Global Warming Do You Care?

[HS Mauberley]

I've worked with scientists from all over the world. I've run Peer Reviews and been a critical reviewer in Peer Reviews.

Hey, I for one believe groundless claims made on an anoymous web-board.

Government research is rife with climate research funding available only to those who wish to follow and preconceived notions, which by default makes it bad science.

Presumably this is in contradistinction to the funding made available by Exxon et al (see exxonsecrets for details) which makes for good science, yes?

There is plenty of sound science to validate that mankind's impact to the global climate is negligible when compared to the forces of nature.

Not one scrap of which you have posted.

Further, there is nothing that mankind can do to control the forces of nature.

Any grounds for making this claim? I presume that when you say 'control' you mean 'affect' (which is what climate change is all about - I don't think anyone is pretending that we're in a science fiction film and are armed with a weather-controlling machine). John Christy, cited by somebody else on this thread as a sceptic, is on record as saying, "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way". Your statement is absurd, illogical and flies in the face of all experience. To name two well know, uncontentious events which prove your statement wrong: acid rain and the ozone hole. Man's activities have unarguably had consequences on the continental and the global level.

If people want to have their thoughts and minds controlled by the likes of Algore and be taxed into oblivion by governments who think they are powerful enough to alter global climate, then there's not much anyone can do.

For someone who makes such proud claims to be a scientist, you seem perversely inclined to make wildly illogical statements. So once more: Tax, Al Gore, polar fuc_king bears and bearded hippies don't make climate change right or wrong. Do you get it now?

[wilko]

All that and neither of you could tie your own shoe-lace - Spee you must be very,very old.....who was your lecturer? Malthus??

and who's the other one - now trying to make up stories about my education....would I lower myself to a serious argument with you? no of course not your ideas are contemptible and do not deserved to be graced by rational conversation----they are purely the subject of mirth and derision...

I love it when people are soooo drastically tied up in their own cesspit of outmoded ideas that they start trying to put academic qualifications and name-dropping on a WEB SITE ABOUT THAILAND!!! - come on - who gives a monkey's what you claim to be ....you're still talking utter <deleted> - if you know what I mean.....

..... in the words of a truly great and inspirational brain..."I empty my left nostril in your general direction".

[Chloe82]

I'm looking forward to wilko educating us about how human activity got the Earth from a deep freeze to its current climate, the mind realy boggles, they must have been realy firing up the power stations back then.

I always thought deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2 and greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown but was not its main cause. CO₂ is not the beginning and end of climate change and besides CO2 has been on the rise for around 18,000 years.

I also wonder what his thoughts are on the current trend for Antarctic temperatures which are currently growing cooler, temperatures actually decreased by 0.7° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) per decade in the last 35 years, is this due to human activity or is all part of the natural earth cycle?

I'm realy looking forward to his answer or is he to busy to post whilst planing to build an eco-house?

[Chloe82]

and who's the other one - now trying to make up stories about my education....

Making up stories about your education? If you are reffering to me then i was only stating a FACT.

[wilko]

Mr Mauberley......why bother...this is a web site about Thailand and there is little or no point in trying to discuss with such a .................words don't fail, just self censorship....just take the piss and maybe he'll rack off!

[wilko]

and who's the other one - now trying to make up stories about my education....

Making up stories about your education? If you are reffering to me then i was only stating a FACT.

If you think that is a FACT - then it kind of puts all your other "facts" into perspective doesn't it???

[Chloe82]

and who's the other one - now trying to make up stories about my education....

Making up stories about your education? If you are reffering to me then i was only stating a FACT.

If you think that is a FACT - then it kind of puts all your other "facts" into perspective doesn't it???

Realy, i challenge you to show me where, in any of my posts have i written any mis-information about your education.

Simply, you can't.

[HS Mauberley]

This is getting dull. Why bother indeed? Most deniers seem to be motivated more by a desire to avoid the moral consequences of their actions than any engagement with the science, which is why for all the endlessly repeated cliches about how these people are a lone voice of reason amongst eco-nazis, they almost always make the same chain of statements, along the lines of “It’s not happening...and it’s only small…and it’s so big that we can’t do anything about it” despite these propositions being mutually exclusive. In my experience in these arguments, there is no straw which won't be grasped, no matter how fragile and I really can't be arsed to go through the same stuff again and again and again. There is a mountain of evidence, a Himalaya of evidence, supporting anthropogenic climate change and against this the deniers scramble around time and time again with the same sand grains of contrary 'proof'; if someone chooses to be blind there's unfortunately little which can be down. Deny climate change. Deny evolution. Believe in fairies at the end of your garden. Whatever. Just hurry up and die...but one last time:

I'm looking forward to wilko educating us about how human activity got the Earth from a deep freeze to its current climate, the mind realy boggles, they must have been realy firing up the power stations back then.

This has been addressed repeatedly. Read the thread.

I always thought deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2 and greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown but was not its main cause. CO₂ is not the beginning and end of climate change

And if you had quoted in full, we could all have read how the author of the study also said, "I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate. It does." Nobody (repeat: nobody) is saying that all climate change is explained solely by rising levels of CO2.

I also wonder what his thoughts are on the current trend for Antarctic temperatures which are currently growing cooler, temperatures actually decreased by 0.7° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) per decade in the last 35 years, is this due to human activity or is all part of the natural earth cycle?

Amongst other places, addressed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

Edited November 14, 2007 by HS Mauberley

[mogoso]

Amongst other places, addressed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

I dunno if a British court found at least 15 examples of false or misleading statements in Al Gore's book, doesn't that refute his scientific (and with gore I'm using that word extremly loosely) evidence. Afterall if one part of a statement is incorrect doesn't that make the statements conclusions incorrect.

I went to the real climate site and basically the same we know better than you tone attitute adopted in most of the prowarming posters here was evident. I did notice that they also are moving away from global warming and into climate change a more convient way to straddle both sides of the fence.

I also wonder where the sites founders make their income, would you believe doing research on gov't grants.

[Chloe82]

Just hurry up and die

However inconvenient it may be for the mediaeval peasants posting here

Grow up

People are more thick than I imagined.

I suggest you stick to the discussions on the relative merits of Nana and Cowboy

HS Mauberley, if you can't post without resorting to childish insults then don't bother posting at all. All you have brought to this thread is an uncouth and oafish attitude.

[jbowman1993]

For those who advocate that Global warming is a myth, unsubstantiated, not based on good science, a figment of our imaginations etc., I would ask this question.

What if you're wrong?

A lot of fricking bad things will happen, the least of which means most of Bangkok will be in serious danger of being underwater.

If those of us who believe that global warming is real are wrong, 50 years from now we can all have a good laugh about it, like the Y2K scare etc....

But if you're wrong, and we do nothing but drag our feet....millions of people will probably die or be displaced, and we will do serious harm to our planet.

If we are wrong we can apologize and shrug our shoulders.

If you are wrong, you'll be dead and gone but your children, and mine will be paying a terrible price. My child deserves better than that.

What can you do? Start at home

recycle

practice energy conservation (turn lights off etc.)

turn up your air con a few degrees, to save power

buy an energy efficient car, or better yet, take the bus

talk to others about this issue and your fears, maybe you can influence another person to change some of their behaviors

[JetsetBkk]

The climate has warmed up a bit less than 1 degree in a century and has fallen a bit since 1998. NASA issued a correction about their interpretations recently with the warmest year in the past century being 1934.

Shhhh! You can't say stuff like that! It's gets the "believers" in a tizz.

buy an energy efficient car, or better yet, take the bus

Well, if you're going to take the bus... my 2.5 litre turbo diesel pick-up is getting a bit old so I'll be changing it for a 3.0 litre. Is that OK?

[HS Mauberley]

I went to the real climate site and basically the same we know better than you tone attitute adopted in most of the prowarming posters here was evident

I’m not sure prowarming is quite the right word but, in an oblique way, you’ve made an interesting point. One of the unforeseen consequences of the democratic experience (a key part of which is freedom of expression) is the extraordinary spread of the bizarre idea that in all things, all opinions are equal. This weird – and utterly unfounded but incredibly potent – concept has the unfortunate consequence that someone who is almost certainly ignorant of climate science can read a website on climate change, written by climate scientists, and complain that the contributors have a, “we know better than you tone”. Well, yes. They do know better than you. And me. And I’m pretty sure, everyone posting on this thread. That’s the point of having the website. It’s a good thing and not a bad thing. I mean, what next? Are you going to have a discussion on particle accelerators and then complain that ‘those arrogant know-it-alls at CERN need to pull their heads out of their <deleted>, ‘coz we know izza skam init’? I think a large part of the reason why scepticism (or, depending on how generous you are, ignorance) about climate change is so widespread is the extremely pervasive nature of this idea. People really do believe that they can form their own opinion on this based on little more than an ill-thought through (and largely unconscious) hope about what, in an ideal world, would be the case. If anyone is interested, there is an interesting discussion of denial at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3178 Although this relates to peak oil, it’s largely applicable to climate change as well.

All you have brought to this thread is an uncouth and oafish attitude.

Other than misquotations, misleading data and theories which are demonstrably false, what exactly have your posts amounted to? You’re quite correct that I insulted the lowing herds but it’s for your own good. It’s not, however, correct to say that that is all I have done.

You, on the other hand, posted this little gem:

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

I hadn’t noticed this before and I really wish I was still ignorant of it. I’m lost for words. Are you mad? There is nothing in the literature to support these claims. You must be monumentally deranged to believe this – the precise opposite to what you described is the case. We are in the middle of one of the world’s great extinctions. So when is Elvis going to reappear to usher in the Rapture? Seriously, <deleted> is that about? In connection to climate change, it’s the most bizarre thing I’ve ever read. And you think people are going to take your opinions seriously after writing that? Even more extraordinary is that you follow this psychotic episode by describing yourself as

a scientifically oriented person

Just unbelievable.

And in case you missed it, let's have it again:

Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed...I'm a scientifically oriented person

That's right folks. The biomass on the planet will double within the lifetime of your children. Mental.

[Chloe82]

Again, standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950, increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions.

Are you one of these people who try to convince others of an impending world famine? When infact Infact the truth is very much the opposite, a warmer planet has beneficial effects on food production. It results in longer growing seasons, more sunshine and rainfall while summertime high temperatures change little. And a warmer planet means milder winters and fewer crop-killing frosts.

Since 1950, in a period of global warming, these factors have helped the world’s grain production soar from 700 million to more than 2 billion tons per year.

Your failings to understand that the Earth has a persistent 1,500-year climate cycle that creates these warming and cooling trends is simply unbelievable.

[xyborg]

<br />you get the same issues from the same people.....<br />global warming is a hoax<br />it's all the fault of (illegal) immigrants or anyone who looks different<br />market forces are all...<br />minimum government when it comes in industry and tax but<br />but maximum govt when it comes to beating up/down those who disagree<br />anyone with a degree or brain is a pinko liberal (whatever that means)<br />if I can have a big car so can everyone else..<br />i'm not obese.... they're just "love handles"<br />my wife loves me for my personality.<br />"black" people have a better sense of rhythm than white folks and <br />women should be in the bedroom or kitchen.<br />Fox News tells nothing but the plain honest truth<br />i can sing "My Way" just as well as Frank Sinatra<br />Life was better in the '50's<br />the world is flat<br />can outrun an airplane<br />my mother was the queen of England and from the top of my house you can see 3 continents<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Blimey you dont half talk some drivel at times ( sorry)

Luckily whenI arrived in Thailand the boat broke, I knew it was only another few hours to the edge of the world!! Iv'e heard its flat you know. Right where's the sand? I'm off to bury my head a little deeper.

[xyborg]

<br />

The climate has warmed up a bit less than 1 degree in a century and has fallen a bit since 1998. NASA issued a correction about their interpretations recently with the warmest year in the past century being 1934.

<br />Shhhh! You can't say stuff like that! It's gets the "believers" in a tizz.<br /><br />

buy an energy efficient car, or better yet, take the bus

<br />Well, if you're going to take the bus... my 2.5 litre turbo diesel pick-up is getting a bit old so I'll be changing it for a 3.0 litre. Is that OK? <img src="style_emoticons/default/wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

No get the 3.2 diesel and make sure you only drive it in 1st gufffffffffawwwwwwww stick the air on full and wind down the windows.

[nakhonsi sean]

Spee Posted Today, 2007-11-14 15:13:28

Please forgive me. I didn't know that the Ice Age coming and going due to massive global cooling and massive global warming before the age of men was inaccurate, unintelligent, ignorant conspiratorial propaganda. Perhaps you have a more accurate explanation.

Here is a paper backing your claim with an explanation of one of the causes.

Shaviv & Veizer

From realclimate:

"Shaviv and Veizer (2003) published a paper in the journal GSA Today, where the authors claimed to establish a correlation between cosmic ray flux (CRF) and temperature evolution over hundreds of millions of years, concluding that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide was much smaller than currently accepted. The paper was accompanied by a press release entitled “Global Warming not a Man-made Phenomenon", in which Shaviv was quoted as stating,“The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man”. However, in the paper the authors actually stated that "our conclusion about the dominance of the CRF over climate variability is valid only on multimillion-year time scales". Unsurprisingly, there was a public relations offensive using the seriously flawed conclusions expressed in the press release to once again try to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are influencing climate. These claims were subsequently disputed in an article in Eos (Rahmstorf et al, 2004) by an international team of scientists and geologists (these scientists came from the Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Department of Earth and Planetary Science, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, USA; Department of Space Research and Planetology, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Pierre Simon Laplace Institute, University of Versailles, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France; Institute of Physics, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany; Swiss Forum for Climate and Global Change, Swiss Academy of Sciences, Bern, Switzerland; NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, New York, New York, USA; Geoscience Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, USA; School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; Center for the study of the Dynamics and Evolution of the Land-Sea Interface, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, USA), who suggested that Shaviv and Veizer's analyses were based on unreliable and poorly replicated estimates, selective adjustments of the data (shifting the data, in one case by 40 million years) and drew untenable conclusions, particularly with regard to the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations on recent warming (see for example the exchange between the two sets of authors). However, by the time this came out the misleading conclusions had already been publicized widely."

The paper can be found at http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publicat...l_eos_2004.html

The conclusion states:

“Two main conclusions result from our analysis of [shaviv and Veizer, 2003]. The first is that the correlation of cosmic ray flux (CRF) and climate over the past 520 m.y. appears to not hold up under scrutiny. Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor. The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation. We thus find that the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated.

Our second conclusion is independent of the first. Whether there is a link of CRF and temperature or not, the authors’ estimate of the effect of a CO2-doubling on climate is highly questionable. It is based on a simple and incomplete regression analysis which implicitly assumes that climate variations on time scales of millions of years, for different configurations of continents and ocean currents, for much higher CO2 levels than at present, and with unaccounted causes and contributing factors, can give direct quantitative information about the effect of rapid CO2 doubling from pre-industrial climate. The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such a simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks. We thus conclude that [shaviv and Veizer, 2003] provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide."

The paper holds up. The attacks on it and on cosmoclimatology have been rebutted, if you can be bothered, check out the following links

Shaviv's blog with his rebuttals

Danish National Space Centre (Cosmoclimatology)

Climate Audit

The attacks on both Shaviv and Svensmark have been rather wild and dubious, they have also been personal, a real sign of the desperation of the AGW proponents. The SKY experiment will now be run at CERN in 2010. I doubt CERN would be giving up time on its multi billion dollar large hedron collider to discredited theories!

Edited November 14, 2007 by nakhonsi sean

[plachon]

Spee and most other flat earther posters doubting the causes and mechanisms AGW on this thread are just plain ignorant of mainstream science and want to hear a theory that fits their own indivdual worldview and prejudices and it is probably too late to convince them any differently HS Mauberly. That is why I saw it was rather a waste of time and effort and gave up some 3 or 4 pages ago.

