Bye bye butterflies

[Hils]

"If you think you saw fewer butterflies than ever this British summer,
you are probably correct: the Big Butterfly Count has recorded its
lowest number of common species since records began.

Normally ubiquitous butterflies such as the gatekeeper, comma and small
copper experienced their worst summers in the history of the count,
which is run by Butterfly Conservation and began in 2010.

Scientists said the low number of butterflies is “a shock and a mystery”
because this summer was warmer than average and much drier in England
than the previous worst year for butterflies, 2012, which was unusually
cold and wet."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/10/record-low-number-of-uk-butterflies-a-shock-and-a-mystery

I don't recall a year so bereft of butterflies: the only time I have
seen more than two at a time this year was a couple of weeks ago, when I
saw four large whites on the still-lush growth by one of the local rhynes.

How was it for other observers?

[amacm...@aol.com]

Hardly seen a butterfly all summer this year, but massive increase in
plant growth possibly compensating for increased CO2. Nature sorting
it's own problem?

[Malcolm Ogilvie]

A recent prediction suggests that the rise in CO2 levels experienced in the last 30 years
might have led to between 5 and 10% extra growth, which I doubt you would be able to
notice! A mild winter and fine spring with enough summer rain are the more likely reasons.

And in any case, this is not "compensation" and nor is it "nature's" problem, it is
mankind's.

Malcolm

[amacm...@aol.com]

Four slippery scientific qualifiers noted :-)

[Malcolm Ogilvie]

Total inability of Angus to produce the slightest evidence for his claims.

When was the last time you did that, Angus, if ever?

Malcolm

[amacm...@aol.com]

It's not just me who thinks scientific research is garbage. It's a
grant sucking industry that follows the money and almost always uses
slippery qualifiers which makes its conclusions meaningless.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/how-many-scientific-papers-just-arent-true/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20161029_Weekly_Highlights_44_NONSUBS

Get real, Malcolm, science sucks.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:57:10 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie

[Malcolm Ogilvie]

Yes, well, who is surprised that you believe someone connected with Lord Lawson's Global
Warming Policy Foundation, which is described as the UK's most high-profile climate denier
group. She is a Canadian campaigning journalist. You might care to examine her scientific
credentials.

Did you know that Lord Lawson is chairman of the Central European Trust, which lists among
its clients, BP Amoco, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Texaco, and Total Fina Elf? He also
features on the website for CET's Polish office, which lists 10 energy and power companies
including Belchatów Power Plant, one of largest fossil fuel power stations in the world.
Would you consider what he and his Foundation say is unbiassed?

As for conclusions being "meaningless", they might be meaningless to you, but that really
isn't surprising given your many evidenceless claims showing that you haven't a clue what
you are talking about. You have after all made claims which contradict the findings of
professional archaeologists, paleontologists, geologists and geomorphologists, which
merely demonstrated how your obsession with trying to show that the red squirrel is not a
native species of Britain has led you to ignore accepted facts in favour of your own
risible inventions.

[amacm...@aol.com]

Total inability of science to produce the slightest evidence for its
claims. Everything they do and say is tempered by slippery
qualifiers.

Good for Donald Trump! He's going to scrap climate change agreements.
And how long now till the EU inplodes? Malcolm used to say the EU was
here fro good. At least we're going out. You never saw that coming a
few years ago despite me telling you it would collapse.




On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:57:10 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie

[Malcolm Ogilvie]

Yes, well, Trump is guilty of lying, bigotry, misogynism, racism, physically and verbally
assaulting women, insuliting the parents of war veterans, failing to produce his tax
returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy, and Angus is an admirer of him. Oh yes, and
Trump currently has 75 pending legal cases against him.

Among a number of Trump's ignorant statements regarding science are:

"Global warming is an expensive hoax".

If only it were, but it isn't and, contrary to Angus's wishful thinking, it is backed up
by a mass of hard scientific evidence which it is obvious Angus doesn't want to understand
and so doesn't even try.

There's one Trump statement we can all agree with, though:

"The global warming we should be worried about is the global warming caused by nuclear
weapons in the hands of crazy or incompetent leaders."

