Fra Telegraph

Violent attacks are estimated to be 44 per cent higher than they were in 1998 after research on the way police record them allowed comparisons for the first time.

The study, by the independent House of Commons Library, shows violence against the person increased from 618,417 to 887,942 last year.

The devastating review comes despite repeated claims by the Government that violent crime has come down substantially since it took power.

It is the first time such a trend in police recorded crime can be made because a change was made in counting rules in 2002 which ministers have always insisted meant figures before that date were not, therefore, comparable.

Instead, they have always used a separate the separate British Crime Survey which suggests violence has dropped by more than 40 per cent since 1998.

The Tories, who requested the new research, said the findings make a mockery of such claims and reinforce the public’s fear that violence is in fact rising.

Statiticians in the Commons Library have used a previous Home Office estimate on the effect of the change in counting rules to estimate the impact on previous figures, had those rules been in place then.

Just last week, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, said violent crime had dropped by 1.5 million offences under Labour before attempting to blame a growing fear of crime on the Tories for “ramping up” public panic.

Samfundet er en kontrakt mellem mennesker. Denne kontrakt skal gennem loven beskyttes konsekvent mod de, der ikke kan indfinde sig. Den engelske blanding af socialpædagogiske tiltag og udsøgte manerer lider fallit og svigter sine borgere.

Det er ikke meget fokus Climategate får i de almindelige medier, hvilket er synd - også for dem. Washington Times trækker dog i den rigtige retning og sætter med ganske banal journalistisk kritik fingeren der, hvor det gør ondt, nemlig pengene

The greatest scandal connected to global warming is not exaggeration, fraud or destruction of data to conceal the weakness of the argument. It is those who are personally profiting from promoting this fantasy at the expense of the rest of us.

Al Gore is the most visible beneficiary. The world’s greatest climate-change fear-monger has amassed millions in book sales and speaking fees. His science-fiction movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Academy Award for best documentary and 21 other film awards. He was co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Gore was laying his own foundations. As he was whipping up hysteria over climate change, he cannily invested in “green” firms that stood to profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars (if not more) from increased government regulations and sweetheart deals from connected politicians and bureaucrats. The multimillionaire climate dilettante was given a free pass by reporters, who refused to ask him hard questions about the degree to which he was profiting from the panic he was causing.

Og mens Phil Jones, der ledede det forskningsteam, der leverede afgørende temperaturkurver til IPCC har indrømmet at temperaturen ikke er steget (men faldet omend ubetydeligt for alt andet end selve debatten) siden 2000, at stigningen siden midten af halvfjerserne ligner de stigninger man har målt siden industrialiseringens begyndelse og således ikke er markant, hvad CO2 teorien ellers hævder og at Middelalderens varmeperiode efter alt at dømme var reel og sikkert også varmere end i dag, hvilket betyder at temperaturen ingenlunde er markant, hvad CO2 teorien ellers hævder og slutteligt at beviset for CO2 teorien for ham grundlæggende hviler på at man ud fra to andre teorier, stadig under udvikling ikke kan forklare klimaets udvikling så kan vi andre more os lidt over en veloplagt Glenn Beck der ikke frygter at “We all going to drown in a fiery flood!”

Hvor Karl Popper anså videnskab, som en progression imod større viden og forståelse, hvor en teori blev afløst af en bedre anså Thomas Kuhn videnskab for at være socialt betinget, hvor teorier ganske vist afløste hinanden efter kriser, men hvor tilslutningen blev båret af kollektiv opfattelse frem for en egentlig sandhed. Jo hårdere en videnskab er jo mere gælder Popper og det beviselige og jo blødere jo mere gælder Kuhn og det sociale.

De fleste kender til mistanken fra deres skoletid om at en opgave i dansk eller samfundsfag måske i en hvis udstrækning er blevet bedømt ud fra lærerens egen moralske eller politiske forståelse. Men de færreste kender den vel fra fysik og matematik. Frank Furedi skriver i Spiked Online om peer-review processens indbyggede problemer, hvor den politiske aktivisme eller blot uerkendte overbevisning kan sløre den videnskabelige lødighed.

Peer review is a system that subjects scientific and scholarly work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Ideally it ensures that research is only approved or published when it meets the standards of scientific rigour and its findings are sound. At its best, peer review guarantees that it is disinterested science which informs public discussion and debate. When established through peer review, the authority of science helps to clarify disputes and injects into public discussion the latest findings and research. Peer reviewing depends on a community of experts who are competent and committed to impartiality. It depends on the commitment and collaboration of scientists and scholars in a given field.

However, the individuals who constitute a ‘community of experts’ also tend to be preoccupied with their own personal position and status. Often, the colleagues they are reviewing and refereeing are their competitors and sometimes even their bitter rivals. The contradiction between working as a member of an expert community and one’s own personal interests cannot always be satisfactorily resolved.

Unfortunately, even with the best will in the world, peer reviewing is rarely an entirely disinterested process. All too often the system of peer review is infused with vested interests. As many of my colleagues in academia know, peer reviewing is frequently carried out through a kind of mates’ club, between friends and acquaintances, and all too often the question of who gets published and who gets rejected is determined by who you know and where you stand in a particular academic debate.

(…)

Second, there is the damaging influence of nepotism and professional jealousy. Academics and researchers are all too conscious of how their prestige and career opportunities can be enhanced by getting their work published in a major journal. Sometimes, reviewers regard the research they are refereeing as the work of a competitor and adopt the tactic of either delaying or preventing its publication. This is the accusation made by 14 stem cell researchers in a letter to several major journals in their field. The researchers claim that the peer-review process was corrupted by reviewers who deliberately stalled, and even prevented, the publication of new results so that they or their associates could publish the breakthrough first. They also accused the journals of not doing enough to prevent this stalling from taking place.

The third, and in recent years the most disturbing, threat to the integrity of the peer-review system has been the growing influence of advocacy science. In numerous areas, most notably in climate science, research has become a cause and is increasingly both politicised and moralised. Consequently, in climate research, peer review is sometimes looked upon as a moral project, where decisions are influenced not simply by science but by a higher cause. The scandal surrounding ‘Climategate’ is as much about the abuse of the system of peer review as it is about the rights and wrongs of the various claims made by advocacy researchers in and around the IPCC and the UEA.

I toppen af den videnskabelig konsensus tronede FNs klimapanel IPCC, som praler med at tusindvis af videnskabsmænd har bidraget til og læst korrektur på deres rapporter. Men hvad hjælper det når kun få træffer konklusionerne.

While the IPCC insists that its critics should be judged by the most rigorous standards of peer review, it has a more relaxed attitude towards its own publications. In recent weeks there have been a series of damaging revelations about how conclusions drawn by the IPCC’s 2007 report were based on speculation and anecdotes. So claims made about disappearing mountain ice were cobbled together from information drawn from a student’s dissertation and an article published in a mountaineering magazine. Other claims were based on information from newsletters, press releases and reports produced by environmentalist advocacy groups.

There is a powerful double standard at work here: the IPCC attacks its critics for relying on ‘grey literature’ – that is, non-peer-reviewed literature – and yet it has relied on anecdotes and speculation in its reports. We shouldn’t be too surprised about this double standard, because, fundamentally, the IPCC is not simply concerned with presenting the facts but with interpreting them, giving them meaning, giving them momentum.

Det seneste eksempel på det skriver Chip Knappenberger om på MasterResource (set via Watts Up With That)

Another error in the influential reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports has been identified. This one concerns the rate of expansion of sea ice around Antarctica.

While not an issue for estimates of future sea level rise (sea ice is floating ice which does not influence sea level), a significant expansion of Antarctic sea ice runs counter to climate model projections. As the errors in the climate change “assessment” reports from the IPCC mount, its aura of scientific authority erodes, and with it, the justification for using their findings to underpin national and international efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

(…)

Another error in the influential reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports has been identified. This one concerns the rate of expansion of sea ice around Antarctica.

While not an issue for estimates of future sea level rise (sea ice is floating ice which does not influence sea level), a significant expansion of Antarctic sea ice runs counter to climate model projections. As the errors in the climate change “assessment” reports from the IPCC mount, its aura of scientific authority erodes, and with it, the justification for using their findings to underpin national and international efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

(…)

Yet, for some reason, the accompanying text claims that the trend in Figure 4.4.1b is insignificant (AR4 First Order Draft, page 4-14, lines 9-10):

The Antarctic results show a slight but insignificant positive trend of 0.7 ± 0.2% per decade.

This inconsistency was brought to the IPCC Chapter 4 authors’ attention by several IPCC commenters. Commentor John Church wrote “I do not understand why this trend is insignificant – it is more than three times the quoted error estimates” and Stefan Rahmstorf wrote “How can a trend of 0.7 +/- 0.2 be ‘insignificant’? Is not 0.2 the confidence interval, so it is significantly positive?” The IPCC responded to both in the same manner “Taken into account in revised text.”

(…)

On the topic of Antarctic sea ice trends, the “consensus of scientists”—as the IPCC likes to call itself—was wrong, led astray by the extremely poor “assessment” of the scientific knowledge-base made by a very few people who were directly involved in preparing that section—people who were either being territorial in defending and promoting their own work, were being guided by higher-ups to produce a specific IPCC point-of-view, or both.

From all I have been able to find out about this so far (including enlightenment gained from the Climategate emails into how other sections of the AR4 were carefully constructed), I would rate it “extremely unlikely” (in IPCC parlance, less than 5% chance) that what transpired was dumb luck, born of the IPCC authors’ unfamiliarity with the peer-reviewed literature—the very thing they were supposed to be assessing.

I am not sure which case is the most embarrassing.

Pinligt? Foruroligende ville jeg mene. De seneste målinger fra Antarktis ser også positive ud for de, der hellere vil have istid ifølge Watts Up With That.

Fra New York Times

With Islam pushing aside nationalism as the central force behind the politics of identity, Christians who played important roles in various national struggles find themselves left out. And since Islamic culture, especially in its more fundamental stripes, often defines itself in contrast to the West, Christianity has in some places been relegated to an enemy — or least foreign — culture.

“Unless there is a turn toward secularism in the Arab world, I don’t think there is a future for Christians here,” said Sarkis Naoum, a Christian columnist for the Lebanese newspaper Al Nahar.

Just as some opponents of President Obama sought to defame him by claiming he was a Muslim, so in Turkey was President Abdullah Gul accused of having Christian origins. Mr. Gul won a court case last December against a member of Parliament who made the accusation.

A century ago there were millions of Christians in what is today Turkey; now there are 150,000. There is a house in Turkey where the Virgin Mary is believed to have spent her last days, yet the country’s National Assembly and military have no Christian members or officers except temporary recruits doing mandatory service. Violence against Christians has risen.

(…)

The story has been similar in Iraq. Of the 1.4 million Christians there at the time of the American invasion in 2003, nearly half have fled, according to American government reports and local Iraqi Christians.

Many left early in the war when they were attacked for working with the Americans, but the exodus gained speed when Christians became targets in Iraq’s raging sectarian war. Churches were bombed, and priests as well as lay Christians were murdered. As recently as March 2008, an archbishop was kidnapped and killed outside the northern city of Mosul.

And in Egypt, where 10 percent of the country is Coptic Christian, the prevalent religious discourse has drifted from what was considered to be a moderate Egyptian Islam toward a far less tolerant Saudi-branded Islam.

In Saudi Arabia, churches are illegal. In the rest of the Persian Gulf region, Christians are foreign workers without the prospect of citizenship.

The decline of the Christian population and voice in the region is not only a source of concern for Christians, but for broadminded Muslims as well.

“Here in Lebanon, Muslims will often tell you Lebanon is no good without the Christians, and they mean it,” said Kemal Salibi, a historian. “The mix of religions and cultures that makes this place so tolerant would disappear.”

Engang sagde man at vi kunne lære så meget af dem. Vi burde i hvert fald lære dem at kende.

Jyllands-Posten har en grum top-ti over de værste lande at være kvinde i

 1. Afghanistan

2. Somalia

3. DR Congo

4. Sierra Leone

5. Niger

6. Yemen

7. Bangladesh

8. Mali

9. Burkina Faso

10. Guinea- Bissau

“Afrika er kraftigt overrepræsenteret på listen med 7 ud af de 10 pladser.” noterer Jyllands-Posten og stoler vel på at læseren forstår dette hellere som en kulturel forskel frem for at sætte lighedstegn mellem negre og Afrika. Et andet og endnu mere markant socialkonstruktivistisk notat man kunne gøre sig var at 9 ud af de 10 har islamisk domineret befolkning. Borgerkrigshærgede DR Congo med en overvægt af katolikker er ene om at repræsentere den ikke-islamiske verden.

Linket til denne artikel fra Examiner virker ikke og jeg tillader mig derfor at gengive den i sin helhed

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,” according to a Commerce Department report published by the Washington Post. Writes the Post: “Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . all point to a radical change in climate conditions and . . . unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone . . . Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones . . . while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

More evidence of human-caused global warming? Hardly.

The above report of runaway Arctic warming is from a Washington Post story published Nov. 2, 1922 and bears an uncanny resemblance to the tales of global warming splattered across the front pages of today’s newspapers. It is one of many historical accounts published during the past 140 years describing climate changes and often predicting catastrophic cooling or warming.

Here are excerpts from a few of those accounts, appearing as early as 1870:

“The climate of New-York and the contiguous Atlantic seaboard has long been a study of great interest. We have just experienced a remarkable instance of its peculiarity. The Hudson River, by a singular freak of temperature, has thrown off its icy mantle and opened its waters to navigation.” - New York Times, Jan. 2, 1870

“Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.” - New York Times, June 23, 1890

“The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.” - New York Times, Feb. 24, 1895

Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” - Chicago Tribune, Aug. 9, 1923

“The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” - Time Magazine, Sept. 10, 1923

Headline: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” - New York Times, March 27, 1933

“America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists to be on the verge of a change of climate, with a return to increasing rains and deeper snows and the colder winters of grandfather’s day.”- Associated Press, Dec. 15, 1934

Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says - “A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today. - New York Times, May 30, 1937

“Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistntly that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters.” - New York Times, Aug. 29, 1954

“An analysis of weather records from Little America shows a steady warming of climate over the last half century. The rise in average temperature at the Antarctic outpost has been about five degrees Fahrenheit.” - New York Times, May 31, 1958

“Several thousand scientists of many nations have recently been climbing mountains, digging tunnels in glaciers, journeying to the Antarctic, camping on floating Arctic ice. Their object has been to solve a fascinating riddle: what is happening to the world’s ice? - New York Times, Dec. 7, 1958

“After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.” - New York Times, Jan. 30, 1961

“Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age.” - Los Angeles Times, Dec. 23, 1962

“Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.” - New York Times, Feb. 20, 1969

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half …” - Life magazine, January 1970

“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” - Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day, 1970

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” - Barry Commoner (Washington University), Earth Day, 1970

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor, “the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” - Newsweek magazine, Jan. 26, 1970

“The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” - New York Times, July 18, 1970

“In the next 50 years, fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” - Washington Post, July 9, 1971

“It’s already getting colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes. . . .” - Los Angles Times, Oct. 24, 1971

“An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.” - New York Times, Jan. 5, 1978

“A poll of climate specialists in seven countries has found a consensus that there will be no catastrophic changes in the climate by the end of the century. But the specialists were almost equally divided on whether there would be a warming, a cooling or no change at all.” - New York Times, Feb. 18, 1978

“A global warming trend could bring heat waves, dust-dry farmland and disease, the experts said… Under this scenario, the resort town of Ocean City, Md., will lose 39 feet of shoreline by 2000 and a total of 85 feet within the next 25 years.” - San Jose Mercury News, June 11, 1986

“Global warming could force Americans to build 86 more power plants—at a cost of $110 billion—to keep all their air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says…Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press, May 15, 1989

“New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”—St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 17, 1989 (actually Florida was more like New York 20 years later)

“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots . . . [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers . . . The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.” - “Dead Heat: The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect,” Michael Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, 1990.

