Trump fortalte hele Verden i sin indtrædelsestale at hans regering vil sætte USAs interesser først. Tænk at det skal siges? Det burde være banalt for en folkevalgt at sætte sit folk først. Tænk at det kan vække anstød! “Politikken er vendt tilbage hinsides djøficeringen, akademiseringen og den tredje vejs afpolitiserende teknokrati” skriver Kasper Støvring om Trumps indsættelse som USA 45. præsident. Og det er svært at kapere for den politiske elite og dens medier og alle der identificerer sig med den.

Informations debatredaktør Susan Knorrenborg er inde på noget af det samme når hun kalder Donald Trump ’skamløs’ og kalder det hans “måske største aktiv”. Knorrenborg indrømmer at skamløshed kan være frigørende, men hun advarer mod “Trumps perverse frigørelse”

. Den skamløse vinder fritager sine tilhængere fra skam, fordi han skaber plads til alle de følelser, der før har været dømt ude. Til alt det, man tidligere har skammet sig over: arbejdsløsheden, de racistiske følelser, der bobler under huden, hadet til dem, der ved bedre og ikke holder sig tilbage for at belære en om, hvordan verden hænger sammen.

Trump inviterer alle, der har lyst, med ind i et gigantisk omklædningsrum, hvor man kan få lov at føle sig som en vinder, fordi man er på hold med ham, der vandt. Samtidig kan man få lov at stå ved alle sine ubehagelige tilbøjeligheder uden at skulle skamme sig det mindste.

USA’s nye præsident er manden, der ikke rødmer over at slå en skid, og derfor udløser pruttekonkurrence i stedet for forlegne blikke. De indviede holder sig ikke for næsen, for der er noget befriende i at få lov at prutte, som man vil, og lugte, som man gør inderst inde.

Knorrenborg selv skammer sig ikke over at sprede fake news og  indleder sin artikel

Han tilsviner USA’s ellers hellige krigsveteraner; han kalder mexicanere for voldtægtsforbrydere; han praler med at stikke sine lidt for korte fingre ind mellem fremmede damers ben; han truer med at forbyde muslimer indrejse til USA, og han slipper afsted med at påstå, at »begrebet global opvarmning er skabt af og for kineserne for at gøre USA’s produktionsvirksomheder ikkekonkurrencedygtige«.

Det meste af verden ryster på hovedet, flertallet af amerikanerne stemte på Clinton, og når Trump i dag indtager Det Hvide Hus, sker det med en mindre opbakning end nogen anden moderne præsident

Trump tilsvinede ikke (og pludseligt for venstrefløjen) ellers hellige krigsveteraner. Trump skosede derimod en afdød krigshelts forældre for at bruge deres døde søn til et plat politisk angreb på Trump.

Han kaldte ikke mexicanere over en karm for voldtægtsforbrydere.

Han vedstod sig dog at være ganske heterosexuel i en privat samtale for 10 år siden og han ville også forbyde tilstedeværelse af USAs fjender i USA - nøjagtig, som Roosevelt og Carter havde gjort det før ham.

Og ja, Trump tager selvfølgelig fejl når han påstår at “begrebet global opvarmning er skabt af og for kineserne for at gøre USA’s produktionsvirksomheder ikkekonkurrencedygtige“. Sandheden er, at begrebet global opvarmning er skabt af den vestlige venstrefløj for at gøre Vestens produktionsvirksomheder ikkekonkurrencedygtige. Ingen grund til at hakke unødigt på kineserne, de har rigeligt at slås med i deres skæve øjne.

Og Donald Trump hånede ikke “journalisten Serge Kovaleski med hans handicap”, som den ledsagende billedtekst påstår. Gavin MacInnes kan forklare mere her, hvor han skoser Merryl Streep, for den samme fejltagelse.

Det er også fake news at vedblive at kolportere myten om ‘the popular vote’, at Hillary Clinton er den moralske sejrfrue og Trumps sejr derfor illegitim. Det svarer til at man hævder en moralsk sejr i en basketkamp under henvisning til pointreglerne for scorede mål i fodbold. I USA har valg siden for rigtig lang tid siden handlet om at skaffe sig et flertal af valgmænd, som Tom Basile skrev i Forbes tilbage i december

If you ran a popular vote strategy, you’d run a completely different campaign in terms of allocation of time and resources. The game is not winning the popular vote, like it or not.

Further, there is no evidence that had the campaigns executed a popular vote strategy that Clinton would have won. Actually to the contrary, given the marked enthusiasm deficit on the Democrat side, Trump would likely have mobilized more voters from his states than Clinton would have in hers. Also, keep in mind that Clinton did have a robust turnout operation in key urban and suburban districts where she needed to perform well with her base. She still under-performed in those places that also would have been critical to a popular vote victory.

The press has weaved the issue into the coverage repeatedly using the phony recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as an excuse to mention the popular vote margin. Naturally, they’ve spent little time acknowledging that Hillary Clinton lost or under-performed President Obama in almost every single demographic group that mattered - including women.

Trump beviste, så langt det kunne lade sig gøre, at han ville være i stand til at vinde flertallet af stemmerne i hele USA, ved at smadre “the blue wall”, de stater, der regnes for så Demokratiske, at der end ikke syntes at være grund til at føre valgkamp i dem. Støvring citerer fra Brendan O’Neils glimrende og nu virale skriv i Spectator, hvorfor amerikanerne stemte Trump

Because you treated dissent as hate speech and criticism of Obama as extremism. Because you talked more about gender-neutral toilets than about home repossessions. Because you beatified Caitlyn Jenner. Because you policed people’s language, rubbished their parenting skills, took the piss out of their beliefs.

