Hvis de nu tager fejl…

Diverse — Drokles on March 3, 2012 at 1:20 pm

Fysikeren Mike Stopa skrev forleden et godt indlæg, hvor han spekulerer over, hvordan historien vil se på teorien om menneskeskabt global opvarmning

Suppose it turns out that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with the earth’s climate. How will the history of this colossal mistake be written?

They will say that a mechanism called the “greenhouse effect,” was postulated long ago (~1824 by Joseph Fourier) and gained adherents in the late 20th century. They will say that the theory was seemingly invalidated by the decrease in global temperatures from 1940-1975, but that the adherents patched this up by explaining the cooling with pollution, specifically sulfur, from industry

They will say that the theory was challenged by the noted vast gap between the amount of CO2 produced by civilization and the substantially smaller increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but that the theory was patched up by examining the increased CO2 uptake by the hydrosphere and the biosphere.

They will say the theory was seemingly invalidated by the evidence that the atmosphere was already nearly opaque in the wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2 and so the additional CO2 could have, on its own, little effect, but that the theory was patched up by positing a feedback mechanism between the small temperature increases directly due to CO2 and the production of water vapor which is the main greenhouse gas.

They will note that the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proceeded much like any scientific theory (cf. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) in that it was modified and patched up and adjusted to fit empirical challenges until it finally collapsed altogether under the weight of incontrovertible evidence. But, the scientific historians will have a new phenomenon to consider, and that is the social and political context of this particular scientific theory.

Simon Carr har hørt en forelæsning af den skeptiske klimaforsker Richard Lindzen og er begyndt at tvivle på om påstanden om menneskeskabt global opvarmning nu også er robust. Fra The Independent

How to explain the procession of eminent opinion leaders – some even in our own Royal Society – who advance the tenets of catastrophic global warming? “It is science in the service of politics,” he said.

If Lindzen is right, we will never be able to calculate the trillions that have been spent on the advice of “scientists in the service of politics”.

Måske ikke, men nogle tal kan vi dog smide på bordet

The European Commission’s proposal for the EU’s next Multiannual Financial Framework, covering the period 2014-20, marks a major step forward in climate mainstreaming because it builds climate change considerations into the big spending areas and key sectors of the EU budget.

This will accelerate Europe’s transition to a climate-friendly, energy- and resource-efficient society. “I believe the EU will be the first in the world to mainstream climate action into its whole budget” if the proposal is accepted, Connie Hedegaard said. “This moves the fight against climate change into a new phase. The Commission has set an example here.”

The proposed budget, presented on 29 June 2011, totals roughly €1,000bn for 2014-2020 and raises the share of climate-related spending to at least 20%, more than three times the current level.

20% af 1.000 mia. euro er lig med mange, mange penge.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress