Tipping point?

Diverse — Drokles on February 2, 2010 at 9:58 pm

Jeg kan ikke helt slippe sagen om de manipulerede data fra CRU og det faktum at de har forurenet klimaforskningen. Med manipulerede data har en gruppe forskere placeret i politisk afgørende positioner presset andre forskere i defensiven i en sådan grad at de kunne tale om et konsensus og videre på det mobbet skeptiske forskere i en sådan grad at uenighed er fremstillet, som benægtelse. Estimerede forskere er blevet udhængt som kættere og kværulanter med fare for deres professionelle renome. Det har affødt et naturligt forsvar hos alle, der beskriver klimaet ved at koble alle deres resultater til ideen om klimaforandringer resulteret af CO2 på den ene eller anden måde og således forstærket fortællingen om den videnskabelige entydighed. Men truth will out, som Philip Stout minder os om og det ser vi måske nu. Times Online skriver om forskere, der advarer mod skråsikkerhed og bekymrer sig om vigtigheden af åbne og redelige datsæt.

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.

John Beddington was speaking to The Times in the wake of an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding.

Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.

He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.

Ja endda, hvis man skulle indrømme at andre skulle have haft ret. Pas på ikke at drive det alt for vidt. Men det er alvorlig, som JoNova kan citere fra Joe D’Aleo og Anthony Watts…

….media release:

An extensive survey of the literature and data regarding ground and sea surface temperature records uncovers deception through data manipulation, reports the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).

Authors veteran meteorologists Joe d’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception? The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global warming” at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of “global warming”.

That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century.

Og Philip Stott funderer derfor over om ikke den store klimafortælling, som Belinmuren er ved at brase sammen for vores øjne.

…the biggest collapse is in the media, the very ‘mechanism’ through which the greedy Global Warming Grand Narrative has promulgated itself during the last ten to twenty years.

The break in the ‘Media Wall’ began in the tabloids and in the ‘red tops’, like The Daily Express and the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, but it is today spreading rapidly - yet once more as theory predicts - to the so-called ‘heavyweights’ and to the BBC. In the past, uncritical and apocalyptic stories and programmes were given the highest prominence, with any sceptical comment confined to the briefest of quotations from some benighted, and often snidely-mentioned, sceptic squeezed in at the very end of the piece (“For balance, you know”). Today, the reverse is becoming true, with the ‘global warming’ faithful firmly forced on to the back foot. Yet, in our post-modern world, it is the journalistic language being employed that is the true indicator of a new media order. Listening to good old Roger Harrabin this morning, reporting on BBC Radio 4’s flagship ‘Today’ programme, was a revelation in this respect; the language, and even the style, had altered radically.

Potential Losers

The collapse is now so precipitate that there will inevitably be some serious losers caught out by it all. The UK Met Office could well be one, with the BBC rightly reviewing its contract with them. At the moment, Met Office spokespersons sound extraordinary, bizarre even. They bleat out ‘global warming’ phrases like programmed robotic sheep, although they are finding it increasingly difficult to pull the wool over our eyes. It is terribly 1984, and rather chilling, so to speak. It is obvious that the organisation is suffering from another classical academic state, namely that known as ‘cognitive dissonance’ [see here and here]. This is experienced when belief in a Grand Narrative persists blindly, even when the facts in the real world begin to contradict what the narrative is saying. Sadly, many of our public and private organisations have allowed themselves to develop far too great a vested interest in ‘global warming’, as have too many politicians and activists. These are increasingly terrified, many having no idea how to react, or how to adjust, to the collapse. It will be particularly interesting to witness how, in the end, the Royal Society plays its cards, especially if competing scientific paradigms, such as the key role played by water vapour in climate change, start to displace the current paradigm in classic fashion.

Alt for mange har bundet noget op på denne fortælling, som der ikke var tvivl om fra penge til troværdighed og endda selvforståelse. Men politikere er først og fremmest overlevere og hvis man vil kan man se den manglende forpligtelse på Københavnermødet i lyset af politikeres evne til at forudse pendulets sving og derpå træffe deres forholdsregler. Man skulle ikke nyde noget af at stille sig længst frem i køen af dogooders, hvis regning var på trapperne og man kan fundere over hvorfor Løkke Rasmussens pludselige familiære sindelag

Flere udenlandske diplomater er rasende over, at statsministeren udeblev fra et diplomatisk stormøde forrige fredag. Her var 80 ambassadører mødt op - bl.a. for at få en redegørelse for det skuffende danske COP15-værtskab med netop Lars Løkke Rasmussen i front.

Ja, hvem gider egentlig kysse Honecker, hvis man kan blive fri? Eller dette forsonende eksempel på udstillet tomhed da Præsident Obama bliver leet af i senatet og selv må trække på smilebåndet af at alt i politik er observans.

Man kan også lade være med at lade sin hjerne gå i selvsving ved at læse så mange blogs om klimaet. You got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run.

1 Kommentar »

  1. Fin gennemgang du har lavet.
    Videoklippet med Obamas helt overvældende arrogance er fremragende. De to bedrevidende kloner, Biden og Pelosi i baggrunden giver mig kvalme hver gang de står frem i medierne. Deres overbærende smil og attitude gør netop at man får lyst til at undersøge, om det mon kan passe det de siger!
    Det gør det oftest ikke!
    Stakkels Amerika med dette triumvirat af fjolser.

    Comment by synopsis-olsen — February 4, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress