The Guardian: Youngsters will not know what snow is – AGAIN

0

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h / t James Delingpole / Breitbart; One of the most ridiculed alarmistic predictions of all time: – In 2000, Dr. David Viner announced that thanks to global warming, “children just won’t know what snow is” (see web archive – original has been deleted) Now Dr. Lizzie Kendon, of the MET UK office, followed in Viner’s footsteps and has suggested that “much of the snow will be completely gone by the end of the century”.

Most of the UK may not be able to establish snow by the end of the century, the study found

The climate crisis is likely to lead to warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, says Met Office

PA Media
Monday, December 7, 2020 6:34 PM AEDT

If this trend continues, only very high areas and parts of northern Scotland will have freezing temperatures by 2080.

The Met Office stressed that the temperature fluctuates from year to year and will be a few years colder or warmer than trend.

The lead scientist of the Met Office, Dr. Lizzie Kendon, told BBC Panorama, “We say that by the end of the century, much of the lying snow will be completely gone, except on the highest ground.

“The overall picture is warmer and wetter in winter. hotter, drier summers.

“But within that we get this shift towards more extreme events, more frequent and more intense extremes, such heavy rainfall when they occur.

“It’s a big change… in the course of our lives. It’s just a wake up call we’re talking about here. “

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/07/snow-may-not-settle-in-most-of-uk-by-end-of-century-study-suggests

The Panorama episode is available here, but only for UK viewers.

The big question: why do alarmists keep doing this to themselves?

The reason, as far as I can tell, is that they absolutely believe in the wild predictions their computer models make of global warming.

In 2011 the register claimed, John Mitchell of the UK’s MET said “People underestimate the power of models. Evidence of observation is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely empirical. “

In 2015, then UK Climate Secretary Amber Rudd organized a group of Royal Society alarmists to meet with prominent skeptical MPs Peter Lilley and John Redwood, as well as GWPF chairman Lord Lawson, to see if the Royal Society beats the skeptics of Climate can convince Change is a problem.

Breitbart reports that the main stumbling block was The Royal Society scientists apparently refused to accept conflicting observations as evidence that their models could be wrong. When challenged, they claimed it would take them an additional 50 years of contradicting observational evidence. We’d all have to wait until 2047 before they’d consider admitting they had a problem.

There isn’t much you can do to convince people who appear to openly admit that they degrade the worth of observational evidence that contradicts their computer models. Although such people have some entertainment value, they solemnly share their latest predictions.

Like this:

To like Loading…

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.