Weekendavisens Frede Vestergaard har et glimrende interview med professor emeritus ved Fysisk Institut på Aarhus Universitet Jens Ulrik Andersen om klimaspøgelset

»I de sidste 15-16 år har der ikke været nogen signifikant global opvarmning, uanset hvilken af de forskellige temperaturserier du kigger på, og hvad enten de er jordbaserede eller satellit-baserede. De viser med lidt variation en stort set uændret global middeltemperatur, og det er i stærk modstrid med de modelbaserede forudsigelser, som IPCC er kommet med. Så meget mere som CO2-koncentrationen i atmosfæren er steget hurtigere end forventet i 1990erne.

En gang imellem gøres der forsøg på at afvise, at der er en pause. Senest for et par uger i en artikel fra folk tilknyttet NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), der havde justeret på tidligere års målinger, så pausen forsvandt,« siger Jens Ulrik Andersen og påpeger, at nogle af de ældre klimaeksperter, såsom tysk klimaforsknings grand old man, professor Hans von Storch fra Hamburg, mener, at problemet med global opvarmning overdrives for at skabe opmærksomhed.

»Hans von Storch pegede for et par år siden på, at den globale middeltemperatur ifølge modellerne skulle være steget med 0,25 grader celsius i de foregående ti år, mens den kun var steget 0,06 grader over de sidste 15 år. Der er en kras modsætning mellem modeller og realiteter. Von Storch er en mainstream klimaforsker, og han mener fortsat, at global opvarmning er et problem, men også at udviklingen viser, at det ikke er i sidste øjeblik at handle, hvis ikke verden skal gå under. Vi har god tid til at vente, og derfor skal vi ikke tage alt for voldsomme skridt her og nu.«

(…)

Hvis man har en hypotese, der kan forklare alt, uanset om det går den ene eller anden vej, er den hypotese ikke meget værd. Så kan man aldrig modbevise den.

Det er kernen i videnskab. Hvad er så klimapanelets hypotese? Reasons Ronald Bailey har set på klimapanelets rapport fra 1990, der definerer hvor meget atmosfæres temperatur skal stige førend vi kan sige at menneskets påvirkning kan skelnes fra naturens støj (mine fremhævninger)

8.4 When Will The Greenhouse Effect be Detected?

The fact that we have not detected the enhanced greenhouse effect leads to the question when is this likely to occur? As noted earlier, this is not a simple yes/no issue. Rather it involves the gradual accumulation of evidence in support of model predictions, which in parallel with improvements in the models themselves, will increase our confidence in them and progressively narrow the uncertainties regarding such key parameters as the climate sensitivity. Uncertainties will always remain. Predicting when a certain confidence level might be reached is as difficult as predicting future climate change – more so, in fact, since it requires at least estimates of both future signal and future noise level.

Nevertheless, we can provide some information on the time-scale for detection by using the unprecedented change concept mentioned briefly in Section 8.14. This should provide an upper bound to the time of detection since more sophisticated methods should produce earlier results. We take a conservative view as a starting point namely that the magnitude of natural variability is such that all of the warming of the past century could be attributed to this cause. (Note that this is not the same as denying the existence of an enhanced greenhouse effect. With such a noise level the past warming could be explained as a 1°C greenhouse effect offset by 0.5°C natural variability.) We then assume, again somewhat arbitrarily that a further 0.5°C warming (i.e., a total warming of 1°C since the late nineteenth century) is required before we could say with high confidence, that the only possible explanation would be that the enhanced greenhouse effect was as strong as predicted by climate models. Given the range of uncertainty in future forcing predictions and future model-predicted warming when would this elevated temperature level be reached?

IPCC

The answer is given in Figure 8.5. [Basically, the upper curve is assumes a fast warming rate and the lower one a slow warming rate. If fast, warming will be detected by 2002; if slow no detection until 2047.]

Figure 8.5 Text: If a further 0.5°C warming were chosen at the threshold for detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect then this would be reached sometime between 2002 and 2047.

On the basis of this simple analysis alone we might conclude that detection with high confidence is unlikely to occur before the year 2000. If stringent controls are introduced to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions and if the climate sensitivity is at the low end of the range of model predictions then it may be well into the twenty-first century before we can say with high confidence that we have detected the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Professor Phil Jones definerede 3 varmeperioder i moderne tid (hvor forskerne sætter lid til termometermålinger) til BBC

Jones forklarer selv på klimapanelets vegne at kun opvarmningen efter 1950′erne kan være påvirket af menneskets udledning af CO2. Det vil sige at naturlig støj, som Bailey skriver, kan sættes til 0,163 grader/årti. Inden 1990′erne var ovre stoppede temperaturen med at stige. Vi er på vej mod to årtier uden temperaturstigninger.

Daily Mail skriver at et hold psykologer under ledelse af Stephan Lewndowsky mener at kunne godtgøre at klimaskeptikere ofte er konspirationsteoretikere.

They found around a fifth of the comments about the research ‘can be considered conspiracist’.

It builds on a previous survey that the researchers conducted, which found up to 40 per cent of those who are skeptical about global warming use imagery that invoked conspiracy theories.

This includes the use of words like ’scam’ and repeated references to faked data and collusion between scientists and governments to deliberately conceal evidence.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, an experimental psychologist at the University of Bristol who led the work, said: ‘These results add to a growing body of research on the nature of internet discourse and the role of the blogosphere in climate denial.

‘It also confirms that conspiratorial elements are readily identifiable in blogosphere discourse’

The paper, which is published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, provides a damning view of skeptical bloggers and those who comment on their websites.

Og det kommer fra de, der dyrker allehånde teser om , Big Oil, Big Kooch, republikanere, kapitalister og gamle, hvide, protestantiske mænd. Som titlen på Naomi Oreskes Merchants of Doubt praler med, så er hele debatten om klimaet skabt og holdes kunstigt i live af skumle interesser. Læs blot Al Gores et als anbefalinger

- Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have demonstrated what many of us have long suspected: that the ‘debate’ over the climate crisis–and many other environmental issues–was manufactured by the same people who brought you ’safe’ cigarettes. Anyone concerned about the state of democracy in America should read this book. (Former Vice President Al Gore, author of An Inconvenient Truth)

- The real shocker of this book is that it takes us, in just 274 brisk pages, through seven scientific issues that called for decisive government regulation and didn’t get it, sometimes for decades, because a few scientists sprinkled doubt-dust in the offices of regulators, politicians and journalists … Oreskes and Conway do a great public service. (Huffington Post)

- Merchants of Doubt, by the science historian Naomi Oreskes and the writer Erik Conway, investigates a sort of reverse conspiracy theory: ecoterrorists and socialists are not the ones foisting dubious science upon us; rather it is deniers who are running their own well-funded and organized long-term hoax. Several previous works have ably illuminated similar themes, but this one hits bone…[Merchants of Doubt] provide[s] both the historical perspective and the current political insights needed to get a grip on what is happening now. (OnEarth)

- Merchants of Doubt might be one of the most important books of the year. Exhaustively researched and documented, it explains how over the past several decades mercenary scientists have partnered with tobacco companies and chemical corporations to help them convince the public that their products are safe - even when solid science proves otherwise…Merchants of Doubt is a hefty read, well-researched and comprehensive…I hope it sells, because what it has to say needs to be heard. (Christian Science Monitor)

- Ever wonder how the terms liberty and freedom got all tangled up in fake science, how industry friendly think-tanks got their start, or what motivates scientists to sell out beyond the obvious? (Austin Science Policy Examiner)

Merchants of Doubt udkom også som film. Jeg kunne benytte lejligheden til at tale om Climategate, den store email-lækage fra East Anglias klimaenhed, hvor man sorte på hvidt kunne læse hvorledes nogle af FNs klimapanels mest centrale forskere aftalte manipulation af data og metoder, obstruerede offentlighedens tilgang til date, truede kollegaer og påvirkede fagbladsredaktører, manipulerede fagfælle processen, skændtes og udtrykte stor tvivl. Men ikke mindst inddelte verden i de der var for og imod ‘tha cause”, ’sagen’. Men når det nu handler om, hvad der er man synes at se i skyggerne, der ikke er der vil jeg hellere slå ned på en skandale ud i klimadebatten, der hurtigt blev døbt Fakegate.

Den fremtrædende klimaforsker og videnskabsetiker Peter Glieck, der havde vundet international berømmelse på frasen “debatten er ovre” kunne nemlig i 2012 afsløre den klimaskeptiske tænketank Heratland Institute’s skumle strategi til nedbrydelse af skolebørns tro på videnskab. Sponseret af oliepenge og Big Koch (som James Delingpole med infantil fornøjelse elsker at kalde dem) var det Heartlands velsmurte kampagnemaskine, der var skyld i at tiltroen til FN’s klimapanels fortælling dalede kraftigt i offentligheden.

Glieck havde fra en anonym kilde, som påstod at være tilknyttet Heartland Institute, modtaget hemmelige papirer fra Heartland om bl.a. deres finansiering. Med i dokumenterne var det saftigste bevis på at klimaskeptiscisme blev drevet frem af onde hensigter, nemlig det hurtigt berømte strategimemo. Og det var i strategimemo’et at alle sandhederne om, hvorledes Heartland lavede disinformationskampagner, hyrede forskere,  der tidligere havde benægtet sammenhængen mellem rygning og cancer og udarbejde taktikker til at skræmme amerikanske lærere fra at undervise i videnskab. Klimaredaktionerne på alverdens etablerede medier sprøjtede over med ekstatisk forargelse.

Men festen blev kort. Hurtigt gik det op for journalister, der besad den gamle vane at tjekke kilder, at Heartland Institute havde en god pointe i deres påstand om at strategimemo’et var et falskneri. Strategimemo’et var skrevet i et andet format end resten af dokumenterne og med en anden sproglig stil med en særegen brug af parenteser og binde-streger(!), der til forveksling lignede Glieck’s eget sprog. Og ifølge Atlantics Megan Mcardle lignede dets indhold noget der var forfattet i en tegneserie skurkegrotte - af en praktikant. Strategimemo’et svarede ifølge Mcardle på ingen måde til skeptikernes selvforståelse som en David i kamp for sandhed mod Goliat.

Mens Strategimemo’et var et falskneri var resten af dokumenterne, om bestyrelsesmedlemmer og samarbejdspartnere og deres adresser osv, samt Heartland budgetter ægte. Men de ægte dokumenter afslørede intet fordækt. Faktisk kunne man se at Heartland var en meget lille tænketank med et beskedent budget, hvoraf klimaet kun var en af fire områder, som Heartland havde interesse i. Deres store betydning for klimadebatten kunne alene tilskrives deres flid og dygtighed samt måske det faktum at det er billigere at tale sandt fremfor at betle skræmmescenarier og som en anden alkoholiker at bruge stadigt flere ressourcer på at holde styr på alle sine mange små løgne igennem daglidagen.

Peter Glieck måtte hurtigt indrømme at han var manden der selv havde fremskaffet de ægte dokumenter ved at foregive at være et medlem af Heartlands bestyrelse. Dette havde han endda gjort kun få dage efter at han havde takket nej til en invitation, som debattør på en af Heartlands klimakonferencer, hvor han ville have mulighed for at præsentere sin sag og gå i kødet på sine skeptiske modstandere. Men Glieck fastholdt en tid at strategimemo’et var blevet ham tilsendt af en anonym person i dagene mellem han skaffede sig Heartlands fortrolige dokumenter og til han offentliggjorde det hele.

Sådan kan det gå. Men vi skal tale om sølvpapirshatte for selv om Glieck gik over stregen og forfalskede den virkelighed han gerne ville se var han ene om sin udåd. Men reaktionerne fra fremtrædende medier og forskere afslørede til gengæld at hans konspiratoriske univers var fast forankret bredt i den klimaalarmistiske højadel. New York Times havde f.eks. under overskriften “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science” følgende vurdering af strategimemoets ægthed EFTER at Heartland selv havde påpeget at det var et tydeligt fremmedelement

Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute.

Som jeg refererede ovenfor så skilte det falske dokument sig på alle måder ud fra det ulovligt rekvirerede materiale og matchede ikke i tone og indhold de andre dokumenter. Et mildt ord for New York Times stykke research er “confirmation bias”, det at man søger bekræftelse for sin tro. Og det New York Times her tror bekræftet er altså en paranoid forestilling om oliefinansierede konspirationer mod videnskaben til menneskehedens store fortrydelse. Men det har pinligt intet med sandheden at gøre. Den mastodont, som de ser true deres fortælling er intet andet end en undseelig tænketank kun bevæbnet med saglig interesse og gode argumenter - Kan en god sag være bange for det?

BBC’s miljøskribent Richard Black havde kun sympati for Gliecks handlinger og resonnerede således

As the old saying goes, “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’t want you to know” - and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that it certainly didn’t want you to have.

In saying one of the documents was a fake, the institute also signified that the rest were genuine.

Ja, det er rigtigt at Heartland på den måde inddirekte bekræftede de andre dokumenters ægthed (og senere blev de direkte bekræftet da Heartland ganske fornuftigt havde sikret sig at der ikke var manipuleret med dem). Men ved at forfalske et dokument udtrykker man også at de ægte dokumenter ikke indeholder noget belastende. Og dette er jo netop den åbenlyse pointe som BBCs Black overser! Man havde selv ved bedrag ikke kunnet afsløre noget som helst sinistert. Forfalskningen udtrykker netop, hvor stærkt argumenterne imod FN’ Klimapanels forløjede konsensusteori er - og derfor også, hvor svagt klimabevægelsen ikke blot står, men også føler sig. Derfor måtte en bizar ondskab fabrikeres og tilsættes for at forklare, hvorledes det kan gå til at de forkerte vinder en debat om rationaler.

Også Time leverede et forvrænget billede af virkeligheden da de indledte deres referat af sagen således

For advocates of climate action, the Heartland documents offered a rare glimpse into the world of the conservative power players who work to cast doubt on climate science and delay action on global warming — the same people authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called the “Merchants of Doubt” in their 2010 book by the same name.

Saglig debat forveksles med økonomisk overlegenhed - et budget, som end ikke kunne betale huslejen for Geenpeace’s frivillige medarbejdere ses som en “power player”. Dog skal det retfærdigvis med, kunne Time se at løgne ikke er vejen frem for noget konstruktivt. Det havde Guardians fremtrædende klimakommentator George Monbiot sværere ved og sprang lige ud i det og erklærede

I see Peter Gleick, the man who obtained and leaked the devastating documents from the Heartland Institute, as a democratic hero. I do not think he should have apologised, nor do I believe that his job should be threatened. He has done something of benefit to society.

Det er, må man nok sige, den slags udtalelser, som slider på troværdigheden når man sammenholder at Glieck gennem amoralsk adfærd har afsløret at Heartland har rent mel i deres meget lille pose. Eller, hvad med dette filosofiske spørgsmål fra økoetikeren James Barvey i samme Guardian

Are his actions wrong just because he lied?

(…)

You can see where I’m headed. Gleick’s intentions matter when we try to work out whether he was wrong to lie. It’s worth noticing that he wasn’t lying for personal gain. What resonates for me, though, are the consequences of his action. If Gleick frustrates the efforts of Heartland, isn’t his lie justified by the good that it does?

Når man stiller sig selv et så ledende spørgsmål er det nemt at svare på især hvis man er fascist

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action.

Så er der vel ikke mere man sige. Også Information havde en artikel om sagen, som de lystigt kaldte “Klimaskeptikere smager egen medicin”, der i bedste fald kan betragtes som et afskrift af Desmogblogs første blogpost om sagen. Såøh, sølvpapirhatte er mere udbredt blandt alarmister, der jo i udgangspunkt tror mennesket står bag vejrliget. Derfor er det heller ikke så overraskende når man læser i Daily Mail, at en professor Peter Wadhams ved Cambridge tror at ‘dem’ går og slår hans forskerkollegaer ihjel, blandt ved hjælp af lynnedslag - ja, vi kontrollerer jo vejret

Professor Peter Wadhams insists Seymour Laxon, Katharine Giles and Tim Boyd could have been murdered by someone possibly working for the oil industry or within government forces.

The trio had been studying the polar ice caps - with a focus on sea ice - when they died within a few months of each other in 2013.

Professor Laxon, 49, a director of the Centre for Polar Observation at University College London, was at a New Year’s Eve party in Essex when he fell down a flight of stairs and died.

Meanwhile oceanographer Dr Boyd, 54, was out walking his dogs near his home in Port Appin, Argyll, western Scotland, in January 2013 when he was struck by lightning and killed instantly.

Just months later in April, Dr Giles, 35, was cycling to work at UCL where she lectured when she was hit by a tipper truck in Victoria, central London, and died.

(sammenfatningen om Fakegate er sammenklistret af nogle tidligere posteringer om sagen)

Du har muligvis gennemlevet de varmest måneder siden man begyndte at måle temperaturen, føler Think Progress sig nødsaget til at gøre sine læsere opmærksomme på. Ingen havde åbenbart lagt mærke til det. Muslimer med sympatier til kalifatet mener at oversvømmelserne i Texas er Allahs straf for Pamella Gellers tegn Muhammed konkurrence skriver Gateway Pundit. Den Allah-skabte oversvømmelse afløser den menneskeskabte tørke, så synder ophæver hinanden. De australske vælgere tror hverken på at Allaheller mennesket påvirker klimaet i nævneværdig grad og i USA har både George Cloonys klimafilm Tomorrowland. Samme skæbne led klimadokumentaren Merchants of Doubt.

I forrige måned citerede jeg her på Monokultur fra Frede Westergaards artikel i Weekendavisen om Månens effekt på havspejlet og om, hvorfor det ikke stiger så dramatisk, som FNs klimapanel vil have os til at tro. Climate Change Dispatch er mere ublu i deres udtryk og kalder det et stykke svindel

Climate alarmists put forth scary scenarios saying that carbon dioxide induced global warming is causing unprecedented and accelerating sea level rise which will drown our coastal cities and wipe out South Pacific Islands.

(…)

A conclusion from the Scafetta paper has implications for climate model predictions: “at scales shorter than 100-years, the measured tide gauge accelerations are strongly driven by the natural oscillations of the climate system (e.g. PDO, AMO and NAO). At the smaller scales (e.g. at the decadal and bi-decadal scale) they are characterized by a large volatility due to significant decadal and bi-decadal climatic oscillations. Therefore, accelerations, as well as linear rates evaluated using a few decades of data (e.g. during the last 20-60 years) cannot be used for constructing reliable long-range projections of sea-level for the twenty first century.”

About those South Pacific Islands:

You may recall several years ago much press about Tuvalu and other South Pacific islands being endangered by rising sea level. For an example of some of the hype, see my October, 2011, post: “University of Arizona Dances with Sea Level.”

The Australian government has been monitoring sea level on Pacific islands with modern instruments since 1992. In the case of Tuvalu, they state, “If the depression of the 1998 cyclone is ignored, there was no change is sea level at Tuvalu between 1994 and 2009: 14 years. (See report of studies by Vincent Gray here.)

Finally, new research by Kench et al. (2015) finds that these same South Pacific islands, rather than sinking beneath the waves, have in fact been growing.

Og lad os derfor få et par ord fra Nils-Axel Mörner

En af de mest sejlivede myter i klimadebatten er myten om det videnskabeligt konsensus. Ofte citeres en undersøgelse, der påstår at 97% af alle relevante klimaforskere er enige i fortællingen om global opvarmning. Men, som Larry Bell forklarer til Forbes, har undersøgelsen en lang række gravende fejl, som den kun måler på to udsagn; 1) er temperaturen steget siden forrige århundrede? 2) Har mennesket indflydelse på klimaet?

FNs klimapanel blev nedsat med det formål at formulere et konsensus, således at politikerne havde lettere ved at orientere sig. Men selv om politiseringen af den videnskabelige debat ganske udadtil har skabt en illusion om konsensus så eksisterer uenighederne og tvivlen desuagtet. Judith Curry forklarer her hvorledes offentlige forskningskroner fordrejer klimaforskningen til at passe med konsensus

Og på Master Resource er der et sammendrag af hendes ponter, som de kom frem ved en høring for House Committee on Science, Space and Technology

Bias from Climate Change Orthodoxy

The censure of scientists disagreeing with the IPCC consensus was particularly acute during the period 2005-2010. As revealed by the Climategate emails, there was a cadre of leading climate scientists that were working to sabotage the reviews of skeptical research papers (and presumably proposals for research funding). Further, scientists challenging climate change orthodoxy are subjected to vitriolic treatment in news articles, op-eds and blogs, damaging the public reputation of these scientists. I have heard from numerous scientists who are sympathetic to my efforts in challenging climate change orthodoxy, but are afraid to speak out or even publish skeptical research since they are fearful of losing their job.

Since 2010, things have improved somewhat especially in Europe; I think this has largely been due to reflections following Climategate and the fact that disagreement about climate change is not as starkly divided along the lines of political parties (i.e. the issue is somewhat less politicized). In the U.S., with President Obama’s recent pronouncements about climate denial and climate deniers (as anyone who does not agree with the consensus) has increased the toxicity of the environment (both academic and public) for scientists that question the IPCC consensus on climate change.

Climate Model Overwarming/Problems

Particularly for the past decade, climate models have been running too hot, predicting more warming than has been observed (refer to the figure on page 6 of my testimonyhttp://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/.

The discrepancies between observed surface temperatures and climate model simulations indicates that climate models are not useful for predicting climate on decadal time scales (out to 20 years) or for regional spatial scales. If the so-called warming hiatus continues for another few years, then the observations will be completely outside of the envelope of climate model predictions.

I have argued that climate models are not fit for the purpose of simulating decadal scale and regional climate variability. Climate models are mainly useful for scientific exploration of mechanisms in the climate system. Whether they are at all useful for projections of century scale climate change remains to be seen, but I am doubtful.

Lower-Sensitivity Modeling?

For the main climate models used in the CMIP5 simulations for the IPCC AR5, climate sensitivity is an emergent property and not one that is easily tuned. For simpler climate models, such as MAGICChttp://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/, climate sensitivity can be tuned, seehttp://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-temperature-rise-averted-vital-number-missing-epas-numbers-fact-sheet

Jeg henvist for et par måneder siden til Christoffer Booker, der skrev at der var blevet fiflet med temperaturdata fra Paraguay til Patagonien så de understøttede en fortælling om stigende temperaturer. Varmen kommer gerne, hvor ingen oplever den, hvorfor der nu også advokeres for den er sprunget i dybhavet. Et par uger senere viste det sig tilsyneladende at der også er blevet fiflet med temperaturdata fra Arktis. Nu skriver Christopher Booker i Telegraph opfølgende om den sære og stadigt stigende diskrepans mellem jordbaserede målinger, hvor vi hele tiden slår nye varmerekorder og så satellit målingerne

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.

Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.

Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.

But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.

Overdrivelser har der været nok af. Så lad os se de seneste tal fra satelliterne ved Dr Roy Spencer

En større gennemgang kan ses hos Climate Depot.

“Verden er efterhånden ved at vågne op til klimaforandringernes dilemma, og det er ikke et øjeblik for tidligt” skriver Duncan Clark i Information. Amerikanerne er i så fald ikke en del af den verden ifølge PEW

Og det er til trods for at ingen miljøsag har fået så megen promovering, som klimaet. Hysteriet toppede omkring 2006, hvor Al Gore fik en Nobel pris for filmen En Ubekvem Sandhed. I 2009 lækkede nogen interne emails fra en gruppe centrale klimaforskere tilknyttet East Anglia Universitetet i England. Angiveligt var det medvirkende til at man ikke opnåede enighed ved klimakonferencen i København nogle uger senere. Ifølge Watt’s Up With That har lande som Kina, Indien, Canada, Australien og Rusland endnu ikke besluttet sig for om de gider deltage i klimakonferencen i Paris til december i år.

Ifølge satellit målingerne er atmosfærens temperatur ikke steget de seneste 18 år. Den udvikling, sammen med andre historier som diskrepansen mellem modller og virkelighed, har man først for nyligt indrømmet og da kun med en lang række forbehold. Klimaet ser bare ikke ud til at være så påvirkeligt, eller følsomt, som det hedder indenfor den videnskabelige disciplin, som forskerne selv. Greg Jones skriver i Climate Change Dispatch at de træge modvillige indrømmelser fra klimahysteriets konsensus følger Kübler-Ross modellen for en psykologi konfronteret med det uafvendelige.

Now, after a roller coaster of emotions and barrage of media tantrums, it seems the issue is settled, sort of. In a recent paper in the journal Science, a team of researchers actually acknowledges the pause and attempts to explain it.

(…)

“The Pause in Global Warming is Finally Explained,” Scientific Americanassures us; “The global warming slowdown is real—but that’s no reason to question climate science,” sneers the Washington Post; “Scientists now know why global warming has slowed down and it’s not good news for us,” proclaims a recent headline on Quartz.com.

As is often the case with predicting the climate, however, the certainty proclaimed in the headlines is anything but certain. This isn’t the first time researchers have attempted to explain what they have previously denied. To date, there are more than 52 scientific theories attempting to solve the pause that doesn’t exist, from a lazy sun to trade winds to the wrong types of El Niño’s. But for some reason Mann’s explanation is the one; 53 is apparently the magic number.

(…)

Mann’s paper encapsulates perfectly the issue between skeptics of climate change and the hard-core believers: something in the models is always missing that is later found. What was wrong last time has been corrected, even though last time nothing was wrong. The same models that are considered gospel always come up short, only to be revised as gospel yet again.

Everyone understands that climate change research is tricky; countless variables constantly interacting with one another at ever-changing time and distance scales. And studying the Earth’s climate is indeed a worthwhile pursuit. But there is nothing scientific about denying actual, physical data, in this case the global average temperature over two decades. And nothing is academic or open-minded about demonizing an entire portion of the population pointing out the obvious by labeling them “deniers” as if they doubt the Holocaust.

(…)

Don’t expect full acceptance anytime soon, however. In fact, a recent Nature paper defends the accuracy of the very models that failed to predict the very pause that didn’t exist that now does exist but only because the models were wrong. No, this is not a Zen koan: it’s modern climate science.

Klimahistorien har haft det svært, men trods dens lunkne opbakning er den stadig hos os. Måske fordi de n er blevet to big to fail, spekulerer Paul Driesen ligeledes i Climate Change Dispatch

Lockheed Martin, a recent Washington Post article notes, is getting into renewable energy, nuclear fusion, “sustainability” and even fish farming projects, to augment its reduced defense profits. The company plans to forge new ties with Defense Department and other Obama initiatives, based on a shared belief in manmade climate change as a critical security and planetary threat. It is charging ahead where other defense contractors have failed, confident that its expertise, lobbying skills and “socially responsible” commitment to preventing climate chaos will land it plentiful contracts and subsidies.

As with its polar counterparts, 90% of the titanic climate funding iceberg is invisible to most citizens, businessmen and politicians. The Lockheed action is the mere tip of the icy mountaintop.

The multi-billion-dollar agenda reflects the Obama Administration’s commitment to using climate change to radically transform America. It reflects a determination to make the climate crisis industry so enormous that no one will be able to tear it down, even as computer models and disaster claims become less and less credible – and even if Republicans control Congress and the White House after 2016. Lockheed is merely the latest in a long list of regulators, researchers, universities, businesses, manufacturers, pressure groups, journalists and politicians with such strong monetary, reputational and authority interests in alarmism that they will defend its tenets and largesse tooth and nail.

Above all, it reflects a conviction that alarmists have a right to control our energy use, lives, livelihoods and living standards, with no transparency and no accountability for mistakes they make or damage they inflict on disfavored industries and families.

Selv om temperaturen holder ‘pause’ fortsætter debatten. Lawrence Solomon skriver i Financial Post at den russiske forsker Habibullo Abdussamatov

His latest study, published in Thermal Science, delivers this week’s second whammy. It continues the analysis he has long pursued, which consistently arrives at the same conclusion: Earth is now entering a new Little Ice Age, Earth’s 19^th Little Ice Age, to be precise. Abdussamatov has been quite confident of his findings for what might strike some as odd reasons: His science is based on that of the giants in the field — astronomers like Milutin Milankovitch, who a century ago described how tilts in its axis and other changes in the Earth’s movements determine its climate, and William Herschel, who two centuries ago noticed an inverse correlation between wheat prices on Earth and the number of sunspots generated by the Sun’s cycles. (Hint: the more energy from the Sun that Earth gets, the more warmth Earth receives, the more abundant the wheat crops, the lower the price of wheat; the less energy from the Sun, the less warmth, the more wheat crop failures, the higher the wheat price.)

Greenhouse gases — CO2 and water vapour — play a role in this drama but the gases come not from SUVs and other man-made activities but from the oceans, which contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. As the oceans warm or cool because of the Sun, they release or absorb these gases, whose greenhouse effect is secondary and relatively minor.

Abdussamatov’s model incorporates the Sun’s 200-year cycles and the feedback effects from greenhouse gases released by the oceans, and sees how they acted on Earth’s previous 18 Little Ice Ages. “All 18 periods of significant climate changes found during the last 7,500 years were entirely caused by corresponding quasi-bicentennial variations of [total solar irradiance] together with the subsequent feedback effects, which always control and totally determine cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warming to Little Ice Age.”

