Metaphorically speaking, of course. The little things in life are precious.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote:

> Science will find the truth eventually. Meanwhile, I see the truth in
> everyday life, everywhere I look. It's all around us, everywhere. The love
> of my wife and children, the passing of the seasons, the comings and going
> of the world.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have real issues with this so-called science:
>>
>> http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4195.txt
>>
>> >-----Original Message----->From: Phil Jones [mailto:[email protected]]>Sent:
>> 05 January 2009 16:18>To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris>Cc: Smith, Doug;
>> Johns, Tim>Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009>>>   Tim, Chris,>     I
>> hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting>   till about 2020.
>> I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office>   press release with Doug's
>> paper that said something like ->   half the years to 2014 would exceed the
>> warmest year currently on > record, 1998!>     Still a way to go before
>> 2014.>>     I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying>
>> where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal>   scale,
>> but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.>>     Chris - I presume
>> the Met Office> continually monitor the weather forecasts.>    Maybe
>> because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems>    a
>> bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20 > days (in
>> Norfolk)>    it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.>>
>> I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg > C for
>> the LWC.>   It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC
>> forecasts has>   the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on
>> recent nights. > The paper>   shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901
>> (based on St James Park>   and Rothamsted).>>   Cheers>   Phil
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's going to be rough. Not only is the task really big, it is also
>> > complicated in ways we are still trying to figure out. That's part of
>> > the frustration I have with climate change deniers. They see real
>> > issues with climate science (most science, really) because we have
>> > conflicting studies, gradual refinement of estimates and models,
>> > research muddied by corporate hacks and egotistical agenda-driven
>> > idealogues and they say "well, it's not 100% clear cut so it must not
>> > be happening".  It's the wrong conclusion, of course, but the issues
>> > that help drive it are real and are all part the difficulty in
>> > tackling the actual problems. We have a pretty good handle on the fact
>> > that we need to curb carbon emissions and methane emissions. But
>> > beyond the idea that we need to stop making things worse (which is
>> > hard enough), getting a good handle on what we can do to push things
>> > back toward a more human-friendly trajectory is a really, really tough
>> > call.
>> >
>> > We need to learn a whole lot more real quick and combine that with a
>> > political will to make serious changes and investment. History says
>> > that the likelihood of those two things coming together in conjunction
>> > with one another is
>>
>> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:344312
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to