Politics And AGW/GW

[VillagePlank]

Err nothing of the sort, just offering some realism, that's all.

It strikes me that the climate scientists are in a no-win situation- if they try to be balanced they get accused of backing down from extreme pro-AGW positions, therefore "disproving" AGW, while if they preach that the science is more settled than it really is and that significant event X is because of "global warming", they're being sensationalist and therefore "disproving" AGW.

I have to say that I think it's the most balanced summary I've ever read about climate change\- from either camp.

[Solar Cycles]

Err nothing of the sort, just offering some realism, that's all.

It strikes me that the climate scientists are in a no-win situation- if they try to be balanced they get accused of backing down from extreme pro-AGW positions, therefore "disproving" AGW, while if they preach that the science is more settled than it really is and that significant event X is because of "global warming", they're being sensationalist and therefore "disproving" AGW.

For me it's a bridge between both camps, this is probably the most significant step in the right direction for both sides of the argument, and I think the MetO should be applauded for this!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I've seen similarly balanced summaries by Philip Eden before, but it's the first time I've seen one as balanced as that from the Met Office. As others have indicated, it's good to see.

[jethro]

I've just had a look through that METO release and I have to say, it's refreshingly level-headed.

But I am struck somewhat by the response by some folk on here; there have been several such reports from several "sceptic" scientists saying pretty much the same thing, over the last few years. All those reports have been denounced as loony, sceptics and deniers - not worth the paper they're written upon. Incredibly, now the METO have said it, it's welcomed as balanced and informed.

Funny old world, eh?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Maybe by some, but I would always applaud an article like that regardless of who wrote it. As I mentioned in my last post, Philip Eden's usually a reliable source of balanced info on climate change.

[jethro]

Maybe by some, but I would always applaud an article like that regardless of who wrote it. As I mentioned in my last post, Philip Eden's usually a reliable source of balanced info on climate change.

I know, wouldn't expect anything less from you TWS but let's face it, you're not an out and out "denier" basher. You understand, accept and agree there is middle ground here, with room to manoeuvre on the amount of warming attributable to mankind, you also do not think the science is settled, or that we know all we need to know.

[Solar Cycles]

I know, wouldn't expect anything less from you TWS but let's face it, you're not an out and out "denier" basher. You understand, accept and agree there is middle ground here, with room to manoeuvre on the amount of warming attributable to mankind, you also do not think the science is settled, or that we know all we need to know.

Agree with that, I think now would be a good time to stop slinging mud, and to start afresh. Exciting times ahead for all!

[laserguy]

The madman's at it again - and I'm not referring to Mr Watts!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/15/hans...d-coal-and-co2/

[laserguy]

No takers? Okaay... I've just stumbled upon some guy on the radio moaning about funding for 'climate change research' drying up as result of the recession. The old adage "be careful what you wish for" springs readily to mind. I'd advise him and his ilk to hotfoot it down the labour exchange and try doing something useful - except that there's no jobs to be had anywhere. Oh,the irony.

[Devonian]

The madman's at it again - and I'm not referring to Mr Watts!

It don't find myself quaking in my boots at the thought that the best argument you have is name calling.

[Devonian]

I've just had a look through that METO release and I have to say, it's refreshingly level-headed.

But I am struck somewhat by the response by some folk on here; there have been several such reports from several "sceptic" scientists saying pretty much the same thing, over the last few years. All those reports have been denounced as loony, sceptics and deniers - not worth the paper they're written upon. Incredibly, now the METO have said it, it's welcomed as balanced and informed.

Funny old world, eh?

Jethro, let me just quote Dr Pope with my emphasis: "Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening. Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades."

In some ways I think those deeply sceptical about the possibility of more than very modest AGW could easily portray that quote as extreme, but instead the article has been spun (by the usual blog suspects) the other way, as an attack on the science and a triumph for said (which it clearly isn't). I'm fully with Dr Pope on this - I'm delighted you are as well

Edited February 16, 2009 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

Here, on NW, I think the response has been much more balanced, and highly welcomed. Whilst I accept the need for others to hit out as they sink in their ship, I, and I think all other rational people, will welcome the MetO call for moderation which is what the overall tone of their comments are. Well done the MetO!

Edited February 16, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Frankly, not true. Here, on NW, I think the response has been much more balanced, and highly welcomed.

Huh? I never mentioned NW, indeed I was careful to talk about 'blogs'. And please don't accuse me of not being truthful.

Whilst I accept the need for you to hit out as you sink in your ship, I, and I think all other rational people, will welcome the MetO call for moderation which is what the overall tone of their comments are. Well done the MetO!

Where did Dr Pope say the science is wrong? So, in what way is the ship sinking? As I said I think the extract I posted could easily be spun another way.

