In message , Brian Wakem
writes

There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so
the figures will show it happening regardless...

Actually, by not taking remedial action, humanity is collectively
betting in excess of trillions on global warming not continuing. (If the
predicted warming occurs it will impose huge economic costs.) We are
likely to lose that bet.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Feb 4, 6:16*pm, Brian Wakem wrote:


The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
decreasing since the 60s. *Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
the decline'.

I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in the
60s but how do we know which figures to believe? *Which ones are real and
which are being massaged?

There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
figures will show it happening regardless...

--
Brian Wakem

"The decline" you refer to is not a decline in temperature but a
decline in the correlation between tree-ring data and measured
temperature. You have misinterpreted it, either mistakenly or
deliberately, I wouldn't presume to know. You probably read it
somewhere, published by someone who has deliberately misinterpreted
it, and as it suits your point of view you have propagated it. But
it's not true, like most of the stuff put out by the denialists, who
are mostly not motivated by a desire to find out the truth but to
suppress it or distort it because they don't like it or it'll cost
them money. These people play dirty and degrade the debate whilst
adding essentially nothing.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Feb 4, 12:49*pm, Natsman wrote:
On 4 Feb, 18:05, Dawlish wrote:
...
On Feb 4, 4:49*pm, Natsman wrote:
...
Present some evidence that temperatures are decreasing then, rather
than ranting. Then someone who counts might believe you and yours. You
can refer to whatever politically inspired thing that you wish, but
until temperatures begin to decrease, very few scientists will believe
as you do - about Joe *******i's forecasting prowess, or GW.

Just present some evidence of global cooling having started next time
you post, or research Joe B's track record yourself and show us that
his past forecasting success demonstrates that really is a LRF guru.
If you believe in what you do so strongly that you feel the need to
constantly tell us your views are correct, that's *all* you have to do
to convince. That's surely very easy?

Look, I am not a scientist - never pretended to be, nor have a said
that the planet hasn't warmed - of course it has, we're only just
exiting the last glaciation. *What I AM saying, is that any warming
has not been due to man's influence, particularly in relation to the
demon carbon dioxide. *I believe that other chaotic factors are at
work driving the climate, not least the effect of the sun. *I also
believe that the current lack of solar activity may well prove to be
the commencement of another minimum, which will result in planetary
cooling, and this process has probably already started. *I don't need
to provide evidence, because it's all around. *I'm old enough to
appreciate subtle changes, and I can glean all I need to know from the
internet, as can you, and the message which comes stridently across to
me is that almost everything so far published by those organs and
"authorities" who would have us believe otherwise, is corrupted with
fake data, extracts from magazines and dodgy modeling, to serve some
other purpose than pure science. *I find the independently published
science that I'VE seen far more convincing than anything to the
contrary, and judging by the increasingly adverse publicity, and the
attempts to defend themselves, the IPCC and others are merely serving
to compound their felonies. *Even the Guardian is wavering!

So I don't need to justify either myself, or my beliefs - suffice it
to say, the pendulum is swinging, and you and your ilk will eventually
become the minority shouting in the wilderness. *You only have to look
at how things have shifted over less than twelve months to realise
that opinion is fast reversing. *If you consider that a rant, well,
sorry, but accusations appear to be your only remaining defence. *I
can take it, it's like water off a duck's back to me, but it'll take
more than you to shake my long-held beliefs - maybe it is you that
needs to provide evidence, because so far most of the warmist's
arguments are dissolving like ice in a kiln.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for your previous advice about how I
should deal with my usenet attackers.

-----

Moving on, in my opinion the correct way to deal
with Dawlish is first to back up and establish scientifically
what the accurate climate record is over the past 10
years as average global surface temperature.

I believe the record shows a slight rise; I believe
there is no cooling yet.

Howsoever, taking off my climate science hat for
just a moment (which is a data centered mentality),
I am philosophically, emotionally, and intellectually
attuned to your position on all levels.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

In message
,
Meteorologist writes


,,,,,,,,,,,,


I am philosophically, emotionally, and intellectually
attuned to your position on all levels.


Should bring mindfulness to the kill-file, then.



--
Peter Thomas

On Feb 5, 1:58*pm, Peter Thomas
wrote:
In message
,
Meteorologist writes

,,,,,,,,,,,,

I am philosophically, emotionally, and intellectually
attuned to your position on all levels.

Should bring mindfulness to the *kill-file, then.

--
Peter Thomas

It is ethically incorrect on usenet to name the person
you intend to killfile because such behavior is hurtful.

Did you not know this?

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

"Tudor Hughes" wrote in message
...
On Feb 4, 6:16 pm, Brian Wakem wrote:


The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
decreasing since the 60s. Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
the decline'.

I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in
the
60s but how do we know which figures to believe? Which ones are real and
which are being massaged?

There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
figures will show it happening regardless...

--
Brian Wakem

"The decline" you refer to is not a decline in temperature but a
decline in the correlation between tree-ring data and measured
temperature. You have misinterpreted it, either mistakenly or
deliberately, I wouldn't presume to know. You probably read it
somewhere, published by someone who has deliberately misinterpreted
it, and as it suits your point of view you have propagated it. But
it's not true, like most of the stuff put out by the denialists, who
are mostly not motivated by a desire to find out the truth but to
suppress it or distort it because they don't like it or it'll cost
them money. These people play dirty and degrade the debate whilst
adding essentially nothing.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

------------------
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)
Dave

On Feb 5, 6:58*pm, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
"Tudor Hughes" wrote in message

...
On Feb 4, 6:16 pm, Brian Wakem wrote:



The tree ring data from Siberia that the CRU have shows temperatures
decreasing since the 60s. Or rather it did before they decided to 'hide
the decline'.

I don't believe for one minute that the temperature is lower now than in
the
60s but how do we know which figures to believe? Which ones are real and
which are being massaged?

There's too many £trillions betting on run away global warming now so the
figures will show it happening regardless...

--
Brian Wakem

* * * "The decline" you refer to is not a decline in temperature but a
decline in the correlation between tree-ring data and measured
temperature. *You have misinterpreted it, either mistakenly or
deliberately, I wouldn't presume to know. *You probably read it
somewhere, *published by someone who has deliberately misinterpreted
it, and as it suits your point of view you have propagated it. *But
it's not true, like most of the stuff put out by the denialists, who
are mostly not motivated by a desire to find out the truth but to
suppress it or distort it because they don't like it or it'll cost
them money. *These people play dirty and degrade the debate whilst
adding essentially nothing.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

------------------
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)
Dave

Well, at least Dawlish sticks to climate science in this
newsgroup although even Dawlish falls victim to the highly
polarized and policized environment of the climate science
debate.

Backing up, it is important to establish the accurate trend of
average global surface temperatures the past 10
years or even more. I believe it is a small rise.

Further, I predict cooling, starting in a few years
on the basis of the work of Latif and Svensmark
but not neglecting the recent work of Solomon
on water vapor. The warming will resume in 30 years.

Last, please see -

Giss versus UAH: 85,7% more warming after 30 years!
http://climatepatrol.net/tag/giss-nasa/

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

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...hange-row.html

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)

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
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...hange-row.html

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.

I'm very sceptical about predictions of doom and gloom. But I accept the
evidence that the planet as a whole has got warmer in the past 30 years
after doing my own investigations with some raw data. We must also accept
the need to stop destruction of rainforests, for recycling, clean
alternative energy (including coal) etc etc - not because of potential
climate change, but because it simply makes good sense in our crowded planet
and we have nothing to lose by doing so and possibly something to gain - a
win win.

Will
--

On Feb 6, 10:39*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.'

There is perhaps another view: those who are not experts in GW yet for
whom man-made GW fits in with their worldview, and who perceive the
current backlash not down to any new scientific evidence, but instead,
due to an all-too-disturbing attitude adopted by worryingly large
numbers of people: a dislike of any cause loosely affiliated to
liberalism, socialism, etc - which GW has ended up as being affiliated
to even though there is no real reason for it not to be. Indeed for
those in the wind-farm industry one could see it as affiliated to
capitalism. It's this rather basal attitude in growing numbers of
people that I personally, for the sake of people in the next
generation being born around now, find rather disturbing.

Nick