Nogle foreløbige reaktioner på IPCC’s tilbagetog

Akademia, Diverse, FN, Grøn energi, IPCC, Klima, Pressen, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 18, 2013 at 11:56 am

FN’s klimapanel IPCC barsler med en ny rapport, der skal tjene beslutningstagere over hele verden, som en vejledning i hvilken trussel menneskeheden står overfor og subsidiært hvorledes vi kan beskattes for at kunne beskyttes. Men 17 år uden global opvarmning, uden mere ekstremt vejr og uden en eneste klimaflygtning har sået tvivl i de ellers ubetvivlelige konklusioner. Ross McKitrick skriver i Financial Post

Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.


The figure nearby is from the draft version that underwent expert review last winter. It compares climate model simulations of the global average temperature to observations over the post-1990 interval. During this time atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 12%, from 355 parts per million (ppm) to 396 ppm. The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

Chapter 9 of the IPCC draft also shows that overestimation of warming was observed on even longer time scales in data collected by weather satellites and weather balloons over the tropics. Because of its dominant role in planetary energy and precipitation patterns, models have to get the tropical region right if they are credibly to simulate the global climate system. Based on all climate models used by the IPCC, this region of the atmosphere (specifically the tropical mid-troposphere) should exhibit the most rapid greenhouse warming anywhere. Yet most data sets show virtually no temperature change for over 30 years.


To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.

Roy Spencer siger på sin blog

For the last 10-20 years or more, a few of us have been saying that the IPCC has been ignoring the elephant in the room…that the real climate system is simply not as sensitive to CO2 emissions as they claim. Of course, the lower the climate sensitivity, the less of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.

This elephant has had to be ignored at all costs. What, the globe isn’t warming from manmade CO2 as fast as we predicted? Then it must be manmade aerosols cooling things off. Or the warming is causing the deep ocean to heat up by hundredths or thousandths of a degree. Any reason except reduced climate sensitivity, because low climate sensitivity might mean we really don’t have to worry about global warming after all.

And, if that’s the case, the less relevant the IPCC becomes. Not good if your entire professional career has been invested in the IPCC.

But forecasting the future state of the climate system was always a risky business. The Danish physicist, Niels Bohr, was correct: “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”

Unlike daily forecasts made by meteorologists, the advantage to climate prognosticators of multi-decadal forecasts is that few people will remember how wrong you were when your forecast finally goes bust.

Yet, here we are, with over 20 years of forecasts from the early days of climate modelling, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost.

I’m sure the politicians believed we would have had new energy policies in place by now, in which case they could have (disingenuously) claimed their policies were responsible for global warming “ending”. Not likely, since atmospheric CO2 continues to increase, and even by the most optimistic estimates renewable energy won’t amount to more than 15% of global energy generation in the coming decades.

But it’s been nearly 20 years since Al Gore privately blamed us (now, the UAH satellite temperature dataset) for the failure of his earliest attempt at CO2 legislation. Multiple attempts at carbon legislation have failed. The lack of understanding of basic economic principles on the part of politicians and scientists alike led to the unrealistic expectation that humanity would allow the lifeblood of the global economy — inexpensive energy — to be restricted.

Tyske Fritz Vahrenholt siger i et interview med bloggen No Tricks Zone

It’s now obvious that the IPCC models are not correctly reflecting the development of atmospheric temperatures. What‘s false? Reality or the models? The hackneyed explanation of a deep sea warming below 700 meters hasn’t been substantiated up to now. How does atmospheric warming from a climate gas jump 700 meters deep into the ocean? If you consider the uncertainties in the Earth’s radiation budget measurements at the top of the atmosphere, and those of the temperature changes at water depths below 700 meters, where we are talking about changes of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over many years, such a “missing heat” cannot be ascertained today. The likelihood is that there is no “missing heat”. Slight changes in cloud cover could easily account for a similar effect. That would mean the end of the alarmist CO2 theory. Perhaps this is why we’ve been hearing speculation about the deep ocean.  On the other hand, perhaps this discussion tells us that the alarmist faction needs to deal more with oceanic cycles. It is possible that this is a step in recognizing the central impacts of the PDO and AMO on our climate.

NTZ: Hans von Storch confirms that 98% of the climate models have been wrong so far. Do you think the directors of world’s leading climate research institutes risk damaging the once sterling reputations of their institutes if they do not soon admit there’s a problem with climate science?

FV: They certainly find themselves in a serious jam. That‘s why they are now trying to gain time by claiming that the models first become falsified if there has been no warming over a period of 30 years – never mind that the warming of 1977 to 1998 was only 22 years and deemed to be long enough to “prove“ the CO2 theory. A few years ago climate scientist Ben Santer said only 17 years were necessary before we could talk about a real climate trend. Now that reality is pulling the rug from under models, some scientists are having misgivings. Some are praying for an El Nino year, which would allow them to beat the drums of fear again. They’ll hype up every single weather effect to get attention.

NTZ: Some prominent climate experts have been expressing second thoughts about the seriousness of man-made climate change, e.g. Hans von Storch, Lennart Bengtsson. Do you expect more scientists to follow as more data come in?

FV: Certainly. That’s what’s so fascinating about science. It proposes theories. And when they don’t fit reality, they get changed. The chaff gets separated from the wheat.

NTZ: Spiegel for example has been publishing some articles critical of alarmist climate science. Do you expect the rest of Germany’s media to soon follow and to start taking a more critical look?

FV: This process is fully under way. But it’s going to take a long time because an entire generation has been convinced that CO2 is a climate killer. But the shrill tones have been quieting down.

NTZ: What danger does Germany face should it continue down its current path of climate alarmism and rush into renewable energies?

FV: Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.

Worse, it’s a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.

It is truly outrageous that 1) 40% of the world’s photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska, 2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and 3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.

On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don’t even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we “sell” surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.

The agitators in climate science here in Germany have done us no favors. Renewable energies do have a big future, but not like this. It’s been a run-away train and it’s too expensive. We are putting Germany’s industry in jeopardy. In reality there really isn’t any urgency because the solar cycles and nature are giving us time to make the transition over to renewable energies in a sensible way.

NTZ: Has the weather become more extreme? Why are we getting bombarded by scary reports from the media – even after a normal thunderstorm with hail?

FV: Extreme weather is the only card they have left to play. We see that Arctic sea ice extent is the highest since 2007. At the South Pole sea ice is at the highest extent in a very long time, hurricanes have not become more frequent, the same is true with tornadoes, sea level is rising at 2-3 mm per year and there’s been no change in the rate, and global temperature has been stagnant for 15 years. Indeed we are exposed to bad weather. And when one is presented with a simplistic explanation, i.e. it’s man’s fault, it gladly gets accepted. CO2 does have a warming effect on the planet. However, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. The climate impact of CO2 is less than the half of what the climate alarmists claim. That’s why in our book, The Neglected Sun, we are saying there is not going to be any climate catastrophe.

NTZ: What do you expect from the soon-to-be-released IPCC 5th Assessment Report?

FV: It is truly remarkable that some countries are urging IPCC 5AR authors to address the reasons for the temperature hiatus in the summary for policymakers. Dissatisfaction with the IPCC’s tunnel vision is growing. But let’s not kid ourselves: In the coming days and weeks the media are not going to be able to refrain from the IPCC catastrophe-hype. However, what will be different from the previous four reports is that the hype will die off much more quickly. Those who ignore nature and its fluctuations will end up on the sidelines soon enough. I think this is going to be the last report of this kind.

Og Roger Pielke Jr. kommer med en venlig opsang til

More seriously, rather than engaging in proxy wars over media reporting and the short-term PR spin associated with it — which may in fact just make things worse — it would be in the long-term interests of the climate science community to take a step back and consider the role of their spokespeople (official or otherwise) in aiding and abetting the skeptics, deniers and other nefarious evil-doers.

A difficult question for the climate science community is, how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field?

Joanna Nova tror ikke at klimamiljøet tager imod sådanne gode råd og minder i stedet om at  ”They offer no credit to those who were right”

We are over the peak. Years late, the IPCC concedes some territory and wears headlines they must hate (“Global warming is just HALF what we said“, “We got it wrong on warming“), but PR still rules, and in the big game, this will quickly spin to a minor bump. It’s a classic technique to release “the bad news” before the main report, to clear the air for the messages the agents want to stick.

Since 2007 they’ve burned through their credibility in so many ways:  think Climategate, and getting caught pretending activist material was science, being busted for 300-year-typos like the Himalayan Glaciers, plus 15 years of no warming, no hot spot, models being wrong, droughts ending, and ice returning, all the while pouring scorn and derision on anyone who questioned them. The IPCC were being hammered and they had to change tacks. Now, for the first time, the IPCC is making a serious retreat, presumably in the hope of being able to still paint itself as “scientific” and to fight from a different trench. Anything to continue the yearly junkets and to save face. What they hope is that no one will notice that the deniers were right and the experts were wrong, and the “government panel” has helped governments waste billions of your dollars.

They were 90% certain in 2007, which was never a scientific probability, but a hands-up vote. Now, in the most meaningless of ways, they are 95% certain of something more vague: the range has gone from 2°C to 4.5°C, to 1°C to 6°C. (See Matt Ridley in the Wall St Journal). They just made the barn door even wider. In years to come this allows them more room to pretend they hit the target, without acknowledging that they missed it for 23 years. And even that new supersize barn door may still not be wide enough.

Og nu Joanna Nova anbefaler Matt Riddley, der kalder bortforklaringerne af den manglende varme for “a cottage industry in climate science“, i Wall Street Journal

A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: “transient climate response” (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is “likely” to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and “extremely unlikely” to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 (”very likely” warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Og han fortsætter

Yet these latest IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity may still be too high. They don’t adequately reflect the latest rash of published papers estimating “equilibrium climate sensitivity” and “transient climate response” on the basis of observations, most of which are pointing to an even milder warming. This was already apparent last year with two papers—by scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway—finding a lower ECS than assumed by the models. Since then, three new papers conclude that ECS is well below the range assumed in the models. The most significant of these, published in Nature Geoscience by a team including 14 lead authors of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report, concluded that “the most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 degrees Celsius.”

Two recent papers (one in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, the other in the journal Earth System Dynamics) estimate that TCR is probably around 1.65 degrees Celsius. That’s uncannily close to the estimate of 1.67 degrees reached in 1938 by Guy Callendar, a British engineer and pioneer student of the greenhouse effect. A Canadian mathematician and blogger named Steve McIntyre has pointed out that Callendar’s model does a better job of forecasting the temperature of the world between 1938 and now than do modern models that “hindcast” the same data.

The significance of this is that Callendar assumed that carbon dioxide acts alone, whereas the modern models all assume that its effect is amplified by water vapor. There is not much doubt about the amount of warming that carbon dioxide can cause. There is much more doubt about whether net amplification by water vapor happens in practice or is offset by precipitation and a cooling effect of clouds.

Forleden sagde Connie Hedegaard at selv om videnskaben skulle være forkert er politikken stadig rigtig. Selv om patienten alligevel ikke var syg var det rigtigt at operere? Selv om den anklagede alligevel var uskyldig…. Mon ikke absurditeten i at underkende præmissen for en beslutning vil fremstå mere tydelig for selv de definerende klasser de kommende år?

Connie Hedegaard er en vandmelon

Diverse, FN, Klima, Politik, Pressen, Vandmelon, Videnskab, miljø, venstrefløjen, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on September 17, 2013 at 10:01 am

Vandmeloner er grønne udenpå og røde indeni. Connie Hedegaard er sådan en vandmelon, der bruger bekymring for miljøet som en løftestang for at føre socialistisk politik. Presset af virkeligheden, som klimaindustien mærker med især Daily Mail’s stort opsatte artikler om den manglende varme, har klimapanelet nedsat forventningerne til Jordens undergang og indrømmer nu manglende ufejlbarlighed. Daily Mail skriver

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.

They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.

Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment,  published in 2007.

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

Ifølge Telegraph fortryder Connie Hedegaard intet i lyset af at hun muligvis har taget helt fejl. For intentionen har altid været en anden

“Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.”

“I think we have to realise that in the world of the 21st century for us to have the cheapest possible energy is not the answer.”

“I believe that in a world with still more people, wanting still more growth for good reasons, the demand for energy, raw materials and resources will increase and so, over time so, over time, will the prices,” she said.

The Danish commissioner also rejected public complaints over increases in electricity prices to subsidise renewable energies, such as wind farms, as unrealistic because, she said, increased competition over diminishing energy resources such as oil and gas will lead to higher bills.

Hedegaard er langt fra den eneste vandmelon, som Forbes giver nogle eksempler på

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal:We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.

Ak ja, det totalitære og det religiøse er et iboende træk i mennesket.

3 alternative forklaringer på borgerkrigen i Syrien

Vi starter  med den tidsmæssigt mest nære forklaring. En tørke skabt af globale klimaforandringer har forskubbet Syrien delikate sociale og politiske balancer, skriver Peter Sinclair for Climate Crocks

On September 2, The Atlantic published portions of a memorandum by William Polk, a former State Department policy planner, on the situation in Syria. The memorandum is long and detailed, but there is a section of particular relevance to those concerned about climate change and its effects.

Syria has been convulsed by civil war since climate change came to Syria with a vengeance. Drought devastated the country from 2006 to 2011.  Rainfall in most of the country fell below eight inches (20 cm) a year, the absolute minimum needed to sustain un-irrigated farming. Desperate for water, farmers began to tap aquifers with tens of thousands of new well.  But, as they did, the water table quickly dropped to a level below which their pumps could lift it.

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Commodity Intelligence Report, May 9, 2008

In some areas, all agriculture ceased.  In others crop failures reached 75%.  And generally as much as 85% of livestock died of thirst or hunger.  Hundreds of thousands  of Syria’s farmers gave up, abandoned their farms and fled to the cities and towns in search of almost non-existent jobs and severely short food supplies.  Outside observers including UN experts estimated that between 2 and 3  million of Syria’s 10 million rural inhabitants were reduced to “extreme poverty.”

The domestic Syrian refugees immediately found that they had to compete not only with one another for scarce food, water and jobs, but also with the already existing foreign refugee population.  Syria already was a refuge for quarter of a million Palestinians and about a hundred thousand people who had fled the war and occupation of Iraq.  Formerly prosperous farmers were lucky to get jobs as hawkers or street sweepers.  And in the desperation of the times, hostilities erupted among groups that were competing just to survive.

Survival was the key issue.  The senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) representative in Syria turned to the USAID program for help. Terming the situation “a perfect storm,” in November 2008, he warned  that Syria faced “social destruction.” He noted that the Syrian Minister of Agriculture had “stated publicly that [the]  economic and social fallout from the drought was ‘beyond our capacity as a country to deal with.’”  But, his appeal fell on deaf ears:  the USAID director commented that “we question whether limited USG resources should be directed toward this appeal at this time.”  (reported on November 26, 2008 in cable 08DAMASCUS847_a to Washington and “leaked” to Wikileaks )

Whether or not this was a wise decision, we now know that the Syrian government made the situation much worse by its next action. Lured by the high price of wheat on the world market, it sold its reserves. In 2006, according to the US Department of Agriculture, it sold 1,500,000 metric tons or twice as much as in the previous year.  The next year it had little left to export; in 2008 and for the rest of the drought years it had to import enough wheat to keep its citizens alive.

So tens of thousands of frightened, angry, hungry and impoverished former farmers flooded constituted a “tinder” that was ready to catch fire.  The spark was struck on March 15, 2011  when a relatively small group gathered in the town of Daraa to protest against government failure to help them.  Instead of meeting with the protestors and at least hearing their complaints, the government cracked down on them as subversives.  The Assads, who had ruled the country since 1971,  were not known for political openness or popular sensitivity.   And their action backfired.  Riots broke out all over the country,  As they did, the Assads attempted to quell them with military force.  They failed to do so and, as outside help – money from the Gulf states and Muslim “freedom fighters” from  the rest of the world – poured into the country, the government lost control over 30% of the country’s rural areas and perhaps half of its population.  By the spring of 2013, according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), upwards of 100,000 people had been killed in the fighting, perhaps 2 million have lost their homes and upwards of 2 million have fled abroad.  Additionally, vast amounts of infrastructure, virtually whole cities like Aleppo, have been destroyed.

Despite these tragic losses, the war is now thought to be stalemated: the government cannot be destroyed and the rebels cannot be defeated.  The reasons are not only military: they are partly economic– there is little to which the rebels could return;  partly political – the government has managed to retain the loyalty of a large part of the majority Muslim community which comprises the bulk of its army and civil service whereas the rebels, as I have mentioned, are fractured into many mutually hostile groups;  and partly administrative  – by and large the government’s  structure has held together and functions satisfactorily whereas the rebels have no single government.

One of my greatest concerns for the short to medium term impacts of climate change is the effects that extreme events will have on fragile governments in unstable areas of the world. Climate change did not create the fundamental instability in countries like Syria, and Pakistan – colonialism, religion, and tribal animosities have a long legacy in those countries, and arguably, the paranoid dictatorial regimes in those areas are a rational response to the forces that would otherwise split these countries apart.

Climate change, however, is adding a new dynamic to the game. This is why the US military has identified climate change as a “threat multiplier”.

Går vi lidt længere tilbage i tid finder vi, at det var Sovjetunionens rænkespil helt op til den manipulerende Gorbachov, der lystigt busede på for at få lidt god gedigen jødehad spredt i Mellemøsten og designede intifadaer og flyterror, som man kan læse på Tablet

Stroilov’s book about these documents, many only now translated into English, challenges the conventional wisdom that Western colonialists are to blame for the chaos in the region. All of its major conflicts, he argues, were caused by Soviet expansionism. Terrorism and the rabid anti-Israeli animus of the Arab world were Soviet inspirations. And the revolutions we are seeing now were inevitable, for the Soviet client states were socialist regimes, and sooner or later socialism exhausts economies and thus the patience of the people who live in them.


,,,Gorbachev thereafter kept it in mind that turning Egypt away from the United States might be feasible. Meanwhile, he worked strenuously to unite the Red Arabs with the aim of expelling the United States completely from the region. In page upon page of these transcripts, we see him striving toward this goal, particularly in his meetings with Hafez Assad:

GORBACHEV. […] The Soviet Union, given the capabilities it has, is also prepared to contribute to the unification of the Arab ranks. Of course, our enemies won’t miss the opportunity to present our honest efforts as “Moscow’s conspiracy,” so we should act accurately and carefully. In any case, you can count on our support. [...] A success of this cause would be a great historic victory with tremendous consequences.

In 1986, as the series of Politburo memos shows, the Syrians proudly reported that they had destroyed the prospect of peace between Israel and Jordan, “wrecked” cooperation between Jordan and the Palestinians, and “effectively blocked” President Ronald Reagan’s peace plan. Gorbachev encouraged them to continue their efforts, lauding Syria’s defense of the “progressive” forces of the Middle East. Gorbachev could rightly claim credit for undermining any prospects for regional peace in the 1980s.

Men kommunister og klimaforandringer har blot løbet åbne døre ind, hvis vi skal tro Assads farfar ifølge Elder of Ziyon

4. The spirit of fanaticism and narrow-mindedness, whose roots are deep in the heart of the Arab Muslims toward all those who are not Muslim, is the spirit that continually feeds the Islamic religion, and therefore there is no hope that the situation will change. If the Mandate is cancelled, the danger of death and destruction will be a threat upon the minorities in Syria, even if the cancellation [of the Mandate] will decree freedom of thought and freedom of religion. Why, even today we see how the Muslim residents of Damascus force the Jews who live under their auspices to sign a document in which they are forbidden to send food to their Jewish brothers who are suffering from the disaster in Palestine [in the days of the great Arab rebellion], the situation of the Jews in Palestine being the strongest and most concrete proof of the importance of the religious problem among the Muslim Arabs toward anyone who does not belong to Islam. Those good Jews, who have brought to the Muslim Arabs civilization and peace, and have spread wealth and prosperity to the land of Palestine, have not hurt anyone and have not taken anything by force, and nevertheless the Muslims have declared holy war against them and have not hesitated to slaughter their children and their women despite the fact that England is in Palestine and France is in Syria. Therefore a black future awaits the Jews and the other minorities if the Mandate is cancelled and Muslim Syria is unified with Muslim Palestine. This union is the ultimate goal of the Muslim Arabs.

Ja, mon ikke. Arabere er, hvad arabere er.

Intet klimakonsensus

Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on September 6, 2013 at 1:28 am

Man hører meget om enighed i klimadebatten, konsensus kalder man det med et ord lånt fra den politiske verden, hvor man forhandler sig til et mindeligt resultat. Som ved en finanslov - eller en samarbejdspolitik.

Dr Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”

Ja, konsensus er ikke et videnskabeligt ord og de der har taget det i deres mund har ikke vidst hvad videnskab er. Og mange har taget det i deres mund fra klimapampere tilknyttet FN, henover politikere til journalister. Og de har især været glade for at sætte et tal på, nemlig 97%. 97% konsensus om at verden snart vil drukne i kogende vand, 97% konsensus om at flere skatter og afgifter giver et bedre vejr, 97% konsensus om at mennesket kun kan reddes ved at afvikle det frie valg.  De 97% konsensus stammer fra en aldeles uvidenskabelig undersøgelse, hvis pinlighed kun overgås af følgagtigheden.

