figure 1 of Chapter 1 of the IPCC report for an example comparing projections from 1990, 1996 and 2001 with observed temperatures.

These points address the following comment:

8. the climate is chaotic and it is impossible to provide reliable predictions more than a week or two ahead. Weather forecasts can be checked to see if they are true. The IPCC "projections" are always so far ahead few will ever discover that they are all wrong. Forecasts beyond a few weeks are simply impossible.
--------
5. Simulations are relatively easy; just adjust the frequently vaguely known parameters. The example quoted omits the most important influence on the climate ; the ocean oscillations, particularly El Niño.
I'm not sure if this comment is in reference to the success of the 1988 temperature predictions, but the point about simulation being easy is unclear. Taken literally, it is correct (I can simulate Bob Dylan in the car;)). Simulating well however, is manifestly not, and the measure of this is concordance of the climate models with observed data on, say, patterns of precipitation or global temperature.

If models can successfully reproduce the pattern observed in the past then there can be reasonable confidence that it is a good model (not perfect however, and always open to correction and improvement with developing knowledge of climate dynamics). The ability to model data collected in years subsequent to its creation, as in the examples cited, only adds to their utility and climatologist's confidence.

6. The periodicity of global temperature is evident from the many reliable local temperature records and in corrected records from advanced nations. I attach the records from the USA (TEMPUSAGISS) and China (TEMPCHINA). They correlate with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index.
Is he saying the climate is merely following a natural cycle? If so: peer reviewed research that illustrates this purported correlation and bolsters this theory?

7. There is evidence that increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature. There are many references, so please follow them. A recent example you would not know about it that this is true from the recent fluctuation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The point in bold makes no sense as far as I can tell(?).

But I think his basic claim is that temperature leads and CO2 'lags' rather than the converse, presumably implied to be the 'orthodox' position. However this is somewhat disingenuous and has been dealt with by climate scientists (Joe touched upon it earlier in response to Nemo's query); according to the records, temperature did increase first which then caused CO2 release, though this CO2 itself effects subsequent temperature increase and hence CO2 is both a cause and effect.

As if a fire was melting a plastic petrol canister - the fire causes the release in petrol, though the petrol causes a larger fire and more likelihood of other canisters being melted, petrol being released, greater fire and so on. I'm sure it's obvious why saying the fire is the cause of the situation is misleading, and hence why it's vital to stop throwing on more petrol (i.e. releasing CO2).

One final point: Though I'm happy to read a response, I've taken up these points as best I can given that I am - nor is Dr Gray - a climate modeller and a number of technical claims he makes I can't cast a critical eye over. I do know, however, that those with the expertise will critique the theories and models that he criticises because of the standards inherent in the scientific method; rigorous peer review, the desire to uphold the repute of the journal, open peer commentary and - in the case of research into climate change - further critical debate and classification of the quality of the evidence within the IPCC process.

Has Dr Gray lost faith in the scientific method so much that he has taken to trying to defeat a layman on a football messageboard? Would his time not be better spent debating these points in the literature, putting his critiques forward for scrutiny by experts to push forward science and afford his views more credibility?
 
Last edited:
T

Tony

Guest
The graph he shows does not by any means prove this; no figures on statistical significance are reported which are necessary to determine whether cooling is continuing. Viewing the whole pattern of data and fitting a trend-line to it would, I'm confident, result in a steady cooling trend.

In fact, from the very people producing that graph: "The zonally averaged trends show that the maximum warming within the troposphere has occurred in the Northern Hemisphere over recent years. Above the troposphere the stratosphere has been cooling. This general pattern matches the expected results of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances, and this has been used to attribute recent climate change to human influences in work carried out at the Met Office Hadley Centre." :cool:

Why choose 1998? Is it because it was a year in which temperature was anomalously high due to a significantly large El Nino that year, hence making every subsequent year appear to demonstrate 'falling' temperatures despite an actual upwards trend? This trend can be seen by the fact that 2005 is the second warmest year on record after 1998, followed by 2003, 2002, 2004, 2001 as shown in this paper by the (Met Office and Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and in graphs produced through research by GISS Surface Temperature Analysis - NASA and this recent piece of peer-reviewed published research.

A good approximation of the data, which marks on both the period of the El Nino and the correlated 'spike' in temperatures in 1998 that resulted, which makes Dr Gray's choice of reference to conclude 'falling' temperature dubious:


Co-author on that paper is one Fred Singer who's financial ties to the fossil-fuel industry have been well documented. However, beyond this, the paper cited received significant criticism here, arguing that there is no clear model-data discrepancy when systematic uncertainties in data and models are better accounted for, as shown in this 2007 paper by 10 researchers from the Hadley Centre for Climate Change and the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison in the USA.

Well as 'successful' is entirely subjective, this provides an easy get-out. However, no comment was made on the performance of the model produced in 1988 and evaluated in the 2006 Hansen et al paper (PNAS), from which the graph was produced.

Most-likely modelled increase: 0.24+/- 0.06 deg C per decade
Observed increase: 0.24 (+/- 0.07) (station data) or 0.21 (+/- 0.06) deg C per decade (Land+Ocean data)

I'd leave judgement over how successful that is to others.

Moreover, Dr Gray raised his criticism about no successful predictions ever deriving from models (page 81, comment #8-712) whilst he was reviewer on the IPCC report, and was pointed in the direction of Figure 1 of Chapter 1 of the IPCC report for an example comparing projections from 1990, 1996 and 2001 with observed temperatures.

These points address the following comment:


--------
I'm not sure if this comment is in reference to the success of the 1988 temperature predictions, but the point about simulation being easy is unclear. Taken literally, it is correct (I can simulate Bob Dylan in the car;)). Simulating well however, is manifestly not, and the measure of this is concordance of the climate models with observed data on, say, patterns of precipitation or global temperature.

If models can successfully reproduce the pattern observed in the past then there can be reasonable confidence that it is a good model (not perfect however, and always open to correction and improvement with developing knowledge of climate dynamics). The ability to model data collected in years subsequent to its creation, as in the examples cited, only adds to their utility and climatologist's confidence.

Is he saying the climate is merely following a natural cycle? If so: peer reviewed research that illustrates this purported correlation and bolsters this theory?

The point in bold makes no sense as far as I can tell(?).

But I think his basic claim is that temperature leads and CO2 'lags' rather than the converse, presumably implied to be the 'orthodox' position. However this is somewhat disingenuous and has been dealt with by climate scientists (Joe touched upon it earlier in response to Nemo's query); according to the records, temperature did increase first which then caused CO2 release, though this CO2 itself effects subsequent temperature increase and hence CO2 is both a cause and effect.

As if a fire was melting a plastic petrol canister - the fire causes the release in petrol, though the petrol causes a larger fire and more likelihood of other canisters being melted, petrol being released, greater fire and so on. I'm sure it's obvious why saying the fire is the cause of the situation is misleading, and hence why it's vital to stop throwing on more petrol (i.e. releasing CO2).

One final point: Though I'm happy to read a response, I've taken up these points as best I can given that I am - nor is Dr Gray - a climate modeller and a number of technical claims he makes I can't cast a critical eye over. I do know, however, that those with the expertise will critique the theories and models that he criticises because of the standards inherent in the scientific method; rigorous peer review, the desire to uphold the repute of the journal, open peer commentary and - in the case of research into climate change - further critical debate and classification of the quality of the evidence within the IPCC process.

Has Dr Gray lost faith in the scientific method so much that he has taken to trying to defeat a layman on a football messageboard? Would his time not be better spent debating these points in the literature, putting his critiques forward for scrutiny by experts to push forward science and afford his views more credibility?
FAO Nemo. This is why I was surprised that Vincent gave you permission to publish his responses to you on this Board. Ignorance is bliss but outright ignorant behaviour is inexcusable no matter how well it's disguised as educated disdain.
 
T

Tony

Guest
no, he was taking the piss about your quoting :lol:

someone needs to plant 24 trees to offset the electricity needed to generate this thread anarl
OH!

You try quoting Floyd's post then and compare the result to mine. You just contributed a branch to the thread for no purpose as far as I can see but no matter if it made you feel good. :lol:
 

Medulla

Striker
FAO Nemo. This is why I was surprised that Vincent gave you permission to publish his responses to you on this Board. Ignorance is bliss but outright ignorant behaviour is inexcusable no matter how well it's disguised as educated disdain.
Nemo wasn't responding to Dr Gray's comments, I was. What 'ignorant behaviour' are you referring to?

Have I called anyone a 'pisspot'? Told them to 'piss off'? Made up a nickname like 'Sexual Intellectual' (seriously, what were you on when that seemed a good idea)?
 
T

Tony

Guest
Nemo wasn't responding to Dr Gray's comments, I was. What 'ignorant behaviour' are you referring to?

Have I called anyone a 'pisspot'? Told them to 'piss off'? Made up a nickname like 'Sexual Intellectual' (seriously, what were you on when that seemed a good idea)?
Your disdainful remark at the end of your latest dissertation is what I was referring to. Dr. Gray exhibited unusual courtesy when he gave Nemo permission to publish his replies (greatly to my surprise). He did not deserve the smart ass comment from you, as smart as you might be.

As for your other question, perhaps you have never been provoked enough.
 

Medulla

Striker
Your disdainful remark at the end of your latest dissertation is what I was referring to. Dr. Gray exhibited unusual courtesy when he gave Nemo permission to publish his replies (greatly to my surprise). He did not deserve the smart ass comment from you, as smart as you might be.
I've answered his points at length without wholesale copy-and-pasting and refrained from vulgar insults Tony. I hardly think you're in a position to discuss respect.:lol:

As for your other question, perhaps you have never been provoked enough.
Tony, you'd try a saint.
 
OH!

You try quoting Floyd's post then and compare the result to mine. You just contributed a branch to the thread for no purpose as far as I can see but no matter if it made you feel good. :lol:
you asked a question, I answered it,I realise it's not a process you're familiar with

I live in a country with the very worst emissions per head of population in the world so I'm saying nowt, still if bucknuts are daft enough to buy oil off "us" at $100 a barrel we'll no doubt carry on
 

---Nemo---

Striker
FAO Nemo. This is why I was surprised that Vincent gave you permission to publish his responses to you on this Board. Ignorance is bliss but outright ignorant behaviour is inexcusable no matter how well it's disguised as educated disdain.
I have my doubts that Dr Gray is attempting to defeat anyone in particular, more a case of him holding opposing views to some of the contributors to this thread and when offered the chance to respond he was kind enough to do so.
 

Joe Public

Striker
As for your other question, perhaps you have never been provoked enough.
Please quote the part of this thread in which I have provoked you or used any personal insults toward you. You have done it throught this and all the other threads we have "discussed" this issue on. For a man of your age, who believes he deserves respect, you clearly have none for others.
 
T

Tony

Guest
Please quote the part of this thread in which I have provoked you or used any personal insults toward you. You have done it throught this and all the other threads we have "discussed" this issue on. For a man of your age, who believes he deserves respect, you clearly have none for others.
I have never claimed any moral or otherwise superior position on this board because of my age and prior to your appearance as a contributor I delighted in being treated as an equal with other participants in our enjoyment of being Sunderland supporters. Being involved in the repartee with people much younger than myself was one of the daily joys of my Internet browsing.

But your dismissal of some of my contributiions as being the ramblings of a dribbling old man and enjoinders from you to "get out of the way old man" or words to that effect have not been taken kindly by me. And finally to be told by a self-centred, big-headed 29 year old paper boy from South Shields (who has publicly stated that favourite pastime was playing with his scrotum), that "I have no understanding of climate, environment and anything about the world we live in" who now has the unbelievable arrogance to suggest that he has never insulted me, in my book is sufficient provocation to justify what in my opinion (under the circumstances) was a rather mild rebuke.
 

Joe Public

Striker
I have never claimed any moral or otherwise superior position on this board because of my age and prior to your appearance as a contributor I delighted in being treated as an equal with other participants in our enjoyment of being Sunderland supporters. Being involved in the repartee with people much younger than myself was one of the daily joys of my Internet browsing.

But your dismissal of some of my contributiions as being the ramblings of a dribbling old man and enjoinders from you to "get out of the way old man" or words to that effect have not been taken kindly by me.
Please state where i have done this on this thread. The only time I have became personal with you was in response to some of your rude postings quite some time ago, i learned by my mistakes that personal abuse weakens serious discussion, something which you have still not obviously managed to do.

And finally to be told by a self-centred, big-headed 29 year old paper boy from South Shields

Paper boy. :lol: I employ 7 people and have two businesses, but cheers for more personal abuse, keep it up.

(who has publicly stated that favourite pastime was playing with his scrotum),
Its one of them, perhaps not my favorite though.

"I have no understanding of climate, environment and anything about the world we live in" who now has the unbelievable arrogance to suggest that he has never insulted me, in my book is sufficient provocation to justify what in my opinion (under the circumstances) was a rather mild rebuke.
That was not personal abuse, it was in response to your question about why is it such a bad thing if the earth was warming. If you claim to have a knowledge of the topic any further than the man in the street, then you should certainly know the answer to that most basic question.

Its a shame this thread has ended this way like, you've dragged it down to base level when the going got a little tough.

The shite thing is Tony, is that we would probably get on quite well in real life, I wish you no harm and i very much doubt you are in real life how you come across on here. I sincerely hope i have my mental faculties about me as you do at your age, although i'd hope to try to put them to better use. ;)


Now I have to spend the next 4 hours doing some engineering work before getting up at 7.30am to do my paper round, the joys of being self employed i suppose.
 
T

Tony

Guest
Please state where i have done this on this thread. The only time I have became personal with you was in response to some of your rude postings quite some time ago, i learned by my mistakes that personal abuse weakens serious discussion, something which you have still not obviously managed to do.




Paper boy. :lol: I employ 7 people and have two businesses, but cheers for more personal abuse, keep it up.



Its one of them, perhaps not my favorite though.



That was not personal abuse, it was in response to your question about why is it such a bad thing if the earth was warming. If you claim to have a knowledge of the topic any further than the man in the street, then you should certainly know the answer to that most basic question.

Its a shame this thread has ended this way like, you've dragged it down to base level when the going got a little tough.

The shite thing is Tony, is that we would probably get on quite well in real life, I wish you no harm and i very much doubt you are in real life how you come across on here. I sincerely hope i have my mental faculties about me as you do at your age, although i'd hope to try to put them to better use. ;)


Now I have to spend the next 4 hours doing some engineering work before getting up at 7.30am to do my paper round, the joys of being self employed i suppose.
Lazy bugger! Stopping in bed until half past seven in the morning. Bloody hell, half the day's gone by then! :lol:
 

Floyd

Midfield
Please state where i have done this on this thread. The only time I have became personal with you was in response to some of your rude postings quite some time ago, i learned by my mistakes that personal abuse weakens serious discussion, something which you have still not obviously managed to do.




Paper boy. :lol: I employ 7 people and have two businesses, but cheers for more personal abuse, keep it up.



Its one of them, perhaps not my favorite though.



That was not personal abuse, it was in response to your question about why is it such a bad thing if the earth was warming. If you claim to have a knowledge of the topic any further than the man in the street, then you should certainly know the answer to that most basic question.

Its a shame this thread has ended this way like, you've dragged it down to base level when the going got a little tough.

The shite thing is Tony, is that we would probably get on quite well in real life, I wish you no harm and i very much doubt you are in real life how you come across on here. I sincerely hope i have my mental faculties about me as you do at your age, although i'd hope to try to put them to better use. ;)


Now I have to spend the next 4 hours doing some engineering work before getting up at 7.30am to do my paper round, the joys of being self employed i suppose.
U can tell about the personal abuse Joe, well done mate (I'm not taking the piss by the way).

Also regarding ur point about the way the thread has "ended" it's still been the best yet on the subject. I must say I've thoroughly enjoyed the contributions by Medulla and Vincent Gray, great stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top