Nakhonsi Sean and Chloe are something rather different and present a pseudo-scientific front to feed dubious weblinks and ridiculous, outrageous statements to the likes of Spee, most of which have just served to get yours and Wilko's blood pressure up. Cool down and consider. The kind of claims that Chloe wrote down are just so extreme, I'm sure she is actually being paid by the oil industry or one of the neo-con institutes (e.g. Marshall) so prolific and flush with oil bucks in the States at the moment, that they're as sure to have local outlets in Thailand as McDonald's. They're in all likelihood being paid to write this crud of the first order. No proof. Just a hunch based on empirical observation.

Don't feel you have to deny or confirm.

[Pepe']

Spee and most other flat earther posters doubting the causes and mechanisms AGW on this thread are just plain ignorant of mainstream science and want to hear a theory that fits their own indivdual worldview and prejudices and it is probably too late to convince them any differently HS Mauberly. That is why I saw it was rather a waste of time and effort and gave up some 3 or 4 pages ago.

Nakhonsi Sean and Chloe are something rather different and present a pseudo-scientific front to feed dubious weblinks and ridiculous, outrageous statements to the likes of Spee, most of which have just served to get yours and Wilko's blood pressure up. Cool down and consider. The kind of claims that Chloe wrote down are just so extreme, I'm sure she is actually being paid by the oil industry or one of the neo-con institutes (e.g. Marshall) so prolific and flush with oil bucks in the States at the moment, that they're as sure to have local outlets in Thailand as McDonald's. They're in all likelihood being paid to write this crud of the first order. No proof. Just a hunch based on empirical observation.

Don't feel you have to deny or confirm.

-------------------------------

We will never go wrong if we live according to guidelines that would "theoretically" reduce GW.

Absolutely...

[Heng]

Care? Sure. As for doing something... there are way too many interests working in the other direction (like neutering one soi dog for another hundred born every minute).

Much more practical that you provide for your family, buy up as much green space as possible, and make sure they can always easily afford (and defend if need be) all of the things that there will no doubt be less and less of in the world.

[bendix]

I can't be bothered to read the entire thread because . .. . well . . to answer the original post: No, I don't care about global warming. I am rather worried about taxi scams though. Perhaps we could discuss that instead?

[wilko]

Chloe - I'm at a loss here...how can your assumptions about my education be called facts - or is this your new theory about the word fact - "don't believe it's used as convention would dictate - just make up your own meaning"?

BTW what size test-tube were you created in?

Who dropped it?

[sweetchariot]

Cool down

Must be true then?

[Chloe82]

Chloe - I'm at a loss here...how can your assumptions about my education be called facts - or is this your new theory about the word fact - "don't believe it's used as convention would dictate - just make up your own meaning"?

Okay, you seem to have missed it the first time around so here it is again, wilko, show me anywhere in any of my posts where i have written mis-information about your education.

You can't, as what i wrote was fact, but if you can tell me where you think i made assumptions about it then i am willing to be proved wrong.

[HS Mauberley]

Spee and most other flat earther posters doubting the causes and mechanisms AGW on this thread are just plain ignorant of mainstream science and want to hear a theory that fits their own indivdual worldview and prejudices and it is probably too late to convince them any differently HS Mauberly. That is why I saw it was rather a waste of time and effort and gave up some 3 or 4 pages ago.

Nakhonsi Sean and Chloe are something rather different and present a pseudo-scientific front to feed dubious weblinks and ridiculous, outrageous statements to the likes of Spee, most of which have just served to get yours and Wilko's blood pressure up. Cool down and consider. The kind of claims that Chloe wrote down are just so extreme, I'm sure she is actually being paid by the oil industry or one of the neo-con institutes (e.g. Marshall) so prolific and flush with oil bucks in the States at the moment, that they're as sure to have local outlets in Thailand as McDonald's. They're in all likelihood being paid to write this crud of the first order. No proof. Just a hunch based on empirical observation.

Don't feel you have to deny or confirm.

Yes. Well said.