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.

Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.

“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

The figures have indeed been cooked.

Mediernes klima

Akademia, Diverse, Klima, Pressen — Drokles on July 26, 2013 at 4:51 am

I september 2009 udkom bogen Climate Cover Up forfattet af James Hoggan og Richard Littemore, kun to måneder før afsløringen af Climategate. Bogen søger at beskrive en industrielt financieret og orkestreret krig mod klimavidenskaben med splid og dårlige beslutninger for øje. Således blev den omtalt på Desmogblog

Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industry’s own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation.

The success of those plans is self-evident. A Yale/George Mason University poll taken late in 2008 showed that — 20 years after President George H.W. Bush promised to beat the greenhouse effect with the “White House effect” — a clear majority of Americans still say they either doubt the science of climate change or they just don’t know. Climate Cover-Up explains why they don’t know. Tracking the global warming denial movement from its inception, public relations advisor James Hoggan (working with journalist Richard Littlemore), reveals the details of those early plans and then tracks their execution, naming names and exposing tactics in what has become a full-blown attack on the integrity of the public conversation.

Leveraging four years of original research conducted through Hoggan’s website,, Hoggan and Littlemore documented the participation of lapsed scientists and ExxonMobil-funded think tanks. Then they analyzed and explained how mainstream media stood by — or in some cases colluded — while deniers turned a clear issue of science (and an issue for public safety) into a partisan argument that no one could win.

This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end the Climate Cover-up.

Hvordan er det så gået med denne misinformationskampagne? Ikke så godt ifølge denne overskrift i Wall Street Journalsom nok skulle sende Climate Cover Ups forfattere roligt i seng: “Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming All 92 Times

Recent years’ slowdown in global warming completely ignored by networks 92 climate change stories in 2013.

Stories citing experts or the latest studies promoting alarmism get covered more than 8 times as often as critical experts and studies.

Although many scientists say no, ABC, CBS and NBC continue to link weather events like tornadoes, hurricanes, heat waves and more to climate change nearly one-fourth of the time.

President Barack Obama’s new climate change initiative will purportedly share “a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change and lead global efforts to fight it.” Although he intends to demand action, most Americans do not see climate change as a “major threat,” according to Pew Research.

The Washington Post reported Obama will include “a plan to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from existing power plants.” That’s an agenda item the media will love. It was just a month ago when CBS “This Morning” interviewed Time magazine senior writer Jeffrey Kluger on May 11 who said “we have to curb the use of fossil fuels.”

No doubt the broadcast networks will cheer the president’s efforts, since they’ve spent years warning of the threat of climate change, even in the face of science that challenges their view. This year they’ve worried about many things including “raging infernos, surging seas, howling winds,” reported alarmist claims that weren’t accurate and connected weather to climate when scientists disagree. The networks have also completely ignored the “lull” in warming in recent years, in all 92 stories about climate change they reported in 2013.

Skeptisk oplysning er indtil videre henvist til avisernes kommentatorer og blogs, men der vinder de også stadigt mere frem som FN’s Klimapanels spådomme tager sig stadigt mere pinlige ud.

Jeg har taget alle uddragne af anmeldelserne af Climate Cover Up med thi man ved jo ikke, hvor længe man vil vedstå sig dem. Og så er de også ganske morsomme.

David Suzuki

Climate Cover-Up documents one of the most disgusting stories ever hidden about corporate disinformation. What you’ll discover in this book amounts to proof of an intergenerational crime.”
DAVID SUZUKI, Author of The Sacred Balance and Good News for a Change.

Leonardo Dicaprio

“This book explains how the propaganda generated by self-interest groups has purposely created confusion about climate change. It’s an imperative read for a successful future.”
LEONARDO DICAPRIO, Actor and Producer

Neve Campbell

“To those of us who have been unknowingly made to turn a blind eye to the terrifying and true facts about global warming, there’s no time left for ignorance. Please read this shocking and incredible book, learn how we’ve been manipulated, get angry and take action.”
NEVE CAMPBELL, Actor and Producer

Lester Brown

“A clear and courageous battle cry against those who, for profit’s sake, would lead us to environmental and, ultimately, economic ruin.”
LESTER BROWN, Author of Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization

James E. Hansen

“An exposé of planetary scale.”
JAMES E. HANSEN, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

“Forget about the crime of the century – this probably qualifies as the crime of the geological epoch.”
BILL MCKIBBEN, Author of Deep Economy and The End of Nature

“A compelling, sometimes chilling explanation of how public safety has been sacrificed on the altar of private interest.”
CHRIS MOONEY, Author of The Republican War on Science

“Absolutely superb – one of the best dissections of the climate misinformation I have ever seen. This is one terrific piece of work!”
ROSS GELBSPAN, Author of The Heat Is On

“Through impeccably document analysis, Climate Cover-Up exposes the well-oiled propaganda campaign designed to manufacture dissent and uncertainty about the science of global warming. It is essential reading for anyone who cares about the future of democracy.”
ANDREW WEAVER, Author of Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World

“An important and disturbing book about the lies and corrupt language that government and industry still employ to dismiss the facts on global warming.”
ANDREW NIKIFORUK, Author of Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent

Climate Cover-Up reveals how strategic corporate public relations, an unwitting media, and feckless scientists have created a rhetoric-driven public conversation that defies logic and reason. If you are interested in positive social change on climate issues, this book is a must-read.”
FRANKLIN D. GILLIAM JR, Dean, School of Public Affairs and Professor of Public Policy and Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles

“Jim Hoggan in this essential book illuminates our folly, even as he points a way forward with hope.”
WADE DAVIS, Author of The Serpent and the Rainbow

Climate Cover-Up clears the way for a new era of honesty and climate progress.”
TZEPORAH BERMAN, Campaign Director and Founder, Forest Ethics

“If you want the full, detailed story of the manufactured opposition to climate science and climate action, look no further than James Hoggan’s comprehensive and compelling Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (Greystone, 2009). It’s the real story on climate change and the media, with footnotes.”
ALEX STEFFEN, World Changing

“Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a remarkable deconstruction of what he argues is a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign whose goal is to set the agenda in climate policy by discrediting legitimate science and manipulating public perceptions of the scientific evidence…I have no doubt that Climate Cover-up is going to stir up controversy, particularly in the United States where many of these strategies were deployed and fine-tuned.”
STEPHEN HUME, Vancouver Sun

“Climate Cover-Up should be as big and influential as the Hidden Persuaders was; it exposes how truth gets twisted, how lies become opinions worthy of editorial pages, how Exxon greases the whole process.”
LLOYD ALTER, Tree Hugger

“Hoggan’s must-read book describes in disturbing detail the well-oiled campaign to confuse the public and confound the science, creating enough doubt to thwart meaningful action and protect a world economic order built around the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas.”

“This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end the Climate Cover-up.”

“Hoggan’s book is a thoughtful and sustained exposure of a movement which has done great harm. I read it with close interest and shared his dismay. I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand how denial has had such a charmed run. His presentation is painstaking and reasonable. There’s nothing shrill about it, and his justifiable anger is relatively muted.”
CELSIAS, Clean Techies

““The writing is a well-researched investigation into the continuing fabrication of the defence of Climate Change “scepticism”, which amounts to a long narrative of invention, first of outright denial of the science of Global Warming, then of foot-dragging delay being urged on all Governments.”
Jo Abbess

“Climate Cover-Up is an example of anger channeled into real, sharp, relevant and useful work.”

“Climate Cover-Up is an indispensable guidebook to anyone concerned about our planet’s climate future; in fact, it should be required reading for all American citizens, journalists, public policy makers — and President Barack Obama.”
JEFF BIGGERS, Huffington Post

“James Hoggan’s new book Climate Cover-Up (Greystone Books) is a must-read for anyone concerned about the biggest, most pervasive effort ever at manipulating the media by some of the world’s largest and most powerful corporations.”

“Hoggan and Littlemore have produced a cracking book that, while it may not actually fix anything in itself, provides a valuable lesson about a noxious set of practices — practices that still persist, but which now can be better understood and suitably dealt with. Use this as an ideal primer in the world of Climate Change Denial, but choose your own actions: it’s your world.”
KEITH, Unsuitablog

“In brief, this is a must-read book. I’ve read a lot of climate/energy books over the past couple of years (trying to glean how to get the message across to the public); this is one of the two best books on the subject you will find, even if you aren’t involved in the issue at all. “
Consider it required reading for anyone remotely interested in a livable climate, or defending public interest from industry. Although, fair warning: You will probably be angry (or angrier) at the status quo after reading this. It certainly makes me want to take a stronger stand than before… maybe I can find a way to link studies of PR and denialism into my grad studies…”
BRIAN D, Left as an Excercise

“This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end the Climate Cover-up. This is a must-read book.”
Climate Progress

“This book isn’t some silly bit of finger-waving by activists, but a concise, well-researched (thanks in large part to my friend, Kevin Grandia) piece of journalism by people who have been immersed in the PR industry for decades.”

“James Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a valuable expose of the efforts that have been made by self-interested actors to prevent political action on climate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the science….Climate Cover-Up succeeds in its key purpose: revealing that not everyone is engaging in the climate debate in an honest or ethical manner.”
A Sibilant Intake of Breath

“His new book, Climate Cover-Up, examines the campaign from this perspective and…through meticulously documented analysis, lays out the deliberate, nefarious, and immoral campaign to manipulate the public discourse on climate change.”
BEN JERVEY, Tree Hugger

“Warning: reading their well-documented book may make you angry, when you realize how much you’ve been lied to, about one of the most important issues of our time.”
Little Green Footballs

“Climate Cover-Up is substantially easier to read than most books about climate change. The prose is witty and easy to follow. It doesn’t talk about science. It feels nothing like a textbook.  I’d like everyone in the world to read this book. But truthfully, I’d rather that it hadn’t needed to be written at all.”

“Climate Cover-Up, the fascinating, funny and beautifully-written new book by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore.”
GEORGE MONBIOT, Idiots in Power

“Their new book is a chilling description of greed, conflicts of interest and the oil and coal industries’ shenanigans; it picks up where other books, like Ross Gelbspan’s “The Heat Is On” (1997) and “Boiling Point” (2004), left off.”
Truth Out

“The book does a very thorough job of documenting the history of sometimes despicable attempts by various vested interests and contrarians to discredit climate science.”

Dommedag udskudt

Klima — Drokles on July 23, 2013 at 4:32 am

Den globale temperatur er ikke steget i 17 år, så meget ligger fast, selv for FN’s Klimapanel, hvis formand tilstod virkeligheden for nogle måneder siden. Så hvad gør en industri, der lever af dommedagsprofetier så? De udskyder dommedagen, men beholder garantien - som også er deres indkomst - ifølge Telegraph

Surface temperatures around the world have not increased on average since the late 1990s, causing some sceptics to suggest that climate change is not happening as quickly as experts predict.

But in a set of three new reports, the Met Office claims that global warming has been disguised in recent years by the oceans, which have absorbed greater amounts of heat and prevented us from noticing the difference at surface level.

This process, caused by the natural cycle of the oceans, could delay earlier predictions of global warming by five to ten years but will not last forever, researchers explained.”

Den manglende varme kan altså ifølge MET (den engelske udgave af DMI) strække sig op til 10 år endnu, hvilket vil være sammenlagt 27 år uden temperaturstigning. Da en normal klimaperiode er defineret som 30 år (ikke ud fra noget rationale, det var blot praktisk at kunne skelne vejr fra klima ved en fast tidsenhed) vil det sige at selv om temperaturen skulle stige de sidste tre år indtil da vil den sammenlagte perionde ikke have noogen statisktisk temperaturstigning. Med andre ord vil den globale opvarmning pr. definition være afblæst skulle MET have ret i 10 år opvarmning.

Der er dog ingen grund til at tro på MET’s forudsigelser, de forudså jo ikke at temperaturen holdt opp med at stige. Ja de benægtede endda at det forholdt sig således indtil tidligere sidste år. Men sådan arbejder man når man er så forelsket i en teori at virkeligheden kun synes at komme i vejen. Husk at man efter blot 12-15 års temperaturstigning allerede så sig bekræftet da man mødtes i 1992 i Kyoto og med Jan Mølbys ord “havde set nok”.

Klimatruslen nedskrives nu også i danske medier

Danmarks Radio, Klima, Pressen — Drokles on May 23, 2013 at 1:40 pm

Så, nu begynder erkendelsen også at skride herhjemme, hvad angår truslen om en klimakatastrofe. Danmarks Radio skriver endelig om at de 17 år uden global opvarmning og de skrupforkerte forudsigelser har sat sig spor i FN’s yndlignseksperters vigende undergangsscenarier. Men, som enhver anden brugtvognsforhandler skal man skjule sit svindel mest muligt og det sker bag formuleringer som

Klimaeksperter: Risikoen for ekstrem varme falder

Havene ser ud til at optage mere CO2, og det skaber optimisme. Men oversvømmelser og hedebølger truer stadig.

Lagde De mærke til det? Ikke et ord om at temperaturerne ikke har rykket sig en tøddel i 17 år trods stigende CO2 udledning. Og falsk fremstilling i formuleringen “Risikoen for ekstrem varme falder“. For “risikoen” (for bedre vejr) er nøjagtig den samme, virkeligheden ændrer sig ikke. Hvad der har ændret sig er at man nu ikke længere er så sikker på sin tidligere skråsikkerhed.

Den hastige stigning i temperaturerne er bremset efter kraftige varme-spring i 1980erne og 1990erne. Det sker, selvom de 10 varmeste år siden 1850erne er blevet målt i løbet af de sidste 15 år.

Kraftig varmespring? Hvad er det? Har nogen mærket forskel på nu og for 30 år siden? Jeg er 40 (FUCK DET LORT!) og jeg har intet bemærket andet end hvad jeg har kunnet læse i aviserne. Stigningen i den periode, der skabte hele hysteriet er 0,166C pr 10 år. I perioden 1860 til 1880 var der også en varmestigning. Den lå på 0,163 pr 10 år. Og i perioden 1910 til 1940 var der en stigning på 0,15 pr 10 år. Men det er kun perioden fra 1975, der regnes som skabt af mennesket - hvilket er mærkeligt, da den ligger, hvor man ville forestille sig naturen lægge den de to foregående taget i betragtning, med samme intensitet og varighed.

Det er tillige nonsens at nævne at “de 10 varmeste år siden 1850erne er blevet målt i løbet af de sidste 15 år”. Vi begyndte at måle fra slutning af den Lille Istid og temperaturen har rettet sig mod det mere normale for en mellemistid (interglacial periode kaldte vi det vist dengang jeg troede jeg ville blive til noget). Med andre ord svarer det til at jeg er bange for at vokse gennem mit tag for skønt jeg ikke er vokset (i højden) de seneste mange år så hører de seneste 20 år blandt de højeste i mit liv.

Opbremsningen i de varmere temperaturer har været lidt af et mysterium for klimaforskerne, da udledningen af drivhusgasser er blevet ved med at stige - især på grund af industriboomet i Kina.

Et “mysterium”, ja det må det vel være når man erklærede sin sikkerhed for en global katastrofe for ubetvivlelig og ubestridelig for blot få år siden - hvor der ikke havde været nogen opvarmning i 10 år, så 11 år, så 12 år, så.. De forstår nok, hvor jeg vil hen. Artiklen fortsætter sine dobbelttydigheder

Klima-eksperterne vurderer, at en fordobling af CO2 i atmosfæren vil få temperaturerne på verdensplan til at stige med mellem 0,9 og 2,0 grader.

Det er mere optimistisk end det estimat fra 2007, hvor FNs klimapanel mente, at konsekvenserne ville være temperaturstigninger på mellem en og tre grader.

Igen, i forhold til den ubetvivlelige og ubestridelige sikkerhed har de tidligere så skråsikre forskere nedskrevet deres dommedagsprofetier til mindre end det halve - og det er blot en start. Artiklen er en retræte. Den formuleres som en ny udvikling, hvor sandheden er den banale at de blot har taget fejl, helt fejl.

Klimaidiotiet er slut

EU, Klima, miljø — Drokles on April 20, 2013 at 4:39 am

EU kunne ikke blive enige om at redde deres skadelige CO2 marked, en børs, hvor virksomheder fik tildelt kvoter, som de kunne sælge og købe efter behov og evne til at reducere udledning af CO2. Et forslag, der ville begrænse antallet af kvoter for at sætte prisen og derved produktionsomkostningerne op for virksomhederne for at tilskynde fordyrende og tåbelige arbejdsgange blev nedstemt under hensyn til den økonomiske virkelighed. Financial Times fortæller

The EU Parliament’s vote is only the latest evidence of how a crisis-hit continent’s appetite for climate change policies appears to be fading fast.

Not long after the European parliament cast doubt on the future of the EU’s key policy to confront global warming, José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, huddled with his climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, in the VIP lounge at Strasbourg airport.

Mr Barroso, according to people present, reassured Ms Hedegaard that he remained absolutely committed to tackling climate change – in spite of MEPs’ rejection of her plan to prop up the EU’s troubled carbon market.

But beyond the confines of that room, Tuesday’s vote has provoked much soul searching about the bloc’s devotion to an issue that once topped its agenda and shaped its self-image.

Four years ago, in the run-up to the international climate conference in Copenhagen, Mr Barroso and other EU leaders pledged publicly and repeatedly to lead the world in the fight against global warming. They touted the EU emissions trading scheme as the hub of what would one day be a global carbon market.

Their embrace of the climate issue cast a halo over the European project as a benign and collaborative force for good in the world. “It was an integral part of the brand,” said Tom Brookes, director of the European Climate Foundation.

Walter Russel Mead konkluderer i The American Interest

The EU has been the global laboratory testing the green agenda to see how it works. Today’s story means that the guinea pig died; the most important piece of green intervention in world history has become an expensive and embarrassing flop.  It’s hard to exaggerate the importance of this for environmentalists everywhere; if the EU can’t make the green agenda work, it’s unlikely that anybody else will give it a try.

Det er nemlig ikke blot en kynisk og kortsigtet beslutning på arbejdsløshed, manglende vækst, stigende gæld og andre prosaiske problemer. Det er også en svindende på tro på undergangsvarslerne blandt politikerne. Og det giver blod på tanden

Tiden hvor man kunne udskamme en sådan svada for værende benægtende, amoralsk og skadelig er forbi. Nu må der argumenter på bordet og de har ingen. Så de vælger tavsheden indtil de ser chancen for at skifte hest når de har sikret sig at det ikke er farligt, men før at det er for sent. Ingen vil sidde tilbage med regnskabet for de mange spildte år, de enorme omkostninger og den megen skade man har forvoldt, mens man har forfulgt og mobbet kættere. På et tidspunkt vil først en tage mod til sig og forsigtigt formulere en kritisk afstandtagen til den blinde tro. Så vil en anden legitimmisere debatten og omfavne uenigheder og dissens. Som de finder ud af hvor let det er at afvise angrebene fra de resterende troende, der med sine forvirrede benægtelser af virkeligheden falder i rollen som Komiske Ali så ser andre at det falder i god jord og følger trop. Tik, tak, tik, tak,,,

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.


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.

Svære tider for grønne jobs

Grøn energi, Klima, USA, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on October 21, 2012 at 7:14 am

Fremtiden tilhører el-bilerne og hvem er bedre end staten til at skubbe fremtiden frem? Wall Steet Journal skriver om den store amerikanske batteriproducent A123’s lovende start

Massachusetts-based A123 is — or was — part of President Obama’s grand design to build a U.S. electric-car industry more or less from scratch. The company was founded by entrepreneurs in 2001 to make lithium ion phosphate batteries and attracted private investment from the likes of Sequoia Capital and GE. Then Washington picked up the green energy fad.

As Mr. Obama put it in August 2009, the government would create an “infrastructure of innovation” by doling out “$2.4 billion in highly competitive grants to develop the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks, powered by the next generation of battery technologies, all made right here in the U.S. of A.”

In a September 2010 congratulatory phone call to A123?s Livonia, Michigan plant, Mr. Obama called it “the birth of an entire new industry in America.”

Democrats were explicit that this was an attempt to rehabilitate the idea that government could nurture new industries. As Michigan Senator Carl Levin said in a 2011 speech, A123?s factories “are a forceful rebuttal to those who argue against public investment in this field, people who label this ‘industrial policy.’ In the not too distant past, that label—’industrial policy’—was the kiss of death for any proposal. That’s an ideological hang-up that we’ve now overcome.”