As for the EU, your prediction of its collapse has yet to occur. So when do you think it
is going to happen?

Malcolm

[amacm...@aol.com]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:50:24 +0000, Malcolm Ogilvie
<MAOg...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Yes, well, Trump is guilty of lying, bigotry, misogynism, racism, physically and verbally
>assaulting women, insuliting the parents of war veterans, failing to produce his tax
>returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy, and Angus is an admirer of him.

Which qualifies him to be a politician.

>Oh yes, and
>Trump currently has 75 pending legal cases against him.
>

Most are garbage.

>Among a number of Trump's ignorant statements regarding science are:
>
>"Global warming is an expensive hoax".
>

Of course it is a hoax. With a railway engineer at the helm:-)

>If only it were, but it isn't and, contrary to Angus's wishful thinking, it is backed up
>by a mass of hard scientific evidence which it is obvious Angus doesn't want to understand
>and so doesn't even try.

Show me one report withour slippery qualifiers.

>
>There's one Trump statement we can all agree with, though:
>
>"The global warming we should be worried about is the global warming caused by nuclear
>weapons in the hands of crazy or incompetent leaders."

Glad you agree.

>
>As for the EU, your prediction of its collapse has yet to occur. So when do you think it
>is going to happen?

Within the next five years. There's an unstoppable right wing storm
about to take place in mainland Europe. If you don't see it coming
you're as blind as you have been in past years.

BTW. I understand somewhere around Perth they're stopping persecuting
grey squirrels because it's not economically viable. I predicted that
years ago. Greys are here to stay.





And now the reds are laible to give people leprocy.

[Malcolm Ogilvie]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:05:30 +0000, amacm...@aol.com wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:50:24 +0000, Malcolm Ogilvie
><MAOg...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, well, Trump is guilty of lying, bigotry, misogynism, racism, physically and verbally
>>assaulting women, insuliting the parents of war veterans, failing to produce his tax
>>returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy, and Angus is an admirer of him.
>
>Which qualifies him to be a politician.
>

So you are admitting that you admire politicians who are guilty of lying, bigotry,

misogynism, racism, physically and verbally assaulting women, insuliting the parents of

war veterans, failing to produce his tax returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy.

How revealing.

>>Oh yes, and
>>Trump currently has 75 pending legal cases against him.
>>
>
>Most are garbage.
>

Angus further reveals that he is an expert on American law. Can I suggest you look up the
cases against him relating to the "Trump University".

>>Among a number of Trump's ignorant statements regarding science are:
>>
>>"Global warming is an expensive hoax".
>>
>
>Of course it is a hoax. With a railway engineer at the helm:-)
>

Your continued ignorance is noted without surprise.

>>If only it were, but it isn't and, contrary to Angus's wishful thinking, it is backed up
>>by a mass of hard scientific evidence which it is obvious Angus doesn't want to understand
>>and so doesn't even try.
>
>Show me one report withour slippery qualifiers.
>

And, yet again, Angus reveals his total lack of scientific understanding. You don't even
understand the concept of significance because when a point was put to you that was
significant at the level of 95%, you thought this meant that the other 5% contradicted it,
whereas it actually means that there is a only a 5% chance of the result being due to
chance, in that particular case that man was not responsible for global warming.

It's amazing that a man of your age remains so ignorant.

>>
>>There's one Trump statement we can all agree with, though:
>>
>>"The global warming we should be worried about is the global warming caused by nuclear
>>weapons in the hands of crazy or incompetent leaders."
>
>Glad you agree.
>
>>
>>As for the EU, your prediction of its collapse has yet to occur. So when do you think it
>>is going to happen?
>
>Within the next five years. There's an unstoppable right wing storm
>about to take place in mainland Europe. If you don't see it coming
>you're as blind as you have been in past years.
>

Thank you for your prediction. What statistical significance are you putting on it!

>BTW. I understand somewhere around Perth they're stopping persecuting
>grey squirrels because it's not economically viable. I predicted that
>years ago. Greys are here to stay.
>

And I believe that, as usual, you are wrong, both about the stopping of culling around
Perth and your predictions. You will, of course, produce the evidence for your claims,
won't you? But knowing you, you won't.>

>
>
>
>And now the reds are laible to give people leprocy.
>

Angus lies, deliberately, of course. Please produce your evidence that reds are "liable to
give people leprosy". And I don't want quotes from the gutter press which you are prone
to read but from a serious medical or scientific journal. And bear in mind that the last
case of leprosy in Britain was over 300 years ago but the reds have apparently been
carriers for decades and possibly hundreds of years.

[amacm...@aol.com]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:14:09 +0000, Malcolm Ogilvie

<MAOg...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:05:30 +0000, amacm...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:50:24 +0000, Malcolm Ogilvie
>><MAOg...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Yes, well, Trump is guilty of lying, bigotry, misogynism, racism, physically and verbally
>>>assaulting women, insuliting the parents of war veterans, failing to produce his tax
>>>returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy, and Angus is an admirer of him.
>>
>>Which qualifies him to be a politician.
>>
>So you are admitting that you admire politicians who are guilty of lying, bigotry,
>misogynism, racism, physically and verbally assaulting women, insuliting the parents of
>war veterans, failing to produce his tax returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy.
>

Much the same with most politicians. Too many luvvie types and too
many people willing to take offence.

>How revealing.
>
>>>Oh yes, and
>>>Trump currently has 75 pending legal cases against him.
>>>
>>
>>Most are garbage.
>>
>Angus further reveals that he is an expert on American law. Can I suggest you look up the
>cases against him relating to the "Trump University".

Read the cases.

>
>>>Among a number of Trump's ignorant statements regarding science are:
>>>
>>>"Global warming is an expensive hoax".
>>>
>>
>>Of course it is a hoax. With a railway engineer at the helm:-)
>>
>Your continued ignorance is noted without surprise.

Get rid of the grant sucking scientists.

>
>>>If only it were, but it isn't and, contrary to Angus's wishful thinking, it is backed up
>>>by a mass of hard scientific evidence which it is obvious Angus doesn't want to understand
>>>and so doesn't even try.
>>
>>Show me one report withour slippery qualifiers.
>>
>And, yet again, Angus reveals his total lack of scientific understanding.

So you can't; didn't think so.

>You don't even
>understand the concept of significance because when a point was put to you that was
>significant at the level of 95%, you thought this meant that the other 5% contradicted it,
>whereas it actually means that there is a only a 5% chance of the result being due to
>chance, in that particular case that man was not responsible for global warming.

GIGO is what it was.

>
>It's amazing that a man of your age remains so ignorant.

Ageism?

>
>>>
>>>There's one Trump statement we can all agree with, though:
>>>
>>>"The global warming we should be worried about is the global warming caused by nuclear
>>>weapons in the hands of crazy or incompetent leaders."
>>
>>Glad you agree.
>>
>>>
>>>As for the EU, your prediction of its collapse has yet to occur. So when do you think it
>>>is going to happen?
>>
>>Within the next five years. There's an unstoppable right wing storm
>>about to take place in mainland Europe. If you don't see it coming
>>you're as blind as you have been in past years.
>>
>Thank you for your prediction. What statistical significance are you putting on it!

The rise of RW parties.

>
>>BTW. I understand somewhere around Perth they're stopping persecuting
>>grey squirrels because it's not economically viable. I predicted that
>>years ago. Greys are here to stay.
>>
>And I believe that, as usual, you are wrong, both about the stopping of culling around
>Perth and your predictions. You will, of course, produce the evidence for your claims,
>won't you? But knowing you, you won't.>

So you don't know about it :-)

>>
>>
>>
>>And now the reds are laible to give people leprocy.
>>
>Angus lies, deliberately, of course. Please produce your evidence that reds are "liable to
>give people leprosy".

People have been advised to stay away from them. It's in today's
papers.

>And I don't want quotes from the gutter press which you are prone
>to read but from a serious medical or scientific journal. And bear in mind that the last
>case of leprosy in Britain was over 300 years ago but the reds have apparently been
>carriers for decades and possibly hundreds of years.
>

Slippery qualifier alert: "apparently" and "possibly". Which meand
you don't know. Ignorance reigns :-)

Back in a few days if I get the time.

