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 |
#31
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#32
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#33
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#34
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
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 |