“It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years,” according to Dr. Russ Schnell, a scientist doing atmospheric research at Mauna Loa Observatory. - BBC, Nov. 7, 1997 (followed immediately in late 1998 by three straight years of La Nina)

“Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”—The Birmingham Post in England, July 26, 1999

“This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998.” - ScienceDaily, Jan. 5, 2007

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News, June 20, 2008

“So the climate will continue to change, even if we make maximum effort to slow the growth of carbon dioxide. Arctic sea ice will melt away in the summer season within the next few decades. Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years. . . Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know . . . We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher. Climatic disasters would occur continually.” Dr. James Hansen (NASA GISS), The Observer, Feb. 15, 2009.

Climate change? Yes, there has been plenty of that during the past 140 years. Despite warnings by “experts of the day” of approaching climate disasters, mankind somehow managed to survive. A decade or so from now, after earth’s climate changes once again, those who are old enough will recall with amusement the time, early in the 21st century, when the world went crazy over an imaginary threat called “global warming.”

[Kirk Myers is one of the few environmental reporters who is bothering to look at actual data - not reading from the guidelines provided by the Society of Environmental Journalists. We applaud him for his boldness.]

I modsætning til en kendt talemåde så virker det som om at jo mere man hører den samme løgn jo mindre overbevisende virker den.

For et par år siden sad Sobieski i mit sommerhus og drømte om at nogle ville udvikle et lasersystem, der kunne skyde uønskede insekter ned, som plagede en i sommerlandet. Myg om aftenen og hvepse ved frokosten og morgenbordet er en pestilens, som ganske ødelægger oplevelsen af naturen. Andre har også haft den tanke, nogen har taget den seriøst og nu er den her. Via Watts Up With That beretter Information Week

“Starwars Mosquito Defense System,” a commercial spoof about an anti-mosquito laser system, launched the careers of Dutch video makers Simon and David Groen in 2005. It can still be seen on YouTube. As if to demonstrate the axiom that truth is stranger than fiction, the pair’s satire is now being developed as a serious research project by some of the scientists who actually participated in the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative, derisively known as “Star Wars.”

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, the project has been dubbed “WMD: Weapon of Mosquito Destruction.” It aims to kill mosquitoes with lasers to prevent the spread of malaria, which mosquitoes can transmit. The anti-mosquito laser system is being funded by Intellectual Ventures, a company run by Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft’s former CTO.

In an essay in Seed Magazine last month, Myhrvold wrote, “Our current approaches to combat the disease are low-tech: bed nets, sold or freely given; spraying or soaking bed nets in insecticide; spraying and draining water in breeding sites. Although these approaches work, they could work better with new technology.”

Danmarks Radios dækning af, hvad der tegner til at blive den største videnskabelige skandale nogensinde er mildt sagt sær kunne jeg se hos Universalgeniet. DR2 Udland havde den 2. marts i år dette indslag om chefen for East Anglia Climate Research Unit Phil Jones og hans vidneri i sagen mod ham og hans svindelnumre

“En britisk forsker der har været mistænkt for at gøre klimaproblemerne værre end de egentlig er bryder nu flere måneders tavshed.” indledes indslaget med og før jeg fortørnet udbryder “Hvad fanden mener værten med “Værre end de er”?” osv. skal det lige slås fast at han ikke bryder tavsheden, men vidner i en sag imod ham. Og anklagen mod CRU og Phil Jones var ikke at de ville “skjule de positive sider af klimaforandringerne“, som Danmarks Radio fortæller den intetanende licensbetaler for det beskæftigede de sig slet ikke med, men at Jones et. al. havde fortalt om klimaforandringer der ikke fandt sted. Temperaturen har været stabil de seneste 10 år og alle klimaforandringer man mener at måtte se kan altså ikke have en global forklaring, men en lokal, hvilket udelukker CO2, der ikke har det med at klumpe sammen. Indslaget slutter med at konstatere at Phil Jones benægtede at have holdt noget skjult - andet en “the decline” vel. At Phil Jones indtager det standpunkt er måske ikke så mærkeligt endda.

Phil Jones har i et interview med BBC for et par uger siden allerede brudt tavsheden og indrømmelserne af at have forpurret sit videnskabelige felt og løjet for offentligheden for deres egne skattekroner, mens politikerne på den baggrund gjorde sig klar til at omkalfatre det økonomiske system og overgive national og demokratisk suverænitet til et korrupt og 3.verdensinficeret FN burde være en stor historie for en TV-station. Phil Jones anerkender dog ikke konsekvenserne af de svar han selv giver, men det behøver han heller ikke

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

Vi er på vej ud af den Lille Istid så naturligvis stiger temperaturen globalt. Den Lille Istid og før den den middelalderlige varmeperiode var udsving i temperaturen, som forgik uanfægtet af menneskelig aktivitet og er altså drevet af noget andet og meget kraftigt, som der ikke den dag i dag er helt enighed om hvad var. Pointen er den banale at den alarmerende stigning i temperaturen, som på en gang er truslen vi skal forholde os til og selve beviset på vores synder ikke eksisterer. At tegnene på en potentielt klimatrussel, endsige katastrofe tilsyneladende var løgn bliver uddybet

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

Udtrykket statisktisk signifikant signifikerer ifølge Sir Humphrey Appelby det signifikante ved ordet signifikant.

El Nino fra 1998 gav et stort udsving på temperaturskalaen, der er afstedkommet har gjort kurvens glatte udvikling vanskelig at bedømme præcist, men fra midten af halvfjerserne steg temperaturen og har siden omkring 2000 ligget stabilt, men med en statistisk usignifikant tendens til afkøling. Det naturlige skæringspunkt er altså det nye årtusinde og ikke 1995, men ved at føre statistikken tilbage til 1995 får Jones lov til at sige at der har været en stigning i de seneste 15 års tid omend meget lille og får dermed antydet at han og hans team ikke lyver så meget som de måske har overdrevet en tendens - i en god sags tjeneste forstås. Alle kan jo lade sig rive med af en begejstring uden af have sinistre planer.

Men 10 år er altså for kort en tid til at sige noget meningsfuldt, så de seneste par års FN genererede løgne på baggrund af bl.a. Jones’ arbejde om at temperaturen konkret var stigende sløres af denne pludselige hang til forsigtige udmeldinger og statistisk signifikans. Svaret til spørgsmål D emmer af den forsigtighed man så længe har savnet

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

Hans fesne hvis-man-begrænser-til-nogle-bestemte-faktorer-så-kunne-man-måske-forvente-svar er så langt fra den skråsikkerhed, der skal ligne et konsensus, som man kan komme. Og der er som sagt kun fem år til at der er gået 15 år fra 2000 og så fanger bordet ifølge Jones egen logik. Udover at vi i øjeblikket har en El Nino, som bliver modsvaret i La Nina på et tidspunkt så tyder intet på at temperaturen står overfor en acceleration opad.

Men indrømmelser går videre, for at finde ud af hvilken tid vi lever i må vi kunne sætte den i relief på baggrund af historien.

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

Middelalderens varmeperiode bliver fejlagtigt til den eneste målestok for fortilfælde når det blot burde være at regne for det seneste fortilfælde kun adskilt fra vores tid af den Lille Istid. Og det er også værd at bemærke at skønt Jones har ret i at man ikke har globale proxydata, der kan bevise den har man heller ikke noget, der taler imod at den skulle være global. Alt hvad man har af data, skønt det ikke er komplet, tegner et billede af en global varmeperiode der var varmere end nu og hvor civilisationen trivedes og menneskelivet var bedre. Her er altså det manglende fortilfælde, som FN gennem Michael Manns berømte Hockey-stok graf (Det er en Is-hockeystok rent faktisk da Hockeystokkens form er en statistisk umulighed) forsøgte at slette fra vores historie. Her er tale om ægteklima-benægtelse.

Jones slår fast at han trods de mange anomalier er 100% overbevist om at vi oplever en menneskeskabt global opvarmning med dette videnskabelige argument

H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing

Ok og vi spørger så Svensmark, hvorfor han er sikker på sin kosmisk strålingsteori og hører ham svare: “Fordi vi ikke kan forklare det med CO2 og vulkanisk aktivitet” osv. Svaret er i sin essens en bekræftelse på at man ikke aner, hvad der driver klimaet og hvorledes de forskellige faktorer spiller sammen, hvilket vil sige at konsensus er stendød.

Professor Bob Carter trækker på Quadrant Online klimahysteriet tilbage til NASAs James Hansen, der i 1988 vidnede for kongressen og fortalte, hvorledes det hele så ud til at skride. Hansen skrev i 2004 om nytten af overdrivelse i den gode sags tjeneste

“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic”.

Dette betegner Carter som hansenisme og trækker en historisk parallel

Histories of science contain an account of the ideological control of Soviet biology during the mid-20th century by plant scientist Trofim Lysenko, who by 1940 had risen to be Director of the influential Institute of Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Lysenko and his supporters rejected the “dangerous Western concepts” of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution. They preferred the Lamarckian view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics; for instance, that cows could be trained to give more milk and their offspring would then inherit this trait.

Whilst this was not an unreasonable hypothesis to erect in the early 19^th century, by the 1930s the idea had been tested in many ways and was known to be wrong. Requiring its application to agricultural and allied biological research in the USSR was disastrous, not least in the vicious persecution of scientists that took place, and the legacy of this sad episode still disadvantages Soviet biology today.

Lysenkoism grew from four main roots:

• a necessity to demonstrate the practical relevance of science to the needs of society;
• the amassing of evidence to show the “correctness” of the concept as a substitute for causal proof;
• noble cause corruption, whereby data are manipulated to support a cause which is seen as a higher truth; and
• ideological zeal, such that dissidents are silenced as “enemies of the truth”.

The first of these roots has been strongly represented in Australian government attitudes to the funding of science as far back as the 1980s. The remaining three roots exemplify closely the techniques that are currently used by global warming alarmists in pursuit of their aims – as recently exposed for all to see by the Climategate and IPCCgate scandals.

Lysenkoism damaged mainly Soviet science and society, whereas Hansenism has now been exerting its pernicious influence worldwide for more than twenty years. The climate alarmism involved has long been undermining the precious public trust from which science draws its traditional influence and sustenance, and now Climategate has opened up new sinkholes all over the place.

Som sagt, lidt af en historie for Danmarks Radio, hvis de gerne vil være et ledende nyhedsmedie i stedet for blot forbruger af tre og en halv mia. af licensbetalernes penge.

——————————————————————————————–

UPDATE:

Press Release

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data. All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Goran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
112 27 Stockholm, Sweden

See PDF of letter here.

Mens forårssneen pryder landskabet kan vi friske lidt videnskablig essens op, som Resilient Earth beskriver den

Popper made the following observations as to what makes a good scientific theory:

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.

Popper made a distinction between what he termed conditional scientific predictions, which have the form “If X takes place, then Y will take place,” and unconditional scientific prophecies, which have the form “Y will take place.” It is the former rather than the latter which are typical of the natural sciences. This means that predictions made by scientific theories are typically conditional and limited in scope—taking the form of a hypothetical assertion stating that certain specified changes will come about if particular preceding events take place. Conversely, if X takes place and Y does not, then the hypothesis must be false.

(…)

The reason for this lies in the concept of falsifiability—a condition that must be met by all valid scientific theories. Popper noted that it is easy to obtain evidence in favor of virtually any theory, and he consequently held that such corroboration should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a genuinely “risky” prediction. Risky here means that the prediction could conceivably have been false. For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable by a conceivable event. Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies the whole theory.

Basically, a theory must make predictions about how nature behaves so that the validity of the theory can be tested through experimentation and/or observation. For example, say I claim that all swans are white, based on my direct observation of a sample of swan populations. If someone finds a single black swan and is able to document the observation (e.g. by taking a picture or capturing the beast) then the white swan theory is disproved. In this case a single contradicting observation is sufficient to invalidate the theory.

It is possible that a disproved theory can be modified to better fit nature as observed—the white swan theory could be amended to say “most swans are white.” In this case the new theory could not be disproved by a single black swan siting, it would take finding a numerical majority of non-white swans to disprove it. Scientific philosophy would say that the first white swan theory is a stronger theory, the assertion that all swans are white being much more restrictive than the modified “most swans” theory. Simply put, the stronger the theory the simpler it is to disprove, the argument being that an easily disprovable theory which stands the test of time is stronger than a theory, which would take a much larger effort to debunk. It takes a deeper understanding of the assertions made by a theory to know what kind of argument is needed to disprove it.

When it comes to the AGW theory, which states that human generated CO₂ is the reason for increasing world temperature, there is some wiggle room for its proponents, but not much. If it can be shown that the sum total of other contributing factors is more influential than CO₂ then the theory is proven false. Any valid observation which shows CO₂’s influence is less important to climate change than other factors diminishes the validity of the theory. Moreover, if many of the predictions made by the theory are shown to be false then the theory is weakened—the death of a thousand cuts scenario.

If a theory claims to explain climate change and new work shows that there are phenomena that the theory does not explain then that theory is incomplete. If nature shows assertions made by the theory to be wrong then the theory is false. The papers I cited showed that there is dispute among scientists, that nature is still serving up big surprises that climate science is at a loss to explain, that the science is not settled. Given this evidence, for any layman to state otherwise is preposterous but as Popper himself said, “irrationalism will use reason too, but without any feeling of obligation.”

D L Hoffmann, der er manden bag Resilient Earth gennemgår på den baggrund teorien om den menneskeskabte globale opvarmning, som De ikke bør snyde dem selv for at læse kære læser. Han kommer til nogenlunde samme konklusion, som Bob Carters torpedoer, som De heller ikke bør snyde dem selv for at se eller gense. Med Popper og almindelig vedenskablig praksis in mente var det derfor meget bemærkelsesværdigt da Phil Jones overfor det britiske parlament indrømmede bevidst at have skjult de rå data fra alverdens vejrstationer og desuden desuden ifølge Daily Mail fortalte

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not ’standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

‘I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,’ he said.

Så meget for Jones og konsorter selvfølgelig. Så meget for Peer Rewiev. Og så meget for den forskning, der byggede på resultaterne af hans produktion. Jones og resten af denne klimaelites praksis er heldigvis heller ikke videnskabelig konsensus, som Watts Up With That fortæller

Earlier we reported on The Royal Society of Chemistry making a statement to the Parliamentary inquiry saying they as an organization support open data sharing. They join the Institute of Physics in making a strong statement on the practices of UEA/CRU. Now the Royal Statistical Society has weighed in with much the same opinion.

Som Hoffmann gerne slutter sine artikler; Stay Sceptical and be safe.

Guardian fortæller en typisk vesteuropæisk historie

If there were a general election tomorrow, 35% of voting Muslims (meaning those Muslims who claim they are more likely than not to vote) would vote Labour. This compares with 22% of voting Christians and 23% of the entire voting population. By comparison, whereas 30% of the voting population would tick the Conservative box, only 13% of voting Muslims would do so.

Polling questions are liable to misinterpretation so the same question was tackled from different angles. The results concurred. Only one in 20 of those who call themselves Muslim say that they “generally” consider themselves to be Conservative compared, with 42% who consider themselves Labour (the national figures are 23% Conservative and 28% Labour). Similarly, 49% of Muslims claim they feel that the Labour party has been most friendly towards the Muslim faith over recent years, compared with 6% who think that the Conservatives have been.

The narrative appears to receive a dent when data show that a fifth of Muslims think Labour has been least friendly towards the Muslim faith over recent years. However, given that more Muslims (nearly a quarter) think the Conservatives have been the least friendly party, despite the fact they haven’t really been in a position to do anything, the dent appears illusory. In spite of everything, Labour appears to remain the natural home for British Muslims.

Fra Telegraph

The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) — which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state — has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve “mass mobilisation” of voters.

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties.

“They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it’s at local government level or national level,” he said.

“They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”

Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and “corrupted” his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years.

