The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/18 08:34, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:19:10 +0000, RJH wrote:


I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?


I have to accept that very few 'climate alarmists' on this NG will
read, much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists who
hold alternative views (and there are plenty of them).

+1

In essence you can tell a climate alarmist because in the end all they
understand is what someone in 'authority' has told them. So they talk
about 98%, consensus, peer reviewed papers etc etc.

This is not the language of science, but of propaganda. This is Bandar
Log "we all say it, so it must be true".


The so called 'deniers' talk about the science, and appeal to the data
and the facts and the maths and the statistics and shake their heads.

This winter has been as dull as wet and snowy and as cold as any I can
remember since I was a boy in the 50s. And yet all the thermometers in
places where towns have grown up around them will tell scientists who
weren't even BORN in the 50s that its warmer!

It is rather difficult to draw long term climate conclusions from
anecdotal experience of British weather. Might be possible for a much
more long lived species than us. I just missed 1947 as a benchmark,
but I think 1963 was somewhat worse than this year. Then again, it
varies too much by region to make subjective evidence useful for those
of us who have moved.

--

Roger Hayter