Konsensus min bare røv

Diverse — Drokles on February 14, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Klimaforskningen er desværre blevet politiseret til ukendelighed så meget at det politiske begreb konsensus skråsikkert bruges til promoveringen af ikke blot en bestemt antagelse om klimaets udvikling, men også en og kun en løsning til at regulere selve klimaet, som havde man adgang til en global termostat. Den danske statistiker Bjørn Lomborgs kritik i forhold til tilgangen til den antagede klimatrussel/udfordring er usmageligt blevet gjort til et udtryk for for en slags kætteri fordi han frem for det ambitiøse projekt i at regulere klimaet uden erfaring eller evidens for nogen succes foreslår et “roll with the punches”. Denne helt normale opstilling af problemer og alternativer blev af den øverste autoritet Panchauri sammenlignet med Hitlers menneskesyn. Og et gennemgående argument fra aktivister og dele af venstrefløjen har været at problemet var så klart og løsningen så selvindlysende at der ikke var tid til snak, hvilket vil sige at den demokratiske process skulle sættes ud af spillet så verden kunne omkalfatres i deres eget billede. Den slags kalder altid på skepsis.

Det udtrykte konsensus er FNs klimapanels (IPCC) rapporter på hvilke staterne skal foretage deres beslutninger. At disse rapporter er behæftede med graverende og pinlige fejl bekræfter ikke blot, hvad alle mere eller mindre ved om FN, men kompromiterer ganske uretfærdigt selve videnskabens troværdighed. Telegraph gør status over generelle anklagepunkter fra de seneste uger: Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters. New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished. More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the IPCC’s most recent report, published in 2007.

I toppen af IPCC sidder Rajendra Panchauri, der mere end nogen anden har haft indflydelse på formuleringen af den påståede konsensus. Hvor meget han selv har bidraget til degenereringen af IPCC og hvor meget han blot er udtryk for en degenereret organisation kan jeg ikke afgøre, men at IPCCs rapporter ikke afspejler noget konsensus er let at forvisse sig om på basis af både omfanget og alvorligheden af fejl (manglende eller underlødige kilder dumper man på i en førsteårsopgave) og i at alle fejlene peger i samme retning, nemlig alarmerende eksempler på global opvarmning. Hvis rapporterne også indeholdt fordrejede eksempler på global nedkøling ville man trods alt kunne konkludere at det var et typisk FN makværk. Nu står det klart, som et politisk bestillingsarbejde og dermed bevist fyldt med løgn. Og alt sammen for mine skattepenge. SPPI opsummerer

• The Himalayan glaciers were supposed to disappear as soon as 2035. The United Nations didn’t base this hysteria on an academic study. Instead, it relied on a news story that interviewed a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. Syed Hasnain, the glaciologist in question, says he was misquoted and provided no date to the reporter. The doomsday account was simply made up, and the United Nations never bothered to confirm the claim.

• Because of purported global warming, the world supposedly “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s.” The U.N. cited one unpublished study to prove this. When the research eventually was published in 2008 after the IPCC report was released, the authors backpedaled: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

• Up to 40 percent of the Amazon rain forest was said to be at risk because of rising global temperatures. Again, the U.N. didn’t cite any academic studies but merely one non-refereed report authored by two non-scientists, one of whom worked for the World Wildlife Fund, an activist organization.

• The U.N. dramatically claimed that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level when the accurate portion is 26 percent.

Og citerer Panchauri for at sammenligne kritikere af IPCC rapporten med “…people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder. I hope that they apply [asbestos] to their faces every day.” Nice one. Joanna Nova gør et regnestykke op på sin blog om de penge der afsættes til promoveringen af teorien om menneskets negative indflydelse på klimaet der - selv om det er noget fordrejet ved at betragte alle offentlige investeringer i klimaforskning, som understøttelse af teorien om den menneskeskabte opvarmning - alligevel vidner om økonomiske, som politiske interesser i selve det at holde teorien ved lige. Et nyligt eksempel af mange, som ikke omfatter Rajendra Panchauri kunne Daily Mail fortælle om forleden

The Meteorological Office is blocking public scrutiny of the central role played by its top climate scientist in a highly controversial report by the beleaguered United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Professor John Mitchell, the Met Office’s Director of Climate Science, shared responsibility for the most worrying headline in the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning IPCC report – that the Earth is now hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years.

And he approved the inclusion in the report of the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a steep 20th Century rise.

By the time the 2007 report was being written, the graph had been heavily criticised by climate sceptics who had shown it minimised the ‘medieval warm period’ around 1000AD, when the Vikings established farming settlements in Greenland.

In fact, according to some scientists, the planet was then as warm, or even warmer, than it is today.

Early drafts of the report were fiercely contested by official IPCC reviewers, who cited other scientific papers stating that the 1,300-year claim and the graph were inaccurate.

But the final version, approved by Prof Mitchell, the relevant chapter’s review editor, swept aside these concerns.

Now, the Met Office is refusing to disclose Prof Mitchell’s working papers and correspondence with his IPCC colleagues in response to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The block has been endorsed in writing by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth – whose department has responsibility for the Met Office.

Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.

Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled that scientists from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – the source of the leaked ‘Warmergate’ emails – acted unlawfully in refusing FOI requests to share their data.

Some of the FOI requests made to them came from the same person who has made requests to the Met Office.

He is David Holland, an electrical engineer familiar with advanced statistics who has written several papers questioning orthodox thinking on global warming.

The Met Office’s first response to Mr Holland was a claim that Prof Mitchell’s records had been ‘deleted’ from its computers.

Later, officials admitted they did exist after all, but could not be disclosed because they were ‘personal’, and had nothing to do with the professor’s Met Office job.

Finally, they conceded that this too was misleading because Prof Mitchell had been paid by the Met Office for his IPCC work and had received Government expenses to travel to IPCC meetings.

The Met Office had even boasted of his role in a Press release when the report first came out.

Sammenholdt med det politiske pres når man f.eks. har antaget en klimaminister, hvis eksistensberettigelse hviler på menneskeskabt global opvarmning, som et problem, hvilket ikke engang er fastslået (har liv det generelt bedst om vinteren eller om sommeren?) og tale om benægtere i forhold til den af IPCC skabte opfattelse af tingenes rette sammenhæng er det svært at forestille sig skeptiske stemmer ikke nedtone forbehold i bekymring over om de fik del i forskningsmidler eller endda kunne regne med negative konsekvenser for deres karriere og renome. I Danmark er det sket under en borgerlig regering, der nok har glædet nogle ved at gøre op med ekspertvældet så langt som det blev brugt formynderisk, men som nu har overskredet enhver moralsk grænse i sin omfavnelse og efterfølgende voldtægt af forskningsmiljøet.

At debatklimaet gennem denne politisering er kørt helt af sporet eksemplificeres i at lederen af det famøse Climate Research Unit under East Anglia University har overvejet selvmord, som følge af en strøm af dødstrusler ifølge Telegraph

Prof Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, said his “David Kelly moment” – a reference to the Government scientist who killed himself over WMD claims in the lead up to the Iraq war – came as death threats poured in from around the world.

Since the scandal broke on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in December, he has lost a stone in weight and is on beta-blockers and sleeping pills.

Denne foragtelige folkedomstol. Jerome Ravetz en underholdene parallel på Watts Up With That

At the end of January 2010 two distinguished scientific institutions shared headlines with Tony Blair over accusations of the dishonest and possibly illegal manipulation of information.  Our ‘Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035?  of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is matched by his ‘dodgy dossier’ of Saddam’s fictitious subversions.  We had the violations of the Freedom of Information Act at the University of East Anglia; he has the extraordinary 70-year gag rule on the David Kelly suicide file. There was ‘the debate is over’ on one side, and ‘WMD beyond doubt’ on the other. The parallels are significant and troubling, for on both sides they involve a betrayal of public trust.

Med stigende forvirring om konsensus skal vi - eller rettere amerikanerne - oven i købet have en ny offentlig institution til at overvåge klimaet og rådgive politikerne. Hvilket får Allan Caruba til at komme med denne syrlige observation

It should tell you something about the federal government’s puerile efforts to advance the global warming (now called climate change) fraud that it had to cancel a scheduled press conference at the National Press Club on February 8th because a huge blizzard had shut down the entire city.

Instead, the announcement of a proposed new bureaucracy, a “Climate Service”, had to be made via a telephone conference call to those reporters either too stupid or too determined to maintain the hoax.

Imens er undersøgelsen af “Climategate” kommet skidt fra start, som Channel4 fortæller

Within hours of the launch of an independent panel to investigate claims that climate scientists covered up flawed data on temperature rises, one member has been forced to resign after sceptics questioned his impartiality.

Netop det gennemgående argument med en påstået enighed om tingenes rette tilstand virker grundlæggende hul når skeptikerne gør sig så meget umage med at sætte den mængde viden vi har i relief og samtidig skelner så præcist mellem antagelse og emperi.  John Coleman giver f.eks nogle gode og efterhånden ganske velkendte indvendinger imod den skråsikkerhed, der ligger i antagelsen om det videnskabelige miljøs konsensus. Og Resilient Earth gengiver også andre beskrivelser af virkeligheden end den konsensus fordrer

A surprising revelation from a new paper: industrial emission actually have a net cooling effect on Earth’s climate. The paper that appears in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences early edition attempts to apportion blame for global warming among various economic sectors. Climate impacts of CO2, tropospheric ozone, fine aerosols, aerosol-cloud interactions, methane, and long-lived greenhouse gases were all analyzed and the appropriate human activities cited. When the dust settled, two sectors turned in large net negative (i.e. cooling) forcing values: biomass burning and industry.

Og måske er det ændringer i vanddamp, som Resilient Earth foreslog

A new report in Science underscores what many scientists have been saying for years, it’s water vapor, not CO2, that has been driving global temperature changes in recent decades. Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000, slowing the rate of global surface temperature increase over the past 10 years. It also seems likely that water vapor in the stratosphere increased between 1980 and 2000, causing surface temperatures to warm by an extra 30% during the 1990s. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change, yet the IPCC crowd continues to focus on CO2.

For slet ikke at tale om følgende opsigtsvækkende påstand fra Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s, som Examiner fortæller om

Examiner.com: According your theory, the greenhouse effect is self-regulating and stabilizes itself in response to rising CO2 levels. You identified (perhaps discovered) a “greenhouse constant” that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium.  Is that a fair assessment of your theory?
Dr. Miskolczi: Yes. Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC.
Examiner.com: You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done?
Dr. Miskolczi: The computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.
Examiner.com: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?
Dr. Miskolczi: No.

For de sangglade har Philip Stott en oplevelse af de sjældne. Og jeg har endda ikke nævnt Svensmark med et ord. Det gør de til gengæld her

4 Kommentarer »

  1. FNs klimapanel er et multikulturelt sammenrend af folk med svigtende faglige forudætninger og svigtende dømmekraft. Multikultur virker simpelthen bare aldrig.

    Nu kaster de sig nok over “overbefolkningen” i stedet. Den eksisterer nemlig heller ikke.

    Det er alletiders, at Monokultur følger klimasagen! :-D

    Comment by Universalgeni — February 14, 2010 @ 11:08 pm
  2. Nu begynder de at tilstå - Phil Jones: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    Comment by Universalgeni — February 15, 2010 @ 1:19 am
  3. Nu begynder de at tilstå - Phil Jones er helt på spanden: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    Comment by Universalgeni — February 15, 2010 @ 1:21 am
  4. Drokles:
    Jeg har lige nu set hos Pamela Geller denne video, en muslim er udnævnt til UK`s justismenister, jeg er lamslået, men måske ikke, jeg har ellers haft sverige som nummer 1 der faldt.
    Gå lidt ned på siden,The True face of islam.

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/02/the-true-face-of-islam.html

    Comment by Per N — February 15, 2010 @ 3:30 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress