Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/www/ on line 520

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/www/ on line 535

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/www/ on line 542

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/www/ on line 578

Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /var/www/ on line 18

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1244

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1442

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /var/www/ on line 306

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /var/www/ on line 431

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/ on line 1266

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Dependencies in /var/www/ on line 31

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Http in /var/www/ on line 61

Warning: explode() expects parameter 2 to be string, array given in /var/www/ on line 15
Monokultur » miljø

Marc Morano: Global warmists retreating

Akademia, Klima, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on April 10, 2013 at 2:19 pm

Transform governance and institutions at all levels

Akademia, Globalisering, Godheds-industrien, Klima, Politik, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on April 4, 2013 at 10:46 am

Mere fra den akademiske verden. Guardian skriver om Prof David Griggs, der bestyrer det australske Monash Sustainability Institute, der har hostet seks målsætninger op, som politikerne, altså verdenslederne, skal forfølge, for at forhindre alskens ulykker

“Humans are transforming the planet in ways that could undermine any development gains. Mounting research shows that the stable functioning of Earth systems – including the atmosphere, oceans, forests, waterways, biodiversity and biogeochemical cycles – is a prerequisite for a thriving global society,” he writes, with colleagues.

Instead, the authors say that the old goals should be combined with global environmental targets drawn from science and from existing international agreements to create new “sustainable development goals” (SDGs).

(ævle-bævle og skræmmebilleder)

“None of this is possible without changes to the economic playing field. National policies should, like carbon pricing, place a value on natural capital and a cost on unsustainable actions. International governance of the global commons should be strengthened, for example through binding agreements on climate change, by halting the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services and by addressing other sustainability concerns,” says the article in Nature.

(ævle-bævle og feelgoodery)Goal six: Governance for sustainable societies.

Transform governance and institutions at all levels to address the other five sustainable development goals. This would build on MDG partnerships and incorporate environmental and social targets into global trade, investment and finance. Subsidies on fossil fuels and policies that support unsustainable agricultural and fisheries practices should be eliminated by 2020.


Akademiker efterlyser “a new kind of democracy”

Akademia, Campusradikalisme, Godheds-industrien, Klima, Politik, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on April 3, 2013 at 8:21 am

Helen Camakaris er akademiker og det er alt, hvad man behøver at vide for at forstå hvorfor hun skriver, som hun gør i Shaping Tomorrows World - et ildevarslende navn til et ‘news site’.

Cognitive dissonance is that uncomfortable feeling we have when we know we should invest in solar panels but the 46? wide screen TV wins out; we know we should catch the bus but we take the car anyway. It’s that sense of discord that arises when emotion and reason don’t get along. And unfortunately, it’s alive and well, sabotaging the climate change debate.

We’ve evolved to feel a single sense of self, but our minds consist of multiple voices. Our emotional brain has first go at making sense of our world, instantly telling us how to behave and what to believe, based on instincts reinforced by upbringing. Sometimes our rational brain is then called upon to endorse our intuitions, which then become beliefs. Problems that are unusually difficult or surprising will recruit our rational brain, but reasoning takes effort and we avoid it when we can.

Unfortunately our emotional brain is encouraging us to pursue perceived self-interest even if that means trashing the planet. This leaves our rational brain to try to justify our actions, even while the walls come tumbling down and the temperatures keep rising.

If we are to have any chance of a future we need to understand why our intuitions are so poor, and how we might temper them by engaging our ability to reason.

We haven’t evolved to be successful in the modern world. Civilisation arose only 12,000 years ago; in evolutionary terms that’s just the blink of an eye. Ninety-nine per cent of human evolution occurred during the Stone Age, so our evolved instincts, personality traits, and even some of our cognitive “short-cuts” are much better suited to this Pleistocene world.

Evolution didn’t care about the future; it was simply driven by those who survived and left the most descendants. So our ancestors were the ones who were best at competing for food and status, securing mates and having babies. They were materialistic, living very much in the present and rarely constrained by sustainability. They ate a broad range of foods, and if resources became depleted they could expand their territories or move on, behaviour that led to the extinction of many animals and to extensive migration.

A level of altruism did evolve, but it was circumscribed by benefits to kin, expectations of reciprocal reward, and an obsession with fairness. Altruism can often therefore be trumped by self-interest.

We might expect that intelligence and language would have been game-changers; they were, but not necessarily for the better. We learnt to tame nature and harvest its bounty, to build great cities, and to harness the laws of physics and chemistry. We may celebrate the Industrial Revolution as the beginning of modern civilisation, but it also ushered in burgeoning overpopulation, resource exploitation, pollution and climate change.

So if we evolved to exploit nature, and to be blind to the consequences, what now? Our only chance is to wrest control away from our emotional brain, and construct a new reality where our rational brain can take control.

Og så foretager fru Camakaris springet fra det underfundige til det undergravende

We need to design a new kind of democracy where many government decisions are made cooperatively, with multi-party representation and the input of experts. Such think tanks must have strategies in place to promote critical self-analysis and to “frame” policy to reflect the long-term reality. The cost of climate change mitigation can then be shown to be minute compared to the cost of inaction.

If we value a sustainable world, the GDP must be replaced by a measure of a country’s wealth, including resources, social capital and the cost of pollution. Costs should reflect the inclusive cradle-to-grave value of products and services, so that choices reflect out true long-term interests. Conspicuous consumption might be curbed further by offering workers the choice of more leisure rather than a salary increase, and by rewarding excellence with honours and privileges, rather than fat pay packets and obscene bonuses.

Education must produce adults who can think critically and understand what’s at stake and why our judgement is flawed. To counter self-interest, the government should use incentives and disincentives to guide public behaviour. We need to encourage altruism by instituting reciprocal, incremental improvements, and by showing leadership.

We are at the crossroads. Unless we recognise the less-adaptive aspects of human nature and devise ways of keeping them in check, the world we bequeath to our children will be a diminished one. We have the means to do this, but do we have the will? Evolution may have made us the most intelligent animal on Earth, but it makes no promise that we will be survivors.

Man skal have læst på universitetet for blive så dum.

Håbet for en klimakatastrofe svinder

Akademia, FN, Globalisering, Grøn energi, Politik, Pressen, miljø — Drokles on March 1, 2013 at 8:59 am

Den generelle stemning, konsensus kunne man vel kalde det, blandt verdens folkeslag for en snarlig klimakatastrofe ser ud til at være stærkt aftagende. Globescan meddeler at interessen for miljøet generelt tager et dyk i disse år

Environmental concerns among citizens around the world have been falling since 2009 and have now reached twenty-year lows, according to a multi-country GlobeScan poll.


Climate change is the only exception, where concern was lower from 1998 to 2003 than it is now. Concern about air and water pollution, as well as biodiversity, is significantly below where it was even in the 1990s. Many of the sharpest falls have taken place in the past two years.

The perceived seriousness of climate change has fallen particularly sharply since the unsuccessful UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. Climate concern dropped first in industrialized countries, but this year’s figures show that concern has now fallen in major developing economies such as Brazil and China as well.


Det er nok også krisen der kradser og tvinger folk til at koncentrere sig om virkelighedens prosaiske problemer. Men med til historien hører også det tåbelige budskab om undergang i sig selv. De færreste kan forholde sig til fortællingen om at gennemsnitstemperaturen stiger nogle grader over niveauet fra før industrialiseringen. Her i Danmark svinger temperaturen gerne 55 grader Celcius hvert halve år. Og når så temperaturen ikke steget de seneste 17 år hæmmer følelsen det af en ukontrollabel udvikling. Derfor griber man til en masse små sidefortællinger om de katastrofale konsekvenser for at gøre rædslerne levende for de små mennesker, hvis tillid man desværre stadigt grundet det ulykkelige demokrati er nødt til at vinde.

Men man skal kende træet på dets frugter og de små gyserfortællinger bringer kun en kortlivet forskrækkelse som efterhånden bliver afløst af grin og siden skuldertræk. Som f.eks. historien om hvorledes klimaforandringer truer morgenkaffen, som Watts Up With That ironiserer over MSN News ildevarslende historie

A cup of morning coffee could be much harder to find, and much more expensive, before the century is out thanks to climate change and the possible extinction of wild Arabica beans.

That’s the warning behind a new study by U.K. and Ethiopian researchers who say the beans that go into 70 per cent of the world’s coffee could be wiped out by 2080.

Researchers at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew and the Environment and Coffee Forest Forum in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia looked at how climate change might make some land unsuitable for Arabica plants, which are highly vulnerable to temperature change and other dangers including pests and disease.

They came up with a best-case scenario that predicts a 38 per cent reduction in land capable of yielding Arabica by 2080. The worst-case scenario puts the loss at between 90 per cent and 100 per cent.

There is a “high risk of extinction” says the study, which was published this week in the academic journal Plos One.

Hver dag er 1. april når man læser om klimaet, selv om det ikke er sjovt at spøge med folks helbred, som klimatalsmand George Luber for det amerikanske Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gør

Climate change threatens polar bears and is rapidly melting Arctic ice, but the effect it is already having on people’s health is what might cause them to take action, a federal official said Tuesday.

Global warming has caused more severe heat waves, increased pollen counts and lengthened allergy seasons, said George Luber, associate director for climate change at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during a webinar presented by the The Ohio State University Climate Change Outreach Team on Tuesday.

And the effects will only get worse in the future, as temperatures in the Midwest alone could increase 5.6 to 8.5 degrees by the end of this century, he said.

“We should be promoting climate action for people’s sake,” he said.

Kom ihu den seneste tids historier med overbelægning på danske hospitaler fordi vinteren blot er værre for folks helbred end sommeren. Det har vist noget at gøre med kulden. Og for lige at korrigere for den ofte luftede bekymring for bestanden af isbamser, så giver Polar Bear Science 10 gode grunde til at lade være.

Men tilbage til undergangen. En flok amerikanske generaler, politikere og embedsmænd på tværs af partierne (dem begge to) advarer om at folk vil flygte i millionvis når de løber tør for is - eller noget i den retning. Det skriver Responding to Climate Change

“We, the undersigned Republicans, Democrats and Independents, implore US policymakers to support American security and global stability by addressing the risks of climate change in vulnerable nations. Their plight is our fight; their problems are our problems,” it says.

“Without precautionary measures, climate change impacts abroad could spur mass migrations, influence civil conflict and ultimately lead to a more unpredictable world.

“In fact, we may already be seeing signs of this as vulnerable communities in some of the most fragile and conflict-ridden states are increasingly displaced by floods, droughts and other natural disasters.”


“If we have difficulty figuring out how to deal with immigration today, look at the prospects for the glacial retreats in the Andes,” said R. James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, at an event to launch the letter.

“The glaciers are not doing well…If that starts to go away, we will have millions upon millions of southern neighbours hungry, thirsty, with crops failing and looking for some place in the world they can go,” he said.

Hvis man læser Guardian kan man måske finde et åndeligt slægtskab mellem ovenstående vrøvl og præ-menneskeretsforkæmpere

In the abolitionists’ fight for what they knew to be true, I saw deep parallels with the work of modern leaders fighting for action on climate change. I’m thinking of brave activists such as Bill McKibben, who gathered 50,000 people last week to march on Washington, scientists such as Jim Hansen and Michael Mann, and many other leaders in politics, business, and civil society. The metaphor of slavery to climate change is not perfect. But there’s a strong sense of déjà vu about the people working for change, their uphill battles, the arguments they face and, unfortunately, how long it takes them to win.

