Philip Eden wrote:
"Joe Egginton" wrote :
ronaldbutton wrote:

I wonder if there are any photographs showing how the glaciers grew
between the 13th and 15th centuries ??

No, because photography wasn't invented until the C19th.

But no doubt the denialists are working on it.

pe



The conspiracies freaks will be saying Daguerre was an alien.

--
Joe Egginton
Wolverhampton
175m asl

On Jul 15, 6:15*pm, "Col" wrote:
"Nick Gardner" wrote in message

...

Denialist? Is that the latest pejorative for those of us sensible enough
not to blindly fall for the AGW propaganda?

No, it was a euphemism for those people such as yourself who think they
know better than the overwhelming majority of the world's top climate
scientists who have dedicated their lives studying atmospheric sciences
with the aid of the most powerful and complex computers ever constructed.

What are your qualifications in this subject? How long have you studied
and at which institutions to reach the opinions that you have? Where are
your peer reviewed papers and in which journals are they published? What
are your professional specialisms in the field of atmospheric processes?

Well said.
Of course the deniers' response is that all the scientists who come up
with these results are in the pay of the Government who want an
excuse to raise (green) taxes.

It's all a conspiracy theory to them and you can't debate logically with
conspiracy theorists.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

I'm pretty much with the IPCC on this, but I don't love the term
"denialist" and I never use it. For me, it polarises the argument and
leaves no room for the "disbelievers", thus stoping them seeing the
sense of the overwhelming body of scientific opinion.

For me, there's about an 85-90% probability of CO2 being the cause of
GW. That's high enough for me to agree with the majority who are
seeking to reduce CO2 emissions. Thus, I have not fallen for the "AGW
propaganda", neither has the IPCC and neither do most others. The IPCC
actually does give a 10% chance of other causes being the possible
cause of GW and thus, they have not come to the conclusion that it is
the certain cause. Most climate scientists expect CO2 to be proved to
be the eventual cause, but are quite sceptical enough to know there is
a possibility, (a 1 in 10 chance??) that it may not be. The scientists
who believe that GW has stopped, or will stop are in a very, very,
small minority. There is a much more vocal minority on the Internet,
but the people in power aren't listening to them. No wonder; there is
too much scientific evidence that the threats posed by GW are more
likely to be realised than not. They are sensible not to listen.

Paul

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 at 18:06:00, Nick Gardner
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

Denialist? Is that the latest pejorative for those of us sensible enough
not to blindly fall for the AGW propaganda?

No, it was a euphemism for those people such as yourself who think they know
better than the overwhelming majority of the world's top climate scientists
who have dedicated their lives studying atmospheric sciences with the aid of
the most powerful and complex computers ever constructed.

The same ones that struggle to predict the weather 100 hours ahead, let
alone 100 years?

What are your qualifications in this subject? How long have you studied and
at which institutions to reach the opinions that you have? Where are your
peer reviewed papers and in which journals are they published? What are your
professional specialisms in the field of atmospheric processes?

Last time I checked, formal qualifications were not necessary to be able
to hold an opinion, whatever the subject...

In any case, it is not the warming trend I dispute, just the causes.

Besides, like many people here, I've kept weather records for a
considerable period of time, and certain trends tend to show themselves.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 at 18:15:50, Col wrote
in uk.sci.weather :

"Nick Gardner" wrote in message
...

Denialist? Is that the latest pejorative for those of us sensible enough
not to blindly fall for the AGW propaganda?

No, it was a euphemism for those people such as yourself who think they
know better than the overwhelming majority of the world's top climate
scientists who have dedicated their lives studying atmospheric sciences
with the aid of the most powerful and complex computers ever constructed.

What are your qualifications in this subject? How long have you studied
and at which institutions to reach the opinions that you have? Where are
your peer reviewed papers and in which journals are they published? What
are your professional specialisms in the field of atmospheric processes?

Well said.
Of course the deniers' response is that all the scientists who come up
with these results are in the pay of the Government who want an
excuse to raise (green) taxes.

Like gov'ts ever *need* an excuse...

It's all a conspiracy theory to them and you can't debate logically with
conspiracy theorists.

Ah, but we 'denialists' regard AGW as itself being a conspiracy theory,
devised by the political left to replace the discredited communist
one...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Paul Hyett wrote
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 at 18:06:00, Nick Gardner
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

Denialist? Is that the latest pejorative for those of us sensible enough
not to blindly fall for the AGW propaganda?

No, it was a euphemism for those people such as yourself who think they know
better than the overwhelming majority of the world's top climate scientists
who have dedicated their lives studying atmospheric sciences with the aid of
the most powerful and complex computers ever constructed.

The same ones that struggle to predict the weather 100 hours ahead, let
alone 100 years?

What are your qualifications in this subject? How long have you studied and
at which institutions to reach the opinions that you have? Where are your
peer reviewed papers and in which journals are they published? What are your
professional specialisms in the field of atmospheric processes?

Last time I checked, formal qualifications were not necessary to be
able to hold an opinion, whatever the subject...

In any case, it is not the warming trend I dispute, just the causes.

Besides, like many people here, I've kept weather records for a
considerable period of time, and certain trends tend to show themselves.

Next week's required viewing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/burnup/

Will presumably be Dramatic but has apparently been extremely
well-researched - the BBC lawyers breathing down the necks of the
scriptwriters and editors.


--
Kate B

PS 'elvira' is spamtrapped - please reply to 'elviraspam' at cockaigne dot org dot uk if you
want to reply personally

Paul Hyett wrote:

Ah, but we 'denialists' regard AGW as itself being a conspiracy theory,
devised by the political left to replace the discredited communist
one...

You cannot be serious?

IMHO The world governments has a choice between, globalisation of
trade, increasing CO2, or localisation of trade, decreasing CO2. Until
a new form of propulsion is invented that doesn't harm the atmosphere.


--
Joe Egginton
Wolverhampton
175m asl

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:51:12 +0100, Joe Egginton
wrote:

Until
a new form of propulsion is invented that doesn't harm the atmosphere.

Tea clippers?

JGD

On Jul 16, 10:51*am, Joe Egginton wrote:
Paul Hyett wrote:
Ah, but we 'denialists' regard AGW as itself being a conspiracy theory,
devised by the political left to replace the discredited communist
one...

You cannot be serious?

IMHO The world governments has *a choice between, globalisation of
trade, increasing CO2, or localisation of trade, decreasing CO2. *Until
a new form of propulsion is invented that doesn't harm the atmosphere.

--
Joe Egginton
Wolverhampton
175m asl

That choice may come, Joe, though I suspect it will be commerce and
growth driven, rather than government driven. Of course, there is a
chance that the world will not continue to warm, which would happily
solve these particular problems. It's a bit scary for our unborn,
however, if we do nothing, at present odds of about 10/1 against the
warming not continuing.

Paul

On Jul 16, 11:10 am, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 16, 10:51 am, Joe Egginton wrote:

Paul Hyett wrote:
Ah, but we 'denialists' regard AGW as itself being a conspiracy theory,
devised by the political left to replace the discredited communist
one...

You cannot be serious?

IMHO The world governments has a choice between, globalisation of
trade, increasing CO2, or localisation of trade, decreasing CO2. Until
a new form of propulsion is invented that doesn't harm the atmosphere.

--
Joe Egginton
Wolverhampton
175m asl

That choice may come, Joe, though I suspect it will be commerce and
growth driven, rather than government driven. Of course, there is a
chance that the world will not continue to warm, which would happily
solve these particular problems. It's a bit scary for our unborn,
however, if we do nothing, at present odds of about 10/1 against the
warming not continuing.

Paul

It is worth watching the clip from the TV play mentioned by Kate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/burnup/

It puts the the dilemma in stark contrast. If we accept that global
warming is caused by burning fossil fuels then we have to give up our
current way of life!

No one is willing to do that, so we are doomed to the consequences of
global warming :-(

Those who know the consequences but are not willing to act, claim
global warming is not caused, or might not be caused. by burning
fossil fuels. However, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that
the warming is cause by the greenhouse effect from the increase in
carbon dioxide of over 30% in the last century. So they are just
burying their heads in the sand to avoid the truth. For me,
"denialist," seems like a very good description of them.

Cheers, Alastair.

What are your qualifications in this subject? How long have you studied and
at which institutions to reach the opinions that you have? Where are your
peer reviewed papers and in which journals are they published? What are your
professional specialisms in the field of atmospheric processes?

I must admit to having become a tiny bit more sceptical about GW, yet
alone whether GW is MM. In part it is just this sort of hectoring,
holier-than-thou attitude that now bombards us all in most aspects of
daily life that's pushed my bloody mindedness to the limit. I haven't
got a peer-reviewed journal article so I should just jolly well shut
up, not have any opinions or doubts of my own, and pay my taxes to fund
more research.

Of course we should listen to the scientists who research in the area,
but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily right, or even not
motivated by self-interested. I've published in enough peer-reviewed
journals myself, and been active in scientific research long enough
(not I hasten to add on GW) to know that people can still be very
biased, dismissive, and obviously motivated by where the next research
grant is going to come from. The scientific literature is also famously
littered with examples of the prevailing paradigm being just wrong. Any
attempt to stifle dissent is scientific fascism.

It's the certainty of the anti-denialists that annoys me, and the way
in which they are so keen to change my behaviour and make my decisions
for me. There is an undeniably political element in it. I'm not
pointing to the scientists here, so much as the politicians, greenies,
and activists who have picked up on it, and for any other cause would
have been labelled loonies. Where are their papers? What are their
specialisms? Where is any sense of humility or admittance that they
could be wrong, that the issue is complex, and that my turning my TV
off rather than onto standby is meaningless given what is happeningin
China and India? I'm also fed up with every quirk of the weather or
natural world being adduced as evidence for global warming, whether
it's a hot summer, cold summer, wet autumn, dry autumn, heavy shower,
without any insight by the people promulgating these views that what
they say is sometimes just a bit ridiculous.

On the subject of scepticism, and sorry if this has been mentioned
before, but has anyone read Christopher Booker's "Scared to death"? I
think he argues that global temperatures have been falling for the last
few years. (I have no idea whether or not this is true, but when I
mentioned it to a friend, who is also very active in green issues, she
said that was just as predicted by the MMGW hypothesis. I rest my case.)

End of rant.

Trevor