Climate Catastrophe

[pjclarke]

You mean the 600,000 that arrive here every year in addition to the 10,000,000 that have arrived in the last 20 years?

They'll be fine if they bring a coat to keep warm.

That's them.

We'll be a bloody lifeboat for Europe. It will be their right to come here too." Why? "Because we're all members of the European community." Good point, but one tends to forget such footling matters as the rights that go with EU membership when one is staring global catastrophe in the face.

Lovelock reckons that the British Isles will be among the few island oases in a world given over to desert, scrub and oceans devoid of life: "Everybody in Europe will be wanting to come here." Even people who live in currently delightful spots such as Cap d'Antibes and Siena. They aren't going to like Milton Keynes or Cumbernauld one bit.

James 'Gaia' lovelock

Stuart Jeffries meets renowned scientist James Lovelock | Environment | The Guardian

(Though he has moderated his doomsaying a little since then ...)

[MicrosoftBob]

Just like the miltary industrial complex needs to invent wars to stay relevent, climate 'scientists' need to invent fears to continue getting funding

Same as it ever was

In other shock news politicians lie

[EternalOptimist]

Just like the miltary industrial complex needs to invent wars to stay relevent, climate 'scientists' need to invent fears to continue getting funding

Same as it ever was

In other shock news politicians lie

Let us make a couple of assumptions.
Hansen is a scientist with integrity.
The scientific method is the best way to proceed.

why on earth would Hansen rush this paper out, before its been peer reviewed and containing so much bad news about what will happen EVEN IF we stick to the IPCC.


The answer is :- to frighten people.

these loons are scaremongers, alarmists and fruit-loops

[pjclarke]

Let us make a couple of assumptions.
Hansen is a scientist with integrity.
The scientific method is the best way to proceed.

why on earth would Hansen rush this paper out, before its been peer reviewed and containing so much bad news about what will happen EVEN IF we stick to the IPCC.


The answer is :- to frighten people.

these loons are scaremongers, alarmists and fruit-loops

It is not exactly unreviewed. Academic publishing is changing, slowly entering the 21st century. Publishers are abandoning the closed, anonymous review and edit cycle, which could lead to a delay, sometimes of over a year between submission and publication or rejection, in favour of a more open model, using the power of modern communications. Submissions to Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, like all EGU open access journals, are first assessed by an editor and reviewers for content and appropriateness for the journal, if they pass this stage they are posted on the journal website for review by other interested parties, named and anonymous. This is the point at which the paper is made public and may be cited. The authors are expected to respond to all comments during this phase, before final acceptance by the journal. The private and public reviews typically take about 8 weeks each.



From <http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html>


Rather neat, and not the first foray into open access by Dr Hansen. So the paper has not yet received the 'traditional' peer review but the reasons are all about stimulating discussion, not scaring anybody.

[pjclarke]

PS When can we expect the submission of the 'gamechanging' Watts et all 2012 2013 2014 2015 paper?

After all, Press release first, Paper later/never is the way real science is done, right?

[EternalOptimist]

Oh my head.
so it's not peer reviewed.
but that's ok in the new world.

pj is slowly but surely coming around

[WordIsBond]

You're getting a wee bit hung up on the phrase 'scientific document',

Heh. No, parts of it are obviously a scientific document. I'm hung up on the silly words you put around that:

as trustworthy as a scientific document can be

It's the exact kind of thing the priests of your religion say all the time to give the impression that no one can be in any doubt about your articles of faith, except for lunatics. You (collectively, I don't know about you personally, but I'd bet you do it too) even use the word "deniers".

VP Dick Cheney.

Ah. Dick Cheney. Well, I guess I'm silenced.

[DodgyAgent]

It doesn't work. HTH.

You do not want it work. Nor do your fellow lefties who have politicised climate change

[BlasterBates]

[pjclarke]

Might be funny if it were true. Though I guess you like it because it includes your favourite canard.