Trods alle de gode intentioner og de mange penge fra skatteyderne gik selskabet dog konkurs (National Legacy And Policy Center har en tidslinje, for de der måtte være interesseret i fremtidens dødskramper). Bloomberg skriver bl.a

A123 Systems Inc. (AONE), the electric car battery maker that received a $249.1 million federal grant, filed for bankruptcy protection and said it would sell its automotive business assets to Johnson Controls Inc. (JCI)


A123 has posted at least 14 straight quarterly losses. Its shares had fallen 85 percent this year to 24 cents as of yesterday’s close in New York.

Det var nu ikke fordi ledelsen lå på den lade side fortæller Washington Guardian

Even as advanced battery maker A123 Systems struggled for financial viability, it played the Washington insider game, where political money and access go hand in hand.

The Massachusetts firm dished out nearly $1 million to hire a powerhouse lobbying firm with close ties to President Barack Obama between 2007 and 2009, and two of its top executives made personal donations to several high-profile Democrats in Congress as it won federal funding for its efforts to build the next generation of lithium batteries for electric vehicles.

And its president and CEO, David Vieau, an early financial backer of President Barack Obama, scored five invitations to the White House in 2009 and 2010, including a meeting he attended with the president, White House logs show.  And when the company opened a new Michigan plant, Obama made a high-profile call to congratulate.

The Foundry har en liste over de selskaber, som Obama har set en fremtid i (eller er det de selskaber, som har set en fremtid i ham?)

So far, 36 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

  1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
  2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
  3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
  4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
  5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
  6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
  7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
  8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
  9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
  10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
  11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
  12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
  13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
  14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
  15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
  16. Schneider Electric ($86 million)
  17. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
  18. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
  19. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
  20. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
  21. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
  22. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
  23. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
  24. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
  25. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
  26. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
  27. GreenVolts ($500,000)
  28. Vestas ($50 million)
  29. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
  30. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
  31. Navistar ($39 million)
  32. Satcon ($3 million)*
  33. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
  34. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Grønne jobs.

Michael Mann: Eventually it will be illegal to deny climate change?

Klima, Ytringsfrihed — Drokles on September 29, 2012 at 8:01 pm

Det er i hvert fald David Appell’s påstand, en aktiv klimablogger (Set via Watts Up With That ), som han fremkom med under en rablen på sin blog

They are too many, and too stupid. So what to do about them?

I don’t know. Donald Brown, the philosopher at Penn State who has been writing about the ethics of climate change for well over a decade — I interviewed him in the early 2000s — thinks they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity.

Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes?

I think so. You can’t simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.

I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.

When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe.

Michael Mann, som der refereres til, er skaberen af FN’s Klimapanels berømte Ishockeystavs graf, den graf, der hævdede at den globale temperatur ikke havde fluktueret de seneste tusind år (og således afskaffet middelalderens varmeperiode og den Lille Istid, som svenskerne ellers benyttede med noget held til at gå over isen for at angribe København) førend industrialiseringen satte gange i en voldsom udledning af CO2, som så har sat gang i varmeacceleration uden fortilfælde. Grafen gjorde ham til en stjerne i klimamiljøet og en hovedperson i udfærdigelsen af klimapanelets 7-årlige rapporter. Han siges at repræsentere konsensus når det drejer sig om at forudsige klimaet - mon ogsåhans lovgivningsforudsigelser er konsensus? Kan klimavidenskab virkeligt sidestilles med islam?

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.

Lord Giddens: We must renew an assault upon climate change sceptics

Klima — Drokles on April 12, 2012 at 8:30 am

På vej mod Maunders Minimum?

Diverse, Klima — Drokles on April 24, 2010 at 5:59 am

Nogenlunde således spekulerede Resilient Earth for et halvt års tid siden og forklarede den Lille Istid således

The period from roughly 1300 to 1850 is known as the “Little Ice Age,” a period characterized by unusually long and cold winters. Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th century to the mid 19th century, but it is generally agreed that there were three temperature minima, occurring around 1650, 1770, and 1850. Each minima separated by slight warming intervals. These periods coincides closely with times of solar inactivity, with some of the worst weather occurring squarely during the Maunder Minimum.

The Maunder Minimum is named after the English astronomer Edward W. Maunder (1851-1928). From studying historical records of sunspot counts, called the sunspot number, Maunder discovered that sunspots were virtually absent during this period, and disappeared altogether during the decade starting in 1670. Astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots during the 70 year period from 1645 to 1715. Normal sunspot activity would have produced 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots.

Already in the midst of the Little Ice Age’s colder than average climate, Europe and North America went into a deep freeze: alpine glaciers extended over valley farmland, sea ice crept south from the Arctic, and the famous canals in the Netherlands froze regularly—an event that is rare today. In London, ice festivals were held on the frozen Themes and in New York City people could walk to Manhattan and Staten Island on the ice. On the down side, crops failed and many died of the cold.

Eksistensen af Middelaldervarmen eliminerer grundlæggende argumentet om at vi oplever noget ekstraordinært og dermed faretruende (som den også stiller gevaldige spørgsmålstegn ved ideerne om de positive feed-back effekter) og Lille Istid (Maunders Minimum) sætter de smeltende gletchere, der netop voksede sig store dengang i relief. Det bliver sandsynligvis varmere i denne tid fordi vi er i en langsom bevægelse væk fra en koldere periode og derfor også på vej mod en ny. What goes up must come down.

Lille Istid er derfor sammen med den middelaldervarmen - som FNs klimapanel og konsorter har prøvet at eliminere fra den fælles hukommelse så sammenhængen mellem CO2 og temperatur kunne tage sig så klart ud, som muligt - et af klimadebattens mest centrale slagmarker. En is-hockeystok kurve over CO2-koncentrationens udvikling falder meget dårligt sammen med en sinus-lignende kurve over temperaturens udvikling og hvor der ikke er sammenfald er der nok heller ikke sammenhæng. Ikke en, der ikke kræver en meget god forklaring i hvert fald. Så fra at underkende, hvad der var basal viden og konsensus om indtil klimaet blev til en ideologisk sag har man fra FNs Klimapanels side siden prøvet at så tvivl om det var et globalt fænomen eller blot et Europæisk og dermed for denne diskussion ligegyldigt. Men efterhånden, som man får kompenseret for den uciviliserede verdens mangel på dataindsamling er der næppe tvivl om at Jorden er steget og faldet i temperatur i ganske historisk tid fordi det er klimaets metier.

Fra en nogenlunde samtidig kronik i Jyllands-Posten af fysikeren Henrik Svensmark slåe det fast

Det er vigtigt at fastslå, at den Lille Istid var en global hændelse. Den endte i slutningen af det 19. århundrede og efterfulgtes af en stigende solaktivitet. Gennem de seneste 50 år har solaktiviteten været det højeste siden middelaldervarmen for 1.000 år siden. Og nu ser det ud til at Solen skifter igen og er på vej mod det, som solforskere kalder »et grand minimum« som vi så i den Lille Istid.

Sammenfaldet mellem Solens aktivitet og klimaet gennem tiderne er forsøgt bortforklaret som tilfældigt. Men det viser sig, at næsten ligegyldigt hvilken periode man undersøger, altså ikke kun de sidste 1.000 år, så findes en overensstemmelse. Solens aktivitet har gentagne gange gennem de seneste 10.000 år svinget mellem høj og lav. Faktisk har Solen gennem de seneste 10.000 år befundet sig i en dvaletilstand ca. 17 pct. af tiden med en afkøling af Jorden til følge.