In a six-month investigation by this newspaper and Channel 4’s Dispatches, involving weeks of covert filming by the programme’s reporters:

• IFE activists boasted to the undercover reporters that they had already “consolidated … a lot of influence and power” over Tower Hamlets, a London borough council with a £1 billion budget.
• We have established that the group and its allies were awarded more than £10 million of taxpayers’ money, much of it from government funds designed to “prevent violent extremism”.
• IFE leaders were recorded expressing opposition to democracy, support for sharia law or mocking black people. The IFE organised meetings with extremists, including Taliban allies, a man named by the US government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and a man under investigation by the FBI for his links to the September 11 attacks.
• Moderate Muslims in London told how the IFE and its allies were enforcing their hardline views on the rest of the local community, curbing behaviour they deemed “un-Islamic”. The owner of a dating agency received a threatening email from an IFE activist, warning her to close it.
• George Galloway, a London MP, admitted in recordings obtained by this newspaper that his surprise victory in the 2005 election owed more to the IFE “than it would be wise – for them – for me to say, adding that they played a “decisive role” in his triumph at the polls.

Mr Galloway now says they were one of many groups which supported his anti-war stance and had never sought to influence him.

Hvorledes gik det dog til at lige netop Labour er udsat for dette? Fra Daily Mail

Labour encouraged mass immigration even though it knew that voters opposed it, Whitehall documents confirmed yesterday.

The Government said the public disagreed with immigration because of ‘racism’ and ministers were told to try to alter public attitudes.

The thinking on immigration among Labour leaders was set down in 2000 in a document prepared for the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, but the key passages were suppressed before it was published.

The paper was finally disclosed under freedom of information rules yesterday. It showed that ministers were advised that only the ill-educated and those who had never met a migrant were opposed to immigration.

They were also told that large-scale immigration would bring increases in crime, but they concealed these concerns from the public.

Sections of the paper, which underpinned Labour policies that admitted between two and three million immigrants to Britain in less than a decade, have already been made public.

These have showed that Labour aimed to use immigration not only for economic reasons but also to change the social make-up of the country.

Fuller details released yesterday showed that Tony Blair’s ministers opened the doors to mass migration in knowledge of public opposition and with the view that those who disagreed with them were racists.

Labour’s accusation that opponents of immigration are racist has been dropped over the last two years as it has become clear that former Labour voters in party heartlands have been turning to the far right British National Party.

Ministers accept there is frustration at the loss of jobs to migrants and pressure on public services.

Yesterday Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: ‘The Government has simply not been telling the truth about its policies on immigration.

‘More and more evidence is now emerging to show that they deliberately planned a big jump in immigration for their own political purposes.

Når man nærer slangen ved sit bryst. Men ikke det er en ganske typisk vesteuropæisk historie, hvor De Internationale med større eller mindre held har forsøgt det samme demografiske attentat på Nationen?

Jyllands-Postens leder slår fast

For tiden er vore bladhuse under skærpet bevogtning, fordi forbrydere ifølge Politiets Efterretningstjeneste arbejder med konkrete planer om terroranslag mod avisen og dens medarbejdere. Tidligere har i tusindvis af galninge råbt op om, hvilke pinsler der skulle møde os i helvede og i tiden inden.

På den baggrund kan det næsten forekomme civiliseret, at en saudiarabisk advokat i efteråret 2009 truede en række danske aviser med sagsanlæg, hvis ikke de ville undskylde, at de halvandet år før havde offentliggjort en tegning udført af bladtegner Kurt Westergaard. Det var sket i forbindelse med afsløringen af konkrete mordplaner mod tegneren.

Trusselsbrevet fra den saudiarabiske advokat blev selvfølgelig mødt med den kølige afvisning, som en sådan uforskammethed fortjener. Advokaten gjorde sig ikke den ulejlighed at oplyse, hvor avisens chefredaktør i givet fald skulle møde for at stå til regnskab. Ifølge almindelig ret skal en rettergang ske der, hvor sagsøgte bor, altså ved en dansk ret.

Her er det imidlertid i hele fire juridiske instanser afgjort, at tegningerne i Jyllands-Posten hverken var blasfemiske eller injurierende, men i fuld overensstemmelse med dansk ret, dansk presseetik og dansk avistradition.

Da dette er lidt tamt går vi i stedet til Henrik Gade Jensen der sætter Politiken i relief gennem sin egen historie

Hvis man læser de tre bind Viggo Hørup i Skrift og Tale, som blev udgivet lige efter hans død i 1902, kan man næsten ikke fatte den vrede, som måtte komme op i Hørup, hvis han skulle opleve Politiken i dag. I kulturkampen gælder det om at flå pelsen af fårene, skrev Hørup, for ellers mærker danskerne ikke forandringen: ”Naar Pelsen ikke flaas af dem, saa de mærker det, er det Hele ganske forgæves. Hvad det kommer an paa er Brudet, Omslaget, Vendingens Brathed”. På mange måder Hørups kulturradikale credo, hvor det gælder om at chokere, forarge og sætte brand i sjælene.

Nu har Politiken undskyldt en tegning i bladet for flere år siden, fordi den kunne krænke religiøse følelser. Politiken bør også vise rettidig omhu og undskylde, at Edvard Brandes, den anden af Politikens grundlæggere, skrev et skuespil om profeten Muhammed med titlen Muhammed - skuespil i tre akter i 1895, som ville afstedkomme en ny Muhammedkrise med ambassadeafbrændinger, hvis det blev citeret eller opført i dag.

Samme historiske ånd præger Jesper Beinovs indlæg

Hele frihedens forudsætning tænker vi ikke på i det daglige, men jeg fik en påmindelse om denne arv for få uger siden, hvor jeg tilbragte en solbeskinnet lørdag på Huntington Library, udenfor Los Angeles.

Her lå nemlig på rad og række den amerikanske og europæiske friheds forudsætninger i form af originale bøger, manuskripter og deklarationer, der hver især har formet de frie samfund; skrevet af kloge mænd i 1600- og primært 1700-tallet. Her tænkte de dybt over, hvordan man etablerede fred, frihed og magtdeling, uden at man skulle ty til at rive hovederne af hinanden.

Når der er en sammenhæng til den aktuelle sag, er det den indlysende, at en stor del af den islamiske verden aldrig har været igennem en oplysningstid, der gør det naturligt, at tanken er fri og kritik en indlysende del af samfundets orden. I stedet abonnerer mørke kræfter på, at religion og politik pinedød skal rodes sammen, så religionskritik er forbudt.

Vi kommer først fri af disse vanskelige debatter, hvis vi gør os klart, at vi ikke kan løse dele af den islamiske kulturs fundamentale problem med at eksistere i en moderne, globaliseret verden. Vi gør det slet ikke ved at undskylde, hvem vi er, og hvad vi står for. Derved giver vi kun ammunition til dem, der ønsker at bremse den modernisering, mange i den muslimske verden faktisk ønsker.

Naser Khader udtrykker ægte journalitisk foragt

Jeg vil gerne spørge Politikens journalister: Siger I også undskyld til profetens 94.923 efterkommere - hvem de så end er? Bøjer I jer også for trusler, intimidering og fanatisme, sådan som jeres chef gør?

Hvis svaret er ja, så mener jeg, at Politiken i dag har solgt ud ved overhovedet at forhandle med nogen, hvis eneste ønske er at begrænse ytringsfriheden. De har solgt ud overfor deres kolleger på de øvrige redaktioner, som vil opleve et stigende pres for at gøre det samme – hvad jeg dog håber, at de ikke gør. Men vigtigst af alt, har Politiken solgt ud overfor for dem, som netop Politiken burde have som sit fornemmeste mål at lægge spalter til, at forsvare og at bakke op om: Politiken af alle har valgt at svigte den islamiske verdens frihedskæmpere, som kæmper en daglig kamp med livet som indsats, for at få lov til at kritisere religionen og religionens dogmer.

180 Grader udtrykker ægte journalistisk foragt med lidt større finesse

Politiken er en avis. En avis formidler - i ord og billeder - verdens væsentligste begivenheder. Politiken har også udført dette arbejde i dækningen af den Muhammed-krise, som ramte Danmark i 2005 og 2006, og i dækningen af krisens efterdønninger i årene efter.

For det undskylder Politiken nu.

Længere er den ikke. Politiken undskylder, at den er en avis og gør en avis’ arbejde, som bl.a. er at vise de karikaturtegninger af muslimernes profet, Muhammed, som efter deres offentliggørelse i Jyllands-Posten blev efterfulgt af ambassadeafbrændinger, terrortrusler og en af dansk udenrigspolitiks største kriser siden Anden Verdenskrig. Tegningerne var krisens genstand. Tegningerne skulle derfor i avisen.

Det er også faldet Mikael Jalving for brystet og han spørger

Men hvad er Politiken så?

Et PR-bureau? Nej, sådan nogle er ikke bange for at provokere, krænke eller latterliggøre, hvis bare beløbet er stort nok.

Et navneskifte til Dansk Kirketidende kan heller ikke anbefales. Sådan et blad findes allerede i Grundtvigs ånd, og da Grundtvig selv var en solid forsvarer for trykkefrihed og idømt livsvarig censur i 1826, så går det slet ikke an for Politiken.

Vent et øjeblik, jeg får en idé. Politikens chefredaktør vil gerne signalere internationalt niveau, ikke sandt? Men samtidig skal det ikke gøre for ondt, jeg mener, der skal tages hensyn til folk, eller rettere, visse folk. Det handler som bekendt om dialog.

Hvad så med Apolotiken?

Og med sådan et navn er det logisk at slutte, som Kristian Ditlev Jensen at Politiken har valgt…

.…at fra nu af har alle sårede læsere af avisen krav på en undskyldning. Også selv om de pågældende slet ikke læser dansk eller rutinemæssigt detager i den danske debat.

Og så følger ellers en undskyldning på alverdens sprog. I samme ånd analyserer Troels Heeger og Søren Villemoes

Når Politiken anerkender, at deres søgsmål er berettiget, og at det er på sin plads at undskylde, så har avisen anerkendt det saudiske styre og dets grove undertrykkelse af alt, hvad der ikke følger islamisk lov.

Til OL i 2008 solgte Politiken plakater, hvor citater fra menneskerettighederne stod skrevet på kinesisk. Budskabet var vist, at Politiken bekymrede sig om menneskerettigheder og var kritiske overfor totalitære regimer. Det budskab må siges at være rimelig kompromitteret efter dette pinlige knæfald for det saudiske kongevælde.

Man kan spørge sig selv, om avisen overhovedet har overvejet, hvad denne indrømmelse implicerer? Er det f.eks. avisens fremtidige politik, at enhver, der føler sig krænket, bare skal skabe tilstrækkeligt med tumult og skrige højt nok, for at avisen skal anerkende krænkelsen? Det må være det eneste, man logisk kan udlede. For havde Politiken undskyldt krænkelsen, hvis der ikke havde været det internationale pres mod Danmark, de mange terrortrusler, de omfattende demonstrationer, de mange dødstrusler og overfald? Det forekommer usandsynligt. Dagens undskyldning er et knæfald for det irrationelle. Det er en anerkendelse af, at muslimer åbenbart er så tossede, at deres religiøse følelser er ude af kontrol.

Har man iøvrigt tænkt over, hvilket usolidarisk signal det sender til andre aviser? Politiken siger jo direkte, at alle andre aviser også har krænket muslimers påståede følelser, og at de følgeligt også burde undskylde. Man hævder, at man ikke har afskrevet muligheden for i fremtiden at trykke tegninger af Muhammed. Men det forekommer at være noget usandsynligt. For hvordan i alverden skal man dog forsvare, at man trykker noget, som man anerkender som en direkte krænkelse?

Hvis man vil have de strategiske vinkler på historien er Ralf Pittelkow ikke overraskende manden man skal læse

Kernen i Muhammed-konflikten var, at islamiske kræfter ville gennemtvinge en fundamental ændring: Hidtil havde islamiske regler kun været gældende for muslimer og muslimske lande. Men nu skulle Vestens ikke-muslimer tilpasse sig de islamiske regler for ytringsfriheden.

Disse regler indebærer, at man ikke må ytre sig kritisk om islam. En barber i Saudi-Arabien blev for nylig idømt dødsstraf for at have sagt noget grimt om profeten Muhammed.

Efter Muhammed-konflikten har de muslimske lande til fulde demonstreret, at de mener deres krav alvorligt. Især gennem FN har de presset voldsomt på for at få vestlige lande til at indføre lovgivning, der vil gøre det svært eller umuligt at kritisere islam. Nogle vestlige lande giver efter.

En saudi-arabisk advokat fulgte den islamiske offensiv op ved at true med en retssag mod de danske aviser, der i 2008 genoptrykte Kurt Westergaards tegning. Nu skulle danske aviser slæbes for retten i et muslimsk land!

Man må gå ud fra, at advokat Faisal Yamani har vidst, at dette ikke kunne lade sig gøre. En retssag kunne kun finde sted i Danmark, og her havde han ingen udsigt til at vinde. Men han ville bruge truslen om en retssag som et propagandanummer. Og så har han måske haft et lille håb om, at en dansk avis kunne være tåbelig nok til at bide på.

Det håb har Politiken nu opfyldt. Bladet har indgået et »forlig«, siger chefredaktør Tøger Seidenfaden. Men når man accepterer tanken om en retssag i et muslimsk land og vælger at bøje sig for tomme trusler, så har det da intet med et forlig at gøre. Det er frivilligt knæfald.

Opstandelsen gælder i øvrigt denne tegning

Fra Information

Advokaten Ahmed Zaki Yamani og hans advokatbureau, som har indgået et forlig med dagbladet Politiken, hvor avisen undskylder at have trykt »krænkende« karikaturer af profeten Muhammed, har igennem to år arbejdet med denne sag – et projekt, der også har involveret juridisk vejledning fra en dansk advokat, erfarer Information.

»Sagen har været længe undervejs, fordi det har taget tid at indsamle underskrifter fra profetens efterkommere over det meste af den arabiske og muslimske verden. Men Yamani har betalt en dansk jurist for at undersøge, hvilke muligheder der foreligger for at føre sag imod de danske aviser, som offentliggjorde Muhammedtegningerne,« siger en kilde tæt på Yamanis advokatbureau i et telefoninterview, han giver til Information på betingelse af anonymitet.

(…)

Kilden oplyser, at »den avis, der har givet en undskyldning«, nu vil blive slettet fra sagsanlæggets akter, og at Yamani således har opgivet at indstævne Politiken.

Men han understreger, at planen er at føre sagen i både britiske og danske domstole imod alle aviser, der fortsat vægrer sig ved at undskylde.

Douglas Murray siger i Telegraph

The fact is that Politiken have conceded that offence can be caused by publishing a drawing of a man who in the eyes of the Danish state must be considered a deceased tradesman.

Now Politiken are in the game of having to apologise to one group for hurt feelings, they may find themselves stretched for time.

I trust from now on that anybody, internationally, who has ever found anything offensive in the paper in question will ensure they too get an apology. Politiken’s website is here. May I recommend that readers scour it for anything whatsoever they might find mildly irksome? A picture, a photo, a fact, a word. Somewhere on there is an interview with me from last year. That’s often a good place to start.

Politiken have grotesquely trampled on the solidarity the Danish press have shown in the cartoons affair. But this apology also epitomises one of the most aggravating trends currently being accepted, which is the notion that Muslims somehow have deeper feelings than the rest of the world. One Muslim man tried arguing exactly this with me only a few nights ago. The idea goes that Muslims are especially sensitive because their feelings are very very deep. So deep, indeed, that non-Muslims can’t possibly imagine the hurt feelings caused by a pen-and-ink drawing that they don’t like and, in most cases, haven’t seen.

Islam har ingen historie, kun sig selv. Derfor er enhver tvivl, smil og tanke dybt traumatisk og islam kommer ikke videre i sin terapi før den er blevet kompenseret i dominans.

Times Online

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament.

The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the university’s Climatic Research Unit, has stepped down while an inquiry takes place into allegations that he manipulated data to avoid scrutiny of his claims that manmade emissions were causing global warming. Professor Edward Acton, the university’s vice-chancellor, published a statement he sent to the committee before giving evidence to MPs at a public hearing on Monday. He said a letter from the ICO “indicated that no breach of the law has been established [and] that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie”.

But the ICO’s letter said: “The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence.”

(…)

A spokeswoman for the university said: “The point Professor Acton was making is that there has been no investigation so no decision, as was widely reported. The ICO read e-mails and came to assumptions but has not investigated or demonstrated any evidence that what may have been said in emails was actually carried out.”

IOC står ikke med opfattelsen af de lækkede e-mails indhold er decideret aktivisme uden rygdækning. Institute of Physics har oplyst om deres syn på Climategates implikationer overfor det engelske parlament

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry, ‘The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia‘.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute’s Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

(…)

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

(…)

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

Videnskab burde være Popper, hvor en teori afløses af en bedre, men er så ofte Kuhn, hvor sociale dynamikker har den afgørende rolle. Jo længere nede af den videnskabelige rangliste (matematik og fysik øverst forstås og sociologi, antropologi og køns og kvindeforskning nederst) jo værre. Der er ingen samlende teori for klimaet, men et væld af enkeltfaktorer og deres indbyrdes dynamik. Det betyder også at der ikke er et samlende fag, men et væld af faggrupper og traditioner, der hver især kæmper for præcis deres plads i forståelsen af klimaet. I dette krydsfelt har en enkelt tese, et enkelt paradigme med religiøs energi og held til at mobilesere græsrødder, politikere og til sidst storkapitalen Vi spiller på den røde angst når det passer i vores kram) tromlet henover alle andre. Men nu går den ikke længere.

Politikens Tøger Seidenfaden siger i en pressemeddelelse om undskyldningen over at nogen kunne føle sig krænket af en avis, som de end ikke læser.

Politiken og ledelsen af otte organisationer i Egypten, Libyen, Qatar, Australien, Jordan, Saudi-Arabien, Libanon og Palæstina, bestående af 94,923 medlemmer der er efterkommere af Profeten Muhammed (”Organisationerne”), er nået til en fælles forståelse og et forlig i tvisten mellem Organisationerne og Politiken, der opstod på baggrund af Politikens genoptrykning af Kurt Westergaards karikaturtegning af Profeten Muhammed (”Karikaturtegningen”), som oprindeligt blev bragt i Jyllands-Posten den 30. september 2005 sammen med 11 andre tegninger af Profeten Muhammed (”Tvisten”).

Organisationen repræsenterer altså 94,923 muslimer. Det vil sige at Politiken måske kun har lavet en meget lille indrømmelse, men også kun til en meget lille del af den islamiske verden faktisk under en 1/10.000. De resterende 1,3 mia. - 94,923 er stadigt krænkede og kede af det. Selv med en meget tynd skive af Politiken bugnende principlager, så drejer det sig altså om mindst 10.000 skiver endnu. Er Politikens princippølse virkeligt lang nok til det?

Med Politikens køben sig lidt fred fra de frådende muslimske masser øges presset nu på deres kollegaer i avisbranchen på to fronter. Først og fremmest er de færre til at være enige om en enighed, hvilket efterlader dem afgørende svækkede. Dernæst vil muslimer sætte næsen op efter flere forlig fre de resterende aviser da pres (slet skjulte trusler) altså bærer frugter. Og når det ikke virker vil disse muslimer blive forbitrede og tolke det som en offensiv genstridighed, der kun retfærdiggør endnu mere terror. Politiken har altså efterladt der kollegaer til at bære en endnu større byrde.

Men det rager Westager en høstblomst. “Jeg synes, det er modigt af Politiken at vælge dialog frem for konfrontation” siger hun og knæsætter sammen med Politiken det faktum at islam er en voldelig religion, der står i evigt modsætningsforhold til friheden.

Senator James Inhofe bliver interviewet af Pajamas TV og ser frem til en sejr over klimalobbyen og at Al Gore kommer til at stå skoleret overfor en Senatshøring. Inhofe har længe interesseret sig for klimadebatten fra det gik op for ham at magt skulle sive fra USA til FN og han står idag i en styrket position.

Det ene af de to ben (bemærkelsesværdig temperaturstigning og stigning i drivhusgassen CO2), som den menneskeskabte globale opvarmning går på ser ud til at slæbe en del i denne tid. Temperaturstigningen skal helst være unormal, hvis den skal overbevise os om at den ikke er normal, hvilket vil sige at mennesket har haft en afgørende og potentielt katastrofal indflydelse. Men det ser ikke ud til at temperaturen stiger med nogen hast, men at vi stille og roligt er på vej ud af den Lille Istid og gletchere smelter altid lidt i interglaciale perioder. Fred Singer gør ugentlig status med et besindigt ordvalg

Perhaps the major environmental news of the week was a friendly interview of Phil Jones, the former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), by BBC’s Roger Harabin. After the interview, a question and answer statement, with some corrections, was released by BBC.

In the interview Jones stated that although there has been a modest warming trend since 1995, it is not statistically significant. Further, there is no statistically significant difference among the four warming trends of 1860-1880, 1910-40, 1975-1995, and 1975-2009. Thus, one can not use the global surface temperature record to statistically establish that the recent warming was different from past warming periods. Many “skeptics” have been vindicated – the global surface temperature datasets do not establish a statistically defensible link between carbon dioxide emissions and the recent warming.

Jones claims the agreement between the CRU and the NASA GISS, and NOAA datasets indicates nothing is wrong. However all three may be wrong. Reports by D’Aleo, Watts, the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis, etc. strongly suggest that the three global surface temperature datasets have been heavily compromised in recent years and likely contain strong warming biases.

Og denne mistanke om, at de rå data er blevet behandlet tendentiøst spreder sig, som Mail Online kan fortælle

Temperature records dating back more than 150 years are to be re-examined by the Met Office because public belief in global warming has plummeted.

The re-analysis, which was approved at a conference in Turkey this week, comes after the climate change email scandal which dealt a severe blow to the credibility of environmental science.

The Met Office says that the review is ‘timely’ and insists it does not expect to come to a different conclusion about the progress of climate change.

Mrutyuanjai Mishra trækker sig fra bestyrelsen af Trykkefrihedsselskabet fortæller han i Politiken bl.a fordi der er for meget plads til racistiske ytringer og støtte til Vlaams Belang og Geert Wilders. Men det der bekymrer ham dybere er noget af det parløb, som Trykkefrihedsselskabet og Fri Debat forventes at danne om afskaffelse af racismeparagraffen for som Mrutyuanjai Mishra siger

…en racismeparagraf bør alle lande, og i særdeleshed alle europæiske lande, have.

Ja hvis ikke der er lande der har mere brug for det end andre af en eller anden mystisk grund så ved jeg ikke hvad. Og så skuffes han over at Europa ikke formår at tage imod indvandrere, som man gør det i USA, hvor indere bliver millionærer en bloc

Et land som USA kunne måske derfor som et af ganske få bære at fritages for en racismeparagraf.

Det kunne de bestemt ikke i Australien, et andet indvandrerland, hvor

Det er kun 35 år siden, at Australien afskaffede deres ‘ Only white immigration’-politik. Denne politik indebar, at kun folk fra europæiske lande fik lov til at indvandre til Australien.

Lovgivningen var åbenlyst racistisk.

Og hvad er situationen i Australien i dag? Der er talrige racistiske overfald på indvandrere, som befinder sig i Australien på ganske lovlig vis. Her oplever man racistiske overfald på uskyldige mennesker, som på vej hjem fra arbejde færdes alene på gaden. Australsk politi har som følge heraf angiveligt advaret indiske studerende og opfordret dem til at klæde sig som fattige frem for at bære rundt på deres dyre computere.

Det er historier, der halvt bekræftes af Den Store Hindu, som dog synes at Mrutyuanjai Mishra

,,,fails to mention what kind of Lebanese-Australians are apparently attacking Indians in Australia. Officialdom calls this a “law-and-order” issue, and the Indian press rants about “racism” in Australia. No one, it seems, is asking what kind of Lebanese these assailants are. Are they Christians? Or, more likely, are they Muslims? The Indians are mostly, one would assume, Hindus. Maybe this is a religious issue? Muslims, given Islamic tenets regarding polytheists and idolators, have a long, sordid, intolerant, and murderous history of “Hinduphobia.”

