On Oct 8, 9:32*am, Natsman wrote:
On 8 Oct, 04:45, Tudor Hughes wrote:





On Oct 7, 11:43*pm, John. Athome wrote:

Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.

(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)

* * * There is no evidence for either of those claims. *Why should we
take them at all seriously, given that Christoper Booker knows very
little about meteorology and certainly has no knowledge whatever of
the models and methods used in producing seasonal forecasts, or any
other forecasts I would imagine.
* * * *The term "barbecue summer" should have been excised as a
misleadingly simplisitic description of a month or two that would be
warmer than normal.
* * * * Ignore all journalists' pieces about Global Warming. *Their
ignorance of the subject is comprehensive, with the exception of one
or two we know.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

However, he does expound the fact that there is a lot of scientific
(and general) dissent out there, and this dissent isn't readily
available to the general public, because the television media just
makes a point of broadcasting whatever "this expert" or "that report"
has said, or "this" or "that" politician's view (and they know sod all
about meteorology either) without any discussion or putting forward
opposing views. *I notice recently, that there again appears to be
more mentioning of "global warming" rather than "climate change" - is
this pure chance, or deliberate?

Whatever you may think of Christopher Booker, his articles certainly
generate lively debate.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is not "a lot" of scientific dissent out there. That would be
wrong. There is some dissent, whilst the vast majority of scientists
accept the fact that the world is highly likely to continue to warm.
If the television media did made a point of reporting what; "this
expert" or "that report" has said, or "this" or "that" politician's
view (and they know sod all about meteorology either)" then if there
was presently anything like a balance of opinion, there would be a lot
more reports about GW having stopped and the theory being incorrect.
There isn't a balance of opinion, but denialists would like to portray
things as if there is.

That's just another denialist tactic to deflect from actual trends and
actual science and would purport to the denialist view being the
scientific equivalent of the mainstream. It isn't. It is the view of a
very small minority of climate scientists who are being ignored
(sensibly, IMO).

Anyway, a post such as this is very ironic, made on the back of such
an uninformed and sceptical newspaper report from a hack who really
does know "sod-all about meteorology" - really sod all about climate
science and writes to sell a right-wing newspaper.