Why we need to think before we build

[tom.harrigan]

I immediately apologised for my mistake, and what do I attract? More abuse! I have been called a tw*t, I've been called a twit, people have been told to ignore me, I've been misrepresented, told I've been getting on peoples tits, people have been told not to believe me, people have been told to ignore me, I've been called a troll, accused of being poor drinking company, and my typos seized upon as evidence of extreme fallibility. All by one person on this forum!

I haven't attracted this much attention in years!

T

 

[tom.harrigan]

I forgot, I also got problems relating to people - apparently.

T

 

[Nemesis]

I haven't been called a lady in years. (For those reading this - Tom edited out the fact he called me a lady.)

Try the edit button.

That's the one at the top marked EDIT. (For the record - this was to suggest if he posted in the wrong thread he could edit out his message.)

And I wouldn't buy you a pint.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh - you forgot to add the comment - not made by me - about your rudeness.

 

[Moo]

I can't be bothered to search back through the thread to find the bit about rudeness, so will the culprit please own up?

xx silly old moo

 

[Nemesis]

Another thread Moo... Schoolmarm:

You rude person.

 

[tom.harrigan]

I respectfully asked a simple question, and was summarily dismissed to do my own research. I considered that extremely rude under the circumstances. I admit that I may have continued the rudeness by confessing I had been anticipating a degree of amusement at the prospect of the answer, which was alas, never to materialise.

Retaliation is no excuse however, I should not have risen to the bait. In my defense, I think my behavior since then has been exemplary, particularly in the light of being called a tw*t, a twit, and everything else.

T

 

[Nemesis]

It's on top of a number of other posts on this site, not one thread.

I suggest you consider carefully the ethos of the site and if you wish to burst upon it being deliberately disruptive then go elsewhere, where your rudeness, arrogance and schoolboy jeers may be better appreciated.

I tend to be the one to say in public what others say in private.

And yes do some research. I suggest you learn to spell also, or Mr and Mrs P. Edant will be complaining too.

 

[biffvernon]

For those who did not get as far as half way through the abstract:

Tom, I didn't stop till I reached the end of Schwartz's paper. And I've read quite a bit of other work he has published. I'm not quite sure whether you have misunderstood what he is saying or whether you are just taking the p*ss. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. If you would care to expand on the science, rather than continuing your spat with Nemesis (a past master at the sport and quite indefatigable, so I suggest you don't bother), then I would be interested to read your posts.

 

[Nemesis]

Don't worry Biff - I have my submission on the properties of certain metals when used in construction (architectural history stuff) to tidy up tomorrow to send as expert witness research (it's apparently pretty ground breaking) then I'm off for a break.

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over Tom's ideas. He thinks a lifetime guarantee has some meaning.

He seems too to not always comprehend what's written on the screen in front of him.

Allegedly.

 

[tom.harrigan]

Biff

Is there a better estimate of the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2?

T

 

[NT]

If you want to be liked all the time you need to agree with peoples assumptions. Its a simple choice.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

Strange that - I don't tend to agree with people's assumptions. I don't want to be liked all the time either. Not so simple a choice therefore.

Discuss.

 

[biffvernon]

Biff
Is there a better estimate of the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2?

I'm not saying Schwartz is wrong - far from it. But I suspect you may have drawn a false conclusion from what he has written.

 

[tom.harrigan]

Biff

If I have drawn a false conclusion, then I wish to be corrected! Here's what I think it means.

Accepting the paper reduces our uncertainty in estimating climate sensitivity for the moment, and it is 1.1ish K. About 0.7K of warming has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. By the end of the doubling i.e. 560 ppm expected before 2100, assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time, Schwartz implies 0.4K of extra warming. Hardly worth worrying about, and certainly not worth wasting the staggering amounts we do on Kyoto.

There are far better ways to spend our money, some good ideas here:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com

T

 

[Moo]

Mrs P. Edant will be complaining too.

No need any more, now that you've picked up the baton.

Mrs Edant
(aka Silly Old Moo)


I really don't remember complaining about misuse of the language - just pointing out (as politely as possible) how difficult it has been to read some posts, and how a bit of punctuation would help.

 

[Nemesis]

Actually I haven't - it's only this once, I've made an exception.


(I could read 'em, and if I could...)

 

[tom.harrigan]

Biff

It seems that the 3rd Viscount Monkton of Brenchley agrees with Schwartz:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html

Lord Monkton highlights the absence of certain characteristic thermal signatures at high altitude over the tropics expected from AGW theory. The tropical "hot spot" is not there, so we are left with 2 possibilities:

1.The models are accurate, in which case the observed warming isn't greenhouse.

2. The models are inaccurate, in which case they cannot be relied upon to predict anything, especially the climate in 100years.

Take your pick, there is no third way.

Well actually there is a third way, the data cold be wrong, but that is really clutching at straws!

T

 

[Nemesis]

Darwin was wrong too of course.

According to some.

 

[Moo]

(I could read 'em, and if I could...)

I didn't say that unpunctuated messages were impossible to read, just difficult.