"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Cornwell writes:
You are so right Tudor but it doesn't matter how much we bang on about it
these people don't understand that the science is about trying to
accurately
interpret what is happening and nothing to do with winning or losing.
Proper
scientists don't give a sh*t about that. They know that what they say
today
will be improved upon tomorrow with better evidence, in either direction.
It's a matter of evolution. (Oh, sorry, that didn't happen either)

There's a very good piece by Geoffrey Lean in today's Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...hange-row.html

In the course of it he says:

'There are four sides to the debate. At one extreme are those convinced
that global warming is a massive hoax, got up by a worldwide conspiracy
of scientists and governments. Since nothing will convince them it is
real, they are often called deniers. They rightly object to the term,
because of its unacceptable connotations with Holocaust denial (though
they happily label their opponents “eco-Fascists” and “Nazis”).
Instead, why don’t we try calling them rejectionists?

'Second, there are many who are genuinely sceptical and questioning of
the scientific “consensus”, the only honest starting point for
anyone. Third, there are those, like me, who began from that position,
but have been convinced by the evidence that climate change really is
taking place (though they heartily wish – not least for their
children’s sake – that it were not). Lastly, there are
fundamentalist greens who gleefully welcome global warming as an overdue
judgment on capitalism and industrial society.'

I'm in the third group, but I think we have people from all four posting
in this newsgroup.

I'm very sceptical about predictions of doom and gloom. But I accept the
evidence that the planet as a whole has got warmer in the past 30 years
after doing my own investigations with some raw data. We must also accept
the need to stop destruction of rainforests, for recycling, clean
alternative energy (including coal) etc etc - not because of potential
climate change, but because it simply makes good sense in our crowded planet
and we have nothing to lose by doing so and possibly something to gain - a
win win.

Will
--