....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm

--
Martin Rowley
Bracknell

"Martin Rowley" m wrote in
message ...
...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm

--
Martin Rowley
Bracknell
----------------
Yes indeed, the sensible view.
snip
"I think we do have to be careful as scientists not to overstate the case
because it does damage the credibility of the many other things that we have
greater certainty about," he said.



"We have to stick to what the science is telling us; and I don't think
making that sound more sensational, or more sexy, because it gets us more
newspaper columns, is the right thing for us to be doing. "

Dave

In message , Martin Rowley
m writes
...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm


Very pleased to see that these two have put their heads above the
parapet. They are both true scientists for whom I have great respect.
Neither has any particular axe to grind over this issue so their views
are well worth listening to.

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England

"Martin Rowley" wrote :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm

Exactly where I would advise any rational scientific body to
pitch their comments :-)

It is interesting to note that the Board of Directors of the
AAAS (12 members excluding the two (!) treasurers)
do not include a meteorologist or climatologist. Six of
them a biologists or medics. There is one geologist and
one political/human geographer.

Philip

"Martin Rowley" m wrote in
message ...
...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm

" Two leading UK climate researchers have criticised those among their peers
who they say are "overplaying" the global warming message. Professors Paul
Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, are
voicing their concern at a conference in Oxford. They say some researchers
make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the
science. The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate
scientists".

Quite. Was I alone in being angered by the crass questioning of Prof.
Hardaker by John Humphrys at about 08:10 on 'Today' this morning? When
Humphrys can't even understand his own questions (confusing 'climate change'
with AGW) what hope is there that he will be able to comprehend a scientific
answer? He refuses to appreciate the difference between facts and
theories - that (responsible) science is not always able to answer questions
categorically. Humphrys has a track record of disparaging science, but
surely the Beeb could have found an interviewer with some smarts?

When Humphrys demanded a "yes or no" answer to whether GW posed a greater
threat than terrorism, it was like asking "is red a better colour than
blue?". Thank goodness Prof. Hardaker managed to retain his composure.

Surely the real question is "if the balance of scientific judgement is
correct, and mankind's recent activities are contributing to climate change
which is potentially damaging to its future, what, if anything, can be done
to reverse it?". It seems to me that unless the existing proportion of
atmospheric 'greenhouse gases' can be reduced dramatically (as opposed to
just tinkering with the rate of increase) the warming effect, and hence
climate change, is already irreversible and will swamp any efforts mankind
could now make. We just have to wait for the system to stabilise (again),
and deal with it. But then the Government wouldn't have a basis for Green
taxes, so that's a non-starter.

Perhaps it would be better spending that £9.35bn protecting London against a
rising North Sea than on the 2012 Olympics!

Steve P

Steve Pardoe wrote:

Surely the real question is "if the balance of scientific judgement is
correct, and mankind's recent activities are contributing to climate change
which is potentially damaging to its future, what, if anything, can be done
to reverse it?". It seems to me that unless the existing proportion of
atmospheric 'greenhouse gases' can be reduced dramatically (as opposed to
just tinkering with the rate of increase) the warming effect, and hence
climate change, is already irreversible and will swamp any efforts mankind
could now make. We just have to wait for the system to stabilise (again),
and deal with it. But then the Government wouldn't have a basis for Green
taxes, so that's a non-starter.


I am glad someone (other than myself) has written that. It is important to
realise that while people have the right to decide which side of the debate they
favour, if the AGW side is correct, then it is too late to fix it by slowly
reducing the rate of emissions by 2050 (current targets for decrease will not be
met anyway).

Your point about waiting for the system to re-stabilize is also very important -
if NCC (natural climate change) is 'to blame' then the system will 'correct'
itself, and if AGW is 'to blame' then the system will 'correct' itself.

Meanwhile, I take advantage of all this excitement to reduce my consumption of
electricity, gas, and petrol, and pocket the proceeds.


Perhaps it would be better spending that £9.35bn protecting London against a
rising North Sea than on the 2012 Olympics!

Also well said. Anyone watching a bit of the red nose programmes last night
will also have noticed what could be done with that money, and of course what
could be done with the money to be spent on womdies.


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:57:37 -0000, "Steve Pardoe"
wrote:

Was I alone in being angered by the crass questioning of Prof.
Hardaker by John Humphrys at about 08:10 on 'Today' this morning?

No, you were not. There was far more confusion at the end of that slot
than at the start due to Humphrys failure to understand that his normal
adversarial interviewing technique was totally inappropriate for the
subject and for the interviewees.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

I am glad someone (other than myself) has written that. It is important to
realise that while people have the right to decide which side of the debate they
favour, if the AGW side is correct, then it is too late to fix it by slowly
reducing the rate of emissions by 2050 (current targets for decrease will not be
met anyway).

Sadly all too true. Global CO2 emissions are still rising (rapidly).
All western politicians have really succeeded in doing so far is
export the more polluting industries to China & the rest.
( I've just read your bit on climate change - www.buchan-meteo.org.uk/climate.htm
- by the way. It largely reflects views.)

Perhaps it would be better spending that £9.35bn protecting London against a
rising North Sea than on the 2012 Olympics!

Not too mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Trident . . .

Graham
Penzance

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in
message ...
In message , Martin Rowley
m writes
...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm


Very pleased to see that these two have put their heads above the parapet.
They are both true scientists for whom I have great respect. Neither has
any particular axe to grind over this issue so their views are well worth
listening to.

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England



Excellent comment Norman, and its nice to see that they are both Royal Met
society members as well.

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in message
...
In message , Martin Rowley
m writes
...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm


Very pleased to see that these two have put their heads above the
parapet. They are both true scientists for whom I have great respect.
Neither has any particular axe to grind over this issue so their views
are well worth listening to.

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England