On 8 Jan, 12:06, abelard wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:58:33 GMT, pete wrote:
Hardly surprising: he's merely a manager, not a forecaster. I would
expect his bonus was paid after he met (or exceeded) soem management
targets, such as cost savings, delivering some major projects or the
like. Not how good his employees were at guessing what sort of weather
we were going to get - everyone knows that any forecast for more than
3 days ahead is pretty close to random chance, and always will be.
This sounds like a cheap shot.

1)do you have a link to his 'qualifications?


http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...t/profile.html

"John Hirst is chief executive of the Met Office.

Hirst spent 19 years with ICI and was chief executive of two of their
global businesses. He holds a degree in economics from Leeds
University."

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:31:40 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:


The weather at the moment is roughly what we should have at this
latitude were it not for the warming influence of the Altantic and Gulf
Stream and our normal prevailing SW wind pattern.

'the day after tomorrow' scenario. (or Saturday as it would be known
as today)


--

"abelard" wrote in message
...

while they keep interviewing people like him, it is hardly
surprising the public can't follow...

It's a myth that the public can't follow. They follow perfectly well.

It's all part of the game. A BBC reporter comes on the 10pm news to explain
that there's a difference between climate and weather, leading listeners to
imagine that some people didn't know that.

It's a question of fraudulently controlling the terms of the debate. Why,
I've even noticed there are people on usenet who do it too! They get the
teasing they deserve, though they may not be aware it's happening.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad"
wrote:


BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the
conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs.

The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now
experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still
remains


It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because
we got the same here in Bristol.

Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate.

Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years
observations.

Observations of, erm, apparently those very same day-to-day weather
happenings.

So weather and climate are one and the same.

Strangely, the BBC guy espouting this shit won't respond to emails
asking him to clarify.

I'd cheerfully burn alive any of these "the planet is warming up, can
I have more of my Govt grant" ****ers.

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:05:28 +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad"
wrote:


BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the
conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs.

The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now
experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still
remains


It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because
we got the same here in Bristol.

Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate.

Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years
observations.

Observations of, erm, apparently those very same day-to-day weather
happenings.

So weather and climate are one and the same.

OK, try this for size: stock markets. Some days some stocks go up in
price, other days they go down. On yet other days some different
stocks increase (or decrease in price. It is very difficult to forecast
(there's that word again) which particular stocks will go up (or down)
on a particular day. However we can spot trends by looking back over
market prices for the past, say, 30 years. Over that period what do we
see? Well lookitat: overall, stock prices have increased.
Would you be willing to bet your pension that this trend will continue -
yes you would. In fact that's precisely what pension funds are betting on.

Does this mean that if you buy one solitary stock on one day and the
next day it drops in price that therefore _all_ stock prices over the
whole planet are not increasing in time? No, it does not.

Hopefully the point has been understood now ....

Mike wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:31:40 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

The weather at the moment is roughly what we should have at this
latitude were it not for the warming influence of the Altantic and Gulf
Stream and our normal prevailing SW wind pattern.

'the day after tomorrow' scenario. (or Saturday as it would be known
as today)

--

wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad"
wrote:

BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the
conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs.

The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now
experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still
remains


It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because
we got the same here in Bristol.

Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate.

Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years
observations.

I chuckled when he said this.... does the planet work on 30-year cycles?

Martin Brown wrote:

Dead Paul wrote:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...green-agendas/
January 6th, 2010
Gerald Warner:

Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to turning
the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply appreciative…

“Climate science� is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city,
town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions
correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past
week. This is the “exceptionally mild winter� that the climate change
buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming. Their
credibility is 20 degrees below zero.

Another drooling right wing nut who cannot tell the difference between
weather and climate spouting off in the Torygraph. I guess the Telegraph
knows their target market of senile halfwits only too well.

The weather at the moment is roughly what we should have at this
latitude were it not for the warming influence of the Altantic and Gulf
Stream and our normal prevailing SW wind pattern.

Nope. What we have at the moment is called variability of the weather.
You wont see anything like this again in the next 10 year. The normal
weather at this latitude is cyclonic, not anticyclonic; but it happens,
it has happened before.

Global warming means the *global* average gets higher. It does not mean
that everywhere gets slightly warmer by the same amount. We could very
well be losers. UK climate is abnormally warm for its high latitude.

Equally well: Low freezing temperatures does not indicate Global Warming.

Were it not for the UK maritime influence on climate Birmingham and
Manchester would expect to have weather like Edmonton in Canada which is
at a roughly similar latitude. And that is basically what we end up with
when the wind blows directly off the cold NE continental land mass.

"when..." , obviously , but not forever,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton

Most gardeners are already well aware of climate change, at least if
they keep records of when things come into flower.

This statement just contradicts something you said before...

On 8 Jan, 20:32, pete wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:05:28 +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad"
wrote:

BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the
conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs.

The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now
experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still
remains

It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because
we got the same here in Bristol.

Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate.

Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years
observations.

Observations of, erm, apparently those very same day-to-day weather
happenings.

So weather and climate are one and the same.

OK, try this for size: stock markets. Some days some stocks go up in
price, other days they go down. On yet other days some different
stocks increase (or decrease in price. It is very difficult to forecast
(there's that word again) which particular stocks will go up (or down)
on a particular day. However we can spot trends by looking back over
market prices for the past, say, 30 years. Over that period what do we
see? Well lookitat: overall, stock prices have increased. *
Would you be willing to bet your pension that this trend will continue -
yes you would. In fact that's precisely what pension funds are betting on..

Does this mean that if you buy one solitary stock on one day and the
next day it drops in price that therefore _all_ stock prices over the
whole planet are not increasing in time? No, it does not.

Hopefully the point has been understood now ....

I think we all understand trends Pete!

Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html

broadssailor wrote:

On 9 Jan, 01:36, abelard wrote:

Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html

you're being connedhttp://www.abelard.org/sums/teaching_number_arithmetic_mathematics_un...

--
web site atwww.abelard.org

Do you have URLs (or at least reference to a source) for all on that
page? Without it, it is no more than opinion....

A week or two I asked abelard, following Copenhagen, if there was such
thing published as graph showing CO2 levels on one axis, and Global
Temperatures on the other. This simply must exist as it is the
fundamental support for the AGW position.

He replied that it's in IPCC3, and gave me a link to that document.

Not the specific reference I was after, but the whole document.

It later transpired that a counter-Copenhagen letter written by
Monckton makes it clear that no such graph has been published by any
of the AGW supporters, although Monckton then uses IPCC data to show
that full implementation of Copenhagen, at a cost of £trillions, will
save 0.02 degC of global warming.

A couple of things spring from this.

Abelard does not understand what he has read, having failed to grasp
that the claimed key point of IPCC3 isn't there.

He is clearly unfamiliar with scientific works, or he would be aware
that it is the norm to give journal, volume, date, paper title, page,
and author(s) as the reference to a particular claim. He needs to do
this in order to make the links to items in his badly-coloured web
site accessible, as a matter of urgency. At present it is no better
than saying 'I published a paper in The journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, look it up', and expecting the enquirer to do all the work.

On the other had, such a slapdash procedure could be used to disguise
the unusable and irrelevant that has otherwise been advanced as
authoritative and analytical.

At a glance, it is possible from the two graphs 'offered ' as
'evidence' on the offending page to guess with short odds at a trend
line. Neither would be encouraging to a climate change alarmist.
You really must revise your web pages to give them more value
(REFERENCE!) ,and preferably re format to something other than the
crasss primary colours which would be attractive to my 7yo grandson
and his friends but not appropriate for something intended to be
treated seriously (? - or have I missed the point :-)? ) by a wider
audience.
Failing that, stop wasting your, and for that matter everybody's time
with your self seeking posts.

I've tried putting such things to abelard in the past, but his only
response is essentially name-calling.


--
from
Kim Bolton

broadssailor wrote:
On 8 Jan, 20:32, pete wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:05:28 +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad"
wrote:
BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the
conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs.
The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now
experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still
remains
It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because
we got the same here in Bristol.
Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate.
Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years
observations.
Observations of, erm, apparently those very same day-to-day weather
happenings.
So weather and climate are one and the same.
OK, try this for size: stock markets. Some days some stocks go up in
price, other days they go down. On yet other days some different
stocks increase (or decrease in price. It is very difficult to forecast
(there's that word again) which particular stocks will go up (or down)
on a particular day. However we can spot trends by looking back over
market prices for the past, say, 30 years. Over that period what do we
see? Well lookitat: overall, stock prices have increased.
Would you be willing to bet your pension that this trend will continue -
yes you would. In fact that's precisely what pension funds are betting on.

Does this mean that if you buy one solitary stock on one day and the
next day it drops in price that therefore _all_ stock prices over the
whole planet are not increasing in time? No, it does not.

Hopefully the point has been understood now ....

I think we all understand trends Pete!

Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html

That is a classic "How to lie with statistics graph". By starting their
graph with a first point in 1998 that is the most extreme high global
temperature seen in recent history the long term rising trend can be
completely disguised by only looking at the last decade of data. And if
you choose your points carefully then the best fit line can indeed be
made to look like it is cooling *relative* to the one exceptionally warm
year at the start.

US "Dittohead Science" is a pack of lies carefully constructed to
confuse the general public into ignoring the scientific evidence. Sadly
it is working all too well and climate scientists are not explaining
things in a way that the public can comprehend.

There is a negative cyclical influence at the moment on the downside of
a small warming peak that occurs roughly every 60 years. You can see it
in the published data. It made the warming in 1990-2000 larger than was
due to AGW alone and it is presently hiding the continuing rising trend.
Similar peaks can be seen at 1940 and 1880 see for example:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif

And for just the Atlanic MDO component

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanti...al_oscillation

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 9 Jan, 12:13, Martin Brown
wrote:
broadssailor wrote:
On 8 Jan, 20:32, pete wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:05:28 +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad"
wrote:
BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the
conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs.
The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now
experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still
remains
It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because
we got the same here in Bristol.
Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate.
Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years
observations.
Observations of, erm, apparently those very same day-to-day weather
happenings.
So weather and climate are one and the same.
OK, try this for size: stock markets. Some days some stocks go up in
price, other days they go down. On yet other days some different
stocks increase (or decrease in price. It is very difficult to forecast
(there's that word again) which particular stocks will go up (or down)
on a particular day. However we can spot trends by looking back over
market prices for the past, say, 30 years. Over that period what do we
see? Well lookitat: overall, stock prices have increased. *
Would you be willing to bet your pension that this trend will continue -
yes you would. In fact that's precisely what pension funds are betting on.

Does this mean that if you buy one solitary stock on one day and the
next day it drops in price that therefore _all_ stock prices over the
whole planet are not increasing in time? No, it does not.

Hopefully the point has been understood now ....

I think we all understand trends Pete!

Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html

That is a classic "How to lie with statistics graph". By starting their
graph with a first point in 1998 that is the most extreme high global
temperature seen in recent history the long term rising trend can be
completely disguised by only looking at the last decade of data. And if
you choose your points carefully then the best fit line can indeed be
made to look like it is cooling *relative* to the one exceptionally warm
year at the start.

US "Dittohead Science" is a pack of lies carefully constructed to
confuse the general public into ignoring the scientific evidence. Sadly
it is working all too well and climate scientists are not explaining
things in a way that the public can comprehend.

There is a negative cyclical influence at the moment on the downside of
a small warming peak that occurs roughly every 60 years. You can see it
in the published data. It made the warming in 1990-2000 larger than was
due to AGW alone and it is presently hiding the continuing rising trend.
Similar peaks can be seen at 1940 and 1880 see for example:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif

And for just the Atlanic MDO component

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanti...al_oscillation

Regards,
Martin Brown

The UEA and Wiki - that's the best you can come up with. Ha!
Yes, lengthen the time line, by all means, but don't forget to include
the Medieval warm period AND the mini ice age which followed. THEN
tell me what the trend is!

On 9 Jan, 12:13, abelard wrote:


i won't give you my own links as is would just waste my time,,,

rest of your habitual drivel binned


No more than I would expect as a response.....

rest of your habitual self centered drivel binned!

abelard wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:27:21 +0000, Kim Bolton
wrote:


broadssailor wrote:

On 9 Jan, 01:36, abelard wrote:

Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html

you're being connedhttp://www.abelard.org/sums/teaching_number_arithmetic_mathematics_un...

Do you have URLs (or at least reference to a source) for all on that
page? Without it, it is no more than opinion....

A week or two I asked abelard, following Copenhagen, if there was such
thing published as graph showing CO2 levels on one axis, and Global
Temperatures on the other. This simply must exist as it is the
fundamental support for the AGW position.

i doubt you did ask that...but who cares

both graphs are widely available....they both have
a time axis...you could compare them with ease if
you knew how....

i won't give you my own links as is would just waste my time,,,

Your links aren't worth the name, for the reasons I mentioned and
which you have snipped.

rest of your habitual drivel binned

I take it then that you're a master of drivel.


--
from
Kim Bolton

abelard wrote:

it does not go unnoticed that you have been incapable of answering
any of the questions i posed for you

....says abelard, who steadfastly refuses to answer any put to him.

ROFL

--
from
Kim Bolton