On Oct 8, 10:56*am, Natsman wrote:
On 8 Oct, 11:35, Dawlish wrote:





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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, Dawlish, there is a LOT of dissent, despite your prejudiced
views. *And the "deniers" are really those who don't believe that they
could just conceivably be wrong in their AGW prognoses. *I would
rather class myself as a sceptic, chiefly because I believe that the
"arguments" that you and your ilk put forward are suspect, unproven
and biased. *I've seen nothing yet that has encouraged me to change my
views, as just about every "official" publication that appears is
pulled apart because it is riddled with untruths, unproved "facts" and
generalisations. *I notice that the "hockey stick" has been dispensed
with (without explanation or apology for it's erroneous predicition),
photographs of alleged Arctic ice melting in fact are those of the
Antarctic (and not melting at all, apparently), and poor stranded
polar bears on ice floes are, in fact, doing OK, thank you, and we
won't mention dendrochronology. *It's all smoke and mirrors, and
becoming more so as time goes by. *If you have to resort to
subterfuge, is says a lot for the "science". *Well, it doesn't fool
me, but I of course can only speak for myself. *However, I am
heartened to see that many others, with far greater relevant subject
knowledge than me are also sceptics.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Natsman. To reflect the tenor of your post: there is NOT a lot of
*scientific* dissent, despite your need to persuade us that there is.
There simply isn't. The hockey stick, as an analogy, has not been
"dispensed with" though deniers would like to feel that it has.
Sceptics would question how the analogy will be viewed in 50 years
time, but would not dispense with the analogy. One wonders quite what
on earth you are talking about with pictures of polar bears on
Antarctic ice floes *)) and it would be excellent to mention
dendrochronology as a well-established proxy which backs the recent
past as being the warmest, probably, since the time of the prophet
Jesus, 2000 years ago, at least. It doesn't fool you because, as you
say, you have convinced yourself of the opposite, despite so much
evidence in favour of GW happening, being likely to continue and CO2
likely to be found to be the cause.

If you are heartened by your denier-supporters, then what must I be,
believing that such a large majority viewpoint is likely? To describe
such a majority standpoint as "prejudiced" is stretching the term and
probably reflects your dislike of having your view ignored by the
people that count. There are a few (and it really is a few, despite
what you'd like to tell us) with far greater subject knowledge that
you who believe as you do. It's fine to do that, but the overwhelming
body of scientific opinion is that you won't be proven right and you
have to acknowledge that majority. That's why you have to be ignored
in favour of the likelihood and why to do nothing, on the back of the
extensive knowledge we already have that our climate is changing,
would be little more than a crime.