Because you cried when someone mocked the Koran but laughed when they mocked the Bible. Because you said criticising Islam is Islamophobia. Because you kept telling people, ‘You can’t think that, you can’t say that, you can’t do that

Nu jeg er ved det skamløse, den yderste venstrefløj smadrer gaderne, mens den beskylder Trump for at smadre alt andet. Her er billedet af venstrefløjens forståelse af “We, the people”, deres popular vote

fundet via No Trix Zone

Lüning starts by reminding the listeners that geology is key to understanding the past, which in turn can help us to better understand the present and provide valuable clues of what to expect in the future.

The German geologist is a specialist in the geology of Africa. The scientitific literature shows that the Sahara was green a mere 6000 years ago, and his slide at the 0:45 mark show remnants of that time.

Remnants of a green Sahara, 6000 years ago.

Back then, in the mid Holocene, it was 1 – 2°C warmer than it is today and the Sahara was teeming with wildlife.

At the 2:20 mark Lüning shows a slide of cave painting, in the middle of the Sahara, depicting wildlife seen at the time:

Cave paintings of wildlife in the middle of the Sahara.

The changes over the Holocener period clearly are greater than what we are seeing today and are due to natural flcutucations, primarily solar activity. Lüning adds at the 3:40 mark:

This is a geological context that unfortunately is lost on many people like physicists who believe their formulae more than they believe the true facts.”

Greenland is cooling

At the 4:10 mark Lüning brings up the Axforf paper of 2013, which shows Greenland was “2 – 3°C warmer 6000 to 4000 years ago than it is today” and that the ice survived.

At the 5:00 mark he presents a 2013 paper by Lecavalier et al showing that Greenland has cooled 2.5°C over the last 8000 years.

Greenland has cooled 2.5°C over the last 8000 years.

On his slide Lüning writes:

Despite the thousands of years of continuous warmth, the dramatic ice collapse never occurred.”

At the 6:00 mark Lüning shows a chart from Bob Carter, also showing nothing unusual is happening, Co2 playing only a minor role.

At the 7:30 mark Lüning brings up the IPCC 1990 millennium temperature chart that distinctly shows a warmer Medieval Warm Period and a little ice age. At the 8:30 various hockey sticks are shown, which Lüning describes as “incorrect”. “Even Michael Mann had to admit that he had exaggerated”.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/29/german-geologist-ipcc-models-a-failure-have-no-chance-of-success-sees-possible-0-2c-of-cooling-by-2020/#sthash.qWW5V44G.dpuf

En vejrmand tweetede ifølge Daily Mail, at han var brudt grædende sammen da han stod i lufthavnen og tænkte over den seneste klimarapports skræmmende perspektiver. Aldrig mere ville han tage en flyver, svor han og han overvejede endda vasektomi. Det kan jeg anbefale alle klimatosser, hvor ville vores børn få det rart. Men der har også været mere velovervejede reaktioner. Steven Goddard konstaterer tørt at klimapanelets overbevisning om global opvarmning er steget som den globale temperatur er faldet

Og Goddard konstaterer også at at der ikke har været global opvarmning i 70% af klimapanelets levetid! Dr. Det har været det helt store problem for klimapanelet, hvad skal man fortælle offentligheden når man ikke har noget at berette. Under forhandlingerne om de endelige formuleringer i klimarapporten var der stor uenighed, regeringerne imellem fortalte Telegraph. Tyskerne ville slette alle referencer til den manglende temperaturstigning, belgierne at man regnede fra et særligt statistisk fordelagtigt år og amerikanerne at man fandt på en masse bortforklaringer. Som Lubos Motl, ridsede op, så var europærerne for censur, mens amerikanerne ville lyve. Alle var de bange for, hvorledes skeptikerne kunne udnytte det. Det var et dilemma, som ikke havde nogen løsning og det er ikke så overraskende at resultatet er under kritik. Benny Peisler siger til Express

Dr Benny Peiser, of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, branded the report “insincere hype” and “scare tactics”.

He said: “This is nothing but a political statement to cover up the fact that continual predictions about climate change are just not happening. The IPCC said global temperatures would rise by up to 0.2C [0.36F] a decade and this is not happening.

“This is a political attempt to divert attention away from the fact that they would otherwise have to admit they were wrong. This report is not a scientific, ­honest assessment of their performance in the past or the performance of climate.”

Marc Moraneo siger til Daily Caller

“You have to pity the UN. The climate events of 2013 has been one of the most devastating to the UN’s political narrative on global warming,” said Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, a climate skeptic website.

Morano added that “[b]oth poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking all time records, global temperatures have failed to rise for 15 plus years, global cooling has occurred since 2002, polar bear numbers are increasing,  wildfire’s are well below normal, sea level rise is failing to accelerate, tornadoes are at record lows, hurricanes are at record low activity,  Gore’s organization is flailing and losing donors amid layoffs, former climate believers like Judith Curry are growing more skeptical by the day.”

Heller ikke den australske geolog Bob Carter er imponeret, som han fortæller i et interview med BBC ifølge Scottish Sceptic, mens han forsøger med lidt simpel indføring i basal videnskabelighed

That the IPCC has an idea. It is not actually their idea it was why they were set up. They were told to go away and consider the business, not of climate change in the round, but of climate change caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. So what it does it that it goes out and looks for evidence, for humans having a dangerous impact on climate. Now real science doesn’t work that way.

Now as you probably know science proceeds in general by setting up what is called a null hypothesis which is the simplest hypothesis. And that is: we look out the window and we see everyday change in the weather and in the longer term the climate. The distribution and patterns of nesting and flowering and so on of animals and plants. So we know the real world is variable the whole time.

The null hypothesis therefore is: that those changes we observe are due to natural variation. And the NIPCC report tries to invalidate that hypothesis. And the really interesting thing is that after looking at several thousand papers just like the IPCC, we come to the opposite conclusion. One of our conclusions is that climate has always changed and it always will. There is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change: of temperature; of ice-volume; of sea-level, or of extreme weather events.

(…)

The problem with what you just said to me about 95% probability is that it is hocus pocus science. In science the phrase 70% probable or 90% probable had definite meanings. They imply controlled trials, they imply numerical quantitative information objectively assessed. If you ask the IPCC they will tell you that when they use the term 95% probable it is based on the expert opinion of a group of people gathered around a table. It is completely wrong to use probability terminology to describe what is albeit an expert opinion.

Lawrence Solomon skriver i Financial Post

So what, says Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s Commissioner for Climate Action. “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

So, it’s come down to this — we now have widespread agreement from numerous true believers that the models — the only source of scary scenarios — are junk. But the true believers want us to take action on climate change regardless, out of prudence, on the mere possibility that the sky could be falling. It’s an “insurance policy,” Pindyck explains, with other true believers nodding in agreement.

This is a peculiar species of insurance policy, one where the premiums that we’re being asked to pay total literally trillions of dollars, where the perils that we’re being protected against are ill- or undefined, and where — should any of the perils ever materialize — no benefits will be paid out to us policyholders.

This is also a peculiar species of insurance because the insurance industry has traditionally insured on the basis of past experience — this is the tradecraft of actuaries, who ground their assessment of risks on the likelihood that “actual” events that have occurred will reoccur. But in all of known human history — some 5,000 years — and even what’s known of human pre-history — some 200,000 years — none of the many periods of global warming that we’re aware of has led to human harm.

Judith Curry er også direkte i sin vurdering af, hvor stort dilemmaet er for FN’s klimapanel, fortæller Fox News

Judith Curry, professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, was even blunter.

“IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast.”

Og tvivlen breder sig midt i medie hysteriet. BBC’s seere blev nogle dage inden rapportens offentliggørelse konfronteret med denne simple sandhed (h/t Watts Up With That)

Og tyske Der Spiegel skrev

For a quarter of a century now, environmental activists have been issuing predictions in the vein of the Catholic Church, warning people of the coming greenhouse effect armageddon. Environmentalists bleakly predict global warming will usher in plagues of biblical dimensions — perpetual droughts, deluge-like floods and hurricanes of unprecedented force.

The number of people who believe in such a coming apocalypse, however, has considerably decreased. A survey conducted on behalf of SPIEGEL found a dramatic shift in public opinion — Germans are losing their fear of climate change. While in 2006 a sizeable majority of 62 percent expressed a fear of global warning, that number has now become a minority of just 39 percent.

One cause of this shift, presumably, is the fact that global warming seems to be taking a break. The average global temperature hasn’t risen in 15 years, a deviation from climatologists’ computer-simulated predictions.

(…)

The researchers’ problem: Their climate models should have been able to predict the sudden flattening in the temperature curve. Offering explanations after the fact for why temperatures haven’t increased in so long only serves to raise doubts as to how reliable the forecasts really are.

Despite this, most Germans have not yet lost their faith in climate research. According to the SPIEGEL survey, 67 percent of Germans still consider the predictions reliable.

(…)

Environmental policymakers within the IPCC fear, though, that climate skeptics and industry lobbyists could exploit these scientific uncertainties for their own purposes. The IPCC’s response has been to circle the wagons. To ensure it remains the sole authority on climate predictions, the panel plans not to publish the complete report for some time after the release of the summary and not even release transcripts from the negotiations in Stockholm.

This despite the IPCC’s promise for more transparency after hair-raising mistakes in the last assessment report — from 2007 — emerged three years ago and tarnished the panel’s credibility. One result of that scandal was a commitment to avoiding future conflicts of interest. Yet scientists who previously worked for environmental organizations still hold leading roles in the creation of the IPCC report. This includes at least two “coordinating lead authors” who are responsible for individual chapters of the report.

Times skriver i sin leder bl.a

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has an image problem. It appears unsure how to regain the trust of voters and politicians, but not of the science it is supposed to assess. This week’s report is expected to conclude with more confidence than ever that humans have caused more than half the planet’s warming in the past 60 years. This may seem provocative in the circumstances, but the truth is that the real question for scientists now is not whether climate change is happening but how fast. So far there are only theories as to why the Earth has warmed so much slower in the past 15 years than some models predicted. The models may have been wrong. The scenarios inferred from them may have been alarmist. This much is clear: the IPCC must tackle head-on what it calls the “hiatus” in global warming, and follow the evidence rather than buckle to political pressure from either side of the debate.

Det bliver mere normalt for medierne at fortælle om global opvarmning, med den bemærkning at temperaturen ikke er steget i 17 år. Man vil spørge guruerne, i hvis skrækscenarier man tidligere har betrygget sin verdensopfattelse med og de vil i bedste fald væve og ævle udenom. I værste fald vil de optræde så tåkrummende pinlige at selv ikke medierne kan lade være med at blive ved med at spørge. Den anden Irakkrig huskes jo for Komiske Ali.

Fra International Climate Science Coalition

Ottawa, Canada, March 28, 2012: “Earth Hour is yet another symbol of how climate activists have hijacked the environmental movement,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. “Most people do not realize that, when they turn out their lights for sixty minutes on March 31, they are not supporting science-based environmental protection. Participants in Earth Hour are unwittingly helping prop up one of the most threatening scientific hoaxes in history—the idea that carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from human activities are known to be causing dangerous global warming and other problematic climate change.”

ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia and author of the best selling book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus” explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”

New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor said, “It’s important not to waste energy, and to generate it as economically as possible in terms both of cost and depletion of natural resources. Those are the right reasons for mass gestures like Earth Hour. However, it is a mistake to promote such initiatives as ’saving the planet’ by reducing emissions of CO₂ when so many qualified scientists do not support the hypothesis that man-made CO₂ can or does cause dangerous global warming. As the public come to realize that they have been misled about the reasons for Earth Hour, much of the incentive to engage in constructive behaviour will evaporate.”

Med med alt lys tændt, TV buldrende om kap med det rørforstærkertrukne steroanlæg vil jeg lave mig en dejlig salat

Uddrag fra en tale fra Europas eneste statsmand, Václav Klaus, som han holdt ved en klimakonference på Downing College, Cambridge og som kan læses i sin herlige helhed på Klaus.cz.

The GWD, this new incarnation of environmentalism, is not a monolithic concept that could be easily structured and summarized. It is a flexible, rather inconsistent, loosely connected cascade of arguments, which is why it has been so successfully escaping the scrutiny of science. It comfortably dwells in the easy and self-protecting world of false interdisciplinarity (which is nothing else than the absence of discipline). A similar approach was used by the exponents of one of the forerunners of GWD, of the Limits to Growth Doctrine. Some of its protagonists were the same.

What follows is my attempt to summarize my reading of this doctrine:

1. It starts with the claim that there is an undisputed and undisputable, empirically confirmed, statistically significant, global, not regional or local, warming;

2. It continues with the argument that the time series of global temperature exhibits a growing, non-linear, perhaps exponential trend which dominates over its cyclical and random components;

3. This development is considered dangerous for the people (in the eyes of soft environmentalists) or for the planet (among “deep” environmentalists);

4. The temperature growth is interpreted as a man-made phenomenon which is caused by the growing emissions of CO₂. These are considered the consequence of industrial activity and of the use of fossil fuels. The sensitivity of global temperature to even small variations in CO₂ concentration is supposed to be high and growing;

5. The GWD exponents promise us, however, that there is a hope: the ongoing temperature increase can be reversed by the reduction of CO₂ emissions[5];

6. They also know how to do it. They want to organize the CO₂ emissions reduction by means of directives (or commands) issued by the institutions of “global governance”. They forget to tell us that this is not possible without undermining democracy, independence of individual countries, human freedom, economic prosperity and a chance to eliminate poverty in the world. They pretend that the CO₂ emissions reduction will bring benefits which will exceed its costs.

(…)

As someone who personally experienced central planning and attempts to organize the whole society from above, I feel obliged to warn against the arguments and ambitions which are very similar to those we had to live with decades ago. The arrogance with which the GWD alarmists and their fellow-travelers in politics and media want to suppress the market, control the society, dictate the prices (directly or indirectly by means of various interventions, including taxes) is something I know well from the past[10]. All the old, already almost forgotten economic arguments against communism should be repeated now. It is our duty to do so.

To conclude, I agree with many serious climatologists who say that the warming we experience or is on the horizon will be very small. Convincing argumentation can be found in Ian Plimer’s recent book.[11] I agree with Bob Carter and others that it is difficult “to prove that the human effect on the climate can be measured” because “this effect is lost in the variability of natural climate changes”[12]. From the economic point of view, in case there will be no irrational interventions against it, the economic losses connected with such a modest warming will be very small. A loss generated as a result of a completely useless fight against global warming would be far greater.

Konferencen havde til formål at bringe skeptikere og tilhængere af katastrofal menneskeskabt global opvarmning og ikke sammen, så i det mindste i stand til at tale sammen. Men der er lang vej, som James Delingpole gør opmærksom på, på sin egen fyndige måde på sin blog på The Telegraph

You’d have to be very naive, though, to conclude that the fault lay on both sides and that if only they could communicate with one another we’d all attain the sensible middle ground position where wisdom, truth and sweet reasonableness resides. That would be to fall for what I call the “Dog S*** Yoghurt Fallacy.”

It goes like this: one side of this debate thinks that the best thing to put in yoghurt is fruit; the other side is of the view that what really needs to be added to yoghurt is a nice bit of dog poo. Now suppose we were to compromise. Suppose the latter faction were to concede sufficient ground to agree that only a tiny quantity of dog poo should go into the mainly fruit-rich yoghurt, would this constitute a victory for commonsense?

Of course it wouldn’t. Even if just the smallest, smidgen of a fraction of dog poo were to go into that yoghurt it would still be irredeemably tainted. Similar rules apply to the current debate on global warming. On one side – what you might call the fruit side – you have those scientists, economists and, yes, bloggers who maintain that CO2 is a generally beneficial trace gas which encourages plant growth and poses no risk of catastrophic global warming. On the other side – the dog poo side, obviously – you have “scientists”, politicians, spivs, rent-seekers, cranks, whackos, eco-loons, EU fonctionnaires and such like who believe that CO2 poses a major problem to global climate and must be taxed and regulated to oblivion.

Sobert og sandt.

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.

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.

Bob Carter skriver i The Australian at Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, som fik en dom for at være fuld af løgn, er kommet på skoleskemaet i de australske skoler - men ikke i noget naturfag…

…many Australian parents have been surprised to learn Gore’s film “will be incorporated in the [new] national [English] curriculum ), as part of a bid to teach students on environmental sustainability across all subjects”.

It is, I suppose, some relief the film has not been recommended for inclusion in the science syllabus. Instead, Banquo’s ghost has risen to haunt English teachers, doubtless in class time that might otherwise have been devoted to learning grammar.

Some Australian English teachers may feel competent to advise pupils on the science content of An Inconvenient Truth, but I wouldn’t bank on it. Of course, the same teachers have to feel competent also to shepherd their flock on to the green pastures of sustainability, that other pseudo-scientific concept so beloved by the keepers of our society’s virtue.

Australian schools are being transformed from institutions that impart a rigorous education into social reform factories that manufacture right-thinking (which is to say, left-thinking) young clones ready to be admitted into the chattering classes. This process is manifest in other aspects of the new syllabuses.

Two other biases in the public debate about global warming have occurred recently. The first was the launching of the website Power Shift 2009, which describes itself as “Australia’s first national youth climate summit. It’s the moment where [sic] our fast-growing youth movement for a safe climate future [whatever that might be] comes together”.

In reality, this is simply another website aimed at indoctrinating children regarding global warming, and while it’s not surprising to see Greenpeace and GetUp are involved, it is disappointing to see the involvement of persons with the mana of Ian Thorpe.

The second recent bias has been the broadcast on ABC Radio National of the George Munster Award Forum from the Sydney University of Technology. Here, a panel of “Australia’s top journalists” examined the proposition: “Telling both sides of the story is a basic rule of journalism, but should it apply to reporting climate change?”

Stellar contributions made by the journalists involved included the notions that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, that 97 per cent of all climate scientists agree that dangerous human-caused global warming is happening, and that there is no real debate about climate change. Independent scientists who question these specious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change orthodoxies - for the good reason that they are untrue - were referred to as denialists, fruitcakes, clowns and fools who had “invaded the ABC”. Giving them airtime was said to “attack the essence of journalism”.

The reporting of email leaks from the University of East Anglia last year was “a terrible and wrong disturbance” in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate conference, and the astonishing claim was even made that Fairfax and the ABC “have delivered the objective, factual scientific stories on climate change”.

This farrago of nonsense was described by one US scientist who listened as “probably the most horrifying and disturbing Big Ideas-Small Minds discussion by journalists I have ever heard”. Book-burning parties for Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth or my own Climate: the Counter Consensus can’t be far away, and if the persons involved in the forum were Australia’s top environmental journalists, then God help us all.

Selv om man udmærket er klar over det overraskes man alligevel til stadighed over venstrefløjens selvfølgelige undtagelser for principper de ellers besmykker sig med.

Danmarks Radios dækning af, hvad der tegner til at blive den største videnskabelige skandale nogensinde er mildt sagt sær kunne jeg se hos Universalgeniet. DR2 Udland havde den 2. marts i år dette indslag om chefen for East Anglia Climate Research Unit Phil Jones og hans vidneri i sagen mod ham og hans svindelnumre

“En britisk forsker der har været mistænkt for at gøre klimaproblemerne værre end de egentlig er bryder nu flere måneders tavshed.” indledes indslaget med og før jeg fortørnet udbryder “Hvad fanden mener værten med “Værre end de er”?” osv. skal det lige slås fast at han ikke bryder tavsheden, men vidner i en sag imod ham. Og anklagen mod CRU og Phil Jones var ikke at de ville “skjule de positive sider af klimaforandringerne“, som Danmarks Radio fortæller den intetanende licensbetaler for det beskæftigede de sig slet ikke med, men at Jones et. al. havde fortalt om klimaforandringer der ikke fandt sted. Temperaturen har været stabil de seneste 10 år og alle klimaforandringer man mener at måtte se kan altså ikke have en global forklaring, men en lokal, hvilket udelukker CO2, der ikke har det med at klumpe sammen. Indslaget slutter med at konstatere at Phil Jones benægtede at have holdt noget skjult - andet en “the decline” vel. At Phil Jones indtager det standpunkt er måske ikke så mærkeligt endda.

Phil Jones har i et interview med BBC for et par uger siden allerede brudt tavsheden og indrømmelserne af at have forpurret sit videnskabelige felt og løjet for offentligheden for deres egne skattekroner, mens politikerne på den baggrund gjorde sig klar til at omkalfatre det økonomiske system og overgive national og demokratisk suverænitet til et korrupt og 3.verdensinficeret FN burde være en stor historie for en TV-station. Phil Jones anerkender dog ikke konsekvenserne af de svar han selv giver, men det behøver han heller ikke

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

Vi er på vej ud af den Lille Istid så naturligvis stiger temperaturen globalt. Den Lille Istid og før den den middelalderlige varmeperiode var udsving i temperaturen, som forgik uanfægtet af menneskelig aktivitet og er altså drevet af noget andet og meget kraftigt, som der ikke den dag i dag er helt enighed om hvad var. Pointen er den banale at den alarmerende stigning i temperaturen, som på en gang er truslen vi skal forholde os til og selve beviset på vores synder ikke eksisterer. At tegnene på en potentielt klimatrussel, endsige katastrofe tilsyneladende var løgn bliver uddybet

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

Udtrykket statisktisk signifikant signifikerer ifølge Sir Humphrey Appelby det signifikante ved ordet signifikant.

El Nino fra 1998 gav et stort udsving på temperaturskalaen, der er afstedkommet har gjort kurvens glatte udvikling vanskelig at bedømme præcist, men fra midten af halvfjerserne steg temperaturen og har siden omkring 2000 ligget stabilt, men med en statistisk usignifikant tendens til afkøling. Det naturlige skæringspunkt er altså det nye årtusinde og ikke 1995, men ved at føre statistikken tilbage til 1995 får Jones lov til at sige at der har været en stigning i de seneste 15 års tid omend meget lille og får dermed antydet at han og hans team ikke lyver så meget som de måske har overdrevet en tendens - i en god sags tjeneste forstås. Alle kan jo lade sig rive med af en begejstring uden af have sinistre planer.

Men 10 år er altså for kort en tid til at sige noget meningsfuldt, så de seneste par års FN genererede løgne på baggrund af bl.a. Jones’ arbejde om at temperaturen konkret var stigende sløres af denne pludselige hang til forsigtige udmeldinger og statistisk signifikans. Svaret til spørgsmål D emmer af den forsigtighed man så længe har savnet

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

Hans fesne hvis-man-begrænser-til-nogle-bestemte-faktorer-så-kunne-man-måske-forvente-svar er så langt fra den skråsikkerhed, der skal ligne et konsensus, som man kan komme. Og der er som sagt kun fem år til at der er gået 15 år fra 2000 og så fanger bordet ifølge Jones egen logik. Udover at vi i øjeblikket har en El Nino, som bliver modsvaret i La Nina på et tidspunkt så tyder intet på at temperaturen står overfor en acceleration opad.

Men indrømmelser går videre, for at finde ud af hvilken tid vi lever i må vi kunne sætte den i relief på baggrund af historien.

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

Middelalderens varmeperiode bliver fejlagtigt til den eneste målestok for fortilfælde når det blot burde være at regne for det seneste fortilfælde kun adskilt fra vores tid af den Lille Istid. Og det er også værd at bemærke at skønt Jones har ret i at man ikke har globale proxydata, der kan bevise den har man heller ikke noget, der taler imod at den skulle være global. Alt hvad man har af data, skønt det ikke er komplet, tegner et billede af en global varmeperiode der var varmere end nu og hvor civilisationen trivedes og menneskelivet var bedre. Her er altså det manglende fortilfælde, som FN gennem Michael Manns berømte Hockey-stok graf (Det er en Is-hockeystok rent faktisk da Hockeystokkens form er en statistisk umulighed) forsøgte at slette fra vores historie. Her er tale om ægteklima-benægtelse.

Jones slår fast at han trods de mange anomalier er 100% overbevist om at vi oplever en menneskeskabt global opvarmning med dette videnskabelige argument

H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing

Ok og vi spørger så Svensmark, hvorfor han er sikker på sin kosmisk strålingsteori og hører ham svare: “Fordi vi ikke kan forklare det med CO2 og vulkanisk aktivitet” osv. Svaret er i sin essens en bekræftelse på at man ikke aner, hvad der driver klimaet og hvorledes de forskellige faktorer spiller sammen, hvilket vil sige at konsensus er stendød.

Professor Bob Carter trækker på Quadrant Online klimahysteriet tilbage til NASAs James Hansen, der i 1988 vidnede for kongressen og fortalte, hvorledes det hele så ud til at skride. Hansen skrev i 2004 om nytten af overdrivelse i den gode sags tjeneste

“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic”.

Dette betegner Carter som hansenisme og trækker en historisk parallel

Histories of science contain an account of the ideological control of Soviet biology during the mid-20th century by plant scientist Trofim Lysenko, who by 1940 had risen to be Director of the influential Institute of Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Lysenko and his supporters rejected the “dangerous Western concepts” of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution. They preferred the Lamarckian view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics; for instance, that cows could be trained to give more milk and their offspring would then inherit this trait.

Whilst this was not an unreasonable hypothesis to erect in the early 19^th century, by the 1930s the idea had been tested in many ways and was known to be wrong. Requiring its application to agricultural and allied biological research in the USSR was disastrous, not least in the vicious persecution of scientists that took place, and the legacy of this sad episode still disadvantages Soviet biology today.

Lysenkoism grew from four main roots:

• a necessity to demonstrate the practical relevance of science to the needs of society;
• the amassing of evidence to show the “correctness” of the concept as a substitute for causal proof;
• noble cause corruption, whereby data are manipulated to support a cause which is seen as a higher truth; and
• ideological zeal, such that dissidents are silenced as “enemies of the truth”.

The first of these roots has been strongly represented in Australian government attitudes to the funding of science as far back as the 1980s. The remaining three roots exemplify closely the techniques that are currently used by global warming alarmists in pursuit of their aims – as recently exposed for all to see by the Climategate and IPCCgate scandals.

Lysenkoism damaged mainly Soviet science and society, whereas Hansenism has now been exerting its pernicious influence worldwide for more than twenty years. The climate alarmism involved has long been undermining the precious public trust from which science draws its traditional influence and sustenance, and now Climategate has opened up new sinkholes all over the place.

Som sagt, lidt af en historie for Danmarks Radio, hvis de gerne vil være et ledende nyhedsmedie i stedet for blot forbruger af tre og en halv mia. af licensbetalernes penge.

——————————————————————————————–

UPDATE:

Press Release

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data. All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Goran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
112 27 Stockholm, Sweden

See PDF of letter here.

Mens forårssneen pryder landskabet kan vi friske lidt videnskablig essens op, som Resilient Earth beskriver den

Popper made the following observations as to what makes a good scientific theory:

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.

Popper made a distinction between what he termed conditional scientific predictions, which have the form “If X takes place, then Y will take place,” and unconditional scientific prophecies, which have the form “Y will take place.” It is the former rather than the latter which are typical of the natural sciences. This means that predictions made by scientific theories are typically conditional and limited in scope—taking the form of a hypothetical assertion stating that certain specified changes will come about if particular preceding events take place. Conversely, if X takes place and Y does not, then the hypothesis must be false.

(…)

The reason for this lies in the concept of falsifiability—a condition that must be met by all valid scientific theories. Popper noted that it is easy to obtain evidence in favor of virtually any theory, and he consequently held that such corroboration should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a genuinely “risky” prediction. Risky here means that the prediction could conceivably have been false. For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable by a conceivable event. Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies the whole theory.

Basically, a theory must make predictions about how nature behaves so that the validity of the theory can be tested through experimentation and/or observation. For example, say I claim that all swans are white, based on my direct observation of a sample of swan populations. If someone finds a single black swan and is able to document the observation (e.g. by taking a picture or capturing the beast) then the white swan theory is disproved. In this case a single contradicting observation is sufficient to invalidate the theory.

It is possible that a disproved theory can be modified to better fit nature as observed—the white swan theory could be amended to say “most swans are white.” In this case the new theory could not be disproved by a single black swan siting, it would take finding a numerical majority of non-white swans to disprove it. Scientific philosophy would say that the first white swan theory is a stronger theory, the assertion that all swans are white being much more restrictive than the modified “most swans” theory. Simply put, the stronger the theory the simpler it is to disprove, the argument being that an easily disprovable theory which stands the test of time is stronger than a theory, which would take a much larger effort to debunk. It takes a deeper understanding of the assertions made by a theory to know what kind of argument is needed to disprove it.

When it comes to the AGW theory, which states that human generated CO₂ is the reason for increasing world temperature, there is some wiggle room for its proponents, but not much. If it can be shown that the sum total of other contributing factors is more influential than CO₂ then the theory is proven false. Any valid observation which shows CO₂’s influence is less important to climate change than other factors diminishes the validity of the theory. Moreover, if many of the predictions made by the theory are shown to be false then the theory is weakened—the death of a thousand cuts scenario.

If a theory claims to explain climate change and new work shows that there are phenomena that the theory does not explain then that theory is incomplete. If nature shows assertions made by the theory to be wrong then the theory is false. The papers I cited showed that there is dispute among scientists, that nature is still serving up big surprises that climate science is at a loss to explain, that the science is not settled. Given this evidence, for any layman to state otherwise is preposterous but as Popper himself said, “irrationalism will use reason too, but without any feeling of obligation.”

D L Hoffmann, der er manden bag Resilient Earth gennemgår på den baggrund teorien om den menneskeskabte globale opvarmning, som De ikke bør snyde dem selv for at læse kære læser. Han kommer til nogenlunde samme konklusion, som Bob Carters torpedoer, som De heller ikke bør snyde dem selv for at se eller gense. Med Popper og almindelig vedenskablig praksis in mente var det derfor meget bemærkelsesværdigt da Phil Jones overfor det britiske parlament indrømmede bevidst at have skjult de rå data fra alverdens vejrstationer og desuden desuden ifølge Daily Mail fortalte

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not ’standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

‘I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,’ he said.

Så meget for Jones og konsorter selvfølgelig. Så meget for Peer Rewiev. Og så meget for den forskning, der byggede på resultaterne af hans produktion. Jones og resten af denne klimaelites praksis er heldigvis heller ikke videnskabelig konsensus, som Watts Up With That fortæller

Earlier we reported on The Royal Society of Chemistry making a statement to the Parliamentary inquiry saying they as an organization support open data sharing. They join the Institute of Physics in making a strong statement on the practices of UEA/CRU. Now the Royal Statistical Society has weighed in with much the same opinion.

Som Hoffmann gerne slutter sine artikler; Stay Sceptical and be safe.

Counterpunch beskriver, hvorledes kernen af forskere, der promoverer CO2 teorien, som definitiv, afgjort og hævder videnskabelig konsensus privat er i dyb tvivl

…Kenneth Trenberth, a senior scientist and the head of the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. On October 14, 2009, he wrote to the CRU’s Tom: “How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

In other words, only a few weeks before the Copenhagen summit, here is a scientist in the inner AGW circle disclosing that “we are not close to knowing” whether the supposedly proven agw model of the earth’s climate actually works, and that therefore “geo-engineering” – global carbon-mitigation, for example – is “hopeless”.

This admission edges close to acknowledgement of a huge core problem – that “greenhouse” theory and the vaunted greenhouse models violate the second law of thermodynamics which says that a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body XX. Greenhouse gasses in the cold upper atmosphere, even when warmed a bit by absorbed infrared, cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space. Readers interested in the science can read mathematical physicist Gerhard Gerlich’s and Ralf  Tscheuchner’s detailed paper published in The International Journal of Modern Physics, updated in January , 2009, “”.

En, som ikke er i tivivl er Piers Corbyn, der lever af at forudsige ekstremt vejr op til et år frem i tiden. Han afviser rask væk at CO2 er relevant for vejret og forudser i stedet en periode, hvor klimaet bliver koldere i op til 100 år.

1. Contrary to the projections of the UN and Governments the world has been cooling since

2002/3 while CO2 has been rising rapidly.

(see

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2331 and

WeatherAction

end

year

report

2008

http://www.lowefo.com/pdf/News081229Word.pdf )

2. Global warming is over and it never was anything to do with mankind.

There is no evidence that CO2 fluctuations in the last 200, 2,000 or 20,000 years have caused

warming or climate change, in fact the evidence is the other way around.

( See Challenge to IME http://www.lowefo.com/pdf/MIE090213_Where_Evidence.pdf )

3. There is no evidence of more extreme weather events or increases in the rate of sea level rise or

changes in glaciers corresponding to CO2 increases since the industrial revolution.

( See Effects of CO2 Nicholson & Soon http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22434.pdf )

4. All changes in the Arctic and Antarctic follow natural and highly variable patterns which are

not new or special and have been recorded for over a thousand years and have been very well

known to the British navy** for a long time and available in the Met Office library The Antarctic has

been cooling for decades and the Arctic has started to cool in the last year or two. Break-up of ice is a

natural process - like the falling down of old trees - and has been happening for millions of years

before news media noticed it.