If the 19^th Little Ice Age follows the pattern of the previous 18, Earth slipped into an ice age in the winter just concluded and will become progressively colder over the next 50 years, reaching its depth around 2060. Another half century, taking us to the 22^nd century, and we’ll arrive back at today’s temperatures.

Mens Joe Romn i Think Progress betror os at pausen er slut

We may be witnessing the start of the long-awaited jump in global temperatures. There is “a vast and growing body of research,” as Climate Central explained in February. “Humanity is about to experience a historically unprecedented spike in temperatures.”

A March study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that an actual acceleration in the rate of global warming is imminent — with Arctic warming rising a stunning 1°F per decade by the 2020s.

Scientists note that some 90 percent of global heating goes into the oceans — and ocean warming has accelerated in recent years. Leading climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explained here in 2013 that “a global temperature increase occurs in the latter stages of an El Niño event, as heat comes out of the ocean and warms the atmosphere.”

In March, NOAA announced the arrival of an El Niño, a multi-month weather pattern “characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific.”

How much of a temperature jump should we expect? Last month, Trenberth explained to Living on Earth:

I interviewed Trenberth this week, and he told me that he thinks “a jump is imminent.” When I asked whether he considers that “likely,” he answered, “I am going to say yes. Somewhat cautiously because this is sticking my neck out.”

Trenberth explained that it’s significant the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) “seems to have gone strongly positive” because that is “perhaps the best single indicator to me that a jump is imminent.” During a PDO, he explains, “the distribution of heat in the oceans changes along with some ocean currents.”

“Through it all, Gallup will be describing the public’s opinion of global warming.” slutter Lawrence sit indlæg.

Daily Mail skriver at undersøiske vulkaner ifølge et nyt studie påvirker klimaet mere end ellers antaget.

Volcanoes lurking hidden under the world’s oceans may play a far greater role in climate change than previously thought, according to a new study.

Scientists have found that underwater volcanoes, which were long assumed to ooze lava at relatively steady rates, in fact erupt in pulses.

A new study has shown that these submarine eruptions follow regular cycles that can range from just a couple of weeks to 100,000 years.

Surprisingly the researchers also found that these eruptions also appear to be clustered during the first six months of each year.

The findings may now mean that models predicting how human activity will change the climate will need to be adjusted.

Volcanic eruptions are known to throw huge amounts of gas into the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide that are thought to increase global warming.

However, volcanoes also release aerosol gases that are now known to reduce global warming by creating a reflective barrier against the sun.

Dr Maya Tolstoy, a marine geophysicist at the Lamond-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, said: ‘People have ignored seafloor volcanoes on the idea that their influence is small, but that’s because they are assumed to be in a steady state, which they’re not.

‘They respond to both very large forces, and to very small ones, and that tells us that we need to look at them much more closely.’

Watts Up With That har mere om den videnskabelige del. No Tricks Zone referer til et andet og tysk studie, der mener at vise at klimaet ligger under for ganske mange cyklusser, hvilket måske gør det muligt at spå lidt om fremtidens klima (og heri ligger intet om mennesket ændrer på præmisserne gennem afbrænding af fossile brændstoffer)

In principle these cycles are sinusoidal in behavior as depicted in Figure 1. Bob Tisdale has also shown how the temperature increase of the 65-year cycle from 1975 to 1998 led to the assumption that it is due CO2 emissions because they too happened to be parallel. This has been naively extended all the way to the year 2100 and forms the basis for the climate models and the invention of the so-called “climate catastrophe”.

Figure 1:  Sine wave characteristic of the 60/65-year ocean cycle (Source: Bob Tisdale at WUWT).

In this analysis we will attempt to see how the temperature development could be over the next 700 years, assuming of course that the mentioned climate cycles of the past will continue on into the future. This should not be (mis)understood as a forecast for the future climate. Up to now there is only the IPCC forecast that the global temperature will rise by 2 to 5°C by the year 2100 – based only on the expected CO2 increase. However that theory has failed to work over the last 18 ears because the various natural climate factors and cycles never got considered, or they were not allowed to be considered in the climate models. Included among these factors are the mean cloud cover (albedo) and the resulting effective solar insolation (watts per sqm) at the earth’s surface, or the sea surface, which is decisive for the temperature development.Next Figure 2 below depicts the 1000-year cycle and the 230-year cycle, which have been reconstructed from historical proxy data. They stem from a combination of results from various publications in the field of paleoclimatology over the last years. The diagram of the last 3200 years distinctly shows a 1000-year cycle; the last 2000 years of which are confirmed by historical documents. In fact this cycle goes back all the way to the end of the last ice age, i.e. some 9000 years. The reason for the cycle is still unknown today, yet its existence is undisputed.

The current warm period is no “anthropogenic product”, rather it is the natural result of a repeating 1000-year cycle that goes back far into the past. Today’s warm period does not even reach the temperatures seen in the past warm periods, which at times were 1 to 2°C higher. Moreover it is important to note that during both of the past temperature maxima of 1000 and 2000 years ago, the CO2 values were at 280 ppm while today they are at 400 ppm. This indicates that the earlier warmer periods likely were related to natural solar activity and not to a rise in CO2 because there was no CO2 rise during those warm phases.

Figure 2: Global temperature over the last 3200 years shows a distinct 1000-year cycle along with the 230-year cycle.

Of historical significance is the fact that over the course of human history warm periods were always times of economic and cultural prosperity. The cooler periods always led to serious problems that led to starvation and huge waves of human migration in Europe. Here it becomes undeniably clear that the alarmist claims that “the earth has a fever” made by politicians such as Al Gore are patentedly preposterous.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/02/german-analysis-current-warm-period-is-no-anthropogenic-product-major-natural-cycles-show-no-signs-of-warming/#sthash.VkC0WQJT.BRFPqPLu.dpuf

Men hvad forstår bønder sig på agurkesalat?

Marlo Lewis skriver i Global Warming.org om, hvad der er udråbt til klodens varmeste år i målingernes historie ifølge de data man har fra jordbaserede målestationer med traditionelle termometre. Men der er andre og bedre målemetoder

According to NOAA, the 2014 temperature in the troposphere was the third highest in the 1979-2014 record, as analyzed by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) satellite program, and the sixth highest on record, as analyzed by the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite program.

So why don’t the agencies’ press releases proclaim 2014 the third or sixth warmest year? Or just say that it was one of the warmest in the instrumental record? Perhaps because “warmest on record” feeds the sense of crisis, which helps feed agency budgets. Notice the self-promotional aspect of NASA’s press release: “The observed long-term warming trend and the ranking of 2014 as the warmest year on record reinforces the importance for NASA to study Earth as a complete system, and particularly to understand the role and impacts of human activity.”

Even based on surface station records alone, 2014 may not be a record breaker. James Hansen of Columbia University and colleagues who analyzed the data estimate that 2014 is only 0.02ºC warmer than 2010 and 0.03ºC warmer than 2005, making all three years a “statistical tie.”

According to the Climatic Research Unit of the UK Met Office, the margin of error in estimating global surface temperature is 0.1ºC. That is five times larger than the increment by which 2014 supposedly surpassed 2010.

So how certain are NOAA and NASA that 2014 was in fact the warmest year? NOAA assigns a probability of 48%; NASA, a probability of 38%.

Og som en god perspektivering vedlægger han denne graf, hvor målinger foretaget henholdsvis med ballon og og satellit holdes op imod de modeller, som FNs Klimapanel bruger til at afspejle deres teorier

Der er nogle åbenbare problemer med traditionelle målestationer fordi de kun er nogle få tusinde punkter spredt over hele jordens landmasse (nogle skal måle områder på størrelse med Ungarn). Derudover kan der være omskiftelige lokalforhold, som bebyggelse, der ændrer præmisserne for målingerne. Til at kompensere bruger man store og avancerede statistiske forarbejdninger, der i sig selv også er følsomme. Men ikke nok med det, så frister de mange komplicerede dataset også svage sjæle til at hjælpe fortællingen eller advarslen om man vil mere på vej i de obskure dele af de indsamlede data. Christopher Booker skriver i Telegraph om endnu en lurende skandale i den langstrakte klimadebat om, hvorfor de faste målestationer er mere alarmerende end de bedre ballon målinger og overlegne satellit målinger

Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.

Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world’s scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.

How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.

This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).

(…)

An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.

Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report (see “New Zealand NIWA temperature train wreck” on the Watts Up With That science blog, WUWT, which has played a leading role in exposing such fiddling of the figures).

(…)

One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.

James Delingpole skriver også om det i Spectator. Som en af tvivlens medløbere vil jeg præsentere en 5 år gammel film (som jeg ikke har kunnet finde gratis førend nu).

Not Evil Just Wrong is a 2009 documentary film by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer that challenges Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth by suggesting that the evidence of global warming is inconclusive and that the impact global warming legislation will have on industry is much more harmful to humans than beneficial.

Fordi filmmagasinet Indiewire skriver at medierne selvfølgelig “contributes to the charade in its insistence that it is only “fair” to give equal weight to each “side.”” vil vi her reklamere lidt for klimafilmen om tvivlens købmænd. De, der fordrejer hovedet på almindelige mennesker ved at så tvivl om det, der for videnskaben er den indlysende sandhed. Og fordi folks fordrejedehoveder ikke anerkender den indlysende sandhed, kan politikerne ikke gribe ind og styre samfundet, ja Verdenssamfundet endda, væk fra den uundgåelige katastrofe. Alt sammen så nogle ansigtsløse firmaer kan tjene penge. De skiderikker.