Nej, metaforen er vist ikke helt perfekt. Den hænger dels på at Rom, som så meget andet, ikke blev bygget på en dag

The foundations of climate science go back more than 100 years, and carbon dioxide measurements began at the Mauna Loa Observatory in 1956. But the real climate movement probably started 25 years ago when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began.

Given the 40-year march to a constitutional amendment on slavery, it’s not surprising that we don’t have a global price on carbon yet. Especially when the forces arrayed against climate action put up significant roadblocks – hurdles that look and sound really familiar.

Og dels på ren idioti

There were many supposed arguments against abolition. The most absurd ideas generally were about not rocking the boat: ideas such as “slavery is natural and has always existed,” or the enervating idea that it’s impractical to change such a big system. On energy and climate, the status quo pitch goes like this: “We’ve relied on these fuels for so long and will for a long time to come.”

Således retfærdigjort er der jo ikke langt til at forlange et diktatur af “the just and wise“, som akademikere jo gerne gør.  The New Nostradamus of the North har læst professor David Shearmans og økofilosoffen Joseph Wayne Smiths bog The Climate Change Challange and the Failure of Democracy

We have known about these impending problems for several decades.  Each year the certainty of the science has increased, yet we have failed to act  appropriately to the threat. We have analyzed the reasons for this indolence.  This understanding will lead you to ask yourself if Western civilization can  survive in its present state of prosperity, health, and well-being, or will it  soon suffer the fate of all previous civilizations—to become a mere page in  history?

We will demand from you the reader, far more than your comprehension  of the consequences of climate change and the workings of democracy. You  will need to examine the limits of your introspection and the motivation  bestowed upon you by biology and culture. The questions to be asked are  dif?cult. You have a commitment to your children, but are you committed  to the well-being of future generations and those you may never see, such as your great-grandchildren? If so are you prepared to change your lifestyle  now? Are you prepared to see society and its governance change if this is a  necessary solution? -

Chapters 6 and 7 demonstrate that the inherent failures of  democracy that have lead to the environmental crisis also operate in many  other spheres of society. They are inherent to the operation of democracy.  Furthermore, we come to share Plato’s conclusion that democracy is inherently contradictory and leads naturally to authoritarianism.

In chapters 8 and 9 we argue that authoritarianism is the natural state of  humanity, and it may be better to choose our elites rather than have them  imposed. Indeed Plato, on seeing the sequelae of democracy’s birth, observed that it is better that the just and wise should rule unwillingly, rather  than those who actually want power should have it. We analyze authoritarian structures and their operation ranging from the medical intensive care  unit and the Roman Catholic Church to corporatism with the conclusion  that the crisis is best countered by developing authoritarian government  using some of the fabric of these existing structures. The education and  values of the new “elite warrior leadership” who will battle for the future  of the earth is described.

De burde hellere skrive om The Failure of and Old Idiot Sir Ranulph Fiennes, der ville krydse Antarktis om vinteren for at “draw attention to global warming“. Hans forsøg blev ikke hindret af hedeslag eller pollenallergi, skriver Washington Post

British explorer Ranulph Fiennes on Monday pulled out of an expedition to cross Antarctica during the region’s winter after developing frostbite — a bitter disappointment for an adventurer who had spent years preparing for one of the last great polar challenges.

Hvis han havde krydset Ækvator, kunne han have siddet med åben kaleche i skjorteærmer og drukket champagnecocktails hele vejen. Det er ikke overbevisende at frygte for at Jordens mest livløse sted bliver let tilgængeligt.


Grøn energi, Klima, miljø — Drokles on December 28, 2012 at 8:03 am

Det svarer til det samlede forbrug for USA og Rusland i dag.

“Trods mange landes ambitioner om at begrænse afhængigheden af kul, så fortsætter den globale efterspørgsel med at vokse. Frem mod 2017 vil forbruget af kul stige i enhver region på Jorden, bortset fra USA, hvor kul bliver erstattet af naturgas,” skriver IEA ifølge Ingeniøren.

Dermed vil kul overgå olie som det mest brugte brændsel på Jorden.


5. These findings have important implications for policy towards wind generation in the UK. First, they suggest that the subsidy regime is extremely generous if investment in new wind farms is profitable despite the decline in performance due to age and over time. Second, meeting the UK Government’s targets for wind generation will require a much higher level of wind capacity – and, thus, capital investment – than current projections imply. Third, the structure of contracts offered to wind generators under the proposed reform of the electricity market should be modified since few wind farms will operate for more than 12–15 years.

Virkeligheden har talt.

Klimapanelet viser tendenser til opløsning

Klima, miljø — Drokles on December 17, 2012 at 3:37 am

Et udkast til FN’s klimapanels syvårlige rapporter er blevet lækket, meget til klimapanelets store fortrydelse, som man kan læse på Politiken

IPCC frygter, at noget lignende skal ske denne gang, og derfor advarede FN-panelet om, at »uautoriseret og for tidlig offentliggørelse af udkastene (til rapporten, red.), som er et igangværende arbejde, kan føre til forvirring, eftersom tekstindholdet nødvendigvis vil blive ændret«.

Klimapanelet er sammensat af førende videnskabsfolk rundt i verden.

»Dette er kun foreløbige dokumenter og langt fra den endelige version. Vi har flere end 31.000 dokumenter, som vi skal gennemgå«, siger IPCC’s næstformand, Jean Jouzel.

IPCC’s frygt er at de ikke kan diktere debattens præmisser. ‘Videnskaben’, som udtrykket så slidt lyder, IPCC’s rapporter bygger på er jo i forvejen alment kendt og allerede omgivet af debat. IPCC’s rapporter er ikke oplysende, men dikterer for mentalt svage sjæle fortolkningen. Det lækkede udkast kaster derfor lys over at rapportens redigeringsprocess er en politisk rævekage. Eller som Joanna Nova beskriver det.

