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

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:49:19 +0100, Scott
wrote:

You stated quite clearly that you could predict rainfall from those 3
factors alone. I hear the sound of moving goalposts.

Not unless you've been moving them.

BTW - isn't there another factor that needs to be considered as well?

What else does the met office use?

Relief.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:49:19 +0100, Scott
wrote:

You stated quite clearly that you could predict rainfall from those 3
factors alone. I hear the sound of moving goalposts.

Not unless you've been moving them.

BTW - isn't there another factor that needs to be considered as well?

What else does the met office use?

Relief.


Not a variable.

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Now, stop avoiding it and deal with the actual point.

I did, way back, you posted bull****, I corrected you. You didn't like
it so you're ****ing and moaning.

You never even *tried* to deal with the issue. You said - to
paraphrase your diatribe - "Yer wrong ya know. Scientists said so,
they did. Nyah, nyah, nayh!" At which point I merely mentioned that
your response was utter bull**** and that every reputable climate
scientist in the world said my comment was *right*.

That was when you started on this crap. And since then, all you have
done is complain that I have not named every reputable climate
scientist on the whole ****ing planet. Not once - not even for an
instant - have you actually returned to the point.

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:59:25 +0100, Scott
wrote:

You stated quite clearly that you could predict rainfall from those 3
factors alone. I hear the sound of moving goalposts.

Not unless you've been moving them.

BTW - isn't there another factor that needs to be considered as well?

What else does the met office use?

Relief.

Not a variable.

You don't know the difference between a factor and a variable?

There is yet another factor that you need to know as well. At which
point you can make some sort of *short term* prediction. Other things
are necessary to factor in if you want to do any better though.

--
Cynic

The Magpie wrote:

You never even *tried* to deal with the issue. You said - to
paraphrase your diatribe - "Yer wrong ya know. Scientists said so,
they did. Nyah, nyah, nayh!" At which point I merely mentioned that
your response was utter bull**** and that every reputable climate
scientist in the world said my comment was *right*.

AKA

"Yer wrong ya know. Scientists said so, they did. Nyah, nyah, nayh!"

Whereas all I did was tyo point out that your claim that climate change
today is different from anythign ever seen before is ********.

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

You never even *tried* to deal with the issue. You said - to
paraphrase your diatribe - "Yer wrong ya know. Scientists said so,
they did. Nyah, nyah, nayh!" At which point I merely mentioned that
your response was utter bull**** and that every reputable climate
scientist in the world said my comment was *right*.

AKA

"Yer wrong ya know. Scientists said so, they did. Nyah, nyah, nayh!"

Whereas all I did was tyo point out that your claim that climate
change today is different from anythign ever seen before is ********.

And in attempting to prove your point, you dragged up a literature review on
abrupt climate change, published more than 8 years ago, that you thought was
"in the process of being published", and which actually contains the words:
"The general picture summarized here roughly reflects the present consensus
gained from studies of ice cores, deep ocean cores, and terrestrial and lake
sediments around the world. This consensus is itself subject to sudden jumps
when new data are presented, or as more thorough reanalyses of previous data
come forth; for this reason, our review is liable to be significantly out of
date within only a few weeks or months of being written!"

Accordingly, I pointed you to the much more recent and thorough literature
review of the IPCC FAR, which states quite clearly that present warming is
proceeding at an unprecedented rate as compared to previous changes in the
instrumental or proxy records, whereupon you simply stuck your fingers in
your ears and refused to listen: "Nyah, nyah, nayh!"

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

You never even *tried* to deal with the issue. You said - to
paraphrase your diatribe - "Yer wrong ya know. Scientists said so,
they did. Nyah, nyah, nayh!" At which point I merely mentioned that
your response was utter bull**** and that every reputable climate
scientist in the world said my comment was *right*.

AKA

"Yer wrong ya know. Scientists said so, they did. Nyah, nyah, nayh!"

Whereas all I did was tyo point out that your claim that climate change
today is different from anythign ever seen before is ********.

Which it isn't. As I pointed out, *every* reputable climate scientist
in the world has pointed out that it is totally different from
anything that has happened before. Which is where I came in...

Now - care to deal with the issue? You could, for instance, start with
an example of instances which you claim are similar to today...