Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Brian Wakem
writes There's too many Łtrillions 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 |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 Łtrillions 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. |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 Łtrillions 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 |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 Łtrillions 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 |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 -- |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WSI update, cold winter still on, but not as bad as last year | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Joe Bastardi says 'UPDATE ON COMING COLD WAVE' | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Winter Storm Archive update: Winter storms 2007 | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Joe's update | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Winter Outlook Update: Winter Weather Still Promising Much Variablity | Latest News |