Trumps substans mod oppositionens overflade

Diverse — Drokles on July 16, 2017 at 12:40 am

Mens Donald Trump ser ud til at hygge sig gevaldigt med den franske præsident Macron, er hjemmefronten i oprør over Trump Jr.s møde med en russisk advokat tilbage i juni 2016. Team Trump har, under beskyldninger om at være i et kriminelt samarbejde med den russiske regering for at kuppe sig til posten som præsident, benægtet overhovedet at have kontakt til nogle russere, så Jr. har undergravet Trumps troværdighed og pustet nyt liv i en døende fortælling om et russisk coup d’etat. af Det Hvide Hus. Jonah Goldberg, der insisterer på at vedholde sin #NeverTrump kampagne, skrev i National Review

But the lying really isn’t the problem. Sometimes the Trump team tells the truth. Sometimes it buries the kernels of truth in the larger nougat of B.S. The problem is that Trump and his people can’t stay on message, whether it’s true or false. President Trump just doesn’t care if he makes his surrogates, including members of his cabinet and family, look like chumps.

Dette ville være en fin observation og under normale omstændigheder måske endda relevant. Men omstændighederne er langt fra normale. Den ventreorienterede presse er næsten sygeligt optaget af alt, der kan inkriminere Trump på den ene eller anden måde. Brent Bozell skrev at CNNs morgenprogram New Day brugte 2 timer og 16 minutter af sine 2 1/2 timer på Trump-Rusland historien. Townhalls D W Wilber mener at “The abuse aimed at President Trump by members of the Democratic Party and much of the news media has simply been beyond disgusting and bordering on the bizarre”. Lawrence Meyers skriver i Townhall at “They aren’t angry that CNN and MSNBC and the entire Democrat Media Complex lied to them, but that they were wrong.

This is why they hate him so much. Because despite doing everything they can think of, Trump is still standing. Then he punches back. His blows are surgical and hilarious. They take next to no effort, while the Left is literally expending all its energy and having no impact. He’s using the media’s own tools against it. He’s using social media – the Great Equalizer – against them. He’s using Alinsky against them. He’s kicking them when they’re down.

And the more he fights back, the more the Left rages…and the more the media exposes themselves as being utterly corrupt, and how truly hateful the Left has become. Nor is this a fringe element. This is the Left.

Stefan Molyneux maler et billede af et forhold, der ender fordi nogen afslører mandens slibrige udenomsægteskabelige affærer. Manden forsøger så at vinde kæresten tilbage så alt bliver som før - ikke ved at ændre sin person eller beklage sine svigt, men ved at finde og straffe den, der afslørede hans sande karakter. Og således blev Demokraternes rusland og Trump hackede valget født.

Den logik virker måske på den yderste venstrefløj, men de vælgere i The Blue Wall, som Trump vandt i rustbæltet og resten af fly-over America, er måske ikke så villige til at gå tilbage til en fuser.

Så Huffing Post har en ambition om at finde ud af om den forsmåede kæreste er interesseret i at komme tilbage til Demokraterne og vil busse deres ‘beltway‘ korrespondenter rundt i middle America. Det bliver spændende at følge og imens skriver Breitbart om en nyhedsdirektør for en radiostation i Ohio, der skrev til CNN, at folk var trætte ud i det vrede over at høre så meget om Rusland

“They think the Trump/Russia deal is a coup attempt by the media, and don’t think there is anything to the Russia/ Trump, Jr. emails,” Robert Leonard, the news director, emailed. “They don’t understand why the media is trying to oust our duly elected president. They think there is a double standard — why isn’t anyone investigating the Clinton campaign/Russia connections? They are standing firm behind Trump.”

According to a recent Harvard-Harris poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that “there exists a campaign to delegitimize” Trump.

Reporters who have gone to working-class areas in states like Pennsylvania (“Trump’s Supporters Aren’t Abandoning Him in This Pennsylvania Town”), Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky and even Tennessee (“In Trump Country, Russia Scandal Doesn’t Resonate”) have all reported similar sentiments.

CNN, though, keeps focusing on Russia even though one of its anchors, Alisyn Camerota, said on Friday that she was actually experiencing Russia “fatigue.”

Der er vigtigere historier om Trump, såsom at det måske vil være ham, der kommer til at stå for udnævnelsen af ikke færre en 4 højesteretsdommere, som Breitbart skrev. Eller at han nu har givet grænsekontrollen lov til at passe sit arbejde

skc3a6rmbillede-2017-07-15-kl-230433

Jo Cox og venstrefløjens “selektive medfølelse”

Obama-administrationen vil ikke associere islam med terrorangrebet på bøsse-baren i Orlando, der kostede 49 mennesker deres liv. Det vil efter Obamas opfattelse dæmonisere for mange muslimer og overlade definitionsretten til islam til de forkerte mennesker. Derfor var det meningen at transkribtionen af Orlando-morderens opkald til alarmcentralen ikke skulle indeholde det egentlige motiv, nemlig islam. Hårdt presset må den fulde tekst dog offentliggøres, skønt man stadig havde oversat Allah til Gud. Obama vil dog gerne gøre alle legale våbenejere, samt republikanerne til hovedproblemet. Venstrefløjen hader højrefløjen for at have ret.

I England vil Juliet Samuel gerne definere den yderste højre, når hun i Telegraph slår fast at mordet på den engelske labor politiker Jo Cox var højreorienteret terror. Jeg er ikke kommet langt nok i denne kedelige sag til at kunne konkludere, hvad der drev Cox morder Thomas Mair. Selv talte han efterfølgende om hævn, så helt forkert virker Samuels påstand ikke. Men Samuel fortæller om Jo Cox “The killing of a serving MP who had so much to contribute to our democracy has triggered a national period of sorrow, sobriety and reflection.” At Cox havde masser at byde på på er grangiveligt rigtigt, men hvis man med “our democracy” mener England er det tvivlsomt. Annie Dieu-Le-Veut skriver i The Holistic Health Store at Jo Cox “was so busy paving the road with good intentions that she didn’t look up to see that they were leading to Hell.” og citerer Francis Carb Begbie i Occidental Observer

Jo Cox wanted to make the world a better place and it was a cause for which she was willing to travel halfway across the globe. Whether consoling rape victims in Darfur or bombed out villagers in Afghanistan, it seemed the jet-setting international aid worker was rarely far from the action.

Lately it had been the struggle of Syrian war refugees to get to the West that touched her heart, and their plight was a subject she returned to again andagain after becoming a Member of Parliament. It seemed there was no victims anywhere she could not empathise with.

Except, perhaps, with one striking omission.

And that would be the White child rape victims of Muslim grooming gangs in her own back yard. For her West Yorkshire constituency is near the epicentre of the Muslim child rape epidemic that has been sweeping the Labour heartlands of northern England, largely ignored or covered up by social services workers, police and politicians.

For it is a striking omission that of all the subjects she enjoyed sounding off on, this world-famous crisis affecting the poorest Whites on her doorstep was not one of them. One cannot help wonder if this shrewd silence was connected to the fact that her lavishly paid MPs job in the constituency of Batley and Spen largely depended on the support of the local Muslim community.

Co-incidentally, just as Jo Cox was shot and stabbed to death outside her constituency office in Birstall last Thursday,  sentencing was about to take place at Leeds Crown Court after a long trial involving a horrific case of Muslim child exploitation.

(…)

Tribute after tribute bore witness to Jo Cox’s uniqueness. But in reality, nothing could have been further from the truth.  In fact, women like Jo Cox are ten a penny across the West these days — bland, compliant functionaries who have been marinated in political correctness and are happy to regurgitate the platitudes and attitudes of their political masters. And are well-rewarded for doing so. Elizabeth Warren (AKA Pocahontas) in the US comes to mind.

She was that toxic combination of self-rightousness and entitlement which believed itself possessed of a special moral insight into the moral shortcomings of their own people. Never slow to parade her compassion, she was also calculating enough to help more dubious causes, as when she lent her name to a government minister who was lobbying for Britain to begin bombing in Syria. Bombing and babies; it was all business for Jo Cox.

Og Dieu-Le-Veut tilføjer

Today, with her body barely cold,  her husband Brendan Cox is tweeting out a Go Fund Me link to his wife’s ‘favourite causes’ and one of those is the White Helmets.

Manden, Brendan Cox har tidligere været inde i en af disse godhedens skandaler, kan man læse på Daily Mail.

