In article
,
Dawlish writes:
On Feb 6, 10:39Â*am, John Hall wrote:
In article ,
Â*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.'

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

3rd group for me too John. I think the Telegraph hack has missed a
group though. There are many actively working climate scientists who
are thoroughly convinced by the evidence and see global warming as
inevitable. Maybe it was a deliberate attempt by the hack to paint
anyone who is convinced by the science as "fundamentalist
greens" (which implies lefties and that tends to be what the Telegraph
readership are not.

I don't see how you can draw that inference from what he's written. In
spite of writing for the Telegraph, based on the article as a whole and
on other pieces he's written, I'd characterise him as "pale green".
(Incidentally the Daily Telegraph is a far more reasonable publication
than its Sunday stable-mate.)

I think many working for NOAA, Hadley and all the
other climate research organisations would not recognise that term,
should it be applied to them.

But he _hasn't_ applied it to them. From what he's written, I would
imagine that he would put them in his third group.

The rejectionists (I like that word)
will use every opportunity to paint such people as a part of the left.
That happens on here too and, quite frankly, it is plain silly.
However, I do go along with what Will's said about tackling
environmental issues with the same thinking as tackling GW and a "win-
win" future, if the right path is followed. The alternative of, "do
nothing, everything is OK and the present warming is obviously
natural", presents a future that I would not like to hand on to my
grandchildren, should the present huge majority of climate scientist
be correct.

Indeed.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)