Status for Climate-gate

Diverse — Drokles on December 6, 2010 at 5:26 am

Det er i disse dage et år siden at ukendte personer oploadede en større mængde e-mailkorrospondence mellem nogle af verdens mest centrale klimaforskere tilknyttet East Anglia universitetets klimaenhed på internettet. Timingen faldt før klimatopmødet COP 15 i København og har måske været årsag til de store landes tøven med at indgå en bindende aftale. E-mailkorrespondencens indhold så nemlig ud til at afsløre at FNs klimarapporters dystre varsler var “sexed up”, som man sagde i 2003 om de engelske hemmelige efterretninger op til invasionen af Irak.

Internt luftede klimaforskerne en tvivl på deres egne konklusioner, som ikke fremgik af den officielle version og indrømmelse af mangel på fundamental forståelse afklimaet. Men de afslørede også forsøg, der i nogle tilfælde lykkedes på at forhindre publcering af rivaliserende forskning i videnskabelige magaziner, svindel med nogle resultater og aftaler om at dække over hinanden, forhindring af indsigt i de rå data i strid med den engelske lov om Freedom of Information og endda sletning af data. Deres forskning var gledet over i politisk aktivisme.

Noget har ændret sig i det forgangne år selv om det er svært at se, hvis man hører P1, hvor der hver fredag morgen er klimakorresponter og klimaredaktører i studiet for at fortælle og den seneste udvikling på klimatopmødet. Deres indsigtsfulde forklaringer på den manglende opbakning til nødvendige aftaler overser alle et enkelt og simpelt spørgsmål - tror de ansvarlige ledere overhovedet IPCC over en dørtærskel?

Det er i øjeblikket politisk gravedigging at skide klimadebatten et langt stykke (eller det var det indtil Japan gjorde det højlydt da de annoncerede at de ikke længere agtede at følge Kyotoaftalen, som de jo var værter for!) for katastrofal menneskeskabt global opvarmning er et faktum og et konsensus. Tvivl og skepsis er benægtelse og moralsk anløbent. Så lederne mødes og talersom med en mund stort og flot om vores fælles fremtid, men de kan ikke enes om andet end de store ord for de er ikke enige med IPCC.

Nej selvfølgelig ser Panchauris røv ikke stor ud i den rapport og det er overhovedet ikke derfor vi takker nej til hans date, men der var bare så meget andet - du ved, det er svært. Det er ikke dig, men os min kære. Vi ringer til dig en af dagene.

For klimaet opfører sig ikke som teorien tilsiger. Bob Carter fremfører et jordnært videnskabeligt argument i et svar til en Peter Smith på Quadrant Online

The hypothesis of the day, which requires testing, is that dangerous global warming is being caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. This was a sensible query to raise in the late 1980s, but 20 years, $100 billion and tens of thousands of scientist-years later we now know that the hypothesis is wrong, amongst other reasons for the one alluded to by Mr Smith.

Which was (modified so as to avoid Mr Smith’s disliked year of 1998 as the starting point) that since 1995 the global temperature has not increased within the bounds of its estimated error. Over the same 15 years, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased by more than 5%. It follows that increased carbon dioxide is not causing dangerous warming, or, indeed, any measurable warming at all. Thus this test provides a direct invalidation of the global warming hypothesis.

Note, at the same time, that this test does not challenge the fact that carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas. Rather, it shows only that the warming effect produced by human emissions is so small that it cannot be disentangled from the noise and natural variation of the climate system. To those familiar with the physics of the matter, and with the fact that the relationship between increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperature is a decreasing logarithmic one (i.e. less warming bang for every invested carbon dioxide buck), this result is entirely unsurprising.

Men dette er selvfølgelig falsk bevidsthed. Og katastrofalt for de der vil redde os fra vores synder har denne falske bevidsthed ramt det politiske system, som Wesley Pruden morsomt redegør for Washington Times

Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, who wrote and sponsored the cap-and-trade legislation last year, says he’ll be too busy with congressional business (buying stamps for the Christmas cards and getting a haircut and a shoeshine) even to think about going to Cancun. Last year, he joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of other congressmen in taking staffers and spouses to the party in Copenhagen. The junket cost taxpayers $400,000, but Copenhagen is a friendly town and a good time was had by all. This year, they’re all staying home, learning to live like lame ducks.

The Senate’s California ladies, cheerleaders for the global-warming scam only yesterday, can’t get far enough away from Cancun this year. Dianne Feinstein says she’s not even thinking about the weather. “I haven’t really thought about [Cancun], to be honest with you,” she tells Politico, the Capitol Hill daily. She still loves the scam, but “no - no, no, no, it’s just that I’m not on a committee related to it.” She’s grateful for small blessings.

Barbara Boxer, who was proud to make global warming her “signature” issue only last year, obviously regards that signature now to be a forgery. She would like to be in Cancun, but she has to stay home to wash her hair. She’s not even sending anyone from her staff, willing as congressional staffers always are to party on the taxpayer dime. “I’m sending a statement to Cancun.” (Stop the press for that.)

This is another lesson that Washington’s swamp fevers inevitably subside. Who now remembers Smoot-Hawley, Quemoy and Matsu, and the Teapot Dome? But these were once issues on which the survival of the known world rested. The only global-warming news of this week was the announcement that the House Select Committee on Global Warming would die with the 111th Congress. Mrs. Pelosi established the committee three years ago to beat the eardrums of one and all, a platform for endless argle-bargle about the causes and effects of climate change. The result was the proposed job-killing national energy tax, but with the Republican sweep, there’s no longer an appetite for killing jobs.

Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, the chairman of the doomed committee, organized one final event this week, a splashy daylong exercise in gasbaggery starring the usual suspects assigned to drone on for most of the day about the coming global-warming disasters, the melting of the North Pole and the rising of the seas that would make Denver, Omaha and Kansas City seaside resorts. Wesley Clark was the only former presidential candidate to accept an invitation, and he was a no-show. The star witness of the afternoon session was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an “environmental attorney” who talked about how “clean energy” is nicer than the other kind. Mr. Markey himself, as bored as everyone else, didn’t bother to return after lunch.

Men også herhjemme er der tegn på tvivl blandt de rettroende ifølge Kristeligt Dagblad

 Ved klimatopmødet i København sidste år strømmede religiøse og politiske overhoveder fra hele verden til Danmark i klimaets navn, og klimaklokkerne ringede for skaberværket. Ved det igangværende klimatopmøde i Cancun i Mexico er det kirkelige engagement mindre, og efter Kristeligt Dagblads oplysninger stiller Danmark kun med én lobbyist på kirkens vegne. Han kommer fra Folkekirkens Nødhjælp, der følger klimaforhandlingerne hele året.

Generalsekretær i Folkekirkens Nødhjælp Henrik Stubkjær bekræfter, at Nødhjælpen både i dansk og internationalt regi har skaleret deltagerantallet ned. De kirkelige organisationer er blevet ramt af afmatning efter det dårlige resultat ved klimatopmødet i København, vurderer han.

Lars Løkke kommer heller ikke så ham kan man ikke skyde på, når intet sker. Hvis man virkeligt mener at der er ild i huset at det skalslukkes inden det kommer ud af kontrol virker det så ikke sært at de engageredes engagement kølnes fordi andre har svært ved at motivere sig?

Og Al Gore kan mærke det og han bebrejder medierne

For some time, the media has failed to appropriately cover the climate crisis. A new report from Oxford University’s Reuters Institution for the Study of Journalism provides us with a snapshot of the problem:

Siger han og citerer konklusionen på Reuters undersøgelse, før han selv konkluderer

Our media has a responsibility to educate the public on issues affecting the planet. Covering the climate crisis only as a political issue shields from public view the vital scientific and moral elements of the debate.

Medierne har altså et moralsk ansvar for at rapportere en bestemt vinkel da de åbenbart ikke skal være krtiske, men oplysende. Jamen tak til præsidenten amerikanerne aldrig fik.

Det kan være svært at acceptere at interessen for Jordens snarlige undergang kølnes efterhånden, som vigtigere problemer trænger sig på. Fortrængning gemt bag projektion er en måde at beskytte sin identitet på og ligefor ligger en indlysende forklaring, som Andrew Revkin klynger sig til i New York Times

Behavioral researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have found that  dire descriptions of global warming, in isolation, can cause people to recoil from acceptance of the problem.

Denne logik går direkte imod en anden meget ofte fremhævet logik at mediernes vedvarende fokus på f.eks muslimske indvandreres kriminalitet skaber et kunstigt problem. Hvis Berkely undersøgelsen har fat i noget burde vi inden for kort til se Politiken og Danmarks Radio føre an i en smædekampagne mod islam, muslimer, høje skatter, offentligt forbrug, fattigdomsspøgelset og socialisme. Vi venter spændt, mens vi læser endnu en bid

There’s the “ finite pool of worry” ( Did we pay the rent this month?). There’s “single action bias” ( I changed bulbs; all set.) There are powerful internal filters ( dare I say blinders?) that shape how different people see the same body of information.

And of course there’s the hard reality that the risks posed by an unabated rise in greenhouse-gas emissions are still mainly somewhere and someday while our attention, as individuals and communities, is mostly on the here and now.

Det er selvfølgelig den samme argumentation der lå bag afladsbrevene. Den eneste svaghed var at advarsler om det der teoretisk kan ske langt ude i fremtiden, hvor de advarende har tjent kassen og ikke længere kan blive holdt ansvarlige kan enhver jo slynge ud. Denne filosofiske betragtning er beklageligvis for de druknende isbjørne en del af common sense.

Der er i øvrigt her i vinterkulden også er en manglende forståelse af at varme er et problem fremfor kulden, som Rex Murphy ironiserer over på National Post.

Does not one of the great minds decoding next century’s weather see the brain-splitting contradiction of holding a conference warning of the imminent threat of global warming in a venue that mainly exists because people fly there to get warmer? That’s right, people spend money to fly to Cancun mainly because it’s warmer there than where they live. In essence, Cancun is what the global warming crowd are, otherwise, warning us about.

Han spekulerer i øvrigt også i om det er den sidste klimakonference.

Could this be the last global warming conference? It’s possible. The environmentalists and the activists have had a tin ear and a surplus of righteousness from the beginning. But there’s something extravagantly out of key, even for them, in holding their great “Save the Planet” revival at Cancun — up to now famous for Spring Break and as a hangout for louche Hollywood types and cleavage researchers. It signals they’ve lost the will to pretend. And with Japan having walked away from the whole idea of Kyoto, it’s hard to see how they’ll work up the steam for another holiday next year.

Njarh, men det kunne godt ligne et afterparty for de utrættelige.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress