Top British Experts : “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Tony Heller

20 MARCH 2000

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past – Environment – The Independent

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Top British Experts : “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”

  1. Mike says:
    April 12, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    Not to worry, Slingo is on the ball, climate hippyfest has been ordered. ExcelPhil on piano, Parker on drums and Viner on guitar, all singing Climate Kumbaya to encourage back climate modeled warmer winters.

    Astrology charts to replace the super computer.

    Reply
    • Marian says:
      April 13, 2013 at 4:28 am

      Astrology charts. Yeah.

      Voodoo Science alright. Slingo might get better results reading Chicken entrails and the Tea leaves. 🙂

      Reply
    • Jimbo says:
      April 13, 2013 at 12:50 pm

      Here is Dr. David Viner a few years later.

      “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”
      David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
      Guardian, 14 Feb 2004

      Just a week ago a couple of Scottish resorts were thinking of opening their resorts in the height this summer. June I vaguely recall.

      Reply
  2. squid2112 says:
    April 12, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    Speaking of children, I am really getting tired of the leftist turds trying to indoctrinate (brain wash) our youth.

    he Next Generation Science Standards, which were released Tuesday after development by 26 states and several national scientific organizations, recommend that educators for the first time identify climate change as a core concept and stress the relationship between that change and human activity.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/04/12/new-science-standards-have-americas-educational-publishers-turning-page/

    Reply
    • squid2112 says:
      April 12, 2013 at 2:53 pm

      Oh, sorry, I see in a later post you have already caught this one … I still find it disturbing .. and I for one will continue to push back against this type of garbage.

      Reply
  3. Andy DC says:
    April 12, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    The green agenda is just a fig leaf for collectivists (otherwise know as communists) to destroy our personal freedom and privacy. A fig leaf based on adjusted (doctored) data which is 99% warm biased.

    Yes, we should work on cleaner energy and not fouling the environment, but not with a gun at our heads based on totally fraudulent assertions.

    Reply
  4. Paul Homewood says:
    April 12, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    I don’t know who’s the dumbest?

    1) Viner
    2) The Indie for publishing it.
    3) Or us for believing it.

    Reply
  5. Eric Simpson says:
    April 12, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    Well, there’s an explanation for the lack of no snow. The hot has been causing the cold. Yes, it’s complex, very, so that’s why you need us climate scientists for the answer. /
    Right, lol. Notrickszone covers an interview with luke-warmist Professor Hans von Storch who responds to the hot causes cold drivel by saying “the fact that the explanation came afterwards…is just more reason for doubt:”

    An interesting aspect that demonstrates the difficulty in which climate science now finds itself is that here a hypothesis was formulated (Arctic ice deficit, subsequent winter anomaly) that ends up being a possible explanation in a model experiment. But here it cannot be concluded that this is the only or even the dominant explanation. What’s next is falsification of the suggestion using forthcoming observations to see whether the explanation is robust, or whether maybe indeed other explanations are more effective (e.g.: stochastic climate fluctuations). This is actually a normal process in science, and the fact that the explanation came afterwards, and was not searched and found before the occurrence of the phenomenon, is just more reason for doubt.

    Reply
  6. gds44 says:
    April 12, 2013 at 9:17 pm

    Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.

    Reply

Leave a Reply