I
Sponsored Links
I
ImayKnow
Oh well that proves it then, you are the ex spert so it must be right. chapeau must be Joe as well then based on your own scientific evidence.
You have my best wishes, and I hope you overcome your strange illness. GOODBYE.
Sponsored Links
or get an expert to address your obsession
or did you mean that
I
ImayKnow
We have had a further 2 to 3 hours of snowfall this morning. The Ice Age is apparently well under way !!
Global warming is no more!!
Global warming is no more!!
I
ImayKnow
The explanation of that map is what the experts at the Met have been telling us that for weeks, and how the jetstream is further south than usual, which in turn has trapped a cyclone of cold air that is trapped and causing the easterlys to blow across the UK.
Last year the same experts were telling us how the jetstream was also further south and hence we got all the rain.
Basically, these experts are all but saying the jetstream will remain further south causing the commencement of another Ice Age. Surely you knew that
Last year the same experts were telling us how the jetstream was also further south and hence we got all the rain.
Basically, these experts are all but saying the jetstream will remain further south causing the commencement of another Ice Age. Surely you knew that
In 2006, the Nasa scientist and 'climate expert' Jim Hansen predicted that we only had a 'decade at most' to prevent a 'climate catastrophe'.
The IPCC also ran with this, reiterating that the world only had ten years to act.
The figure of ten years seems suspiciously well-chosen. Had the experts said we have only - say - four years to act, then most people would have said it's not worth bothering doing anything because there's no time.
On the other hand, if the experts said we had a hundred years to act, most people wouldn't bother doing anything either.
One can only conclude that the 10-year figure is a psychological one designed to make us think there is time to do something (but not too much) rather than a scientifically-proven fact.
Anyway, Jim Hansen's deadline is now only three years off. What are the experts going to say when we reach 2016, and our climate still persists with it's ups and downs? They can't very well pull the 'ten-year' trick again.
By 2016, we will have either cracked it, or there will be nothing we can do.
The IPCC also ran with this, reiterating that the world only had ten years to act.
The figure of ten years seems suspiciously well-chosen. Had the experts said we have only - say - four years to act, then most people would have said it's not worth bothering doing anything because there's no time.
On the other hand, if the experts said we had a hundred years to act, most people wouldn't bother doing anything either.
One can only conclude that the 10-year figure is a psychological one designed to make us think there is time to do something (but not too much) rather than a scientifically-proven fact.
Anyway, Jim Hansen's deadline is now only three years off. What are the experts going to say when we reach 2016, and our climate still persists with it's ups and downs? They can't very well pull the 'ten-year' trick again.
By 2016, we will have either cracked it, or there will be nothing we can do.
These thing's have never happened before? its probably the coldest March since 1963,prior to that 1947,so not that abnormal,just a cycle of things in the circle of life.
I
ImayKnow
They may well regurgitate the 10 year deadline, in belief we do not have the intelligence or memory to recall its previous reference.
Besides, these experts don't have the historical data to determine what cycle we are in, and how far progressed into it we are. They often just make off the cuff comments to self promote themselves, or to seek further funding (or in other words get some mug of a government to pay them a ridiculous salary to do research, which is when they ultimately come out with their outlandish theories).
Oh I'm sure ten years is purely psychological too. In fact, Hansen has already said we have passed the "tipping point".
The IPCC have been shown to be quite conservative in their projections and the true picture is worse than they have said. That's because they have political masters and the large polluters i.e. USA are politically opposed to reductions in CO2 emissions as their lobby doesn't want it.
Sponsored Links