‘De’ er på sporet af os

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Greenpeace, Historie, IPCC, Information, Pressen, Videnskab — Drokles on July 30, 2015 at 5:36 pm

Daily Mail skriver at et hold psykologer under ledelse af Stephan Lewndowsky mener at kunne godtgøre at klimaskeptikere ofte er konspirationsteoretikere.

They found around a fifth of the comments about the research ‘can be considered conspiracist’.

It builds on a previous survey that the researchers conducted, which found up to 40 per cent of those who are skeptical about global warming use imagery that invoked conspiracy theories.

This includes the use of words like ’scam’ and repeated references to faked data and collusion between scientists and governments to deliberately conceal evidence.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, an experimental psychologist at the University of Bristol who led the work, said: ‘These results add to a growing body of research on the nature of internet discourse and the role of the blogosphere in climate denial.

‘It also confirms that conspiratorial elements are readily identifiable in blogosphere discourse’

The paper, which is published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, provides a damning view of skeptical bloggers and those who comment on their websites.

Og det kommer fra de, der dyrker allehånde teser om , Big Oil, Big Kooch, republikanere, kapitalister og gamle, hvide, protestantiske mænd. Som titlen på Naomi Oreskes Merchants of Doubt praler med, så er hele debatten om klimaet skabt og holdes kunstigt i live af skumle interesser. Læs blot Al Gores et als anbefalinger

- Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have demonstrated what many of us have long suspected: that the ‘debate’ over the climate crisis–and many other environmental issues–was manufactured by the same people who brought you ’safe’ cigarettes. Anyone concerned about the state of democracy in America should read this book. (Former Vice President Al Gore, author of An Inconvenient Truth)

- The real shocker of this book is that it takes us, in just 274 brisk pages, through seven scientific issues that called for decisive government regulation and didn’t get it, sometimes for decades, because a few scientists sprinkled doubt-dust in the offices of regulators, politicians and journalists … Oreskes and Conway do a great public service. (Huffington Post)

Merchants of Doubt, by the science historian Naomi Oreskes and the writer Erik Conway, investigates a sort of reverse conspiracy theory: ecoterrorists and socialists are not the ones foisting dubious science upon us; rather it is deniers who are running their own well-funded and organized long-term hoax. Several previous works have ably illuminated similar themes, but this one hits bone…[Merchants of Doubt] provide[s] both the historical perspective and the current political insights needed to get a grip on what is happening now. (OnEarth)

Merchants of Doubt might be one of the most important books of the year. Exhaustively researched and documented, it explains how over the past several decades mercenary scientists have partnered with tobacco companies and chemical corporations to help them convince the public that their products are safe - even when solid science proves otherwise…Merchants of Doubt is a hefty read, well-researched and comprehensive…I hope it sells, because what it has to say needs to be heard. (Christian Science Monitor)

- Ever wonder how the terms liberty and freedom got all tangled up in fake science, how industry friendly think-tanks got their start, or what motivates scientists to sell out beyond the obvious? (Austin Science Policy Examiner)

Merchants of Doubt udkom også som film. Jeg kunne benytte lejligheden til at tale om Climategate, den store email-lækage fra East Anglias klimaenhed, hvor man sorte på hvidt kunne læse hvorledes nogle af FNs klimapanels mest centrale forskere aftalte manipulation af data og metoder, obstruerede offentlighedens tilgang til date, truede kollegaer og påvirkede fagbladsredaktører, manipulerede fagfælle processen, skændtes og udtrykte stor tvivl. Men ikke mindst inddelte verden i de der var for og imod ‘tha cause”, ’sagen’. Men når det nu handler om, hvad der er man synes at se i skyggerne, der ikke er der vil jeg hellere slå ned på en skandale ud i klimadebatten, der hurtigt blev døbt Fakegate.

Den fremtrædende klimaforsker og videnskabsetiker Peter Glieck, der havde vundet international berømmelse på frasen “debatten er ovre” kunne nemlig i 2012 afsløre den klimaskeptiske tænketank Heratland Institute’s skumle strategi til nedbrydelse af skolebørns tro på videnskab. Sponseret af oliepenge og Big Koch (som James Delingpole med infantil fornøjelse elsker at kalde dem) var det Heartlands velsmurte kampagnemaskine, der var skyld i at tiltroen til FN’s klimapanels fortælling dalede kraftigt i offentligheden.

