This job advert is on the University of Reading website:
https://jobs.reading.ac.uk/Job/JobDetail?JobId=13468
"We seek a motivated researcher to develop storylines of extreme weather events, including their attribution.
Extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity, leading to more severe impacts. Understanding how these types of extreme event have already changed, and will change in the near-future, is of critical importance to inform decisions on adaptation.
This project will develop a reanalysis-based approach to translate observed historical and recent extreme weather events into different climates to quantitatively describe how those weather events and their impacts would be different in warmer or cooler ‘counter-factual’ worlds.
You will work within the National Centre for Atmospheric Science in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading, one of the world’s largest research centres focusing on the science of weather and climate. This project is part of a collaboration with the University of Edinburgh."
Maybe the current offerings from the Oxford Climate Journalism Network are not enough:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/oxford-climate-journalism-network
Why is there a need to exaggerate climate change and its effects? Surely the facts should speak for themselves? When we look at the BBC it is full of what can only be described as ‘Climate Hype’. If we look at the Swiss weather news it is just what it is.
An example from the BBC:
The UK's hottest day of the year could be seen in some areas on Tuesday, potentially bringing an official heatwave.
Parts of south-east England are forecast to reach temperatures of 32C (90F).
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1vd1d9r1wxo
Today’s Swiss weather report:
Just reported as it is. We were in the Valais at the weekend with temperatures up to 35°C, people just were getting on with life as usual. Today here is forecast to reach 32°C so I put on a short sleeved shirt and walked off to work as I normally do.
As the ‘Climate Change’ lobby is finding, this continuous hype is just alienating people from their ‘Cause’.
I agree that the climate is changing, has changed and will continue to change. I also agree that we must reduce our impact on the planet and the consumption of finite resources. I, however, strongly disagree with the approaches being taken. There is no science or engineering behind the current dash for ‘renewables’ just the consumption of huge amounts of resources to try and capture wind and solar which are very low density energy sources. The IET both explicitly and implicitly supports this approach producing ‘Mission Statements’ and trying to suppress any discussion.
https://engx.theiet.org/f/discussions/29377/dr-judith-curry-live
When I tried to enquire about the science/engineering behind the key number for climate change, ‘Global Average Temperature’ the first attempt was block by the thought police and the second produced no answer.
https://engx.theiet.org/f/discussions/30308/the-definition-of-global-average-temperature
Where is the real science and engineering taking place? Where are the actual resources required being calculated? Where are the energy storage requirements being addressed? Where are the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) calculations? Surely this should be in the IET’s remit. Do we just leave it to the subsidy hungry renewable industry who tell us on one hand that their energy is the cheapest whilst demanding more subsidies from the governments which means the tax payer and the consumers.
IET, how about opening up some real technical discussion?