What was the point of keeping the IPCC draft secret? The point is so the IPCC can control both the content and the PR. The IPCC wants a free kick, and they get one if the world doesn’t see how they arrive at the conclusion, and if critics can’t specifically point to errors or flaws until weeks after the giant press circus has done its megaphone production.

At rapporten er lækket til offentligheden er i sig selv et tegn på at klimacirkuset er ved at gå i opløsning. Manglende disciplin og stigende lede og tvivl breder sig i selve systemet.

Lidt klimavanvid

Diverse, Klima, miljø — Drokles on April 20, 2012 at 11:34 am

W A Beatty beskriver klimabevægelsen som en religion i American Thinker

It is no coincidence that man-made global warming, or climate change, or whatever it’s called this week, got very popular as an issue just as the Soviet Union fell. It is the top-down centralized government’s last best hope of controlling the masses. And like other forms of socialist totalitarian worldviews, it is a religion as well.

Man-made global warming is an earth-worshiping religion. The essential feature of any religion is that its pronouncements are to be accepted on faith, as opposed to hard evidence. And as with most religions, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance, and deceit.

Global warmists have an unshakable faith that man-made carbon emissions will produce a hotter climate, causing natural disasters. Their insistence that we can be absolutely certain that this will come to pass is based not on science, but on faith.

All the trappings of religion are here:

- Original sin: Mankind is responsible for the prophesied disasters, especially those of us who live in suburbs and drive our SUVs to strip malls and chain restaurants.

- The need for atonement and repentance: We must impose a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, which will raise the cost of everything and stunt economic growth.

- Rituals: We must observe Earth Day, and we must recycle.

- Indulgences: Private jet-fliers like Al Gore and sitcom heiress Laurie David can buy carbon offsets to compensate for their carbon-emitting sins.

- Prophecy and faith in things unseen: Advocates say we must act now before it is too late.

Og den franske filosof Pascal Bruckner tilføjer at den økologiske religion er en hedens religion uden en trancendent gud. Al vores teknologi udgør en trussel mod vores liv og helbred, fra traffikken henover mobiltelefoni til det vi spiser og er således beboet af onde onder.

News Busters har i anledning af Earth Day samlet en top 25 over underholdende udsagn om klimaet og skriver i deres indledning

This Sunday marks the 42nd anniversary of Earth Day and for 25 of those years the MRC has documented the liberal media’s role in advancing the left’s green agenda. From fretting about overpopulation to scaring viewers about global warming, for over 25 years the media have championed the capitalism-killing agenda of the modern environmentalist movement.

So sacrosanct the liberal media believes its mission to be, that they haven’t even bothered to hide their bias. CNN’s environmental editor Barbara Pyle, as quoted in the July 1990 issue of American Spectator, actually bragged: “I do have an axe to grind…I want to be the little subversive person in television.” Time magazine’s science editor Charles Alexander, at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference, confessed: “I would freely admit on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

That advocacy has been on full display as reporters and anchors have gone overboard in scaring their audience about the perils of our effect on the Earth, from overpopulation to global warming. In its January 2, 1989 “Planet of the Year” Time magazine’s editors warned: “Unless the growth in the world population is slowed, it will be impossible to make serious progression on any environmental issue.” Two years later, in an ad for its “Lost Tribes, Lost Knowledge” issue that appeared in the April 27, 1992 Sports Illustrated, Time magazine again warned: “Nature has a cure for everything, except the spread of Western civilization.”

Og et par eksempler

25. Billions of Lives At Risk

“Will Billions Die from Global Warming?”
— ABC’s on-screen graphic from the January 31, 2007 Good Morning America.

24. Who Needs Tanks, When You’ve Got the EPA?

“And yet, Congresswoman Schneider, in 1989, fiscal 1989 as we say in America, the Environmental Protection Agency got $5.1 billion dollars and the Defense Department got $290 billion dollars. What’s that tell us about our priorities?”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings on the September 12, 1989 Capital to Capital special “The Environment: Crisis In the Global Village.”

21. Someone Get the Statue of Liberty a Life Preserver Before She Floats Away!

Tom Brokaw: “About 10 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by ice, most of that in the polar regions. But if enough of that ice melts, the seas will rise dramatically and the results will be calamitous….If this worst-case scenario should occur, in the coming centuries New York could be abandoned, its famous landmarks lost to the sea.”
Dr. James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies: “Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami — they would all be under water.”
— From Brokaw’s two-hour Discovery Channel special, Global Warming: What You Need to Know, excerpt shown on the July 15, 2006 NBC Nightly News.

14. Earth Would Be Okay It Weren’t for Us Pesky Humans

“Ultimately, no problem may be more threatening to the Earth’s environment than the proliferation of the human species.”
— Anastasia Toufexis, “Overpopulation: Too Many Mouths,” article in Time’s special “Planet of the Year” edition, January 2, 1989.

Det er svært at forestille sig, men deres nr. 1 er faktisk velfortjent. Jeg vil supplere med et par eksempler fra den seneste tid uden rangorden. For eksempel skrev den tidligere brandmand fra Tennessee i Forbes at ha ikke kunne forstå at der i dagens verden endnu var skeptikere der gik og løj med alle interesse som indsats. Nogen burde stå til regnskab

Let’s take a page from those Tennessee firemen we heard about a few times last year – the ones who stood idly by as houses burned to the ground because their owners had refused to pay a measly $75 fee.

We can apply this same logic to climate change.

We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies.  Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay.  Let’s let their houses burn.  Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands.  Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.

They broke the climate.  Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?

Og vi venter så i spændning på at vi får vores klimaafgifter tilbage om godt ti år når vi sidder og ser tilbage på et kvart århundrede uden varme, men tværtimod med et lille fald i temperaturen. Indtil der går så lang tid skal vi høre lignende udfald i ABC News

One of the world’s most widely respected climatologists, James Hansen, director of NASA-GISS, which focuses on the study of earth’s climate for the space agency, testified to Congress in 2008 that the CEOs of fossil fuel companies (who, according to various professional reporting have been promoting this and other misleading messages about global warming in conjunction with ideological groups trying to prevent government regulation) “knew what they were doing” and, as stated in his written testimony to Congress in 2008, were guilty of “high crimes against humanity and nature.”

Hansen tells ABC News — in a phone call from the U.K. where he’s been traveling — that he used that highly charged phrase, crime against humanity, “not only for dramatic effect, but also because it is accurate, given the enormous scale of the consequences to humanity” if manmade global warming is not somehow stopped and reversed.

“It wasn’t only aimed at the fossil fuel CEOs,” Hansen added on the phone. “This also applies to politicians who pretend the global warming is not manmade.”


Hansen is not the first to have carefully decided to call the climate disinformation campaign “a crime against humanity.”

Journalist Ross Gelbspan, whose professional accomplishments include directing a Pulitzer-winning investigation at the Boston Globe before he turned his attention to global warming in  the 1990s, entitled a chapter in “Boiling Point,” his second book on the climate crisis, “Criminals Against Humanity.”

The “criminals” he was referring to were fossil fuel and other executives who he reported to be intentionally promoting confusion and disinformation campaigns about solid findings of climate scientists around the world.

Fra Quark Soup

“By adopting a ‘one-child’ policy since 1979, Chinese demographers estimate that about 300 million births have been avoided, equivalent to the present population of the United States. Even at the relatively low level of Chinese per capita carbon dioxode emissions, the effect of this population policy can be measured as an avoidance of about 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide being emitted annually to the global atmosphere. This represents a nominal reduction of about 5 per cent in global carbon emissions, a much greater reduction than has been achieved by all the measures of the Kyoto Protocol.”

– Mike Hulme, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Chapter 8

Og så skal Manu Sareen på banen for ifølge feminister i EU er klimaforandringerne kvindeundertrykkende, som Daily Mail rapporterer

A bizarre row has broken out among EU politicians over whether climate change is a feminist issue.

Members of the European Parliament will vote today on a report by a French Green party MEP who claims global warming ‘is not gender neutral’.

Women, claims Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, ‘consume more sustainably than men and show greater willingness to act to preserve the environment’ as they tend to organise household consumption and childcare.

She said that discrimination against women could be made worse in the developing world if climate policies do not take gender discrimination into account.

She was yesterday subjected to a withering attack from Marina Yannakoudakis, a Tory MEP for London, who called her motion ‘bonkers, baseless and bad for women’.

The report – Women and Climate Change – calls for a 40 per cent female quota on all EU delegations in climate negotiations and on the committees that allocate climate aid from member states. Funding is set to reach £62billion a year by 2020.

God weekend.

Den gode gamle klimadebat

miljø — Drokles on February 12, 2008 at 4:28 am

Selv om Klimadebatten lover verdens nært forestående undergang er den ikke ny. På Business & Media Institute er der en tankevækkende gennemgang af de sidste 100 års debat

In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”Recent global warming reports have continued that trend, morphing into a hybrid of both theories. News media that once touted the threat of “global warming” have moved on to the more flexible term “climate change.” As the Times described it, climate change can mean any major shift, making the earth cooler or warmer. In a March 30, 2006, piece on ExxonMobil’s approach to the environment, a reporter argued the firm’s chairman “has gone out of his way to soften Exxon’s public stance on climate change.”

The effect of the idea of “climate change” means that any major climate event can be blamed on global warming, supposedly driven by mankind.

Spring 2006 has been swamped with climate change hype in every type of media – books, newspapers, magazines, online, TV and even movies.

One-time presidential candidate Al Gore, a patron saint of the environmental movement, is releasing “An Inconvenient Truth” in book and movie form, warning, “Our ability to live is what is at stake.”

Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

“If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel,” Pelley asked, “am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” he said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog.

He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.

Pelley’s comments ignored an essential point: that 30 years ago, the media were certain about the prospect of a new ice age. And that is only the most recent example of how much journalists have changed their minds on this essential debate.

Måske er det derfor venstrefløjen er så store modstandere af historien da det berøver dem deres løgne eller måske er der bare brug for dommedagsprofetier med udgangspunkt i menneskets synden overfor guderne, men læs den hele.

Kendt løgner vinder Nobels Fredspris

miljø — Drokles on October 13, 2007 at 6:07 am

Den kendte og i nogen kredse elskede løgner Al Gore har vundet Nobels Fredpris for det nyreligiøse makværk En Ubekvem Sandhed. Det har ike just højnet anseelsen af de norske tranlamper, der skal gøre det ud for en estimeret komité. Fra 180 Grader’s leder

Bare der misinformeres i et “godt formål”, så må man gerne bedrive usaglig dommedagspropaganda, synes filosofien at være. Og så giver Al Gore ikke mindst publicity til Det norske Nobelprisinstitut, som direktøren, Geir Lundestad, udtrykte det på svensk tv: “En organisation giver ikke så meget publicity. Men kombinationen af international politik og en enkelt person er god, og det giver os en masse opmærksomhed.”

Den udtalelse ligner umiskendeligt en tilståelse.

Og Jyllands-Posten er ude i en tilsvarende kritik af fell-good stemningen i deres ellers usammenhængende leder

Den Norske Nobelkomité leverer ingen saglig begrundelse for, at FN’s Klimapanel skulle have gjort en særlig indsats for fred, lige så lidt som tilfældet er det med Al Gore.


Troværdigheden får det ikke bedre af, at High Court i London netop har afgjort, at ”En ubekvem sandhed” kun må bruges i undervisningsøjemed, hvis eleverne bliver gjort bekendt med ni graverende fejl, såsom at verdenshavene vil stige seks-syv meter »i den nærmeste fremtid«, hvis der ikke gribes ind over for klimaforandringerne.

Lederen gør sig store anstrengelser for at samle alle kritikpunkter af Al Gore og det er ikke troværdigt. Det er således ikke relevant at Gore sent har kastet sig over klimaproblematikken når man belønner ham for hans indsats de seneste par år som det heller ikke er interessant at han forurener når han flyver i sit privatfly når han belønnes for at ændre folks opfattelse. Ikke desto mindre….

Politikens leder er mere præcis og det bør ikke undre da de opfandt Bjørn Lomborg

SIDSTE ÅRS fredspris til den bengalske mikrokredit-ideolog Muhammed Yunus kunne lige så godt være tildelt inden for økonomi, ligesom Klimapanelet kunne have fået Nobels pris inden for kemi eller økonomi. Og Gore – ja, okay, der var måske ikke andre nobelkategorier til ham end netop de gode viljers pris.

Selv om de slår over i plat vrøvl og føleri

Men når nu verden er plaget af væbnede konflikter, som desperat råber på mægling, forsoning og modige løsningsforslag – husk bare Congo, Darfur, Tjetjenien, Somalia og alle Mellemøstens konflikter – så er det bedste perspektiv ved årets fredspris, at den minder om, at fælles vilje og fælles indsats kan skabe et godt grundlag for at løse fælles problemer. Og dermed løse konflikter og forebygge krig.

Værre står det til med Berlingske Tidende der har forelsket sig i gode intentioner

Det haster med at få aftaler i stand om en væsentlig reduktion af drivhusgasserne ikke mindst set i lyset af, at efterspørgslen efter fossile brændstoffer eksploderer med stigende velstand i Kina, Indien og mange andre, tidligere udviklingslande. Disse lande har ikke tænkt sig at holde deres udvikling tilbage. Det store spørgsmål er derfor, hvordan man forener kravene om øget vækst med en reduktion af brugen af de fossile brændstoffer. Og vel at mærke får aftalen cementeret på klimatopmødet i København i 2009 på en sådan måde, at kampen om råstofferne ikke bliver næste årtis største sikkerhedspolitiske udfordring.

Lomborgs råben på ny teknologi til løsning af Verdens energiproblemer frem for udsigtsløse begrænsninger overfor 2 mia. asiater drukner i den lallende jubel over intentionen om gode intentioner.

Mystisk bemærkning

68, Multikultur, Politik, Pressen, islam, miljø — Drokles on June 22, 2007 at 4:18 am

Jacob Ludvigsen var gæst i  P1 Samfundstanker og min søster gjorde mig opmærksom på, at der under interviewet kom en mere end almindelig mystisk bemærkning fra DR’s Ove Gibskov. For en småparanoid person, som mig virker den som et politisk bagholdsangreb, men jeg kan jo overfortolke. Ludvigsen blev bedt om sit syn på en eventuel stormoske i København og han svarer, at det først kan komme på tale når, der står en katedral i Mekka og så er det at Ove Gibskov siger

Jeg har lige fået bekræftet af islamforskeren Jørgen Bæk Simonsen, at der findes katedraler i adskillige muslimske lande, som Syrien, Jordan, Irak, Iran, Algeriet og Egypten.

Hvad mener Ove Gibskov med “Jeg har lige fået bekræftet“? Det er normalt noget man hører journalister sige når, der løber telegrammer ind i øresneglen. Har han forberedt interviewet med Ludvigsen med Simonson med på en telefonlinie for bedre at kunne modstå Ludvigsens tirader? Og kan man i så fald også forvente en Mikael Rothstein blive konfronteret med “Jeg har lige fået bekræftet af Tina Magaard at du er fuld af lort”?

Nok om det. Jeg kan anbefale interviewet med Jacob Ludvigsen. Det er ganske sjovt at høre en af stifterne af Christiania ende som en sur gammel mand. Selv om de sidste 10 minutter er et mindre forsvar for Christiania, hvad jeg jo ikke er så glad for, især når det lyder rimeligt fornuftigt, så langer Ludvigsen også ud efter den ucharmerende naivitet der regerer. Hans tanker om global opvarmning, rygning, FN, videnskab, moralisme er helt i Kuhns ånd.

Jeg synes, at jeg skimter et element af moderne pietisme, som nu skal knæsættes, som et globalt doktrin i retning af, at mennesket er en syndefuld skabning, der ved sit fordærvede legeme…levned er ved at køre kloden ud over afgrunden.

Det forekommer mig, at der er et meget kraftigt element af trossag i denne omsiggribende bevægelse, hvilket gør det susspekt, set ud fra mit synspunkt.


Vi skal ikke have et overforbrug, vi skal i det hele taget leve et pietetsfuldt liv i pagt med naturen.

Jeg er helt enig.Men det er nok først og fremmest hans harske udfald mod islam, hvor han bruger ord som islamofascisme, der vil interessere eventuelle læsere af denne blog. Han fejer frejdigt Gibskovs klicheindvendinger om at der også er kristne fundamentalister og at kvinder jo også i Danmark har gået med tørklæde (som var en beskyttelse mod fedt i håret) af bordet ved enten at spørge hvad vi skal bruge denne relativering til eller bare ikke gide høre på denne relativering. Det er forrygende fordi Gibskov jo ikke kan svare, hvorfor relativering skulle nytte. Der er jo ingen der på DR stiller spørgsmålstegn ved hele nytten af overførselsindkomster fordi man kan pege på hjemløse i Københavns gader. I den slags kan man sagtens finde principielle forskelle på systemer og bruge statistik. Hør ham for han er begge de to gamle mænd i Muppet Show, der har ret!


