Eco-scepticism prevailed

Diverse — Drokles on April 3, 2011 at 2:35 pm

Fra Telegraph

President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday scrapped the country’s proposed carbon tax and reshuffled his cabinet in populist tilt after suffering a crushing electoral defeat over the weekend, when his Gaulliste UMP party lost every region other than in its bastion of Alsace and the Indian Ocean island of Reunion.

(…)

The government said its energy tax was being postponed indefinitely in order not to “damage the competitiveness of French companies”, fearing that it would be too risky for France to go it alone without the rest of the EU. Brussels has announced plans for an EU-wide tax, but the initiative already looks doomed.

Chantal Jouanno, the environment secretary, said she was “devastated that eco-scepticism had prevailed”. France’s leading green groups wrote a joint letter to Mr Sarkozy saying they were “scandalised” by his decision, accusing him of tearing up a pledge to put climate change at the centre of his presidency.

Sarkozy mister altså vælgere på grund af den dårlige økonomi og reagerer ved at slagte økokalven, vel vidende at det vil koste ham venner, i håb om at få…hvad? Stemmer gennem økonomisk genrejsning? Nemlig! For logikken er den sande at der ikke ligger et grønt eventyr og venter på de der begrænser driftigheden, der ligger ingen rationel energiudnyttelse i ineffektivitet, ingen grønne jobs i faldende produktion. Hvis der gjorde ville Sarkozy hamre klimasømmet i bund i håb om at vinde arbejdspladser i tide til at blive belønnet før næste præsidentvalg.

Og så er der selvfølgelig også en anden virkelighed end den politiske og økonomiske, der skal tages i betragtning, nemlig Virkeligheden, som den er i al sin fysiske storslåethed. Jorden har ikke oplevet opvarmning det seneste årti (muligvis de seneste 15 år alt efter hvilken statistisk signifikans man vil acceptere), hvilket strider imod alle FNs Klimapanels modeller. Dr. David Evans, der mistede troen på menneskeskabt global opvarmning efterhånden som de fysiske observationer modsatte sig teoriens diktater, forklarer på Joanna Nova’s blog

You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

(…)

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

Den franske professor i geofysik og imitator af Max Von Sydow Vincent Courtillot gennemgår her hvorledes FNs Klimapanel har forsøgt at få de fysiske observationer til at passe med teorien. Eller, hvis man vil have klimaet sat i relief af en veloplagt geolog Bob Carter.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress