"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 4:27 pm, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:38 pm, Dawlish wrote:





On Jul 7, 10:29 am, Natsman wrote:

On 7 July, 09:34, Dawlish wrote:

On Jul 6, 11:05 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

It might be worth the denialist crowd taking a look at this - at
it
will be worth reading for the more sensible contributors to this
newsgroup.

As you read it, not the numbers of scientists involved and the
explanations of why Antarctica has actually cooled.

It's a big report and may take a while to download, but it is
worth
the read:

http://www.scar.org/publications/occ...5_Nov_2009.pdf

Here's a BBC summary:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm

Then deny it, as you will; science will not convince you, I know
that
- but if you do, make sure you include some science in your
reply.

That's why the Antarctic sea Ice extent is the third highest since
satellite record began, Am I missing something here?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes you are missing something completely. The reason is that you
haven't followed the links. When you do, you'll see your answer to
the
question I've asked you 34 times for (IIRC). "Why do you think
variations in Antarctic sea ice is somehow relevant, Lawrence" (35).
Even after all this time and the whole of the Internet to search for
the answer (and it is easy, a child of 8 could easily find it) you
haven't bothered, so you still believe what you did a year ago.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I note that you continue to misuse the term "denialist" which has
connotations of the holocaust. For my part, I prefer the term
"realist", or at a push, "sceptic". As regards your post, the earth
is in no immediate danger from ANY climate change effect, any more
than it has ever been, and certainly not due to the presence of
mankind. It will continue to alternate between warming and cooling,
as it always has done, and this cycle is, has been, and will be
largely driven by the sun. CO2 is a non-runner in the contest of
"suspected" criteria, and those who think otherwise are on an
expensive hiding to nothing. The tables have turned, the public is no
longer "on-side", and the warming agenda is falling at just about
every hurdle. Dawlish, you appear to me to be not a particularly nice
person, but then the alarmists are a blinkered religion, and think
there is a God on their side. Not so.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope. "Denier" appears to elicit those connotations in the minds of
anyone who denies mainstream climate science. Goodness knows why they
make that connection; it's just a way of trying to tar the namer as no-
one who calls someone a denier (for the very good reason that they
deny what is highly likely to happen) ever means any such connotation,
but to be sympathetic to you and other such people's feelings, I use
the word denialist. I hope you appreciate the difference and the fact
that I do that. If you don't; you know what you can do.

Believe what you wish about natural cycles; then try to find a body of
scientists (Jenkins doesn't count, surprisingly) that agree with you.
Good luck trying.

I can assure you that if there's a god on my side, I ain't on hers,
but if she appears, I might change my mind. Other people can make
their minds up about you and have.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your such a charmless fellow aren't you. Terry Tibbs has your number- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Idiot. That's the only description that applies well to you. I reserve
charm and respect for people with intelligence - which is why you
don't get any. Bye.

You mean like you did with Mike and Tudor you pompous coward

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 10:29 am, Natsman wrote:
On 7 July, 09:34, Dawlish wrote:





On Jul 6, 11:05 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

It might be worth the denialist crowd taking a look at this - at it
will be worth reading for the more sensible contributors to this
newsgroup.

As you read it, not the numbers of scientists involved and the
explanations of why Antarctica has actually cooled.

It's a big report and may take a while to download, but it is worth
the read:

http://www.scar.org/publications/occ...5_Nov_2009.pdf

Here's a BBC summary:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm

Then deny it, as you will; science will not convince you, I know
that
- but if you do, make sure you include some science in your reply.

That's why the Antarctic sea Ice extent is the third highest since
satellite record began, Am I missing something here?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes you are missing something completely. The reason is that you
haven't followed the links. When you do, you'll see your answer to the
question I've asked you 34 times for (IIRC). "Why do you think
variations in Antarctic sea ice is somehow relevant, Lawrence" (35).
Even after all this time and the whole of the Internet to search for
the answer (and it is easy, a child of 8 could easily find it) you
haven't bothered, so you still believe what you did a year ago.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I note that you continue to misuse the term "denialist" which has
connotations of the holocaust. For my part, I prefer the term
"realist", or at a push, "sceptic". As regards your post, the earth
is in no immediate danger from ANY climate change effect, any more
than it has ever been, and certainly not due to the presence of
mankind. It will continue to alternate between warming and cooling,
as it always has done, and this cycle is, has been, and will be
largely driven by the sun. CO2 is a non-runner in the contest of
"suspected" criteria, and those who think otherwise are on an
expensive hiding to nothing. The tables have turned, the public is no
longer "on-side", and the warming agenda is falling at just about
every hurdle. Dawlish, you appear to me to be not a particularly nice
person, but then the alarmists are a blinkered religion, and think
there is a God on their side. Not so.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope. "Denier" appears to elicit those connotations in the minds of
anyone who denies mainstream climate science. Goodness knows why they
make that connection; it's just a way of trying to tar the namer as no-
one who calls someone a denier (for the very good reason that they
deny what is highly likely to happen) ever means any such connotation,
but to be sympathetic to you and other such people's feelings, I use
the word denialist. I hope you appreciate the difference and the fact
that I do that. If you don't; you know what you can do.

Believe what you wish about natural cycles; then try to find a body of
scientists (Jenkins doesn't count, surprisingly) that agree with you.
Good luck trying.

I can assure you that if there's a god on my side, I ain't on hers,
but if she appears, I might change my mind. Other people can make
their minds up about you and have.


Oh, you right on plonker.