sgian dearg

Indeed, and very welcome all additional information will be too. But be aware that all it will be is information; in itself it won’t change anything, and there is no such thing as undisputable evidence. The interesting outcome will arise from how that information is interpreted and ultimately how, or even if, it is applied.

I am in substantial agreement with all you say and in respect of the above would certainly support your view that the Cry Wolf proponents really must be aware of the shortcomings in their strategy. I suppose it’s a question of scale of change, or possibly scope. Einstein theory grows from and partially overcomes Newtonian principles in physics; the Periodic Table is developed from Alchemical understanding of compound properties, which in turn evolved from basic Classical protoscience in which earth, water, air and fire (and aether) encompass all the elemental properties of everything in (and outside) the world. The pace of that scientific evolution (revolution?) increases from a major change after a couple of thousand years, to after a few hundred years, to after a hundred years (give or take) and could change again at any time. Meanwhile, smaller but significant advances are made on a far more regular basis. Interestingly, to jump back for a second, although historic misunderstanding of physics and chemistry led science up many a dead-end, I find it amazing how much of the investigation carried out under misguided regimes actually led to real progress. Of course what we can’t tell as we stand in the present is whether we are currently proceeding up a scientific super-highway or heading towards the boffins’ buffers. Only time will tell, only time.

You are welcome to your opinion and I respect your right to hold it, but I don’t think your argument is particularly well made. If, as you believe, “all anyone is trying to do is understand and attempt to explain some pretty unusual global climatological and atmospheric phenomena” then who is it that’s promoting restrictive policies relating to business, travel, lifestyle and anything else connected to greenhouse gas emissions based on their conclusions of said attempts to understand? If, as you believe, “no-one is doom-mongering, no-one is proclaiming civilisation collapse” then what is the reason for all the legislation currently being brought onto our statutes and what is its purpose? Rather than your stated belief that “The only people trying to hide behind 'doom-monger' name calling, and/or political/scientific conspiracy theorising are those that for some reason see the whole thing as some kind of threat to their currently comfortable way of life” is it not possible that some people are merely concerned (without being conspiracy theorists) that some political impositions and some scientific postulation have gone beyond the point at which the facts can definitely support them, and whether or not these concerned people enjoy a comfortable way of life they might be worried that those in the driving seat may not be taking us in the right direction? So, although your definition of a “credible person” might be open to question, as might mine, your assertion that not one of them is treating climate change as anything other than an academic exercise completely devoid of any underlying agenda is one that, I would suggest to you, could easily be interpreted differently than you appear to. I would also suggest, with respect, that my original statement does have relevance to the debate, if not the science, insofar as it parallels the manner in which sometimes the expression of ones beliefs are manifested.

Hi. Cold and wet and miserable in Stirlingshire. Spring is here.