Here’s an interesting thing (at least more interesting than dealing with the same stuff about cosmic rays, warming Antarctic, heat islands, Al Gore’s heating bill, etc., etc.,) Why don’t climate change deniers ever argue amongst themselves? In this thread many of the standard objections have been raised, some of which are:

We don’t know what’s happening

The world isn’t getting warmer (and it’s a scam to raise taxes, etc.)

It is getting warmer and greenhouse gases are causing it but it’s not significant

It is getting warmer and greenhouse gases are causing it and it is significant but there’s nothing we can do about it

It is getting warmer and cosmic ray are causing it. It’s either not significant or there’s nothing we can do about it.

It is getting warmer (or not) and greenhouse gases aren't causing it but anyway it’s all just the best thing ever (Thanks for that Chloe. Unfortunately, you seem to be ignorant – amongst a frighteningly long list – of the green revolution).

These are largely mutually exclusive but you never see proponents of one argue with proponents of another. Certainly Chloe82 and nakonsi sean hold positions which seem to be either/or. I don’t think proponents of cosmic ray theories hold that these fluctuations occur on a 1,300 year timescale so why aren’t these two having an argument? Does nakonsi sean think that rising CO2 emissions are just super-duper and will lead to a doubling of the world’s biomass in the next 50 years? I rather doubt it. If nakonsi sean is really concerned making sure that people understand the science (or at least his interpretation of it) why isn’t he having an argument with all those who say ‘we don’t know’. Nakonsi sean certainly thinks that we do know. The reason, of course, is that behind these bizarre protestations that the denier is some kind of latter day Socrates against Athens or Galileo against the Church, their ‘concern’ for truth is overwhelmed by a concern that everything should be made to be OK. This complete absence of argument amongst deniers shows clearly that their overwhelming motivation is simply to tell themselves a cheery bedtime story. Well, happy endings are nice and it’s certainly natural to hope for one but it seems that deniers are so in love with them that they’re blind to everything else. Unfortunately, as plachon rightly says, these kinds of foundational mental structures are so deep that simple facts are never going to shift them.

Edited November 15, 2007 by HS Mauberley

[wilko]

Chloe - I'm at a loss here...how can your assumptions about my education be called facts - or is this your new theory about the word fact - "don't believe it's used as convention would dictate - just make up your own meaning"?

Okay, you seem to have missed it the first time around so here it is again, wilko, show me anywhere in any of my posts where i have written mis-information about your education.

You can't, as what i wrote was fact, but if you can tell me where you think i made assumptions about it then i am willing to be proved wrong.

"Says the 'man' who only scraped through on high school chemistry"

[Chloe82]

Chloe - I'm at a loss here...how can your assumptions about my education be called facts - or is this your new theory about the word fact - "don't believe it's used as convention would dictate - just make up your own meaning"?

Okay, you seem to have missed it the first time around so here it is again, wilko, show me anywhere in any of my posts where i have written mis-information about your education.

You can't, as what i wrote was fact, but if you can tell me where you think i made assumptions about it then i am willing to be proved wrong.

"Says the 'man' who only scraped through on high school chemistry"

Oh, you mean that? I just assumed that you were not telling lies when you said

My suspicions were iron content, but as I only scraped through on high school chemistry I wasn't sure.

In you thread here > Well Water - One For The Scientists/chemists, Bleach turns my well water brown

Oh well, we know not to trust what you write in future posts then.

[Chloe82]

These are largely mutually exclusive but you never see proponents of one argue with proponents of another. Certainly Chloe82 and nakonsi sean hold positions which seem to be either/or.

The first attempt at the Divide and Conquer Strategy.

[wilko]

Now THAT's what I call anal.....you've actually been through 2000 of my posts.........you are soooo wierd and sooo unlikely to recognise a figure of speech!

What that says about you is quite ...well .disturbing....are you in therapy?

[Pepe']

I can't be bothered to read the entire thread because . .. . well . . to answer the original post: No, I don't care about global warming. I am rather worried about taxi scams though. Perhaps we could discuss that instead?

----------------------

?