[VillagePlank]

Huh? I never mentioned NW, indeed I was careful to talk about 'blogs'. And please don't accuse me of not being truthful.

Where did Dr Pope say the science is wrong? So, in what way is the ship sinking? As I said I think the extract I posted could easily be spun another way.

Yeah - sorry Dev; I changed my post whilst you were replying. Whoops.

[Devonian]

Yeah - sorry Dev; I changed my post whilst you were replying. Whoops.

Nay problem

[Solar Cycles]

Huh? I never mentioned NW, indeed I was careful to talk about 'blogs'. And please don't accuse me of not being truthful.

Where did Dr Pope say the science is wrong? So, in what way is the ship sinking? As I said I think the extract I posted could easily be spun another way.

Dev, no one is saying that the MetO have changed there stance on the science, what we are saying is, that we are pleased that they have distanced themselves from all the silly scaremongering. I for one applaud that!

[Methuselah]

Dev, no one is saying that the MetO have changed there stance on the science, what we are saying is, that we are pleased that they have distanced themselves from all the silly scaremongering. I for one applaud that!

Not that I've actually ever come across the MetO doing much scaremongering anyway..? But, it is time for a more flame-retardant type of discussion...

Is the hand any better?

[laserguy]

It don't find myself quaking in my boots at the thought that the best argument you have is name calling.

But Dev,the intention was never to get anyone quaking in their boots! However,how anyone can take the guy even semi-seriously anymore is truly beyond my comprehension. IMO he has lost it big-time,and he and his pal are handing 'victory' on a plate to even the most cursory 'denier'. The worst things that could have ever happened to serious understanding. If the science is as settled as the AGW mob say it is,why don't they all pick up their ball and go home instead of getting more shrill and ridiculous with each passing day? As the crescendo of wailing and whooping reaches a fever pitch of desperation I'm reminded of things being darkest just before dawn.Gonna explode soon. I've got more arguments than the house of commons but learned long,long ago that they are utterly useless in the face of the faithful believer. And they do exist,trust me!

[Thundery wintry showers]

What I will say here is that when sceptics resort to quoting extremist propaganda from the pro-AGW lobby as a means of refuting AGW, it gives sceptics a bad name. Debunking extremists is easy, but try debunking the views expressed by the Met Office's latest statement, or Philip Eden's books that reference climate change.

[pottyprof]

Debunking extremists is easy, but try debunking the views expressed by the Met Office's latest statement, or Philip Eden's books that reference climate change.

But thats the level headed approach Ian. It doesn't make a good news story, which is a shame. My eldest daughter and her mates don't believe in AGW after having extreme views poured down their throats in school. Now if you ask me, I'm more concerned about that impact on our future...

[Methuselah]

What I will say here is that when sceptics resort to quoting extremist propaganda from the pro-AGW lobby as a means of refuting AGW, it gives sceptics a bad name. Debunking extremists is easy, but try debunking the views expressed by the Met Office's latest statement, or Philip Eden's books that reference climate change.

That's a good point, Ian...When something is well-argued, well-written, well-researched and rhetoric-free it is pretty-much undebunkable (pro or sceptical)...The sceptics do give themselves a bad name in the way you say; but some on the other side shoot themselves in the foot, if and when they blame every single incidence of 'freak weather' on AGW?

[laserguy]

TWS and Pete T - from what you've just said,can I take it that Hansen is now regarded as nothing more than a debunked arm waving extremist and has no rightful place amongst these pages? Good - it's a step in the right direction. Don't get me started on Al "I've made a hundred million bucks out of carbon trading" Gore!

[Devonian]

But thats the level headed approach Ian. It doesn't make a good news story, which is a shame. My eldest daughter and her mates don't believe in AGW after having extreme views poured down their throats in school. Now if you ask me, I'm more concerned about that impact on our future...

What magnitude of AGW do I have to think possible to qualify as an extremist? Just so I can see if I am one

It rather sound to me that if something can be labelled as extremist it can be conveniently dismissed :huh: . OK, those who think mankind isn't changing the climate are extremists - does that do the trick?

Edited February 16, 2009 by Devonian

[Solar Cycles]

Not that I've actually ever come across the MetO doing much scaremongering anyway..? But, it is time for a more flame-retardant type of discussion...

:huh:

Is the hand any better?

I agree the MetO have never done the scaremongering, but it's good to see them distancing themselves from such folly. But then again, us skeptics can just be as guilty I suppose. The shoulder's still poorly! Go for another MRI scan next month. Thanks for asking Pete!

[Methuselah]

TWS and Pete T - from what you've just said,can I take it that Hansen is now regarded as nothing more than a debunked arm waving extremist and has no rightful place amongst these pages? Good - it's a step in the right direction. Don't get me started on Al "I've made a hundred million bucks out of carbon trading" Gore!

I did say rhetoric free too... :huh: