On Feb 6, 11:02*am, Nick wrote:
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.

Sorry... "even though there is no real reason for it to be", I meant.

Nick

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.'

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)

3rd group for me too John. I think the Telegraph hack has missed a
group though. There are many actively working climate scientists who
are thoroughly convinced by the evidence and see global warming as
inevitable. Maybe it was a deliberate attempt by the hack to paint
anyone who is convinced by the science as "fundamentalist
greens" (which implies lefties and that tends to be what the Telegraph
readership are not. I think many working for NOAA, Hadley and all the
other climate research organisations would not recognise that term,
should it be applied to them. The rejectionists (I like that word)
will use every opportunity to paint such people as a part of the left.
That happens on here too and, quite frankly, it is plain silly.
However, I do go along with what Will's said about tackling
environmental issues with the same thinking as tackling GW and a "win-
win" future, if the right path is followed. The alternative of, "do
nothing, everything is OK and the present warming is obviously
natural", presents a future that I would not like to hand on to my
grandchildren, should the present huge majority of climate scientist
be correct.

In article
,
Dawlish writes:
On Feb 6, 10:39Â*am, John Hall wrote:
In article ,
Â*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.'

I'm in the third group, but I think we have people from all four posting
in this newsgroup.

3rd group for me too John. I think the Telegraph hack has missed a
group though. There are many actively working climate scientists who
are thoroughly convinced by the evidence and see global warming as
inevitable. Maybe it was a deliberate attempt by the hack to paint
anyone who is convinced by the science as "fundamentalist
greens" (which implies lefties and that tends to be what the Telegraph
readership are not.

I don't see how you can draw that inference from what he's written. In
spite of writing for the Telegraph, based on the article as a whole and
on other pieces he's written, I'd characterise him as "pale green".
(Incidentally the Daily Telegraph is a far more reasonable publication
than its Sunday stable-mate.)

I think many working for NOAA, Hadley and all the
other climate research organisations would not recognise that term,
should it be applied to them.

But he _hasn't_ applied it to them. From what he's written, I would
imagine that he would put them in his third group.

The rejectionists (I like that word)
will use every opportunity to paint such people as a part of the left.
That happens on here too and, quite frankly, it is plain silly.
However, I do go along with what Will's said about tackling
environmental issues with the same thinking as tackling GW and a "win-
win" future, if the right path is followed. The alternative of, "do
nothing, everything is OK and the present warming is obviously
natural", presents a future that I would not like to hand on to my
grandchildren, should the present huge majority of climate scientist
be correct.

Indeed.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Feb 6, 5:39*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.'

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)

Thanks for the heads-up.

I read the Lean piece you gave, especially about the
4 groups.

Let me say - I myself fall in between group 2 and 3; I
am both a skeptic and climate change guy.

Yet, a quibble - the term here is climate change, not global
warming.

On second thought maybe I had better re-classify
myself. As a meteorologist I just want the accurate
data in timely fashion. IOW data bound. Of course,
I don't have the resources to acquire the data myself
by my own efforts. I have to rely on meteorological
"organizations", the five leading datasets. The proxies
are not in my purview here.

Yet, my science of meteorology is in the business of
making forecasts. Therefore, while "we" may agree
on the climate record in terms of surface or near-surface
temperature the past 10 years, the past 30 years etc.,
what temperature will do 5 years out, 20 years out,
30 years out, is a horse of a different color.

So, I propose that there has been a small temperature
rise the past 10 years globally. Does anybody disagree?

The next question is much, much harder. Do "we'
or climate scientists have sufficient knowledge of
the climate system and the interplay of major
factors to rule out a reversal of trend by 5 years
from now that Earth will cool?

Probing still further, can we specify all the major
factors and point out the dominant one(s) that
will probably lead to further warming or reversal to cooling?

So, uncertainty is what I struggle with as a meteorologist
with the physical world but even in the way I write to the
people world so that our conversations on usenet be
informative and polite. IOW nobody is perfect, we all
have human shortcomings but we are hopefully doing
the best we can.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA