Post by michael adamsPost by The Natural PhilosopherPost by michael adamsPost by Tim StreaterWind providing <1% of electricity generation this am. Mere 232MW out of
31,625MW required. French connector (nuke power) supplying 10x more
Who'd have thunk it. And at the height of summer too?
"Strong winds occur mainly in the autumn and winter months associated with low
pressure systems"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom
"Summer
High pressure in the summer often brings fine, warm weather. It can lead to long
warm sunny days and prolonged dry periods."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/highs-and-lows/weather-conditions
So too does high pressure in winter.
Post by michael adamsSo not only is Brillo a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater
but he's a a right wing, sweaty, bullying arsehole, and former BBC hater, who knows
fuck
all
about meteorology either.
in terms of a sweaty bullying arsehole, I suspect that you take todays prize.
I hardly think my opinion of Andrew Neil, whatever it might be, merits that level of
personal abuse. From the like of you or from anyone else.
Excuse me?
You take a position of extreme personal abuse quoting an irrelevant set
of 'facts' that actually confirm what the person you attempt to use them
against, said, as a justification for a total ad hominem,. and you
like to dish it, but you can't takes it?
Really you are less than an amoeba in terms of morality.
I presume you are of the 'green' persuasion. It seems top go with the
territory. Or another LeftyCunt
Post by michael adamsUnless of course he's your boyfriend ,or something
I am gobsmacked. Are you homophobic as well as being a sweaty arsehole
and a leftycunt green?
Post by michael adamsPost by The Natural PhilosopherDoes that make you a bigoted left wing science hater?
Selective presentation of convenient facts by a biased polemicist, hardly merits the
description of "science" in anyone's book.
Well exactly.
Yet that is precisely what Greens so called 'Climate Scientists' and
other LeftyCunts specialise in.
Be careful what weapons you use, lest they be used against you.
Post by michael adamsOnce you've sobered up, there's another word for you to look up in the dictionary
Is there? What word would that be then? So far you haven't even
approached the limits of my vocabulary.
I note the hardly veiled implication that I have been drinking as yet
another example of a totally unwarranted ad hominem and further proof of
your moral depravity.
Post by michael adamsSimply pointing out an error in somebody's reasoning or their selectivity in choosing
their evidence in no way implies a contrary position . Or any position at all for that
matter.
However you didn't point out an error in their reasoning. You actually
confirmed it, and the use of personal abuse suggest you understood your
argument hadn't a leg to stand on.
And most people would assume that trying to oppose a position with false
evidence that does the reverse, and actually making a rabid personal
attack at the same time does not suggest a person who is disinterested
in that position.
Post by michael adamsYou might well think otherwise, but then that's no surprise. Given that you're not
particularly
bright, to start with,
<shrug> depends on your definition of 'bright': I'd certainly claim I
have more qualifications in science than you do.
--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.