[Malcolm Ogilvie]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:51:11 +0000, amacm...@aol.com wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:14:09 +0000, Malcolm Ogilvie
><MAOg...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:05:30 +0000, amacm...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:50:24 +0000, Malcolm Ogilvie
>>><MAOg...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, well, Trump is guilty of lying, bigotry, misogynism, racism, physically and verbally
>>>>assaulting women, insuliting the parents of war veterans, failing to produce his tax
>>>>returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy, and Angus is an admirer of him.
>>>
>>>Which qualifies him to be a politician.
>>>
>>So you are admitting that you admire politicians who are guilty of lying, bigotry,
>>misogynism, racism, physically and verbally assaulting women, insuliting the parents of
>>war veterans, failing to produce his tax returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy.
>>
>
>Much the same with most politicians. Too many luvvie types and too
>many people willing to take offence.
>

And you admire Trump.

Nuff said.

>>How revealing.
>>
>>>>Oh yes, and
>>>>Trump currently has 75 pending legal cases against him.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Most are garbage.
>>>
>>Angus further reveals that he is an expert on American law. Can I suggest you look up the
>>cases against him relating to the "Trump University".
>
>Read the cases.
>

I have, and in particular about the Trump University. You appear not to have done or to
dismiss the very serious allegations against your "idol".

>>
>>>>Among a number of Trump's ignorant statements regarding science are:
>>>>
>>>>"Global warming is an expensive hoax".
>>>>
>>>
>>>Of course it is a hoax. With a railway engineer at the helm:-)
>>>
>>Your continued ignorance is noted without surprise.
>
>Get rid of the grant sucking scientists.
>

A meaningless, ignorant and bigotted statement.

>>
>>>>If only it were, but it isn't and, contrary to Angus's wishful thinking, it is backed up
>>>>by a mass of hard scientific evidence which it is obvious Angus doesn't want to understand
>>>>and so doesn't even try.
>>>
>>>Show me one report withour slippery qualifiers.
>>>
>>And, yet again, Angus reveals his total lack of scientific understanding.
>
>So you can't; didn't think so.
>

I don't need to show you any report - there are very large numbers available to you, all
of which you appear to dismiss because you don't understand them or they don't say
anything that you can agree with.

>
>>You don't even
>>understand the concept of significance because when a point was put to you that was
>>significant at the level of 95%, you thought this meant that the other 5% contradicted it,
>>whereas it actually means that there is a only a 5% chance of the result being due to
>>chance, in that particular case that man was not responsible for global warming.
>
>GIGO is what it was.
>

No, that trite statement is as far from the truth as it is possible to get. But then
you're too ignorant and bigotted to understand the truth about global warming.

>>
>>It's amazing that a man of your age remains so ignorant.
>
>Ageism?
>

If you like, but then you are older than me :-))

>>
>>>>
>>>>There's one Trump statement we can all agree with, though:
>>>>
>>>>"The global warming we should be worried about is the global warming caused by nuclear
>>>>weapons in the hands of crazy or incompetent leaders."
>>>
>>>Glad you agree.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>As for the EU, your prediction of its collapse has yet to occur. So when do you think it
>>>>is going to happen?
>>>
>>>Within the next five years. There's an unstoppable right wing storm
>>>about to take place in mainland Europe. If you don't see it coming
>>>you're as blind as you have been in past years.
>>>
>>Thank you for your prediction. What statistical significance are you putting on it!
>
>The rise of RW parties.
>

A claim not a test of statistical significance, but then you don't know anything about
that, do you?

>>
>>>BTW. I understand somewhere around Perth they're stopping persecuting
>>>grey squirrels because it's not economically viable. I predicted that
>>>years ago. Greys are here to stay.
>>>
>>And I believe that, as usual, you are wrong, both about the stopping of culling around
>>Perth and your predictions. You will, of course, produce the evidence for your claims,
>>won't you? But knowing you, you won't.>
>
>So you don't know about it :-)
>

More than you and in a position to ask you for evidence, but, as I knew in advance, you
can't produce any.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And now the reds are laible to give people leprocy.
>>>
>>Angus lies, deliberately, of course. Please produce your evidence that reds are "liable to
>>give people leprosy".
>
>People have been advised to stay away from them. It's in today's
>papers.
>

I said I didn't want quotes from the gutter press, but inevitably got them from you.

>>And I don't want quotes from the gutter press which you are prone
>>to read but from a serious medical or scientific journal. And bear in mind that the last
>>case of leprosy in Britain was over 300 years ago but the reds have apparently been
>>carriers for decades and possibly hundreds of years.
>>
>
>Slippery qualifier alert: "apparently" and "possibly". Which meand
>you don't know. Ignorance reigns :-)
>

And Angus once again shows his scientific illiteracy.

>Back in a few days if I get the time.
>

"Back in a few dayz onxe I've worked out how to asnwer your questions.

[amacm...@aol.com]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:16:55 +0000, Malcolm Ogilvie

<MAOg...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:51:11 +0000, amacm...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:14:09 +0000, Malcolm Ogilvie
>><MAOg...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:05:30 +0000, amacm...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:50:24 +0000, Malcolm Ogilvie
>>>><MAOg...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, well, Trump is guilty of lying, bigotry, misogynism, racism, physically and verbally
>>>>>assaulting women, insuliting the parents of war veterans, failing to produce his tax
>>>>>returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy, and Angus is an admirer of him.
>>>>
>>>>Which qualifies him to be a politician.
>>>>
>>>So you are admitting that you admire politicians who are guilty of lying, bigotry,
>>>misogynism, racism, physically and verbally assaulting women, insuliting the parents of
>>>war veterans, failing to produce his tax returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy.
>>>
>>
>>Much the same with most politicians. Too many luvvie types and too
>>many people willing to take offence.
>>
>And you admire Trump.

Not until he gets rid of liberalism

>
>Nuff said.

Not nearly enough.

>
>>>How revealing.
>>>
>>>>>Oh yes, and
>>>>>Trump currently has 75 pending legal cases against him.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Most are garbage.
>>>>
>>>Angus further reveals that he is an expert on American law. Can I suggest you look up the
>>>cases against him relating to the "Trump University".
>>
>>Read the cases.
>>
>I have, and in particular about the Trump University. You appear not to have done or to
>dismiss the very serious allegations against your "idol".

It's not going to worry Trump. And what about all the colleges now
called "universities" here which dole out pretty useless degrees and
primary school "campuses". Verbage creep!

>
>>>
>>>>>Among a number of Trump's ignorant statements regarding science are:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Global warming is an expensive hoax".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course it is a hoax. With a railway engineer at the helm:-)
>>>>
>>>Your continued ignorance is noted without surprise.
>>
>>Get rid of the grant sucking scientists.
>>
>A meaningless, ignorant and bigotted statement.

No. A reality. They should get proper jobs.

>
>>>
>>>>>If only it were, but it isn't and, contrary to Angus's wishful thinking, it is backed up
>>>>>by a mass of hard scientific evidence which it is obvious Angus doesn't want to understand
>>>>>and so doesn't even try.
>>>>
>>>>Show me one report withour slippery qualifiers.
>>>>
>>>And, yet again, Angus reveals his total lack of scientific understanding.
>>
>>So you can't; didn't think so.
>>
>I don't need to show you any report - there are very large numbers available to you, all
>of which you appear to dismiss because you don't understand them or they don't say
>anything that you can agree with.

It doesn't take much to understand thet slippery qualifiers make
reports meaningless.

>>
>>>You don't even
>>>understand the concept of significance because when a point was put to you that was
>>>significant at the level of 95%, you thought this meant that the other 5% contradicted it,
>>>whereas it actually means that there is a only a 5% chance of the result being due to
>>>chance, in that particular case that man was not responsible for global warming.
>>
>>GIGO is what it was.
>>
>No, that trite statement is as far from the truth as it is possible to get. But then
>you're too ignorant and bigotted to understand the truth about global warming.

