• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Just Weather

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed...Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring

    (\__/)
    (>'.'<)
    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

    Comment


      #12
      That's a misquote oh optimistic one. Here's the source

      Whoever you got it from (Goddard?, Watts?) has mashed together sentences from two authors, Hans Jelbring is a climatologist but the other, William C. Gilbert, who provides most of the words, is not.
      My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
        That's a misquote oh optimistic one. Here's the source

        Whoever you got it from (Goddard?, Watts?) has mashed together sentences from two authors, Hans Jelbring is a climatologist but the other, William C. Gilbert, who provides most of the words, is not.
        So what's the worst?
        Me, me, me...

        Comment


          #14
          It's taters outside again tonight.

          Comment


            #15
            So what's the worst?
            Well, the World Health Organisation estimates that

            Measurement of health effects from climate change can only be very approximate. Nevertheless, a WHO quantitative assessment, taking into account only a subset of the possible health impacts, concluded that the effects of the climate change that has occurred since the mid-1970s may have caused over 150,000 deaths in 2000. It also concluded that these impacts are likely to increase in the future.
            - the equivalent to one '9/11' every week. The Royal Society recently devoted an issue of their journal to what the world will look like after a rise of 4C, which they projected is what we face in the second half of the century. In a sentence

            severe droughts across the world and millions of migrants seeking refuge as their food supplies collapse.
            But that's more a midrange scenario than the worst case, which would involve powerful positive feedbacks, eg from methane clathrate or permafrost melt producing uncontrollable runaway warming ...

            Cold out tonight ......
            My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

            Comment


              #16
              Conjecture and smoke and mirrors. Crap food and unhealthy lifestyles will kill more.
              Me, me, me...

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
                That's a misquote oh optimistic one. Here's the source

                Whoever you got it from (Goddard?, Watts?) has mashed together sentences from two authors, Hans Jelbring is a climatologist but the other, William C. Gilbert, who provides most of the words, is not.
                I did indeed get the quote from one of the blogs. It was one of dozens of quotes ref the 'scientific concensus' on CAGW being challenged recently.

                pj, do you think there is a concensus ? do you think the science is 'settled' ? or are you still enquiring ?

                As far as WHO are concerned, they suggest some figures (which is there perogative, being the business they are in) of 3.3 million dying each year due to climate, 150,000 of which would not have died if it were not for agw.

                They speak of AGW as if it were a fact and thats not their job. Climate is a killer, regardless of AGW, according to their own assessment, so let them concentrate on that until the facts are settled. imo.


                (\__/)
                (>'.'<)
                ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
                  I did indeed get the quote from one of the blogs. It was one of dozens of quotes ref the 'scientific concensus' on CAGW being challenged recently.

                  pj, do you think there is a concensus ? do you think the science is 'settled' ? or are you still enquiring ?

                  As far as WHO are concerned, they suggest some figures (which is there perogative, being the business they are in) of 3.3 million dying each year due to climate, 150,000 of which would not have died if it were not for agw.

                  They speak of AGW as if it were a fact and thats not their job. Climate is a killer, regardless of AGW, according to their own assessment, so let them concentrate on that until the facts are settled. imo.


                  N10 - thermo nuclear strike from space.

                  That should hit something for sure

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by AtW View Post
                    N10 - thermo nuclear strike from space.

                    That should hit something for sure


                    the game is over comrade



                    (\__/)
                    (>'.'<)
                    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X