WMD du bare må eje

Diverse — Drokles on March 7, 2010 at 2:54 pm

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

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

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

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

Dækning

Diverse — Drokles on March 7, 2010 at 2:07 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

billede-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

billede-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dette betegner Carter som hansenisme og trækker en historisk parallel

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

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

Lysenkoism grew from four main roots:

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————————–

UPDATE:

Press Release

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

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

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

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

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

See PDF of letter here.

Almindelig praksis ifølge professor Phil Jones

Diverse — Drokles on March 3, 2010 at 7:00 pm

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

En stemningsrapport fra England

Forbrydelse og straf, Londonistan, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on March 1, 2010 at 4:08 pm

Guardian fortæller en typisk vesteuropæisk historie

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

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

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

Fra Telegraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Previous Page

Monokultur kører på WordPress