Clippo

Petrina needs to clarify the source of this supposed quote in her post urgently to maintain any credibility.
I would also like to ascertain whether the last 2 sentences :-
are her or Derek Smith’s opinions.

(BTW, I tried to search for Prof Derek Smith in various places and there only seem to be 2 in the UK – Cambridge and Univ. of Glamorgan. Neither are involved in climatological work.)
………………….
Although Akria has admirably put down all of YCHTT’s false points, I would like to add more about :-

As a result of a ‘sceptic’ journalist completely misquoting the World Meteorological Organisation, (WMO), and the lie gleefully whizzing around the sceptic blogs, the WMO has issued a clear and unambiguous statement. All of it is relevant and exposes the incorrectness of YCHTT’s understanding of the climate change issue :-

info_44_en.html

First 2 sentences :-

Petrina

Sorry not to wade into this exchange earlier but I have not been around .

The information which I received originated from the South East office of UKIP.
Prof.Derek Smith is a member/supporter of UKIP ,his round robin has gone to all the hierarchy in UKIP and he has asked everyone to pass it on,which I did .

As far as I am concerned this is genuine .
The comments are mine .

youcanhandlethetruth

Clippo has no right to talk about credibility

Don't worry Petrina the good, sane and awake people on this forum believe you !

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Clippo

YCHTT wrote:-
Why ? All I've done is link to internationally recognised facts whereas you have have linked to conspiracy. All your crazy ideas earlier have been thoroughly debunked and you don't like it - a very apt description of 'Inconvenient Truths' in your case.

Petrina,
1. Is this Prof. Smith the one from Cambridge ? e.g. who is he ?
2. Do you believe, without question, every utterance of anybody just because they are a UKIP supporter?

Baron von Lotsov

Show me a climate model that has given accurate long-term predictions. Show me how it predicts the sun's output. Thank you.

__________________
"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

Unionist

Baron, the whole point of my post was to clarify that the Hadley Centre did not appear to have changed its position in the way claimed. I quoted from the most prominent article on its website in order to demonstrate that point.

Petrina still stands by the claim that the Hadley Centre has reversed its position, I note, and thus I would like to see evidence of that claim.

So, for the third time in this thread: I was not arguing about the substantive content of the Hadley Centre's analysis. I was providing information to show that the Hadley Centre did not appear to have changed its position, certainly not in the way claimed. I gave an example to demonstrate that and would like to see if there could be any other explanation of the claim made by Prof. Derek Smith (cited by Petrina).

If the Hadley Centre had reversed its position on climate change it would surely be a point of interest; that is the issue that I was addressing. Whether or not their analysis is correct is irrelevant to the specific point I was trying to make. Thank you.

youcanhandlethetruth

Not only was your hit piece about Singer and Revelle totally innacurate and provenly debunked by The Financial Post, but you've already been banned from this forum.

That's not conspiracy - that's fact.

If that's "crazy" or "conspiracy" then yes you've lost all credibility (not that you had any)

And I don't dislike it - I'm happy about it

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Clippo

YCHTT wrote:-
What on earth has this to do with the subject of this thread ? I was banned for a month, with another, and now I am back. Quite a few other regular posters have also been in that situation.

You're going off into cloud cuckoo land again because your silly conspiracy theories about Revelle / Singer have been exposed as exactly that - silly conspiracy theories.

Come back to reality and supply some 'fact' to demonstrate that, in your implication, the Hadley institute have changed their opinion.
.............................................
BVL wrote:-
You're being simplistic. I am not an expert on climate modelling but I have read extensively in the serious literature that there are quite a few competitive mathematical models now being evaluated. All of them include historical data, where available, for many factors including the the sun's output.
You seem to suffer from the inability to accept that there are specialists in all scientific fields who have almost certainly thought up your points and investigated them long before you have.

Go study the original scientific papers

(I've seen it written, if I could be bothered to rout it out, that climate models are now considered to be very accurate - another false assumption you seem to make that modellers aren't improving all the time.)

Apart from a very, very few scientists (usually from other disciplines than climatology e.g Willie Soon for example), all studies of solar output over the last few decades have shown NO significant changes and thus the current phase of GW is considered by the vast majority to be independent of the Sun's output.

youcanhandlethetruth

"your silly conspiracy theories about Revelle / Singer have been exposed as exactly that"

And the sun doesn't shine........

conspiracy ! conspiracy ! conspiracy ! conspiracy ! conspiracy ! conspiracy !

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Besoeker

I think you made your point very well.
I just hope that you are not holding your breath in expectation of a rational and relevant response.