Man kunne måske fristes til at reflektere over, hvorfor indvandrerlandene var vestlige, mens flygtninge og udlængselsproducerende lande var, ja ikke-vestlige, mens man sad og gumlede på, hvorfor især europæiske lande havde brug for en racismeparagraf. Joeh, de historiske erfaringer, men de er jo et produkt af et eller andet. Ligesom erfaringerne mellem hinduer og muslimer i hans eget hjemland, som folk jo ikke ligefrem står i kø for at bosætte sig i. Men Mrutyuanjai Mishra er ikke færdig med Europa af i dag

Og hvordan ligger landet egentlig, når det drejer sig om integration af folk med anden etnisk baggrund i de europæiske lande? Jo, de arbejdspladser, som har ringe prestige, og som ingen derfor for alvor går og drømmer om såsom rengøringsassistenter, social-og sundhedshjælpere, kioskejere o. l., dem kan indvandrerne bekvemt fylde ud.

Nu er kiosker jo gerne selvstændige næringsdrivende og os, der har boet i landet et helt liv kan huske, hvorledes indvandrerne med deres anderledes familiestruktur og ofte liberale indstilling til dele af lovgivningen visse steder totalt udkonkurrerede den eksisterende forretningsmodel. Nok om det, Pointen er klar. Indvandrerne får bunden i Europa og toppen i USA. Hvorfor egentlig? Ja det er et godt spørgsmål for det er jo ikke fordi man ikke vil give dem chancen, som man kan læse i Danmarks Radio i disse dage.

Han har en stribe sager om fejbehandlinger bag sig, og har været anklaget for blandt andet børnemishandling i Sverige - alligevel er der risiko for, at danskere i fremtiden kan blive behandlet af skandalelægen Rafik Abu-Ramadan.

Eller

Mohammed A. kan hverken finde ud at at behandle en brækket arm eller noget så simpelt som at tage blodtryk.

Men sidste år lovede Sundhedsstyrelsen ham alligevel en lægeautorisation, og dermed adgang til at behandle danske patienter.

På den ene side vil man jo gerne give folk en chance på den anden side vil man jo helst ikke dø af at komme i kontakt med sygehusvæsenet. Det er en svær en. Som erfaringerne med Europa kalder på en racismeparagraf kalder erfaringerne med indvandrere til Europa altså ligeledes på…at man måske skal give folk de chancer de nu engang trods alt har en realistisk mulighed for at gribe, som TV2 East kan fortælle

Politifolkene i Slagelse var godt forberedte, da ni udlændinge mandag morgen dukkede op for at aflægge teoriprøve.

Ordensmagtens repræsentanter havde nemlig på fornemmelsen, at de ni køreskoleelever ville snyde med prøven, og lod en kollega overvåge prøven, skriver Sjællandske..Og ganske rigtigt:

Og ganske rigtigt! Intet er som fordomme, der bliver bekræftet. Især ikke her på Monokultur, hvor dyrkelsen af den lumre racisme er et adelsmærke.

Jeg forstår ikke, hvorfor radioværten vil arrangere en bum-fight, men rart at se at mod stadig værdsættes i vores defatistiske og feminiserede kultur

Der skal kun en enkelt sok til at misfarve det hvide vasketøj. Fra Washington Times leder

….all three terrestrial global-temperature data sets (by NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the University of East Anglia) really rely on the same measures of surface temperatures. These three sources do not provide independent measures of how the world’s temperatures have changed over time. The relatively small differences that do arise from these three institutions result from how they adjust the raw data.

The findings by Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Watts also explain some puzzles that have bothered researchers. For example, land-based temperatures have been rising while satellite-based measures haven’t shown the same increase since 1990. Their answer is that at that point in time, the elimination of weather stations produced a false measured increase in temperatures that didn’t affect the satellite readings. There is no evidence (yet) that this effort was consciously designed to increase recorded temperatures, but that is beside the point. The crux of the matter is that fanatics about man-made global warming want to spend trillions of dollars based on conclusions from faulty data.

I denne paneldiskussion fra UC Berkeley diskuterer en håndfuld forskere hvilke perspektiver, der har rejst sig af climategate (en diskussion man ganske savner i de etablerede medier)

Jeg vil gerne illustrere den pointe af forskere arbejder på baggrund af hinandens resultater. Danmarks Meterologiske Institut har en særdeles informativ og let læselig hjemmeside og her kan man blandet andet læse

Figuren viser den nordlige halvkugles middeltemperatur over land (blå kurve) med data fra CRU i Norwich England. Den røde kurve viser længden på solcyklussen i skalerede enheder således at korte cykler svarer til varme perioder og lange cykler svarer til kølige. De to stiplede linjer viser intervallet hvori skaleringen er bestemt. Den simple solmodel formår åbenbart ikke at forklare temperaturudviklingen efter 1970′erne. [billedtekst; Drokles]

Teorien for en nuværende sammenhæng mellem solaktivitet og Jordens klima er dog blevet afkræftet, fordi senere analyser påviste, at de to forløb havde lagt afstand til hinanden efter ca. 1970. De seneste data støtter op om denne udvikling.

“Når de to kurver, om man så kan sige, stikker af fra hinanden, så betyder det, at der nu er andre påvirkninger, der ændrer Jordens klima mere end Solen; ændringer, som med meget stor sandsynlighed stammer fra den menneskeskabte drivhuseffekt,” siger leder af Danmarks Klima Center, Anne Mette K. Jørgensen.

Forskellen mellem den observerede temperatur og den temperatur, som forskerne kan udlede af solaktivitetens længde, er helt oppe på ca. 1°C, bekræfter de seneste data fra DMI. Ifølge FN’s klimapanel IPCC skyldes det meste af den globale opvarmning, der er observeret de sidste 50 år med meget stor sandsynlighed den menneskeskabte drivhuseffekt.

Man bemærker under den rygende graf at den er bygget på data fra det omstridte East Anglia Climate Research Center, hvis lækkede e-mails har afsløret en eller anden grad af manipulation med den globale temperatur. DMIs graf omhandler kun den nordlige halvkugle (Halvkuglerne deler sol og CO2 lige) men bruges, som jeg kan forstå, som en illustration af et globalt fænomen. Grafen viser at Solen er den væsentligste faktor for klimaet indtil 1970, hvor overvægten af CO2 slår igennem og tager teten. Men, hvis Phil Jones, der har leveret denne graf som chef for CRU (og som er en af de eneste europærere, der har set de rå data) har ret i at temperaturen i virkeligheden ikke er steget siden 1995 - 15 år ud af de 40 år - bliver spørgsmålet vel, hvilket midlertidigt fænomen man var vidne til i de 25 år fra 1970 til 1995.

Anden ifølge Uriasposten

Jeg er så pissetræt, at jeg skal gå rundt på listetå, fordi jeg født som hvid. Det er altså ikke noget som jeg selv har valgt. Jeg er supertræt af, at jeg skal have dårlig samvittighed over en farve. Jeg er blevet hvid, bevares, jeg har ikke selv valgt det, og det er jo en fucking farve. Vi har forskellige farver alle sammen, og hvad så. Vi er vel mennesker alligevel. Men jeg har ikke de samme rettigheder, jeg må ikke sige de samme ting, fordi jeg er hvid – så skal jeg holde lidt igen – gu’ fanden vil jeg ej. Hvis du er en sort mand, så må du gerne rejse dig, og stille dig op på bordet, og sige ‘I am black, and I am proud’. Det er der ingen der tager anstød af – tværtimod, så sidder alle de hvide og klapper i hænderne: ’sådan skal det lyde – rigtigt flot, ja, op og dans, sådan skal det være, slå på tromme -selvforståelse er rigtigt flot’.

Men hvis jeg nu gik ind og startede mit show med ‘God aften – jeg er stolt af at være hvid’, så har det lidt en anden klang over sig. Men hvorfor? Jeg har ikke sagt, jeg synes jeg var hævet over andre. Jeg er altså nu, bare nu engang tilfældigvis ved fødslen gået hen og blevet hvid. Skal jeg så skamme mig resten af livet, eller må jeg også have lov til at være stolt af hvad fanden jeg er? Jeg har haft akne i krydderen siden jeg var atten år, nu er jeg omsider ved at være hvid – må jeg have lov at fejre det. Må jeg lige være her. Jeg er psyko-træt af, at jeg skal have dårlig samvittighed over noget jeg ikke har gjort.

Set hos Ekstrabladet