Verbal

So let me see if I understand you - you're saying that if the met office fail to predict some weather, that invalidates climate change science?

Good. does that mean you will now go away?

Nonsense. It's always been known as global warming, and as a popular label, there's nothing wrong with it. In scientific literature, it's commonly referred to as climate change. There is no significant disagreement among mainstream scientists publishing in respected journals. The debates tend to centre of modelling improvements, etc., but the basic chemistry is well understood and widely accepted. Unless, of course, the world's scientific community are wrong in their understanding of atmospheric chemistry and you are right.

Leaders of industry are atmospheric chemists?

Climate is a highly complex system of air masses with regional characteristics (Polar, Equatorial, etc) Air temperature is one of those 'look out the window' indicators of nothing in particular.

I don't know what happened to him. He used to be funny.

Sea ice has more to do with air than sea temperatures. You can dive in clear water under most sea ice in the antarctic. But these are seasonal changes. But if you want to find out more, talk to one of the'peacemen eco warriors' at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge. Unfortunately they re all seasoned scientists, so are no doubt part of the conspiracy.

Yes, but dune thinks the ice caps and sea ice are the same thing - so the answer from him will be no.

Weather and climate again, I'm afraid my challenged friend. Sea ice grows and retreats with the seasons. sometimes there's a lot, sometimes not. It's the ice on land you need to look at. and there it's retreating like crazy.

On the contrary. The hole is still there but smaller Why? Because governments took action on MAN-MADE CFCs, which caused it. An effective precedent for what should be happening now.

Dear Mr 'I don't know the difference between weather and climate': please quote your sources in the scientific literature. You perfectly sum up the 'sceptic' position: it's all about a lack of imagination. And as for 'left wingers' being 'proud' of bio-fuels killing people - the problem can easily be solved either by an equitable redistribution of land, or dropping the bio-fuels mania, which was never anything much more than a way for large landowners in south america in particular to leverage ever larger profits. Advocates of bio fuels have mostly been people like Tom Friedman - just about the most capitalistic of NYT's writers. So I take it I can join you up to the socialist revolution?

How lovely, normanbates. It must really offend you when someone doesn't share your rage.

What you do in your spare time is your business.

Brilliant! Does that mean you won't post on here unless it's about submarines?

London? The Middle East? I don't know. Who the f**k cares?

I expected that level of contribution from you. Check out those people - every one of them is directly responsible for ordering extrajudicial killings on an epic scale.

Ratko Mladic Radovan Karadzic Jorge Videla Manuel Contreras Than Shwe Kim Jong il Robert Mugabe The world would be a much better place with them gone.

I agree. Let's ban all human rights in order to stop Cherie getting her fees.

Global warming only applies to some people.

I have. your contributions are as usual deeply depressing.

Your presumably wilful misunderstanding of climate change science is so fundamental as to render it impossible to engage with you in any sensible way. You're judging climate change science - all the complexities of atmospheric chemistry - by sticking your head out the window, and looking at the weather.

Moral panic! Moral panic!

Of course, the scientific community is wrong and you are right.

And declared fallible, presumably, by those sensible, well-rounded souls that inhabit Planet Lounge. That's alright then. I'll sleep more easily now. Nighty night.

Badlands Les enfant du paradis All the President's Men