
February 6th 10, 11:03 AM
posted to uk.sci.weather
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Apr 2009
Posts: 956
|
|
Joe B update, winter is not over...
On Feb 6, 11:02*am, Nick wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:39*am, John Hall wrote:
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...lean/7168212/W...
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.'
There is perhaps another view: those who are not experts in GW yet for
whom man-made GW fits in with their worldview, and who perceive the
current backlash not down to any new scientific evidence, but instead,
due to an all-too-disturbing attitude adopted by worryingly large
numbers of people: a dislike of any cause loosely affiliated to
liberalism, socialism, etc - which GW has ended up as being affiliated
to even though there is no real reason for it not to be.
Sorry... "even though there is no real reason for it to be", I meant.
Nick
|