Trevor Harley wrote:

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.

I am not a GW sceptic but I do have sympathies with your views, Trevor.

Back in the 1970s many "experts" of the day were predicting that a
significant cooling was imminent. Today, I think most responsible
scientists would say that those predictions in the 1970s proved to be
incorrect, yet they were made by the experts of the day. I appreciate
that understanding of the science has advanced a lot since the 1970s
but is it not just a bit arrogant to claim that we now know the answer
with certainty. The "experts" of the 1970s were proved wrong. I keep an
open enough mind to say that there's a possibility that today's
"experts" could ultimately be proved wrong. I'm not saying that I think
they are wrong but we're not dealing with black and white here, only a
great variety of shades of grey. I'm sure that the weather/climate
machine has a lot of surprises in store during the next 100 years.

Norman
--
Norman Lynagh
Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire
85m a.s.l.
(remove "thisbit" twice to e-mail)

On Jul 16, 11:58*am, Trevor Harley wrote:
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

Well said Trevor. I share many of your concerns about the hectoring
attitude and especially the certainty of some. I assure you it is not
all of those who feel that GW is a real threat and is probably MM. I
wish it wasn't there, as it detracts from the argument and, quite
frankly, puts people's backs up so they stop looking at the science
and concentrate, instead, on attitudes, which just hardens their own.
I've had recent meetings with the Council's sustainability department,
which will soon include a Carbon Reduction Officer, with a fair old
budget for hardware, sourced directly from Government quangos.
Although I have concerns, based upon the lack of certainty, I
understand why the department is there. A future carbon neutral
Council would have many other benefits apart from climatic ones,
which, as you rightly say, could be a drop in the ocean if the new
powers of China and India decide they are going to continue to develop
using technology that we did when we developed and sod the rest of
us.

You could certainly argue that Global temperatures have fallen, since
the very warm year of 2005, even from the exceptional El Nino year of
1998 and again, this gives a basis for arguments, from some, in favour
of GW having stopped. Looking wider, I don't see it. 5 year, rolling
means smooth the ups and downs, which will happen - there is no way
the warming will be consistently upwards - and that's why I agree with
the majority (and it is a very large majority) of climate scientists
who take similar positions to the IPCC.

As a scientist, yourself (I hope your department....and the chess(!)
are fine and dandy) and taking all your weather and climate interest
and knowledge into account, where do you stand on the GW issue? Should
we do things, which may help reduce the probable climatic impacts of
CO2 emissions, or should we stay sceptical and hold back, for an
indeterminate amount of time longer? Same question to others, too!
*))

Paul

On Jul 16, 11:58 am, Trevor Harley wrote:

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.

Trevor,

If you really want to know whether the global temperatures are falling
then
there is a global temperature record held by the Climate Research Unit
of
the University of East Anglia he
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te.../crutem3gl.txt
and there is a graph plotting the data for NH, SH, and global data
he
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif

Of course if you would prefer, feel free to ignore that data. Your
ad
hominem attacks on scientist and greenies, together with your
denialist
rantings are quite entertaining :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

"Norman" wrote in message
...
Trevor Harley wrote:

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.

I am not a GW sceptic but I do have sympathies with your views, Trevor.

Back in the 1970s many "experts" of the day were predicting that a
significant cooling was imminent. Today, I think most responsible
scientists would say that those predictions in the 1970s proved to be
incorrect, yet they were made by the experts of the day. I appreciate
that understanding of the science has advanced a lot since the 1970s
but is it not just a bit arrogant to claim that we now know the answer
with certainty. The "experts" of the 1970s were proved wrong. I keep an
open enough mind to say that there's a possibility that today's
"experts" could ultimately be proved wrong. I'm not saying that I think
they are wrong but we're not dealing with black and white here, only a
great variety of shades of grey. I'm sure that the weather/climate
machine has a lot of surprises in store during the next 100 years.

Norman
--
Well said, Trevor and Norman.
I think it was Wilson who said that a week is
a long time in politics. I like to keep an open
mind but when I see politicians looking more
than a week ahead, indeed fifty years ahead
on this subject I get more than a little suspicious.
They used to roast oxen on the Thames not so
long ago :-)

Alan

Of course if you would prefer, feel free to ignore that data. Your
ad
hominem attacks on scientist and greenies, together with your
denialist
rantings are quite entertaining :-)

This sort of hyperbole I think rather supports my point. I never made
any ad hominem attacks on scientists and greenies (did I name a single
one? - and I'd be rather nutty to do so, being a scientist myself). I
never said I wanted to ignore any data. I never even said I disagreed
with the MMGW hypothesis - I simply said that I had just become a
little bit more sceptical, and by the strategy of those in favour of it
to belittle any dissenting voice, however meekly expressed (and I think
your reply is a good example of this).