Read this and educate yourself. http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

>
>>>
>>>It's amazing that a man of your age remains so ignorant.
>>
>>Ageism?
>>
>If you like, but then you are older than me :-))

A few months.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There's one Trump statement we can all agree with, though:
>>>>>
>>>>>"The global warming we should be worried about is the global warming caused by nuclear
>>>>>weapons in the hands of crazy or incompetent leaders."
>>>>
>>>>Glad you agree.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>As for the EU, your prediction of its collapse has yet to occur. So when do you think it
>>>>>is going to happen?
>>>>
>>>>Within the next five years. There's an unstoppable right wing storm
>>>>about to take place in mainland Europe. If you don't see it coming
>>>>you're as blind as you have been in past years.
>>>>
>>>Thank you for your prediction. What statistical significance are you putting on it!
>>
>>The rise of RW parties.
>>
>A claim not a test of statistical significance, but then you don't know anything about
>that, do you?

A lot more than you do obviously.

>
>>>
>>>>BTW. I understand somewhere around Perth they're stopping persecuting
>>>>grey squirrels because it's not economically viable. I predicted that
>>>>years ago. Greys are here to stay.
>>>>
>>>And I believe that, as usual, you are wrong, both about the stopping of culling around
>>>Perth and your predictions. You will, of course, produce the evidence for your claims,
>>>won't you? But knowing you, you won't.
>>
>>So you don't know about it :-)
>>
>More than you and in a position to ask you for evidence, but, as I knew in advance, you
>can't produce any.
>

It was im the media last week. Go look it up.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And now the reds are laible to give people leprocy.
>>>>
>>>Angus lies, deliberately, of course. Please produce your evidence that reds are "liable to
>>>give people leprosy".
>>
>>People have been advised to stay away from them. It's in today's
>>papers.
>>
>I said I didn't want quotes from the gutter press, but inevitably got them from you.
>
>
>>>And I don't want quotes from the gutter press which you are prone
>>>to read but from a serious medical or scientific journal. And bear in mind that the last
>>>case of leprosy in Britain was over 300 years ago but the reds have apparently been
>>>carriers for decades and possibly hundreds of years.
>>>
>>
>>Slippery qualifier alert: "apparently" and "possibly". Which meand
>>you don't know. Ignorance reigns :-)
>>
>And Angus once again shows his scientific illiteracy.
>
>>Back in a few days if I get the time.
>>
>
>"Back in a few dayz onxe I've worked out how to asnwer your questions.
>

I can smell the wood burning from here :-))

[Malcolm Ogilvie]

If it's "not going to worry" Trump, why has he settled the claims with $25 million? After
all, during the campaign he said: "I could have settled this case numerous times, but I
don’t want to settle cases when we’re right. I don’t believe in it. And when you start
settling cases, you know what happens? Everybody sues you because you get known as a
settler. One thing about me, I am not known as a settler."

Just another lie, then.

And now he *has* settled these, that should encourage the other 70+ ciaimants!

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Among a number of Trump's ignorant statements regarding science are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Global warming is an expensive hoax".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it is a hoax. With a railway engineer at the helm:-)
>>>>>
>>>>Your continued ignorance is noted without surprise.
>>>
>>>Get rid of the grant sucking scientists.
>>>
>>A meaningless, ignorant and bigotted statement.
>
>No. A reality. They should get proper jobs.
>

Not only do they have "proper jobs", Angus, but for those who can understand it (not you,
of course), there are results emerging that are of huge importance and more than worth the
money spent.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>If only it were, but it isn't and, contrary to Angus's wishful thinking, it is backed up
>>>>>>by a mass of hard scientific evidence which it is obvious Angus doesn't want to understand
>>>>>>and so doesn't even try.
>>>>>
>>>>>Show me one report withour slippery qualifiers.
>>>>>
>>>>And, yet again, Angus reveals his total lack of scientific understanding.
>>>
>>>So you can't; didn't think so.
>>>
>>I don't need to show you any report - there are very large numbers available to you, all
>>of which you appear to dismiss because you don't understand them or they don't say
>>anything that you can agree with.
>
>It doesn't take much to understand thet slippery qualifiers make
>reports meaningless.
>

The phrase "slippery qualifiers" is yet further evidence, as if more were needed, that
your tiny and closed mind doesn't understand science much of which judges results on the
basis of probabilities and not absolutes. If you could just understand that, and it has
been told you by others, not just me, you would have made a giant step forward.

>
>>>
>>>>You don't even
>>>>understand the concept of significance because when a point was put to you that was
>>>>significant at the level of 95%, you thought this meant that the other 5% contradicted it,
>>>>whereas it actually means that there is a only a 5% chance of the result being due to
>>>>chance, in that particular case that man was not responsible for global warming.
>>>
>>>GIGO is what it was.
>>>
>>No, that trite statement is as far from the truth as it is possible to get. But then
>>you're too ignorant and bigotted to understand the truth about global warming.
>
>Read this and educate yourself. http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm
>

Yes, well, you keep posting links to websites run by nutters, and here's another one.

So, Angus, if you believe these people on global warming, do you also believe that
Alzheimer's can be cured by the "Natural Allopathic Protocol"?

And that "X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic of Cancer"?

And that the annual flu vaccine (have you had yours this winter?) kills people?

I fear that the contents of this website have softened your brain :-)

>>
>>>>
>>>>It's amazing that a man of your age remains so ignorant.
>>>
>>>Ageism?
>>>
>>If you like, but then you are older than me :-))
>
>A few months.
>

Indeed.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There's one Trump statement we can all agree with, though:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The global warming we should be worried about is the global warming caused by nuclear
>>>>>>weapons in the hands of crazy or incompetent leaders."
>>>>>
>>>>>Glad you agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As for the EU, your prediction of its collapse has yet to occur. So when do you think it
>>>>>>is going to happen?
>>>>>
>>>>>Within the next five years. There's an unstoppable right wing storm
>>>>>about to take place in mainland Europe. If you don't see it coming
>>>>>you're as blind as you have been in past years.
>>>>>
>>>>Thank you for your prediction. What statistical significance are you putting on it!
>>>
>>>The rise of RW parties.
>>>
>>A claim not a test of statistical significance, but then you don't know anything about
>>that, do you?
>
>A lot more than you do obviously.
>

No, not "obviously". You have already demonstrated that you don't understand statistical
signficance

>>
>>>>
>>>>>BTW. I understand somewhere around Perth they're stopping persecuting
>>>>>grey squirrels because it's not economically viable. I predicted that
>>>>>years ago. Greys are here to stay.
>>>>>
>>>>And I believe that, as usual, you are wrong, both about the stopping of culling around
>>>>Perth and your predictions. You will, of course, produce the evidence for your claims,
>>>>won't you? But knowing you, you won't.
>>>
>>>So you don't know about it :-)
>>>
>>More than you and in a position to ask you for evidence, but, as I knew in advance, you
>>can't produce any.
>>
>
>It was im the media last week. Go look it up.
>

"Media"? Good scientific evidence or an over-excited journalist?

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And now the reds are laible to give people leprocy.
>>>>>
>>>>Angus lies, deliberately, of course. Please produce your evidence that reds are "liable to
>>>>give people leprosy".
>>>
>>>People have been advised to stay away from them. It's in today's
>>>papers.
>>>
>>I said I didn't want quotes from the gutter press, but inevitably got them from you.
>>
>>
>>>>And I don't want quotes from the gutter press which you are prone
>>>>to read but from a serious medical or scientific journal. And bear in mind that the last
>>>>case of leprosy in Britain was over 300 years ago but the reds have apparently been
>>>>carriers for decades and possibly hundreds of years.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Slippery qualifier alert: "apparently" and "possibly". Which meand
>>>you don't know. Ignorance reigns :-)
>>>
>>And Angus once again shows his scientific illiteracy.
>>
>>>Back in a few days if I get the time.
>>>
>>
>>"Back in a few dayz onxe I've worked out how to asnwer your questions.
>>
>
>I can smell the wood burning from here :-))
>

Then I would check what's on your head.