Med hensyn til klimaet, så har jeg lige set en artikel via Uriasposten om Al Gore’s håndtering af ubekvemme sandheder.

1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.


21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”


24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

Al Gore får sammen med Connie Hedegaard også et drag over nakken af Ludvigsen.

Tilfældet Bangladesh

Diverse, Ulande, islam, miljø — Sobieski on June 13, 2007 at 3:46 pm

En fremragende artikel fra Veritas Universalis om måske det værste sted på jorden.

Tilfældet Bangladesh er på mange måder håbløst. Man tvangsgifter små piger i en uhyggelig lav alder. 11 år er ikke ualmindeligt. Så slutter deres skolegang efter en tre-fire år, hvis de ellers overhovedet fik nogen. Kun halvdelen af alle børn i Bangladesh afslutter 5. klasse og det er drengene, der får de bedste tilbud. Hvert fjerde barn under 12 har et arbejde. Det skriver Red Barnet m.fl.

Pigerne er ikke ret gamle, når de får børn, de bliver gravide, så snart naturen tillader det. Lovgivningen forbyder piger og kvinder at købe prævention. Mænd bestemmer over kvinders krop. Halvdelen af alle piger mellem 15 og 19 er gift, skriver bla. Red Barnet i en anden artikel. Den modenhedsgrad, man har i så ung en alder, sætter ikke disse barnebrude i stand til at overføre viden til deres egne børn, for de har den ikke selv.

Og der er meget mere - læs den!!!

Tak til universalgeniet. Direkte link til artiklen.

Klima-idiot sætter nye standarder for vrøvl

Globalisering, miljø — Drokles on April 3, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Det er ikke nogen nyhed at høre idioti på DR men sjældent så massivt, som d.27. marts da Uffe Rasmussen fra Danmarks Naturfredningsforening på P1 Debat argumenterede for at det ødelagde klimaet at få børn i Danmark da Jorden var overbefolket. Danskerne udledte mere CO2 pr. indbygger end man gjorde i den 3. Verden og derfor var de Konservatives 3-barns-politik “komplet uansvarlig”.

“Man skal i hvert fald lade være med at stimulere folk til at få flere børn fordi jo flere børn man bliver i et land, jo flere børn man bliver på kloden jo sværere får man ved at sikre en bæredygtig udvikling!”

Selv om man i et land som Danmark netop ikke har problemer med befolkningstilvækst (hvis vi altså føder vores egne børn, forstås). Vi er rent faktisk netto-ekspotører af fødevarer.

“Det er meget vigtigt at man ikke udsender signal om, at det er bedre, at vi bliver flere her på Kloden…..Det er jo meningsløst hvis alle lande begynder at tale på samme måde som Danmark….Et øget befolkningstal gør det sværere at nå en bæredygtig klode og hvis man vil foregå Verden med et godt eksempel så skulle man lave en bæredygtig politik med et faldende befolkningstal.”

Hvis vi nu stopper helt med at eksistere så ville det faktisk være optimalt og mon ikke venstrefløjen er med på den idé, da det betyder dansk kulturs (der jo slet ikke eksisterer) undergang og hvilken lykke ville det ikke være? Samtidig så er danskerne grimme og kedelige med deres lyserøde hud så menneskeheden får en æstetisk bonus oveni.


Uffe Rasmussen citeres også for at have skrevet at “…magthaverne altid har vidst at jo større befolkningsgrundlag man havde jo flere soldater og produktion kunne man præstere” og afslører en plat marxistisk paranoia der hører en svunden tid til.

Han fortsætter med at bekymre sig over fødevareproduktionen i henhold til det areal der skal inddrives til landbrug. Det slipper han alt for let afsted med, da netop den teknologiske udvikling i Vesten har mere end fordoblet fødevareudbyttet af det eksisterende jordbrugsareal, noget man jo ikke evner i den overbefolkede del af Verden og aldrig selv finder ud af, da de knap magter at forstå det med støtte af en tusindtallig konsulenthær fra …TADA os her i Danmark. Ikke bar for de hjælp med at forstå landbrug, men også gode argumenter for ikke at sætte flere børn i verden end de selv kan brødføde, noget der falder på særdels gold jord og næppe vil blive mere forståeligt af, at man her i landet går foran med et eksempel.

Det religiøse kommer i mange former og her er arvesynden vulgariseret og iklædt videnskabelige floskler. Vi er i vores blotte eksistens syndere mod verden og driver dens undergang frem ved at sætte CO2 emmende børn i verden. Dine børn er en trussel Jorden. Husk at man kan nedsætte sin personlige udledning af drivhusgasser ved at skære ned på sit indtag af det miljøskadelige kål.

Afgifts-fordel på udånding

miljø — Drokles on March 19, 2007 at 9:16 am

DR var næsten ved at gå op i limningen af begestring i morgenens Radioavis da de kunne falsificere løgne-skurkene Bush, Lomborg og EU’s industri med nyheden om at CO-2 afgifterne havde en positiv virkning på økonomien. Og det er da gode nyheder. Nogen har fået den opfattelse at Monokultur, nok kun undertegnede, har haft den opfattelse at man bare skal svine alt det man vil, men det er ingenlunde holdningen. Jeg er bare dommedagsskeptiker (hvis Jorden skulle gå under vil jeg selvfølgelig stå med røde ører). Men kig en gang på begrundelsen. Fra DR

CO2-afgifter er gode for økonomien viser ny undersøgelse.

Med den udtalelse går en række forskere stik imod både Bjørn Lomborg, USA og EU’s industriministre.
Gamle myter aflives
Tidligere tiders mantra om, at vi ikke har råd til store afgifter på CO2, ser nu ud til at blive aflivet.


- Vi har kunnet vise nogle reelle dynamikker, som økonomer hidtil har glemt i deres teoretiske beregninger, siger Mikael skov Andersen, fra Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser.
Væksten er blevet skabt fordi, at da der blev indført CO2-afgifter,blev der også indført skattelettelser i forhold til ansatte.
Fordel flere steder
For virksomheder der har mange ansatte, men lavt energiforbrug har det betydet en pæn indtjening. I Danmark har det skabt en vækst på 0,3 - 0,4 procent.
Det er ikke kun Danmark der har mærket fordele af CO2 afgifterne. Fire andre EU-lande har også haft økonomisk

Den slutter rent faktisk midt i en sætning. Men hvad er der sket? Man har lagt afgifterne om, så de rammer hensigtsmæssigt, hvilket er godt, men det siger intet om miljøet. Man kunne også inføre afgifter på industriens øjebæ’er og lette
skatten på de ansatte.

Nuvel, miljøet er vigtigere end æstetikken, men man kender stadig ikke effekten af CO-2 som drivhusgas, der kun udgør en meget lille del af alle drivhusgasser. Men det er for mig at se vigtigere at gøre noget ved pesticider og kunstige hormoner og den slags.

For et par år siden havde jeg gentagne gange besøg af sære mennesker, der ville give mig pamfletter med frelsens skrift og plæderede for dommedags snarlige komme (de holdt op med at komme da jeg begyndte at rage på mig selv, mens jeg talte til dem) og nu har jeg på fornemmelsen at FN har overtaget deres plads.

Her er rimeligt varmt

miljø — Drokles on March 18, 2007 at 5:35 am

Fra Politiken 

Hvad er fremtidsscenariet da? Der er ingen tvivl om, at mennesket har påvirket Jorden i en høj grad, som sandsynligvis vil påvirke klimabalancen i en eller anden retning. Set i relation til de enorme naturlige udsving, som vores klode kan fremføre helt uden vores hjælp, er det dog bemærkelsesværdigt, at det er CO2-udledningen, der får stort set al skylden for de klima- og vandstandsvariationer, vi ser i disse år, og at det fortsat kun er konsekvenserne af en global opvarmning, der tages politiske hensyn til. Specielt når den mest sandsynlige udvikling er, at starten på den næste istid er lige om hjørnet.


Global naragtighed

Politik, miljø — Drokles on March 17, 2007 at 7:42 am

Der siges meget om den globale opvarmning og jeg er ved Gud ingen ekspert. Men det er slående hvor meget hysteri der omgærer fænomenet og når folk bliver hysteriske er man bedst tjent med at slå koldt vand i blodet. Der er andet at gøre end at gå i panik. Nu er der nogle forskere der sår tvivl om præmissen for udregningerne af den globale opvarmning. Det er ganske alvorligt hvis man ikke ved om der er en opvarmning når de fleste allerede gør sig tanker om hvad opvarmningen skyldes. Fra Berlingske Tidende

Forskerne går endda så vidt som til at hævde, at en størrelse som en global gennemsnitstemperatur giver lige så god mening som en udregning af det gennemsnitlige telefonnummer i telefonbogen. Den globale gennemsnitstemperatur beregnes typisk ved at indsamle temperaturmålinger fra tusindvis af målestationer verden over. Derefter graduerer man målingerne, så de hver for sig dækker et bestemt areal, lægger alle målingerne sammen for til sidst at dividere med antallet.

Men ifølge de tre forskere giver den slags gennemsnit ingen mening for intensiteter som temperatur, kun for ting man rent faktisk kan lægge sammen som masse eller volumen. Og man kunne med nøjagtig lige så god (eller dårlig) ret have anvendt andre beregningsmetoder - herunder metoder, der tager hensyn til den såkaldt termodynamiske lov - som ville have givet helt andre resultater.

»Der er ikke fremført fysiske argumenter for, hvorfor den ene beregningsmetode skulle være bedre end den anden, og det prekære opstår på den måde, at hvis man havde valgt en anden måde at udføre gennemsnitsberegning på, så havde det pludselig set ud som om, det hele blev køligere - som et temperaturfald,« forklarer han.

Så vil nogen sikkert argumentere med at man altid kan finde forskere der er uenige, som dem, der betalt af tobaksindustrien hævdede, at det ligefrem var sundt at ryge cigaretter. Og det er da også rigtigt. Med lægmands brug af løsrevne artikler går der let sensationalisme i den men her fra en anden løsrevet artikel i samme avis som Sofakongen venligt henledte min opmærksomhed på

Ifølge tidsskriftet New Scientist ønskede flertallet af de ca. 350 klimaforskere at halvere IPCCs tidligere estimat for den maksimale indflydelse fra Solen på de seneste 250 års opvarmning fra 40 til 20 procent. Men især på grund af Henrik Svensmarks seneste forskningsresultater modsatte udsendinge fra Kina og Saudi-Arabien sig en sådan reduktion. Diskussionen var passioneret, og den varede i hele ti timer.

Man stemmer altså om resultaterne fordi Kina og fatalisterne fra Saudiarabien mente noget andet. Jeg er klar over at de to nævnte stater har en interesse i at underspille menneskets påvirkning af miljøet gennem drivhusgasser men særlig videnskabelig er den arbejdsgang ikke.

Husk at hver gang man slår en prut udleder man drivhusgasser. Derfor mener jeg at kål skal belægges med grønne afgifter!

Det globale hysteri

Globalisering, miljø — Drokles on March 13, 2007 at 6:56 am

På bloggen Observant kan man se en interessant Channel 4 dokumentar om den globale opvarmning. Den ramer en solid pæl gennem den fremherskende forestilling om menneskets (den hvide mands) skyld i højere badevandstemperaturer.

Mest interessant er dokumentarens beskrivelse af den politiske bevægelse der udgør en hel industri, med tusindvis af mennesker der lever af fortællingen om dommedag.

« Previous Page

Monokultur kører på WordPress