freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 8:00am:


Surely that is the wrong question. The UN is a framework that according to them merely repeats the peer-reviewd studies. Although sometimes they don't use peer-reviewed studies. So it is the "climate scientists" who should he held to account.

But her we go -

"The report, entitled Climate Change and Human Health – Risks and Responses, is a study of how climate change has an impact on human health, from influencing weather patterns and air pollution to causing water and food contamination.

It is co-authored by the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and was launched at the 9th Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Milan.

The report says climate change was responsible for 150,000 deaths, 2.4 per cent of the world’s cases of diarrhoea and 2 per cent of all malaria cases in 2000."

"Natural disasters, the lion's share of them weather-related catastrophes, cost the world over $60 billion in 2003, up from around $55 billion the year before, and are part of a worrying trend that is being linked with climate change, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said today."

That is the correct spelling.
https://www.ski-austria.com/blog/kitzbuhel-2020-ski-season/

https://news.un.org/en/search/climate/date/2003

And that is just page one of eight

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 2:15pm:



Crap.

"Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse."

oh you mean it was a stalking horse for the UN? The UN tried a deliberate lie?

and 17 years ago from 2005 would make it next year.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 2:36pm:



Yes petal. The garudian - So it must be true. Ergo The UN through its University published that 50 million figure.

So what happened?

Well The UN disappeared it.

And since? Well the American Association for the Advancement of Science pushed the 50 million claim out to 2020.

"Fifty million "environmental refugees" will flood into the global north by 2020, fleeing food shortages sparked by climate change, experts warned at a major science conference that ended here Monday.

"In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees," Cristina Tirado, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)."

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/50-million-environmental-refug...

Also reported at PhysOrg news -

https://phys.org/news/2011-02-million-environmental-refugees-experts.html

Via the wayback machine -

https://web.archive.org/web/20080501091406/http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/fifty...

You are welcome.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:00pm:


It is the gullibility of climate alarmists petal. They made a claim. It has not turned out to be true. It was never likely to be true. They believed.

Much as you want to put it onto the "skeptics".

Even the AAAS prediction has been shown to be false. But maybe they were targeting "skeptics" as well.

FD,
what is a climate skeptic?

Do you mean someone who doesn't believe in
global warming causing an apocalypse?

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 6:41pm:


Someone who rejects mainstream science out of ignorance and fear.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 7:15pm:



OK so let's keep it simple -

Someone who believes that global warming will cause an apocalypse.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 7:15pm:


Ok. Where does that leave me. I have shown the climate science as espoused by James Hansen, the nominal modern father of climate science.

""The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse gas effect, is simple. An increase in gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This added opacity causes the planet’s heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. "

https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140  Hansen et al 2011



There is no sudden drastic change in opacity.



Out going radiation (OLR) has increased not decreased.

Ergo AGW as espoused by Hansen is debunked. Now that is mainstream science.

And I have no fear of AGW. 0.8C? it changes more than that overnight and daily.