It's a good ploy to call anything with which don't totally agree "ranting".

t

On Jul 16, 2:22*pm, Alastair wrote:
On Jul 16, 11:58 am, Trevor Harley wrote:

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.

Trevor,

If you really want to know whether the global temperatures are falling
then
there is a global temperature record held by the Climate Research Unit
of
the University of East Anglia hehttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te.../crutem3gl.txt
and there is a graph plotting the data for NH, SH, and global data
hehttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif

Of course if you would prefer, feel free to ignore that data. *Your
ad
hominem attacks on scientist and greenies, together with your
denialist
rantings are quite entertaining :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

Alastair The graphs are well known to anyone with an interest. From
the graphs, doesn't the NH show flat, the Global show down and the SH
show down for the very recent period? Same for the temp figures. Don't
you see why someone would hate being told the world is warming,
without explanation of how this recent cooling is consistent with an
overall, continuing warming trend and would only have their views
about GC reinforced?? Simple reference to non-smoothed graphs that
show warming to 2003, then apparent cooling, hardly helps your case -
and certainly doesn't help the scientific case - that GW is
continuing. You do see that recent cooling, don't you?

Paul

PS Trevor made no ad hominem attacks and has one of the most
interesting and informative weather sites on the web!

Norman wrote:

Back in the 1970s many "experts" of the day were predicting that a
significant cooling was imminent. Today, I think most responsible
scientists would say that those predictions in the 1970s proved to be
incorrect, yet they were made by the experts of the day. I appreciate
that understanding of the science has advanced a lot since the 1970s
but is it not just a bit arrogant to claim that we now know the answer
with certainty. The "experts" of the 1970s were proved wrong. I keep an
open enough mind to say that there's a possibility that today's
"experts" could ultimately be proved wrong. I'm not saying that I think
they are wrong but we're not dealing with black and white here, only a
great variety of shades of grey. I'm sure that the weather/climate
machine has a lot of surprises in store during the next 100 years.

I remember a widely-advertised cooling theory but it was more late sixties
than seventies and it only applied to the UK and not a global forecast.
Even at a talk I attended in 1969 it seemed obvious from the graphics -
though not from the lecture itself - that we were past the depth of the
cooling spell of cold UK winters. However, the same lecture did say we were
heading for fifty-year spells of cold springs and autumns.

A study of temperature cycles for the globe, published in the mid-seventies
and based on 700,000 years of data, had temperatures lowering until the end
of the twentieth century and then rising.

The foregoing forecasts were both wrong, but an earlier forecast of global
warming if carbon dioxide were to increase in the atmosphere has been
proved right. Were the cooling forecasters incorrect in their theories or
had they just ignored the effect of carbon dioxide?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

On Jul 16, 2:32 pm, Trevor Harley wrote:
Of course if you would prefer, feel free to ignore that data. Your
ad
hominem attacks on scientist and greenies, together with your
denialist
rantings are quite entertaining :-)

This sort of hyperbole I think rather supports my point. I never made
any ad hominem attacks on scientists and greenies (did I name a single
one? - and I'd be rather nutty to do so, being a scientist myself). I
never said I wanted to ignore any data. I never even said I disagreed
with the MMGW hypothesis - I simply said that I had just become a
little bit more sceptical, and by the strategy of those in favour of it
to belittle any dissenting voice, however meekly expressed (and I think
your reply is a good example of this).

It's a good ploy to call anything with which don't totally agree "ranting".

But your skepticism is based on ignorance. You admitted that you did
not know whether temperatures were rising or falling. You are not the
first to use the augment that because you did not had not have the
evidence to prove the case then it could wrong. But you the reason
you don't have the evidence is because you refuse to see it, not
because it is missing. That is not scepticism. That is denialism.

You are the one who signed off his post with

End of rant.

I thought you had a sense of humour. Obviously not :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 at 10:51:12, Joe Egginton
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

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?

Of course, hence the smiley...

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.

Surely energy generation is the biggest CO2 contributor, rather then
cars?

Mind you, it's a wonder they haven't suggested limiting the CO2 output
of humans - after all, there are 6.5bn of us emitting it with every
breath...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)