On 29/10/2010 16:27, Alastair wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:39 am, Martin
wrote:

There are a lot of competing effects. Be very careful that your green
activism does not run away with you - it helps the anti-science
opposition when well meaning green environmentalists make ludicrous
claims about the short to medium term future which fail to come true.

Since you are resorting to ad hominem arguments by accusing me of
being a green activist I see no point in continuing this discussion.

It is not an ad hominen attack. It is a statement of fact.

You wear your heart on your sleeve and are determined to interpret
everything as evidence of AGW even when some of it clearly is not.

But can I just point out that it is the refusal of people like you,
Will, Philip, and Dr Vicky Pope to face up to the real dangers of
climate change, and your denial of its consequences such as the
melting of the Arctic sea ice, the Moscow and the Paris heat waves,
and the record flooding in the UK, which is providing the real comfort
to the sceptic movement. What are the public supposed to believe when
time and again the scientist say that they do not know if each
disaster is caused by climate change. When are they going to be honest
and admit that it probably is?

Single events cannot easily be blamed on AGW but the long term trends
can be firmly laid at its door. The problem is that by the time this is
absolutely clear there will be a lot of thermal inertia and a serious
overshoot. Sea level rise is pretty much inevitable now. Certainly plans
are needed to bolster the Thames Barrier if it is not to be overtopped
by a storm surge in the coming century.

There is no political will to do the right thing no matter what the
scientific advice. But the scientific advice that is given must rest on
very firm foundations. You only have to look at the fiasco over the
ludicrous WWF claim about vanishing Himalayan glaciers by 2035 to see
what damage careless claims that are trivial to disprove can do to
scientists credibility. The fact that the glaciers *ARE* retreating and
fairly quickly too has been totally lost in the noise now.

[I note that you snipped your mad idea and take my comment out of
context here - this is very typical of activists and propagandists]

And wild speculation at that. If the higher UV level does anything it
will alter the high level ozone distribution. Very little UV reaches the
surface of the Earth.

Oh good, does that mean I should ignore those warning from the Met
Office about UV levels?

It will likely make them a bit worse in spring.

Regards,
Martin Brown