“The Merchants of Doubt” takes aim at the spin masters who, following a playbook established by the big cigarette companies, use their corporate might to cast spurious doubt on the reality of climate change.  Masquerading as grass roots efforts, but in fact funded by the oil and gas industry, these duplicitous corporate campaigns have been   infuriatingly successful in forestalling any action on climate change.  More research needs to be done…we don’t really know if global warming is man made… there are two sides to every story… so the mantra of disinformation goes, when in fact  the scientific community is nearly unanimous on the subject.  The media, of course, contributes to the charade in its insistence that it is only “fair” to give equal weight to each “side.”  While a lot of this will be familiar to the documentary audience,  Kenner’s polished and deftly argued film finds compelling subjects on both sides of the fence, from the proudly sleazy Marc Morano, who boasts of his underhanded tactics to discredit the science, to the touching figure of South Carolina Republican Congressman Bob Inglis,  who, faced with the evidence,  reversed his position on global warming and fought for change – with devastating political repurcussions to his career.

Fra We Got This covered

Merchants of Doubt, the latest doc from Food, Inc. director Robert Kenner, is a sometimes fascinating but mostly shallow and repetitive glimpse at how a few powerful corporations and think tanks have manipulated the public through cunning PR. It is inspired by a 2010 non-fiction book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, which argues that a few people with special interests are altering public opinion around climate change, thus delaying how we solve this issue. That is an important topic for discussion; however, Merchants of Doubt is an incomplete doc.

Kenner compares the public ignorance surrounding the perils of climate change to the warnings over tobacco in the mid-20th century. The heads of tobacco companies knew that smoking caused cancer and heart disease, but hid these facts from the press and the public. In a similar way, the heads of companies that can be hurt by an environmentally conscious movement will try to move attention away from scientific data. Instead, these corporations send out “merchants of doubt” to convince people that the climate change is exaggerated or that there is “no consensus” within the scientific community.

At moments throughout Merchants of Doubt, Kenner sits down with some of these titular manipulators, but he never asks the tough questions. When the director should be leading the interview to uncover the root of deception of people like Marc Morano, he is swindled by the charm of charismatic talking heads. As he tries to side his audience against the skeptics, Kenner ends up using the same tactics that they do.

Fra Crave Online

Merchants of Doubt puts climate change denial in strong context, comparing its tactics to the tobacco industry. We all agree it was wrong to say cigarettes were healthy, let alone that they don’t cause cancer. Now that we’ve all learned they were selling something hazardous, we can objectively understand the tactics. Hint: If Morton Downey, Jr. claims he smokes four packs a day and he’s fine, don’t be like Morton Downey, Jr.

(…)

Fake experts earn a very good living as talking heads for cable news debate shows. Marc Morano seems to be the most aggressive, bullying the scientists he debates so that he “wins.” Hey, if a nerd in a suit can’t trade barbs, surely climate change isn’t real. And there is science’s weakness. Scientists, by their own admission in the film, are not media savvy. They may even be anti-social, but we can forgive people who can’t come out of their shell.

The premise is that Morano is the fun one, the party boy who gets all the good college kids to stop all their boring studying. I don’t think yelling is fun though. Morano is proud of himself for putting scientists’ personal e-mail addresses online so his followers can send them threatening, abusive messages. He even admits he’s only trying to make the pro-climate change side miserable. “We’re the negative force,” he says, “trying to stop stuff.” So there you have it: not contributing anything good, just trying to take away other people’s efforts. Now sure, some bad ideas have to be stopped, but Morano is less about ideology than just being a troublemaker.

Og nu man har tvivlens købmænds velvillige indrømmelser så er deres terrorvælde vel slut?

Breitbart ser ironien

A squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland, this week to discuss global warming and other issues as the annual World Economic Forum gets underway.

The influx of private jets is so great, the Swiss Armed Forces has been forced to open up a military air base for the first time ever to absorb all the super rich flying their private jets into the event, reports Newsweek.

“Decision-makers meeting in Davos must focus on ways to reduce climate risk while building more efficient, cleaner, and lower-carbon economies,” former Mexican president Felipe Calderon told USA Today.

Politiken ikke så meget i et interview med den 35 årige Cicilie Stenspil

Grønland smelter altså! Hvor er vi mange, der glemmer, at det er en direkte følge af, at vi flyver af sted til New York …

Mit bedste tip til Grønland …

Husk utroligt varme sko, for det er afsindigt koldt. Derfor var det heller ikke nogen god ide, at jeg steg ud af flyet uden at have lukket min frakke, fordi det var varmt inde i flyet.

(…)

Min næste rejse …

går til Paris, hvor jeg skal se David Bowie-udstillingen, som åbner til foråret. Jeg vil også gerne et varmt sted hen, Bali eller Maldiverne.

Blot for at være på den sikre side, så med vandflyver til Maldiverne?

Karl Iver Dahl-Madsen har skrevet en kronik i Kristeligt Dagblad om den overdrevne klimakatastrofe. Her fra hans egen blog

Udledning af CO2 vil – alt andet lige – medføre en beskeden opvarmning på 1 grad pr. fordobling af CO2 indholdet i atmosfæren. Vanddamp i atmosfæren vil forstærke virkningen af CO2, men der er meget stor usikkerhed om, hvor stor denne effekt er. IPCC angiver selv et interval for den såkaldte klimafølsomhed på 1,5-4,5 grader for en fordobling af CO2, altså en usikkerhed på en faktor 3.

Beregninger af klimafølsomheden på grundlag af historiske målinger har en tendens til at give lave værdier og den allernyeste beregning (Lewis & Curry) giver en klimafølsomhed på 1.3-2.5 med en median på 1.6 grader. Selv i den høje ende er dette om ikke uvæsentligt, så i det mindste overskueligt i betragtning af at denne ændring først vil slå igennem om flere hundrede år. I den lave ende er det et ikke-problem.

En årsag til, at den nyeste forskning viser en lavere klimafølsomhed er, at jordens lufttemperatur ikke er steget i den seneste mindst 15 år, selv om CO2 indholdet i atmosfæren i samme periode er steget støt med ca. 10 %.  Denne pause, har givet anledning til stor diskussion i klimaforskningen. I lang tid har man forsøgt at ”benægte”, at der var en pause, men efterhånden som pausen blev ved, har man forsøgt at finde forklaringer som, at ”havet har spist varmen”. Meget tyder på, at man simpelthen har antaget en for høj klimafølsomhed, og i hvert fald har IPCC’s klimamodeller ikke kunnet beskrive dette fænomen, men har forudsagt alt for høje temperaturer.

Det hele hænger sammen med, at der er stor usikkerhed om, hvor stort det menneskeskabte bidrag er. IPCC har indtil nu antaget, at en stor del af opvarmningen i de seneste 50 år skyldes menneskene. Men pausen i opvarmningen har været en øjenåbner, som nu har fået mange klimaforskere til at anerkende, at der er naturlige årsager med i spillet, f.eks. solen og variationer i oceanerne. Hvis pausen skyldes naturlige årsager, der dæmper varmen, betyder det også, at opvarmningen i 1980’erne og 1990’erne kan være forstærket af naturlige årsager.  Konsekvensen af dette er, at det menneskelige bidrag til klimaforandringerne er blevet overdrevet i mange år.

Indrømmelser kommer i doser. Den lavere klimafølsomhed der nu diskuteres er et foreløbet fait accompli fordi det er nemmere at sige feed-back effekterne ikke er helt så positive, som man hidtil havde frygtet end at de er rent ud negative.

Desuden lider nutidssamfundet af kollektivt hukommelsestab, når det gælder ekstreme vejrhændelser. I Danmark har vi fortrængt, at den største stormflodskatastrofe i Danmarkshistorien (den store manddrukning) fandt sted i Sønderjylland i 1362, gav en vandstand på mere end 5 meter over dagligt vande og udslettede en af landets største byer, Rungholt, og en række landsbyer. Længe før der var noget, der hed fossile brændstoffer.

Jeg tog disse to billeder for et par år siden på Bågø nordvest for Assens. Stormfloden stod højt i Lillebælt 1872, som man kan se

Accuracy In Academica bringer disse usentimentale ord om klimapanelets underminerede arbejdstese

“Yet atmospheric GHG [Green House Gas] levels have increased rapidly over this interval, and there is now a widening discrepancy between most climate model projections and observed temperatures.” McKitrick is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute as well as a professor at the University of Guelph.

“While a pause in warming is not itself inconsistent with a continuing long term trend, there is no precedent for such a large and continuing gap between models and observations,” McKitrick writes. “Some climatologists have argued that within another few years at most, if the pause continues, it will lead inescapably to the conclusion that climate models are oversensitive to GHGs.”

Og den diskrepans mellem målinger og projektioner står endda til at vare meget længere ifølge atmosfærefysikeren Judith Curry, der på sin blog Climate.etc skriver “In terms of global temperature, I expect the hiatus to continue at last another decade, but won’t pretend to predict year to year variations.”. Men man skal ikke forvente at slippe for klimaafgifter når varmeregningen stiger lige med det første da “…climate/energy policy  has developed a life of its own that seems increasingly disconnected from actual scientific research”.

Det burde være et fair modspørgsmål til Lars Henrik Aagaards blogindlæg på Berlingske Tidende “Må man latterliggøre klimaproblemet“. “Det varme 2014 ligner desværre kun begyndelsen til noget langt værre og har hverken brug for mild latterliggørelse eller besynderlige konspirationsteorier.” skriver Aagaard på en gang formanende og salvende. Det er enhver frit for at spørge om, hvad man vil og gøre sig selv til grin. Men for Aagaard er der åbenbart tvivl, skønt han er for stor en kryster til at besvare sit eget spørgsmål og det totalitære forbliver indtil videre kun en flirt. Det er især i den engelsksprogede klimadebat, at man har kaldt på præventive Nürnberg retsager mod klimaskeptikere, de såkaldte benægtere, for medvirken til både fremtidige folkemord og fremtidige økologiske katastrofer. Okay, der var også den østrigske musikprofessor Richard Parncutt, der mente at man bare skulle begynde at henrette klimaskeptikerne. Alt sammen af den samme undren over at dissens er tilladt. Og beviserne er i en overdådig blanding af computersimuleringer og et konsensus blandt nogle videnskabsmænd.

“Det er med en vis kuldegysen, at man læser nyheden om, at 2014 er på ret kurs mod at blive det varmeste år, der er målt globalt. Og det skyldes ikke den herskende decemberkulde.” indleder Aagaard sin og allerede her udnyttede jeg mine frihedsrettigheder og begyndte at trække på smilebåndet for hans skråsikkerhed, som hos alle totalitære, bygger på en umotiveret autoritetstro

Den internationale meteorologiorganisation WMO gik tidligere på ugen under den igangværende FN-klimakonference COP20 i Lima, Peru, ud med den markante nyhed – dog med det forbehold, at november og december, der mangler i de komplekse beregninger, følger varmetendensen fra årets ti første måneder.

Men holder tendensen stik, hvilket næsten alt tyder på, bortfalder et til ulidelighed gentaget og uvidenskabeligt argument om, at menneskeskabte drivhusgasudledninger ingen nævneværdig effekt har på klimaet. Et argument, man har set fremført tusinder af gange gennem de seneste mange år og med evindelig pegen på den mere eller mindre stagnerende globale temperaturkurve eller »varmepause« siden slutningen af 1990erne .

Men næsten altid uden at nævne, at 14 af de 15 varmeste år, der er målt af instrumenter, alle har optrådt i det nye årtusind. Og for dens sags skyld uden at gøre opmærksom på, at den globale middeltemperatur langtfra er den eneste indikator på global opvarmning.

Fra observation til konklusion sans argumentation. Teorien Aagaard betler antager at menneskets udledning af CO2 først fra 1950′erne fik betydning og blev den dominerende påvirkning (forcing) på temperaturen. Og ifølge professor Phil Jones Jones, der er manden der samlede de globale målinger for FNs klimapanel IPCC, har man siden man tilskrev temperaturmålinger nogen værdi fra midten af det nittende århundrede haft 3 varmeperioder. Den første fra 1860 til 1880, den anden fra 1910 til 1940 og den tredie fra 1975 til 1998.Da de mellemliggende perioder har været præget af svagere fald i temperaturen end stigningerne (mellem o,5C/dekade og 0,67C/dekade) har tendensen været opadgående siden man altså begyndte at regne målingerne for noget. Derfor siger det intet at der har været flere varmere år på det seneste. Og da mennesket altså kun har haft lod og del i den sidstevarmeperiode tyder det ikke på at vores andel kan være meget større end, hvad der ligger under det statistisk signifikante.

Men lad os se på observationen i stedet for blot at gentage en institutions alarmerende udmeldinger. Satellitmålingerne, som er de absolut bedste, viser 18 år uden varme nøjagtig, som alle benægtende konspirationsteoretikere påstår

Aagaard sætter varmepausen i citationstegn, hvilket er mærkeligt for det er netop, konsensus, der bortforklarer de seneste godt 18 års manglende stigning i temperaturen med at det er en pause for således retorisk at signalere at varmen vender tilbage igen. Aagaard er ikke helt helt med på beatet. Men det er vi lattermilde konspiratoriske benægtere til gengæld.

Hanson skrev forleden i National Review at den amerikanske vensfløj (liberalism) lå i ideologiske ruiner. “Barack Obama has accomplished, in the fashion of British prime minister Stanley Baldwin in the Twenties and Thirties, will be to avoid minor confrontations on his watch — if he is lucky — while ensuring catastrophic ones for his successors.” konkluderede han og pegede på de 11 mio. illegale indvandrere, som, hvis det står til Obama, skal have amerikansk pas. Hanson minder ikke blot om at prisen først og fremmest betales af den amerikanske middelklasse og de nye jobsøgende, men at de iblandt de illegale, hvis tilstedeværelse i USA i første omgang er gjort mulig at de har brudt amerikansk lov findes en stor minoritet, der ikke deltager aktivt eller lovlydigt i det amerikanske samfund.

Henover den sekulære dyrkelse af klimaet “that filled a deep psychological longing for some sort of transcendent meaning” til Obamas opdyrkelse af racestridigheder fra Trayvon Martin til Michael Brown, godt assisteret af mediernes memer

After the disastrous Obama tenure, the U.S. will either return to the melting pot and the idea that race and tribe are incidental, not essential, to our characters, or it will eventually go the way of all dysfunctional societies for which that was not true — Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq.

Og Hanson ender med følgende skudsmål

Obama will go down in history as presiding over the most corrupt administration of the last half-century, when historians finally collate the IRS, VA, GSA, and Secret Service scandals; the erosion of constitutional jurisprudence; the serial untruths about Benghazi, amnesty, and Obamacare; the harassment of journalists; the record shakedown of Wall Street lucre in 2008 and 2012; and the flood of lobbyists into and out of the Obama administration. Eric Holder – with his jet-setting to sporting events on the public dime, spouting inflammatory racialist rhetoric, politicizing the Justice Department, selectively enforcing settled law, and being held in contempt of Congress for withholding subpoenaed documents — managed what one might have thought impossible: He has made Nixon’s attorney general John Mitchell seem a minor rogue in comparison.

Men det er udenrigspolitikken der har lidt værst, midt i en periode med stigende udfordringer. Hanson skriv i går ligeledes i National Review at der er paralleller

We are entering a similarly dangerous interlude. Collapsing oil prices — a good thing for most of the world — will make troublemakers like oil-exporting Iran and Russia take even more risks.

Terrorist groups such as the Islamic State feel that conventional military power has no effect on their agendas. The West is seen as a tired culture of Black Friday shoppers and maxed-out credit-card holders.

NATO is underfunded and without strong American leadership. It can only hope that Vladimir Putin does not invade a NATO country such as Estonia, rather than prepare for the likelihood that he will, and soon.

The United States has slashed its defense budget to historic lows. It sends the message abroad that friendship with America brings few rewards while hostility toward the U.S. has even fewer consequences.

The bedrock American relationships with staunch allies such as Australia, Britain, Canada, Japan, and Israel are fading. Instead, we court new belligerents that don’t like the United States, such as Turkey and Iran.

Og

Under such conditions, history’s wars usually start when some opportunistic — but often relatively weaker — power does something unwise on the gamble that the perceived benefits outweigh the risks. That belligerence is only prevented when more powerful countries collectively make it clear to the aggressor that it would be suicidal to start a war that would end in the aggressor’s sure defeat.

What is scary in these unstable times is that a powerful United States either thinks that it is weak or believes that its past oversight of the postwar order was either wrong or too costly — or that after Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, America is no longer a force for positive change.

A large war is looming, one that will be far more costly than the preventive vigilance that might have stopped it.

“Vi vælger at rejse til Månen” proklamerede Kennedy på Rice University i 1962, “Ikke fordi det er let, men fordi det er svært!”.

[B]ecause that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win

For Kennedy æraen handlede det om at presse sig selv mod nye mål. “Yes we can” derimod sigter til det vi allerede kan. Det fornægter på sin vis ‘american exeptionalism’ i stedet for den teoretiske akademikers drøm om at kunne omdefinere verden væk fra dens iboende problemer. “Yes we can” siger ikke meget andet end at man vil gøre, hvad der er let, frem for, hvad der er rigtigt.

Judith Curry er en internationalt anerkendt atmosfærefysiker, der fik et navn i offentligheden da hun få dage efter orkanen Katrinas hærgen i de amerikanske sydstater offentliggjorde en videnskabelig rapport der spåede stadigt flere og kraftigere orkaner som følge af den globale opvarmning. Skeptikere blev sure, ja vrede faktisk og mente hendes timing var udtryk for kynisk spekulation. Det var den nu ikke, rapportens offentliggørelse var planlagt mange måneder forinden. Curry blev til gengæld en helt for hele den bevægelse, der advarer mod den menneskeskabte globale opvarmning.

Men Katrina blev ikke det vendepunkt i hendes karriere det så ud til da de følgende år viste at den var afslutningen på de store orkaner. Virkeligheden gik modsat hendes forudsigelser. Curry havde åbenbart taget fejl og hun vidste at når teori og virkelighed ikke passer sammen så er det teorien den er gal med. I klimabranchen er det ikke en udbredt indsigt.

Når hun søgte forklaringer på det stigende antal diskrepanser blandt sine kollegaer var der ingen eller de gav ikke megen mening og hun blev i stigende grad lydhør overfor skeptikerne og deres argumenter og erkendte lidt efter lidt at udviklingen gav dem mere og mere ret i flere og flere disputter. Temperaturen var ikke steget i 10 år, trods Klimapanelts insisteren. I 12 år, 15 år og nu 17 år, hvor FN endelig har erkendt det. Vejret er ikke blevet mere ekstremt eller ildevarslende roligt, det humper stadigt derudad som det plejer og afkræver mennesket den rette påklædning. Polarhavet er ikke tæt med døde isbjørne; tun bliver ikke større mens fisk over en karm bliver mindre; der kommer ikke flere stofmisbrugere; køer bliver ikke sterile og japanere bliver ikke mere udsatte for bjørneangreb. Noget måtte revideres.

Curry fik mere respekt for den gammeldags empirisk baserede forskning med nye netværks muligheder for crowdsourcing, mens hendes tiltro tilsvarende faldt til de nye muligheder for at projicere sin angst over i computermodeller sikret via de gamle netværk af gatekeepers. Curry blev mere og mere skeptisk, hun bloggede og debatterede, åbnede for rå data og gennemgik præmisser og metoder og tal og usikkerheder. Nu var det hendes tidligere trosfæller inde og omkring FNs konsensus, der undsagde hende og kaldte hende alt fro en forræder til en mær. Man skal ikke undervurdere forskeres menneskelighed.

I Wall Street Journal argumenterer hun for at forskningen efterhånden påviser at klimaet ikke er så følsomt, som man ellers er gået ud fra. Det er meget diplomatisk, som hun altid er. Hvad der rent faktisk står er at debatten snart er død, klimaskrækken kan afblæses og vi kan roligt sætte bilen i tomgang natten over som vi plejer.

At the recent United Nations Climate Summit, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees [of warming] will soon close forever.” Actually, this window of opportunity may remain open for quite some time. A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent.

According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing “dangerous human interference” with the climate is defined, rather arbitrarily, as limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850-1900. This leaves 1.2 degrees Celsius (about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to go.

In its most optimistic projections, which assume a substantial decline in emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the “dangerous” level might never be reached. In its most extreme, pessimistic projections, which assume heavy use of coal and rapid population growth, the threshold could be exceeded as early as 2040. But these projections reflect the effects of rising emissions on temperatures simulated by climate models, which are being challenged by recent observations.

Det er lidt med vemod at vi snart skal vinke farvel til klimadebatten. Javist kan der komme en periode, hvor der skal gøres regnskab, men alligevel. Inden for de nærmeste år er klimaproblemet forsvundet. Det er EU også. Og multikulturalismens sidste fortalere. Og Sverige.

Jyllands-Posten indleder en artikel om den kommende dommedag med “Det er ikke bare gas, men en alvorlig sag, lyder advarslen fra flere klimaforskere” lige under overskriften “Sibiriske kratere er “Jorden der prutter””

Flere og flere forskere er nu enige om, at de store huller, hvoraf det største vurderes til at være mellem 60 og 70 meter i diameter, er dannet, fordi permafrosten i undergrunden er smeltet. Når permafrosten smelter, udløser den de gasser, der også har været frosset ned i undergrunden. Naturgasserne udløser derpå deres energi op gennem jordskorpen i eksplosioner, der skaber “huller” i overfladen.

Mellem sin fortsatte tale om prutter, citerer artiklen alarmerede forskere: “Environmental Defense Fund kalder undergrunden i Arktis for “en tidsindstillet bombe” for vores klima” og det er “endnu mere alarmerende end asteroidenedslag“. Men skønt man har fundet en håndfuld huller i jorden, så skal man måske alligevel tøve med at gå i panik. Bloggen Real Climate drives af kerneforskerne bag IPCC

Siberia has explosion holes in it that smell like methane, and there are newly found bubbles of methane in the Arctic Ocean. As a result, journalists are contacting me assuming that the Arctic Methane Apocalypse has begun. However, as a climate scientist I remain much more concerned about the fossil fuel industry than I am about Arctic methane. Short answer: It would take about 20,000,000 such eruptions within a few years to generate the standard Arctic Methane Apocalypse that people have been talking about.

Rart at vide at der trods alt er grænser for vanviddet.

Når man kan huske at Dan Jørgensen i 2011 gav os “Fem år til at redde verden” kan det måske undre at han nu synes det er mere vigtigt blande sig i danskernes spisevaner. Men måske er han blevet immuniseret af sit eget vrøvl. Richard Littlejohn skriver ganske fornuftigt om skræmmehistoriernes modsatte effekt i Daily Mail

Officially, we don’t have weather any more.

We have ‘climate change’, a catch-all excuse for everything from raising taxes and refusing to empty the bins to exploding manhole covers.

That’s right, exploding manhole covers. The Health and Safety Executive has warned pedestrians to be on the alert after a series of manhole cover explosions in London’s West End.

There have been 64 such incidents already this year, compared with just nine in 2011. ‘Experts’ blame the ‘wettest winter on record’ for rainwater damaging underground electric cables.

The heavy rainfall, which brought flooding to many parts of the country, is naturally attributed to ‘climate change’, which is also allegedly responsible for last week’s hot weather and the subsequent deluge at the weekend.

Self-appointed ‘experts’ refuse to acknowledge that we had extreme weather before ‘man-made global warming’ was invented.

You don’t have to go as far back as the 17th century, when ice fairs were held on the frozen River Thames and vineyards flourished across the South of England.

Within living memory, we had the famous floods of 1953, the big freeze ten years later, and the unusually dry summers of 1976 and 1977.

Even then, the Government thought it had to do something. Denis Howell, a former football referee turned MP, was appointed Minister of Drought.

Within three days of him taking the job, it started to rain heavily and he was made Minister of Floods. During the harsh winter of 1978/9, his job description changed again and he became Minister for Snow.

You couldn’t make it up.

Littlejohn pointerer at den slags historier og medfølgende formaninger, som han giver morsomme eksempler på er “insulting to our intelligence” og i sidste end kontraproduktivt for deres sag. Mon ikke for, hvad tænker folk dog ikke når de i MX.dk kan læse at klimaforandringerne udsletter de rødhårede?

Flere britiske forskere vurderer, at de rødhårede gener kan nemlig være på vej retur i takt med at kviksølvet stiger i termometret. Det skriver The Independent.

Generne bag den lyse hud, blå øjne og den ildrøde hårpragt menes at være fremelsket i det overskyede Skotland for at optage så meget sol som muligt.

Den blege hud gør også huden følsom overfor sol og giver hyppigere tilfælde af forbrændinger og hudkræft - og hvis den stigende temperatur fortsætter opad på alle klodens termometre, så kan de rødhårede gener høre fortiden til.

- Vi mener, at den lyse hud og det røde hår er kommet af, at man ikke fik sol nok og derfor skulle optage så meget D-vitamin som muligt, vurderer Dr. Alistair Moffat fra ScotlandsDNA.

- Hvis klimaet ændrer sig, og det bliver mere eller mindre skyet, så vil det påvirke generne, siger Moffat til The Independent.

- Hvis det så bliver mindre skyet og der var mere sol, så ja, ville der bliver færre mennesker, der bærer det rødhårede gen, siger Dr. Alistair Moffat.

Stop hellere indvandringen, hvis man vil bevare den lyse teint, det røde hår og de blå øjne. Global Post kunne dagen efter fortælle om hjerteproblemer der ellers kun rammer fede fisk

Rising sea temperatures brought about by climate change could kill fish by causing heart failure, New Zealand scientists said Monday.

A study of ecotherms, or cold-bodied animals that rely on their surroundings to maintain optimum body temperature such as most fish showed they were clearly affected by climate change, according to University of Auckland biologists.

“This research shows that the heart acts as a ‘bio-indicator’ of which species may survive rises in ocean temperature, but exactly why heart failure occurs we still don’t know,” Dr Anthony Hickey said in a statement.

The study found that mitochondria, cell structures that control energy production, within heart cells began to fail as temperatures rose.

I mellemtiden er temperaturen ikke steget de seneste 17 år, som Christoffer Monckton of Brenchley skiver hos Climate Depot

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 17 years 10 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for more than half the entire satellite temperature record. Yet the lengthening Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend. Yet the length of the pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed. The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded: “Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.” That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

Og når man fornærmer folks intelligens så skal man ikke ikke undre sig over deres barnligt humoristiske protester

fundet via No Trix Zone

Lüning starts by reminding the listeners that geology is key to understanding the past, which in turn can help us to better understand the present and provide valuable clues of what to expect in the future.

The German geologist is a specialist in the geology of Africa. The scientitific literature shows that the Sahara was green a mere 6000 years ago, and his slide at the 0:45 mark show remnants of that time.

Remnants of a green Sahara, 6000 years ago.

Back then, in the mid Holocene, it was 1 – 2°C warmer than it is today and the Sahara was teeming with wildlife.

At the 2:20 mark Lüning shows a slide of cave painting, in the middle of the Sahara, depicting wildlife seen at the time:

Cave paintings of wildlife in the middle of the Sahara.

The changes over the Holocener period clearly are greater than what we are seeing today and are due to natural flcutucations, primarily solar activity. Lüning adds at the 3:40 mark:

This is a geological context that unfortunately is lost on many people like physicists who believe their formulae more than they believe the true facts.”

Greenland is cooling

At the 4:10 mark Lüning brings up the Axforf paper of 2013, which shows Greenland was “2 – 3°C warmer 6000 to 4000 years ago than it is today” and that the ice survived.

At the 5:00 mark he presents a 2013 paper by Lecavalier et al showing that Greenland has cooled 2.5°C over the last 8000 years.

Greenland has cooled 2.5°C over the last 8000 years.

On his slide Lüning writes:

Despite the thousands of years of continuous warmth, the dramatic ice collapse never occurred.”

At the 6:00 mark Lüning shows a chart from Bob Carter, also showing nothing unusual is happening, Co2 playing only a minor role.

At the 7:30 mark Lüning brings up the IPCC 1990 millennium temperature chart that distinctly shows a warmer Medieval Warm Period and a little ice age. At the 8:30 various hockey sticks are shown, which Lüning describes as “incorrect”. “Even Michael Mann had to admit that he had exaggerated”.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/29/german-geologist-ipcc-models-a-failure-have-no-chance-of-success-sees-possible-0-2c-of-cooling-by-2020/#sthash.qWW5V44G.dpuf

Frederikshavn byråd har givet tilladelse til prøveboringer af skiffergas. Og det er man ikke glade for på venstrefløjen, hvor Modkraft argumenterede således

Et af hovedproblemerne ved udvindingen af skifergas er, at der i udvindingsprocessen er et udslip af metan til atmosfæren på mellem 3-7 %.

Metan er 20-30 gange mere potent end CO2 i forhold til den globale opvarmning.

Den nyeste rapport fra IPCC, FN’s klimapanel, har netop slået fast, at metangasser er endnu værre end først antaget.

Derudover viser erfaringerne fra andre lande, at udvindingen af skifergas kan føre til forurening af grundvand, ødelæggelse af miljø og lokalsamfund, og at udvinding af skifergas desuden fjerner fokus fra den nødvendige omstilling fra fossiler til vedvarende energiformer.

Udvinding af skifergas kræver ekstreme mængder af ferskvand, kemikalier, og vil desuden generere en massiv lastbilstrafik.

Ved kommerciel udvinding af skifergas vil der være brug for højt specialiseret arbejdskraft, der sandsynligvis vil komme fra Frankrig, derudover skal der bruges et antal lastbilchauffører.

Om den arbejdskraft vil blive hentet lokalt, er et åbent spørgsmål.

Da den globale temperatur ikke er steget de seneste 17 år kan man glemme hele klimaargumentet og i stedet bekymre sig om nærmiljøet. Faktisk er skiffergas bedre for CO2 regnskabet end de grønne løsninger argumenterer Lomborg i Forbes

Compare this to the fact that all the wind turbines and solar panels in the world reduce CO? emissions, at a maximum, by 275 Mt. In other words, the US shale gas revolution has by itself reduced global emissions more than all the well-intentioned solar and wind in the world.

Men der er også gode grunde til at udvinde skiffergas - også selv om det vil betyde fracking

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Europe gets just 1.3 percent of its energy from renewables like solar and wind, whereas it gets about 75 percent from fossil fuels and most of the remainder from nuclear. Even an extremely optimistic scenario from the IEA suggests that by 2035, Europe will only be able to generate 8 percent of its energy from these renewables. Focusing on them is simply populism without realism.

Moreover, subsidizing ever more green energy is becoming unaffordable. Spain is already paying more in subsidies to wind and solar than they spend on their higher education, making a dramatic increase exceedingly unlikely. But perhaps the best illustration comes from Germany, the EU’s largest economy with the biggest focus on renewables.

Last year alone, German consumers subsidized renewable energies to the tune of $27 billion, contributing to an inflation-adjusted 80 percent rise in household electricity prices since 2000. Yet the intermittency of renewables has increased the country’s reliance on fossil fuels since the nuclear phase-out of 2011. As Spiegel pointed out: “Consumer advocates and aid organizations say the breaking point has already been reached. Today, more than 300,000 households a year are seeing their power shut off because of unpaid bills.” Economic models for Europe show that the current climate policies will cost an excruciating $280 billion annually.

Og det gider ingen i længden påstår finansmanden Per Wimmer i Information. Han advarer om at statsstøtte til den grønne energisektor har skabt en boble der vil briste når de politiske vinde skifter

»Jeg tror ikke på, at den politiske eller folkelige opbakning er der for evigt. Jeg tror stadig, at folk gerne vil have grøn energi, det vil jeg også gerne, men der er en meget bedre måde at gøre det på, hvor vi får mere smæk for skillingen.«

Når opbakningen forsvinder, så vil boblen briste. For hvis støtten fjernes fra en række af de vedvarende energiformer, for eksempel vindenergi i Danmark, så vil projekterne ikke længere være rentable.

Og så står man med en masse projekter, der økonomisk er kollapstruede. Og er projekterne ikke rentable, men må lukkes ned, så står man også uden grønne energikilder, fordi man ikke satsede på de kommercielt rentable projekter.

– Forudsætningen for, at boblen brister, er, at der kommer et oprør mod støtten. Hvordan kan du vide, at det kommer?

»På et eller andet tidspunkt er der en, der siger, at nu gider jeg ikke tage hånden i lommen mere,« siger Per Wimmer.

Men der er et andet og endnu vigtigere argument for skiffergas og andre realistiske energiformer, nemlig forsyningssikkerhed. Den grønne bølge er både urentabel og utilstrækkelig og vi har i Vesten for længe forladt os på ondsindede og fjendtlige magter til at forsyne os med energi, noget som de til stadighed bruger til afpresning. For at fastholde Vesten som marked og indflydelsesfære har Rusland og Opec landene en interesse i at støtte de organisationer, der vil bremse fremskridtet

Så vi kan lade den tidligere KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov forklare hvorledes man benytter sig af frie samfunds nyttige idioter og forrædere

Daily Mail skriver at det videnskabelig tidsskrift Environmental Research Letters har forkastet en videnskabelig artikel fordi den såede tvivl om der herskende konsensus om menneskets katastrofale indflydelse på klimaet

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.

‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.

Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.

The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.

He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.

Bengtson tiltrådte den uafhængige tænketank Global Warming Policy Foundation, stiftet af den tidligere Thatcher minister Nigel Lawson. Tænketanken er i opposition til FNs Klimapanels konsensus og det har givet voldsomme reaktioner fra andre klimaforskere - en tysk fysiker kaldte det ligefrem et medlemskab af Ku Klux Klan. Og den slags var for voldsomt for den gamle mand, der trak sit medlemskab af tilbage, kunne man ligeledes læse i Daily Mail

In his resignation letter, published on the think-tank’s website, he wrote: ‘If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety.

‘I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life.

‘Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

‘I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.

Lord Lawson, the former Tory Chancellor condemned the behaviour as ‘appalling’ and said the reference to ‘McCarthyism’ was ‘fully warranted’.

Judith Curry fandt det sørgeligt, med dette seneste eksempel på at klimakonsensus forsvarer position med en mobbekultur

I deeply regret that any scientist, particularly such a distinguished scientist as Bengsston, has had to put up with these attacks.  This past week, we have seen numerous important and enlightening statements made by Bengtsson about the state of climate science and policy, and science and society is richer for this.  We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails.

Rupert Darwall er ganske enig i McCathyisme sammenligning, men konkluderer anderledes Ghandisk i National Review at det er tegn på sammenbrud

Especially significant was a tweet from Gavin Schmidt, a leading climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute, who for many years worked alongside James Hansen. “Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community,” Schmidt tweeted. “Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.”

Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test. It is an extraordinarily revealing development. Fears about unbelievers’ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself.

Inadvertently Schmidt’s tweet demonstrates how far climate science has crossed the boundary deep into pseudo-science. Karl Popper observed of the trio of pseudo-sciences prevalent in 1920s Vienna that their followers could explain why non-believers rejected their manifest truths. For Marxists, it was because of their class interests. For subscribers to Freudian psychoanalysis and Alfred Adler’s psychology, non-belief was evidence of unanalyzed repressions crying out for treatment. So it is with climate science. Only the pure of heart should be allowed an opinion on it.

Science regresses if it becomes intolerant of criticism.

Jeg er enig med Darwall, men det har jeg været længe uden at noget er brudt sammen. Marc Morano har samlet et par af det mobberi der længe har været standard

NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

A 2008 report found that ‘climate blasphemy’ is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to ‘shut down’ climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing.

Below are many more examples of the threats, name calling and intimidation skeptics have faced in recent times.

November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” Yvo de Boer’s comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.

September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: ‘I was told that I could not speak in public’ Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,” Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. “It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.” (LINK)

Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.

Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?

October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility’ to combat global warming skepticism – Australian Herald Sun – Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google’s Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, “giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians” is, and I quote, “a bad idea.” Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog…

November 5, 2008: UK Scientist: ‘BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE’ – UK Daily Express

Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007)

Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”

Alligevel har jeg trods den langsomme udvikling, med sprække på sprække i klimapanelets panser en tiltro til at deres imperium braser sammen. Ja, det går meget langsommere end mine klimadebat modeller har forudset, men min tiltro til deres prognoser er kun stigende.

Bloggen Realclimate er det nærmste man kommer et uofficielt talsrør for FNs Klimapanel. Dens formål er at forklare klimavidenskab for en apatisk offentlighed og er stiftet af og består af nogle af klimapanelets mest centrale klimaforskere og de mest advokerende for menneskets uheldige indflydelse på klimaet som ishockeystavgrafens skaber Michael Mann og klimamodeløren Gavin A Schmidt. Så niveauet er derefter

Does global warming make extreme weather events worse? Here is the #1 flawed reasoning you will have seen about this question: it is the classic confusion between absence of evidence and evidence for absence of an effect of global warming on extreme weather events. Sounds complicated? It isn’t. I’ll first explain it in simple terms and then give some real-life examples.

The two most fundamental properties of extreme events are that they are rare (by definition) and highly random. These two aspects (together with limitations in the data we have) make it very hard to demonstrate any significant changes. And they make it very easy to find all sorts of statistics that do not show an effect of global warming – even if it exists and is quite large.

(…)

While statistical studies on extremes are plagued by signal-to-noise issues and only give unequivocal results in a few cases with good data (like for temperature extremes), we have another, more useful source of information: physics. For example, basic physics means that rising temperatures will drive sea levels up, as is in fact observed. Higher sea level to start from will clearly make a storm surge (like that of the storms Sandy and Haiyan) run up higher. By adding 1+1 we therefore know that sea-level rise is increasing the damage from storm surges – probably decades before this can be statistically proven with observational data.

Så altså, hvis vi antager at klimaet ikke opfører sig som et komplekst og dynamisk system så behøver vi slet ikke empiri for at bevise vores teorier. Teorierne står i deres egen ret og er deres eget bevis. Det kunne de jo godt have sagt inden de hævede deres løn for at beskære træer og programmere dyre computermodeller. Som illustration på deres cirkellogik kommer de med dette fornemme eksempel

Imagine you’re in a sleazy, smoky pub and a stranger offers you a game of dice, for serious money. You’ve been warned and have reason to suspect they’re using a loaded dice here that rolls a six twice as often as normal. But the stranger says: “Look here, I’ll show you: this is a perfectly normal dice!” And he rolls it a dozen times. There are two sixes in those twelve trials – as you’d expect on average in a normal dice. Are you convinced all is normal?

You shouldn’t be, because this experiment is simply inconclusive. It shows no evidence for the dice being loaded, but neither does it provide real evidence against your prior suspicion that the dice is loaded. There is a good chance for this outcome even if the dice is massively loaded (i.e. with 1 in 3 chance to roll a six). On average you’d expect 4 sixes then, but 2 is not uncommon either. With normal dice, the chance to get exactly two sixes in this experiment is 30%, with the loaded dice it is 13%[i]. From twelve tries you simply don’t have enough data to tell.

Så altså, den videnskabelige tilgang er at stole på en blanding af rygter og ens instinkter frem for eksperimenter. Problemet med klimaet, som et eksperiment, er, at man kun har det ene og intet at sammenligne med. Hvis denne beværtning er symbolet på verden, hvorfor opfatter man den så som snudsket fremfor normal? Åh, det er antagelsen om virkelighedens korrumperede ulidelighed og den bliver kun bekræftet af empiriens afkræftelse.