Debatten er snart ovre

Diverse — Drokles on March 18, 2013 at 10:46 am

Engelske Daily Mail er et af de få større nyhedsmedier med et kritisk blik på klimaet. De har de seneste par år generet det etablerede billede af klimahysteriet ved at offentliggøre grafer, baseret på det engelske meteorologiske instituts  (MET) tal, der tydeligt viser at der ikke har været nogen global opvarmning siden slut halvfemserne. I weekenden gjorde de så status over de seneste 17 års manglende opvarmning og hæftede sig bl.a. ved den snigende omend modvillige erkendelse blandt ortodokse klimaforskere.

The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.

The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.


The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.

The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.

A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.

Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.

But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.
Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.

The graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature since January 1997 – as this newspaper first disclosed last year.

Enden er nær for klimahysteriet. For at parafrasere Dr David Whitehouse så er der ikke en eneste gymnasie elev, der har oplevet global opvarmning - og alligevel har de ikke hørt andet. For sådan har den kollektive opfattelse været. Vi har alle sammen gennemlevet en - skal vi sige interessant? - sekulær vækkelse, hvor simple vejrfænomener udlægges som tegn, om ikke fra guderne, så på vores selvforskyldte undergang. Paul Driesen uddyber et par af de mere prosaiske aspekter i Master Resource

Over the past three years, the Tides Foundation and Tides Center alone poured $335 million into environmentalist climate campaigns, and $1 billion into green lobbies at large, notes Undue Influence author Ron Arnold.

Major U.S. donors gave $199 million to Canadian environmental groups just for anti-oil sands and Keystone pipeline battles during the last twelve years, analysts Vivian Krause and Brian Seasholes estimate; the Tides Foundation poured $10 million into these battles during 2009-2012.

All told, U.S. foundations alone have “invested” over $797 million in environmentalist climate campaigns since 2000! And over $19.3 billion in “environmental” efforts since 1995, Arnold calculates! Add to that the tens of billions that environmental activist groups, universities and other organizations have received from individual donors, corporations and government agencies to promote “manmade climate disaster” theories – and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

Moreover, that’s just U.S. cash. It doesn’t include EU, UN and other climate cataclysm contributions. Nor does it include U.S. or global spending on wind, solar, biofuel and other “renewable” energy schemes. That this money has caused widespread pernicious and corrupting effects should surprise no one.

Politicized science, markets and ethics. The corrupting cash has feathered careers, supported entire departments, companies and industries, and sullied our political, economic and ethical systems. It has taken countless billions out of productive sectors of our economy, and given it to politically connected, politically correct institutions that promote climate alarmism and renewable energy (and which use some of this crony capitalist taxpayer and consumer cash to help reelect their political sponsors).

Toe the line – pocket the cash, bask in the limelight. Question the dogma – get vilified, harassed and even dismissed from university or state climatologist positions for threatening the grants pipeline.

The system has replaced honest, robust, evidence-based, peer-reviewed science with pseudo-science based on activism, computer models, doctored data, “pal reviews,” press releases and other chicanery that resulted in Climategate, IPCC exposés, and growing outrage. Practitioners of these dark sciences almost never debate climate disaster deniers or skeptics; climate millionaire Al Gore won’t even take questions that he has not pre-approved; and colleges have become centers for “socially responsible investing” campaigns based on climate chaos, “sustainable development,” and anti-hydrocarbon ideologies.

Rupert Darwall skriver i Telegraph

Environmentalism has taken the Marxist concept of the alienation of the working class and applied it to the rich man’s alienation from nature. “By losing sight of our relationship with Nature… ,” the Prince of Wales wrote in 2009, “we have engendered a profoundly dangerous alienation.” In one respect, environmentalism is even more radical than Marxism. Whereas Marxism aimed to change the relations of the working class to the means of production, environmentalism is about changing the means of production themselves. Ironically, Marxism was a flop in the West, whereas environmentalism has triumphed.

One reason Britain has gone so far down the green path is that politicians have not been honest about its economic implications. During the passage of the Climate Change Act in 2008, which commits Britain to cutting net carbon emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, the energy minister Phil Woolas rejected his own department’s estimate that the costs could exceed the benefits by £95?billion. The House of Commons never debated the costs and the Bill was passed, with only five MPs voting against.

An even more egregious example is provided by Ed Miliband, when he was climate change secretary. The Tory MP Peter Lilley had written to Mr Miliband to say that, based on his department’s own impact statement, the Climate Change Act would cost households an average of between £16,000 and £20,000. The future Labour leader replied that the statement showed that the benefits to British society of successful action on climate change would be far higher than the cost. Mr Miliband should have known this was untrue; if he didn’t, he had no business certifying that he’d read the impact statement, which he’d signed just six weeks earlier. The statement only estimated the benefits of slightly cooler temperatures for the world as a whole, not for the UK.

Peter C Glover skriver i Energy Tribune

Take California. Already bankrupt the state’s rush to green energy has prioritized wind and solar projects. But reports now make it clear that green energy’s unreliability is likely to see the lights go out in California by as early as later this year. Worse still new research suggests scientists generally have over-estimated the generation of power by wind farms. And yet another “devastating blow for the wind industry” is presaged in an upcoming report. According to a finding made by Scottish-government-funded researchers – Scotland is another key front-runner in the wind development stakes – thousands of existing UK wind turbines create more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.  Then there’s the increasing unacceptability – to environmentalists! – of the impact of giant wind farm footprints.

And just for good measure Germany, yet another global front-runner in the green energy stakes, has been warned the country’s transition to more wind and solar renewable energy will cost the nation, already reeling from the high cost of green energy subsidies, a cool 1 trillion euros ($1.34 trillion). With a record 600,000 Germans now threatened by fuel poverty it is not surprising that German politicians are taking the political problems created by greater green energy-dependency more seriously.

The green energy agenda is fast rising to the top of the political agenda – but, as we have seen, hardly for the reasons eco-warriors and BBC and NYT editors might like. It can only continue its inexorable rise because of two influential factors. First, facts and real science data are simply swamping the alarmist core messages. Second, as the most comprehensive study conducted recently reveals, futuristic climate issues rank nowhere in the average voters list of concerns.

In February, green policies were singularly responsible for bringing down the Bulgarian Government. It was a watershed political moment.  Even the BBC and the NYT reported it. Not that either managed to identify the link between the government’s green subsidies policy and rocketing electricity prices that brought violent protests to the streets for the first time. Too much like real journalism.

Hver gang Mail skriver om virkeligheden giver det dønninger og udhuler den illusion af enighed og ubetvivlelighed, der så længe har holdt debatten og de kritiske spørgsmål i ave. Der vil komme et tidspunkt, hvor en journalist  i lyset af den manglende opvarmning drister sig til at spørge klimaministeren, hvad han egentlig laver. Det er en gigantisk ‘komisk Ali’, der venter de, der tør at være først.

Der kommer en tid efter denne, en tid, hvor regnskabet skal gøres op og ansvaret placeres. Nej, ingen tale om Nürnberg processer, som venstrefløjen har haft travlt med at true alle de kættere der nu for stadigt flere viser sig at have haft ret hele tiden. Men vi må spørge os selv om, hvorledes vi kunne tage så meget fejl mens fakta skreg os ind hovedet hvorledes vi kunne dyrke en religiøs besættelse efter så skødesløst at have forkastet Gud (ja, jeg er meget glad for det Chesterton citat).

5 Kommentarer »

  1. -ikke en eneste gymnasie elev, der har oplevet global opvarmning, skriver du. Dog er der,på den sorte kurve med en gymnasieelevs alder sat til mellem 15 og 18 år mange fra 1980erne og frem der har oplevet en lille temperaturforøgelse i deres gymnasietid. Den sorte kurve ser mig grangiveligt ud som om den stiger, anskuet fra venstre mod højre.
    Hvilke årgange mærkede de voldsomste stigninger og fald fra 1980 og til i dag?

    Comment by Peter Buch — March 20, 2013 @ 8:01 am
  2. Vi mangler en kurve fra 1920 til idag, for mine forældre har fortalt mig, at da de var unge (1925 - 1940), var der varmere somre end idag.
    Men man kan ikke fortænke vore politikere i at gribe klimadebatten med kyshånd, - de kan jo altid undskylde afgifterne på el og varme :”Det er for jeres egen skyld små venner , vi må jo rede kloden !”
    Det værste er, at vi ikke får de for meget betalte afgifter tilbage, når det viser sig, at den “globale opvarmning” ikke opvarmer.
    Klimaet har altid skiftet, og det vil vedblive med at skifte, uanset hvad klimafanatikerne siger.

    Comment by Jørn Boye — March 25, 2013 @ 2:26 pm

    Monokultur » Debatten er snart ovre…

    Trackback by — September 24, 2014 @ 6:27 pm
  4. Read the Full Posting…

    Monokultur » Debatten er snart ovre…

    Trackback by Read the Full Posting — September 28, 2014 @ 7:14 am
  5. simply click the up coming internet site…

    Monokultur » Debatten er snart ovre…

    Trackback by simply click the up coming internet site — October 4, 2014 @ 3:24 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress