On Feb 6, 5:39*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.'

I'm in the third group, but I think we have people from all four posting
in this newsgroup.
--
John Hall
* * * * * *"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
* * * * * * from coughing."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

Thanks for the heads-up.

I read the Lean piece you gave, especially about the
4 groups.

Let me say - I myself fall in between group 2 and 3; I
am both a skeptic and climate change guy.

Yet, a quibble - the term here is climate change, not global
warming.

On second thought maybe I had better re-classify
myself. As a meteorologist I just want the accurate
data in timely fashion. IOW data bound. Of course,
I don't have the resources to acquire the data myself
by my own efforts. I have to rely on meteorological
"organizations", the five leading datasets. The proxies
are not in my purview here.

Yet, my science of meteorology is in the business of
making forecasts. Therefore, while "we" may agree
on the climate record in terms of surface or near-surface
temperature the past 10 years, the past 30 years etc.,
what temperature will do 5 years out, 20 years out,
30 years out, is a horse of a different color.

So, I propose that there has been a small temperature
rise the past 10 years globally. Does anybody disagree?

The next question is much, much harder. Do "we'
or climate scientists have sufficient knowledge of
the climate system and the interplay of major
factors to rule out a reversal of trend by 5 years
from now that Earth will cool?

Probing still further, can we specify all the major
factors and point out the dominant one(s) that
will probably lead to further warming or reversal to cooling?

So, uncertainty is what I struggle with as a meteorologist
with the physical world but even in the way I write to the
people world so that our conversations on usenet be
informative and polite. IOW nobody is perfect, we all
have human shortcomings but we are hopefully doing
the best we can.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA