John Cuthber

"nice to know that WIKIPEDIA is considered such an authoritative source in this community." No, it's considered easy to read and easy to cite. "The hole is a seasonal phenomenon in no way affected by refrigerants. " Half right. Why do you think the hole isn't as big as it used to be? "Is that what you guys do to get all that there "expertise"? " No. "Golly gee, maybe a rube like me could get some of it one day too!" Not unless you start learning

Do you realise you are just making stuff up?

Perhaps you can enlighten us on the depleted uranium that is in some "expensive storage " or, perhaps you can't.

Nice straw man attack there. Did not spot the difference between "well you have to look at one variable at a time". and "you try and look at the effect of a single variable if you can." or did you just hope we wouldn't notice? Also, would you like to explain exactly what arguments you have won?

Even I have written code that writes code, and I'm a pretty Mickey-Mouse programmer.

I picked on of those papers at random, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3ACLIM.0000018509.74228.03 it's the first one I looked at and the first line is "The Greenland coastal temperatures have followed the early 20th century global warming trend. " So that's how well those papers oppose the idea of global warming: they take it as read that warming exists. They go on to say that the centre of Greenland doesn't seem to be warming, but that's not a problem; global warming does not require that all places warm up, there may well be some local cooling- especially in places that are affected by ocean currents like the Gulf stream. The abstract of the paper makes no reference to how the global warming occurs. I picked a second one- also pretty much at random http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282000%29013%3C1809%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2 it starts "Most global climate models simulate a weakening of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) in response to enhanced greenhouse warming." So, once again, it's tacitly assuming that warming is taking place.

Actually, you can be fairly slack in your choice of the words in your reply - it's when you choose not to reply at all that you risk suspension. Of course, you should be careful in your choice of words because the alternative is that you risk not being understood. Incidentally re. " if you disagree with the consensus view, and seem the least bit credible, they will..." How do you know? Not by anyone who understands the difference between weather and climate.

One advantage might be that some people prefer beef to tofu. If you were engineering food you could have the best of both worlds.

Well, according to the measurements, i.e. the facts, 2014 really was the hottest year on record. You saying "Hardly" makes no difference to the temperature so it's not clear why you bothered to do it. iNow's real name also makes no difference. It can't. Imagine that his folks had called him something else- would that have altered the climate? And your failure to understand that the fact that CO2 is a trace gas here, but the dominant gas on Venus doesn't matter- because it's the total amount of gas in the atmospheric column that matters- shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Of course, there's also the fact that Venus had a different atmosphere in the past. In any event you haven't answered the question. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas on Venus, why do you not think it's one here on Earth? Did you try to distract attention from the fact that you hadn't answered it by talking nonsense about whether it's a major, or minor, component of the atmosphere?

In much the same way that Essay has pointed out that you are wrong about molecules migrating to the Arctic- because you don't understand the physics involved, it seems that you don't understand the photochemistry involved in the destruction of ozone by halocarbons. The ozone hole is getting smaller. that's consistent with the reduction of halocarbons. The Sun is still there, and it's still producing the aurorae, so that can't be the reason for the increased ozone. Your bias seems to have blinded you to the facts.

" The demagnetized state is a higher energy state than the magnetized state." I doubt that. Given time a magnet will slowly lose it's magnetism.

Doom and gloom can be spun from both sides of the argument, so that's not a valid reason. You can spin a yarn about the need to revert to the stone age in order to avoid the AGW apocalypse.

OK, but why would the politicians bother to pay scientists to support either side of this issue? In particular, it makes much more sense for them to suppress worry about AGW and carry on raking in money from taxes on gas and oil. "who might be these saintly and impoverished donors to the environmentalist cause? " ​People like me who support organisations like Greenpeace.

Are you aware that about 8% of the UK's electricity is generated by wind power? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

"the success of it is completely determined by what the person had decided before they ever went there" http://xkcd.com/285/

No it isn't. because people can not be cured by prayer. That's the difference. Just because you don't believe in something- for example, stress- doesn't mean it isn't real. Are you actually qualified to address this issue?

OK, so who has more money to "bribe" scientists? Is it the environmentalist movement or the oil companies? Why would the government(s) be giving out grant money to these people if they weren't right- or, at least, backed by evidence?

Thank you for clarifying the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I can't see how it's possible for the moon to look "U" shaped; so many of the illustrations from the OP don't make sense.

Drat! now you are making me hungry. Anyway, my best guess is that "California 93120 Phase 2 compliant for formaldehyde." means that it complies with the rules for formaldehyde . That would mean that there's little or no formaldehyde present. It's amusing that California is noted for its beaches- made from sand. Sand is, or contains, a substance known to the state of Cal.... Silica is a known carcinogen. So is sunshine, so is alcohol.

Yep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotherapy

At the "bottom of the ocean" in the Mariana trench the pressure is about 15 times higher than that. But there's not a lot of point sending people to that depth. It's often said that we have five senses; sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste. In a diving suit the only ones left are sight and hearing. It makes a lot more sense to send a camera and a microphone, rather than risking human life.

When Joe Public doesn't pay his taxes the IRS/ HMRC consider it to be tax evasion, and they include it in the figures. When Mr Rich moves his wealth to an offshore account they consider it to be tax avoidance- which is "legitimate" so it's not counted in the figure. Of course Joe Public is the one who seems to be not paying his fair share. Also, while politicians on both "sides" pledge to cut taxes, is it reasonable to imagine that some people will come to think that tax is a "Bad Thing" and so fell morally obliged to evade payment? And, since he knows that the Rich People dodge their taxes- who can blame him for feeling justified in doing so? The solution to all of those issues is to fix the loopholes and collect the taxes due.

"That is the difference, NO handouts were provided to people, jobs were." If you pay one guy to dig a hole,and another guy to fill it in, are you creating jobs or giving handouts? it hardly matters in a way. The money that was paid- via a job or not- came from taxing people. And they didn't get it from taxing the poor people. So what the government did was take money from the rich and give it (possibly via an intermediary; who cares?) to the poor. That's a clear, direct way to reduce disparity in wealth. In order to do more of that, you need to collect more tax revenue. You don't (ordinarily) do that by cutting tax rates. You can do it if you increase tax rates. (Of course, you might piss the money away in a war that some other guy started or whatever, but that's not the point. If you don't collect the money, you can't redistribute it) Claiming that you can redistribute money you don't collect is either irrational or dishonest. If this thread only exists to label the Right wing as "not worth listening to" then labelling them as liars is every bit as effective as calling them insane. It really doesn't matter if they are discredited for irrationality or for dishonesty. "By yours ( and John's ) definition, are we, then, ALL insane for believing the things which get said during elections ( or by paid-for shills and 'talking heads' ) ?" Seriously? You believe that hogwash?

You can pronounce it how you want, but... Since he was French it's fair to assume that he would have pronounced it as something like "D Broy". So, unless you want to claim that he got his own name wrong, the right pronunciation is something like that. In much the same way, unless you wish to claim that, while a great mathematician, Euler was too dumb to say his own name correctly, it's pronounced like "oiler". (the very short uh sound in de is called a schwa.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa