Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:05:06 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going through
a phase of global warming that is in perfect line with previous
cycles.

You are deluded. I asked you to present evidence, and you linked to a graph
that shows nothing of the sort.

Then you have strange eyesight. Perhaps you would like to explain how
the graph shows that we are *not* near the peak of a regular cycle.

--
Cynic

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:31:00 +0100, The Magpie
wrote:

Show me that any of the above statements are factually incorrect.

I prefer Occum's razor.

Occam's Razor. After William of Occam.

OK, thanks for the spelling correction.

Global warming has occured 5 times in recorded history

Wrong. Global warming has never occurred in recorded history. Cooling
has - when there were mega-volcanoes.

Good Grief! There has been cycles of warming and cooling.

in a regular cyclical pattern.

Wrong. There is no cyclic pattern of terrestrial climate. There are
however several pericycles which have an effect on climate.

I ask any objective reader to look at the graphs I posted a link to
(which I do not believe are in dispute), and decide for themselves
whether they show a regular cyclical pattern of warming and cooling or
not.

Perhaps "The Magpie" would like to dispute that there is a regular
cyclical pattern of day and night as well?

--
Cynic

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:05:06 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going
through a phase of global warming that is in perfect line with
previous cycles.

You are deluded. I asked you to present evidence, and you linked to
a graph that shows nothing of the sort.

Then you have strange eyesight.

No, I think the problem is with your brain, rather than my eyesight.

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:43:39 +0100, Scott
wrote:


What graph are *you* looking at that shows that we have already
reached the previous peaks and should now be well on the downslope?

The one you posted. With a scale which can't show the last hundred years of
data and has lead you to the wrong conclusions.

So you are now saying that it does *not* indicate the opposite of what
I have been saying, but that it is missing the last section of data.

The "last hundred years" is completely insignificant when we are
looking at cycles that last tens of thousands of years. It is like
looking at a single large wave arriving at the shore and deciding that
it indicates the tide is going to be much higher than it was
yesterday.

A hundred years is far too short a time to determine climatic trends -
the trend is lost in the noise. The graph (and the loss of a tiny
fraction at the end is not significant) shows clearly that we are
approaching the peak of previous global average temperatures, but have
not started on the downslope quite yet.

--
Cynic

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Current climate change is utterly unlike any previous change

cough ollocks.

Another idiot pokes his head above the parapet...

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:43:39 +0100, Scott
wrote:


What graph are *you* looking at that shows that we have already
reached the previous peaks and should now be well on the downslope?

The one you posted. With a scale which can't show the last hundred years of
data and has lead you to the wrong conclusions.

So you are now saying that it does *not* indicate the opposite of what
I have been saying, but that it is missing the last section of data.


No it does show the opposite of what you have been claiming, despite missing data.

The "last hundred years" is completely insignificant when we are
looking at cycles that last tens of thousands of years.

A one hundred year spike would stick out like a saw thumb, I don't see that in
the past, but I do know the current trend does exactly that.



A hundred years is far too short a time to determine climatic trends -
the trend is lost in the noise.

So the spike in CO2 over the last 100 years is lost in the noise is it? You
don't half talk some tripe when it comes to climate change.

The graph (and the loss of a tiny
fraction at the end is not significant) shows clearly that we are
approaching the peak of previous global average temperatures, but have
not started on the downslope quite yet.


It does not you should get your eyes tested!

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

On 4 Jul, 21:22, Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 20:33:21 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

You're just determined to believe it even though you admit the
evidence says the opposite.
It does nothing of the sort. How can I help it if you are too stupid to
understand what is obvious to anyone with any scientific training? I expect
you watched Martin Durkin's idiotic documentary on the telly and believed
it.

I prefer Occum's razor. Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going through
a phase of global warming that is in perfect line with previous
cycles. The previous cycles were obviously not caused by man's
activities. I am now being told that our activities over the past few
hundred years is responsible for the present cycle that began many
thousands of years ago.

Show me that any of the above statements are factually incorrect.

--
Cynic

Believe what you want; it's exciting watching bits of America being
obliterated by storms. The video of the folk of New Orleans saying
'healp us' and holding up 'send fried chicken' placards still makes me
larf. Personally I love global warming, it makes for great
entertainment!!! I live 1000 feet above sea-level; I can enjoy seeing
you guys getting flooded till the cows come home.

It's just a pity they don't also show footage of said people sitting
in a rescue centre saying 'no, the climatologists are still wrong'.
I'd **** myself.

Please continue ignoring these 'scientists'.

Yours truly,

Osama.

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

On 4 Jul, 22:05, "Pyriform" wrote:
Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 20:33:21 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

You're just determined to believe it even though you admit the
evidence says the opposite.

It does nothing of the sort. How can I help it if you are too stupid
to understand what is obvious to anyone with any scientific
training? I expect you watched Martin Durkin's idiotic documentary
on the telly and believed it.

I prefer Occum's razor.

That's the wrong make, and yours is clearly blunt.



He actually meant Benford's Law of Controversy.

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

In article , cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 20:33:21 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

You're just determined to believe it even though you admit the
evidence says the opposite.

It does nothing of the sort. How can I help it if you are too stupid to
understand what is obvious to anyone with any scientific training? I expect
you watched Martin Durkin's idiotic documentary on the telly and believed
it.

I prefer Occum's razor. Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going through
==============

I think not.

a phase of global warming that is in perfect line with previous
cycles. The previous cycles were obviously not caused by man's
activities. I am now being told that our activities over the past few
hundred years is responsible for the present cycle that began many
thousands of years ago.

Show me that any of the above statements are factually incorrect.



--
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

"CheekyMonkey" wrote in message
...


: I've noticed that too. The smaller TVs tend to use much higher wattage
: in the CRT version compared to the LCD, but when you compare bigger sets
: the differences are much smaller.

our 32" LCD uses 1W more (when in use) than our previous 24" CRT and
considerably less (1W) when turned off/standby.