Ifølge Watts Up With That er der heller ingen tvivl om at Lille Istid sammen med Middelaldervarmen var globale hændelser og referer til en af utallige undersøgelser med samme konklusion

From CO2 Science, another peer reviewed paper with a paleoclimatology reconstruction based on cores containing plankton shells, show that both the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) can be seen in Indonesia. In the past, critics have said these events to be “regional” implying they occurred only around Europe, due to lack of historical records in other regions of the world.

Og ifølge Springer Link er konklusionen den samme for Sydamerikas vedkommende

We present a climatic reconstruction of Holocene lacustrine episodes in the Salinas del Bebedero basin (Argentina), based on geological and diatom information.

(…) To the last two peaks of large inflow of meltwater, radiocarbon dates corrected to sidereal ages, are AD 1280/1420 and AD 1443/1656. These ages agree with two cold episodes clearly recorded in dendrological studies from the Patagonian Andes and were correlated to the Little Ice Age. Thus, older Holocene episodes of large inflow of water to the basin were correlated with the Neoglacial Advances defined by Mercer (1976) for the Andes.

Men som sagt kan der jo være en meget god forklaring på manglen af sammenfald mellem sammenfald og sammenhæng. Martin Herzberg giver dog ikke meget for den dominerende videnskabelige forklaring ifølge Summit Daily News

…a recent study of the scientific literature revealed an equally fraudulent CO2 hockey stick curve, which fabricated the myth of a “preindustrial” CO2 concentration of 280 parts per million (ppm) followed by a rapid rise to the current level of 390 ppm. The Gore-IPCC-Hansen clique then claimed the increase was caused by humans. They accepted unreliable ice core measurements in preference to the hundreds of more reliable direct measurements made by many distinguished scientists including several Nobel laureates. The real data show periods in the past 200 years where concentrations increased more rapidly than they did in recent years and that in several of those periods CO2 levels were higher than current levels. Knowledgeable scientists know that human CO2 emission does not correlate with changes in atmospheric CO2; that human emission is a trivial fraction of natural sources and sinks of CO2; that the oceans contain about 50 times more dissolved CO2 than the atmosphere; and that the recycling of CO2 from the tropical oceans where it is emitted to the Arctic oceans where it is absorbed, overwhelms human emissions. Data going back 500,000 years show temperature changes precede atmospheric CO2 changes by about 1,000 years. Thus temperature is driving CO2: not the reverse as the Gore-IPCC-Hansen clique contend. As oceans warm they emit CO2 and as they cool they absorb CO2. Millions of years ago CO2 levels were at least 5 times greater than current levels with only beneficial effects on plant and animal life.

Scientific evidence thus proves that the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is completely false. Recent data show the earth’s temperature has decreased significantly for the last eight years. Arctic ice coverage has essentially remained unchanged for 20 years, with a slight increase over the last three. Sea level’s rate of rise has declined significantly over the last three years, and its average rate of rise for the last 20 years is about the same as it has been for the last 15,000 years.

The AGW advocates are left with nothing but half-baked computer models totally out of touch with reality and have been proven wrong. As I indicated in my 1994 paper: “Unverified models do not realistically represent that radiative balance (between the sun and the earth) and it would be absurd to base public policy decisions on them.”

Og han lader Macbeth summere hysteriet som “a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Konsekvensen af denne “sinus” tænkning om klimaets udvikling er som sagt at kurven vil kække igen på et tidspunkt og da temperaturen i de seneste ti år har været svagt faldene er nogen begyndt at spekulere i om det muligvis kunne være nu, som f.eks. Svensmark i den førciterede kronik

At Solen kunne falde i søvn i et dybt minimum, blev antydet af solforskere på et møde i Kiruna i Sverige for to år siden. Da Nigel Calder og jeg opdaterede vores bog ”The Chilling Stars” skrev vi derfor lidt provokerende »vi anbefaler vores venner at nyde den globale opvarmning, mens den varer«.

Faktisk er den globale opvarmning standset, og en afkøling er så småt begyndt. I sidste uge blev det fremført af Mojib Latif fra universitet i Kiel på FN’s World Climate Conference i Geneve, at afkølingen muligvis fortsætter gennem de næste 10 til 20 år.

Hans forklaring var naturlige forandringer i Nordatlantens cirkulation og ikke i Solens aktivitet. Men ligegyldigt hvordan det fortolkes, så trænger de naturlige variationer i klimaet sig mere og mere på.

En konsekvens må være,at Solen selv vil vise sin betydning for klimaet og dermed teste teorierne for den globale opvarmning. Ingen klimamodel har forudsagt en afkøling af Jorden, tværtimod.

Og Fox News er heller ikke blege for at tale Roma midt imod og her referer man også uden blusel til den slags teorier og teoretikere

Det gør man også i Rusland ifølge Daily Mail

Climate change adherents say the planet is warming due to man-made factors but Russian expert Professor Arkady Tishkov said yesterday that Siberia and the world are in fact getting colder.

‘From a scientific point of view, talk about increasing average temperatures on earth of several degrees are absurd,’ he said.

‘Of course we can’t say that global warming is a myth and falsification. In many regions of planet the temperature is higher than expected because of human impact.

‘But the climate system of the planet is changing according to different cycles - from several years to thousand of years.

‘From the scientific point of view, in terms of large scale climate cycles,  we are in a period of cooling.

‘The last three years of low temperatures in Siberia, the Arctic and number of Russia mountainous regions prove that, as does the recovery of ice in the Arctic Ocean and  the absence of warming signs in Siberia.’

Mr Tishkov, deputy head of the Geography Institute at Russian Academy of Science, said: ‘What we have been watching recently is comparatively fast changes of climate to warming, but within the framework of an overall long-term period of cooling. This is a proven scientific fact. 

‘The recent warming - and we are talking tenths of a degree at most - is caused by human activity, like forest elimination, the changing of landscapes.

‘The greenhouse gases so much discussed now do not in fact play big role. We have to remember that all the impact of industrial enterprises in Russia cannot be compared with one volcano eruption on our planet.’

En anden russer er inde på det samme ifølge UPI

A Russian scientist says the Arctic may be getting colder, not warmer, which would hamper the international race to discover new mineral fields.

An Arctic cold snap that began in 1998 could last for years, freezing the northern marine passage and making it impassable without icebreaking ships, said Oleg Pokrovsky of the Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory.

“I think the development of the shelf will face large problems,” Pokrovsky said Thursday at a seminar on research in the Polar regions.

Scientists who believe the climate is warming may have been misled by data from U.S. meteorological stations located in urban areas, where dense microclimates creates higher temperatures, RIA Novosti quoted Pokrovsky as saying.

“Politicians who placed their bets on global warming may lose the pot,” Pokrovsky said.

Slaget om fortiden synes at være vundet af skeptikerne og så bliver det interessant at se i, hvor høj grad det vil påvirke slaget om udviklingen. Et er sikkert: Konsensus-schmensus.

« Previous Page

Monokultur kører på WordPress