5. All the UN & Govt forecasts of ongoing warming this century have failed and the UN has still

refused to produce evidence of their claims despite reasonable requests by an international group of

science experts.

(See Letter to UN Sec General 14 July 2008 http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf)

6. Extreme weather and climate change events can be predicted months or years ahead using

solar activity whereas standard meteorology and CO2 dogma cannot do this.

(PowerPoint & Audio of Piers Corbyn’s & Other Presentations at International Climate Change Conference New

York 8-10 March 2009 www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html - section V track 1 see slide 28

for world Temperature forecast to 2030. Scroll for speeches by Prof Bob Carter, Prof Richard Lindzen, Lord

Monckton and others)

A Layman’s Explanation of Why Global Warming Predictions by Climate Models are Wrong by Dr Roy Spencer -

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3513

7. The Met office long range forecasts for summer 2007, summer 2008 and winter 2008/09 were

the opposite of what occurred while solar-based (Solar Weather Technique) forecasts

correctly foresaw the floods, more floods and heavy snow in each of those seasons.

Som han bygger på følgende teori

I Information spørger Carsten Jensen mere let ledende end retorisk om vore børn vil hade os for ikke at stoppe klimaet.

»Kommer jeg til at få børn? Og hvad med børnebørn?«

Hun var 11 år, da hun spurgte første gang. Det var også på det tidspunkt, hun begyndte at slukke lyset bag mig, når jeg forlod et af værelserne i lejligheden og begav mig ind i det næste. Vi sad i små øer af lys i den ellers mørklagte lejlighed. Vi slukkede ikke bare for afbryderknappen på fjernbetjeningen, når vi slukkede for fjernsynet. Vi gik hen til kontakten på væggen og afbrød.

Min kæreste bor i London, og det medfører en del pendlen frem og tilbage over Nordsøen. Den 11-årige mente, jeg fløj for meget. Jeg forklarede mig og brugte ordet kærlighed en hel del. »Du må vælge mellem din kæreste og verden,« sagde hun i et tonefald, så jeg et øjeblik troede, jeg stod over for en hjemmegroet repræsentant for Taleban, der forklarede mig de nyeste forbud i sharia-loven.

Hvem ved? Bob Carter giver i al fald en god forklaring på den rimelige tvivl man kan have ved konsekvenserne af den økonomiske udvikling

Man kunne sætte store hvide sejl op i ørkenområder for at øge udstrålingen og køle lokalt. Måske kunne man endda få noget til at gro i skyggen visse steder? Det er i al fald bedre end at fise over kanalen i jetfly for et hurtigt knald, som man måske ville stille spørgsmålstegn ved skulle vi alle grilles under den nådesløse sol ved de forsurede verdenshave.

Jeg blev spurgt om det nu også kunne være rigtigt at den globale temperatur ikke var steget i de seneste 10 år (ca.). Det synes der faktisk at være generel enighed om både blandt de, der advarer om en menneskeskabt opvarmning og de, der slår koldt vand i blodet. Om det så er en variation eller en trend, vejret eller klimaet er en helt anden sag. BBCs klimakorrespondent Poul Hudson tilskrives af nogle for at have genåbnet en debat nogle (gerne) havde set afgjort da han på sin blog spurgte “Whatever happened to global warming?” og indledte

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Lou Dobbs havde Phelim McAleer manden bag debatfilmen Not Evil Just Wrong i CNNs studie overfor Fred Krupp fra Environmental Defense Fund

Også her, hvor “skeptikeren” professor Fred Singer debatterer i BBC med professor Robert Watson er der enighed om at det seneste 10-år ikke har budt på noget man ville kalde opvarmning (men snarere en lille nedkøling, hvis noget overhovedet). Og interviewet byder også på en kort interessant debat om de hackede e-mails fra East Anglias Climate Reseach Unit også kaldet CRU (her ser Watson ikke for godt ud, men sådan er det).

Roy Spencer, der tidligere har arbejdet for NASA har på sin hjemmeside en kurve baseret på satelitmålinger over den løbende udvikling i temperaturen (på ugebasis intet mindre), som ser således ud

Den ligner meget Bob Carters graf når han svarer på spørgsmålet om den globale temperatur går op eller ned med et ”It depends”. Man kan, som Carter gør, tegne to vandrette linier på grafen; en før Pinatubus vulkanudbrud omkring 0,0 og en efter El Nino omkring 0,2 og argumentere for, at der i den periode har været tale om et trin op fra en stilstand til en anden. Eller man kan tegne en linie fra 79 til 2009, der viser en opvarmning. Men baseret på de seneste 10 års penge er det på disse målinger svært at se en stigning.

En sådan “manglende udvikling” i den globale opvarmning beviser ingenting i sig selv andet end at IPCCs modeller, der ikke forudså dette tog fejl. Dette prøves forklaret af nogen inden for og omkring IPCC ved naturlige variationer, men det leder blot til den konklusion at “skeptikernes” argument imod modellerne står styrket. Hvis de ikke kan forudse de naturlige variationer er det fordi de ikke har tilstrækkeligt kendskab til dem og har de ikke tilstrækkeligt kendskab til de naturlige variationer kan de ikke meningsfuldt afgøre menneskets påvirkning med sikkerhed. Men det betyder altså ikke at deres grundtese er forkert blot at de ike kan føre sig frem med den skråsikkerhed, der i hvert fald, som jeg oplever det gennem medierne har kendetegnet dem.