Glieck havde fra en anonym kilde, som påstod at være tilknyttet Heartland Institute, modtaget hemmelige papirer fra Heartland om bl.a. deres finansiering. Med i dokumenterne var det saftigste bevis på at klimaskeptiscisme blev drevet frem af onde hensigter, nemlig det hurtigt berømte strategimemo. Og det var i strategimemo’et at alle sandhederne om, hvorledes Heartland lavede disinformationskampagner, hyrede forskere,  der tidligere havde benægtet sammenhængen mellem rygning og cancer og udarbejde taktikker til at skræmme amerikanske lærere fra at undervise i videnskab. Klimaredaktionerne på alverdens etablerede medier sprøjtede over med ekstatisk forargelse.

Men festen blev kort. Hurtigt gik det op for journalister, der besad den gamle vane at tjekke kilder, at Heartland Institute havde en god pointe i deres påstand om at strategimemo’et var et falskneri. Strategimemo’et var skrevet i et andet format end resten af dokumenterne og med en anden sproglig stil med en særegen brug af parenteser og binde-streger(!), der til forveksling lignede Glieck’s eget sprog. Og ifølge Atlantics Megan Mcardle lignede dets indhold noget der var forfattet i en tegneserie skurkegrotte - af en praktikant. Strategimemo’et svarede ifølge Mcardle på ingen måde til skeptikernes selvforståelse som en David i kamp for sandhed mod Goliat.

Mens Strategimemo’et var et falskneri var resten af dokumenterne, om bestyrelsesmedlemmer og samarbejdspartnere og deres adresser osv, samt Heartland budgetter ægte. Men de ægte dokumenter afslørede intet fordækt. Faktisk kunne man se at Heartland var en meget lille tænketank med et beskedent budget, hvoraf klimaet kun var en af fire områder, som Heartland havde interesse i. Deres store betydning for klimadebatten kunne alene tilskrives deres flid og dygtighed samt måske det faktum at det er billigere at tale sandt fremfor at betle skræmmescenarier og som en anden alkoholiker at bruge stadigt flere ressourcer på at holde styr på alle sine mange små løgne igennem daglidagen.

Peter Glieck måtte hurtigt indrømme at han var manden der selv havde fremskaffet de ægte dokumenter ved at foregive at være et medlem af Heartlands bestyrelse. Dette havde han endda gjort kun få dage efter at han havde takket nej til en invitation, som debattør på en af Heartlands klimakonferencer, hvor han ville have mulighed for at præsentere sin sag og gå i kødet på sine skeptiske modstandere. Men Glieck fastholdt en tid at strategimemo’et var blevet ham tilsendt af en anonym person i dagene mellem han skaffede sig Heartlands fortrolige dokumenter og til han offentliggjorde det hele.

Sådan kan det gå. Men vi skal tale om sølvpapirshatte for selv om Glieck gik over stregen og forfalskede den virkelighed han gerne ville se var han ene om sin udåd. Men reaktionerne fra fremtrædende medier og forskere afslørede til gengæld at hans konspiratoriske univers var fast forankret bredt i den klimaalarmistiske højadel. New York Times havde f.eks. under overskriften “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science” følgende vurdering af strategimemoets ægthed EFTER at Heartland selv havde påpeget at det var et tydeligt fremmedelement

Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute.

Som jeg refererede ovenfor så skilte det falske dokument sig på alle måder ud fra det ulovligt rekvirerede materiale og matchede ikke i tone og indhold de andre dokumenter. Et mildt ord for New York Times stykke research er “confirmation bias”, det at man søger bekræftelse for sin tro. Og det New York Times her tror bekræftet er altså en paranoid forestilling om oliefinansierede konspirationer mod videnskaben til menneskehedens store fortrydelse. Men det har pinligt intet med sandheden at gøre. Den mastodont, som de ser true deres fortælling er intet andet end en undseelig tænketank kun bevæbnet med saglig interesse og gode argumenter - Kan en god sag være bange for det?

BBC’s miljøskribent Richard Black havde kun sympati for Gliecks handlinger og resonnerede således

As the old saying goes, “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’t want you to know” - and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that it certainly didn’t want you to have.

In saying one of the documents was a fake, the institute also signified that the rest were genuine.

Ja, det er rigtigt at Heartland på den måde inddirekte bekræftede de andre dokumenters ægthed (og senere blev de direkte bekræftet da Heartland ganske fornuftigt havde sikret sig at der ikke var manipuleret med dem). Men ved at forfalske et dokument udtrykker man også at de ægte dokumenter ikke indeholder noget belastende. Og dette er jo netop den åbenlyse pointe som BBCs Black overser! Man havde selv ved bedrag ikke kunnet afsløre noget som helst sinistert. Forfalskningen udtrykker netop, hvor stærkt argumenterne imod FN’ Klimapanels forløjede konsensusteori er - og derfor også, hvor svagt klimabevægelsen ikke blot står, men også føler sig. Derfor måtte en bizar ondskab fabrikeres og tilsættes for at forklare, hvorledes det kan gå til at de forkerte vinder en debat om rationaler.

Også Time leverede et forvrænget billede af virkeligheden da de indledte deres referat af sagen således

For advocates of climate action, the Heartland documents offered a rare glimpse into the world of the conservative power players who work to cast doubt on climate science and delay action on global warming — the same people authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called the “Merchants of Doubt” in their 2010 book by the same name.

Saglig debat forveksles med økonomisk overlegenhed - et budget, som end ikke kunne betale huslejen for Geenpeace’s frivillige medarbejdere ses som en “power player”. Dog skal det retfærdigvis med, kunne Time se at løgne ikke er vejen frem for noget konstruktivt. Det havde Guardians fremtrædende klimakommentator George Monbiot sværere ved og sprang lige ud i det og erklærede

I see Peter Gleick, the man who obtained and leaked the devastating documents from the Heartland Institute, as a democratic hero. I do not think he should have apologised, nor do I believe that his job should be threatened. He has done something of benefit to society.

Det er, må man nok sige, den slags udtalelser, som slider på troværdigheden når man sammenholder at Glieck gennem amoralsk adfærd har afsløret at Heartland har rent mel i deres meget lille pose. Eller, hvad med dette filosofiske spørgsmål fra økoetikeren James Barvey i samme Guardian

Are his actions wrong just because he lied?

(…)

You can see where I’m headed. Gleick’s intentions matter when we try to work out whether he was wrong to lie. It’s worth noticing that he wasn’t lying for personal gain. What resonates for me, though, are the consequences of his action. If Gleick frustrates the efforts of Heartland, isn’t his lie justified by the good that it does?

Når man stiller sig selv et så ledende spørgsmål er det nemt at svare på især hvis man er fascist

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action.

Så er der vel ikke mere man sige. Også Information havde en artikel om sagen, som de lystigt kaldte “Klimaskeptikere smager egen medicin”, der i bedste fald kan betragtes som et afskrift af Desmogblogs første blogpost om sagen. Såøh, sølvpapirhatte er mere udbredt blandt alarmister, der jo i udgangspunkt tror mennesket står bag vejrliget. Derfor er det heller ikke så overraskende når man læser i Daily Mail, at en professor Peter Wadhams ved Cambridge tror at ‘dem’ går og slår hans forskerkollegaer ihjel, blandt ved hjælp af lynnedslag - ja, vi kontrollerer jo vejret

Professor Peter Wadhams insists Seymour Laxon, Katharine Giles and Tim Boyd could have been murdered by someone possibly working for the oil industry or within government forces.

The trio had been studying the polar ice caps - with a focus on sea ice - when they died within a few months of each other in 2013.

Professor Laxon, 49, a director of the Centre for Polar Observation at University College London, was at a New Year’s Eve party in Essex when he fell down a flight of stairs and died.

Meanwhile oceanographer Dr Boyd, 54, was out walking his dogs near his home in Port Appin, Argyll, western Scotland, in January 2013 when he was struck by lightning and killed instantly.

Just months later in April, Dr Giles, 35, was cycling to work at UCL where she lectured when she was hit by a tipper truck in Victoria, central London, and died.

(sammenfatningen om Fakegate er sammenklistret af nogle tidligere posteringer om sagen)

Jihadists vs. the Assad Regime: Syria’s Rebel Advance

Jeg kan ikke følge udviklingen i Mellemøsten, men det går tilsyneladende ikke så godt for Assad i kampen mod ISIS skriver Telegraph

The Assad regime has suffered a series of blows in recent weeks that have once again raised questions about how long Iran will continue to support it.

Since it took Palmyra three weeks ago, Isil has pushed on against a regime defence line that is withering.

It is now close to Homs, the capital of Syria’s largest province but more important as a symbol of the early, non-jihadist opposition to the Assad regime.

The defeat of a coalition of secular and “moderate” Islamist forces in Homs after a long siege by the regime was for a while seen as a turning point in the war.

In fact, it seems merely to have invigorated support for more militant varieties of rebel.

Vice News fulgte nogle jihadister

In just a few short weeks, a newly-united rebel coalition has captured almost all of northwest Syria’s Idlib province from government forces, overturning assumptions over the war’s course, and threatening the regime’s ability to defend its heartland.

VICE News filmmaker Salam Rizk secured rare access to the jihadist fighters at the spear tip of the battle for the strategic city of Jisr al-Shughour.

Man bliver psykisk syg at marihuana

Akademia, Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Klima, Ytringsfrihed, miljø — Drokles on March 20, 2014 at 10:11 am

Måske bliver man ikke sindsyg direkte, men Global Warming.org fortæller at Marijuana øger den globale opvarmning

A new study by Evan Mills of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory finds that indoor Cannabis production has a very large carbon footprint.

Reporter Colin Sullivan summarizes the study, titled “Energy Up in Smoke,” in yesterday’s E&E News (subscription required):

AGRICULTURE: Pot growers inhale 1% of U.S. electricity, exhale GHGs of 3M cars — study (04/11/2011)

Colin Sullivan, E&E reporter
Indoor marijuana cultivation consumes enough electricity to power 2 million average-sized U.S. homes, which corresponds to about 1 percent of national power consumption, according to a study by a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Researcher Evan Mills’ study notes that cannabis production has largely shifted indoors, especially in California, where medical marijuana growers use high-intensity lights usually reserved for operating rooms that are 500 times more powerful that a standard reading lamp.

Og global opvarmning fører til sindlidelser fortæller CFACT

When it comes to global warming, melting ice caps and scorching heat waves often top the list of big worries. But now, just the act of worrying itself is allegedly becoming a new consequence of dreaded climate change. One new form of anguish is for survivors of extreme weather events – which kind of makes sense – but there’s apparently a special mental burden being carried by climate activists who one psychiatrist says are suffering from anticipatory anxiety and pre-traumatic stress disorder. Supposedly adding to the problem is that politicians aren’t doing enough to address their climate concerns, causing them to feel vulnerable and probably just not well understood.

Det betyder ifølge Discover Magazine at børn ikke kan sove for vrangforestillinger

Not long ago my wife and I went out to dinner at a restaurant with another couple, who, like us, have two boys. The conversation inevitably turned to our kids, school, family stuff. Their older son made the transition this year to junior high school. I asked how this was going. Pretty well, the mother said, except he had recently become anxious and wasn’t sleeping well. “He’s worried about climate change,” she said. “It’s keeping him up at night.”

Shortly after that outing, my wife and I had dinner with another couple. Again, the conversation revolved around our kids. (They have a 13-year old son and an 11-year old daughter). Their teenage boy, I learned, was also having anxiety and sleep issues. “He’s become obsessed with climate change,” the father told me. “He thinks the world is doomed.”

At politkere og embedsmænd begynder at konfabulere, som Responding To Climate Change fortæller

A UN climate meeting in Bonn’s bright World Conference Centre this week saw the usual tussle between the climate negotiators who are trying, each in their own way, to secure a deal designed to put a stop to climate change.

Tactics of diplomacy were varied, as negotiators both coaxed and conflicted with other countries as they tried to win the rest of the world around to their own way of thinking. But Yeb Sano, the lead negotiator from the Philippines, is the only one makes his point through fasting.

It is an unusual approach, but Sano believes it is effective, making him a better operator when it comes to  driving forward progress on the UN’s  climate treaty, which needs all the help it can get if it is going to be signed off by a 2015 deadline.

“When we look at this convoluted process called the climate negotiations, which has been running for more than two decades now, a lot of things we discuss here are things that will really test your patience,” he tells RTCC.

“Fasting allows you to understand where others come from and lead you to solutions that would go beyond the confines of what is written, what is conventional.

“That goes with the notion of dealing with climate change not by sticking with the traditional positions countries take, but finding common ground that addresses the problem in a way that respects not legal context, but the human moral context.”

Warsaw

Fasting each month is now a ritual for Sano, who goes without food for two days. On the first of each month, he fasts as part of a wider movement among environmental activists—united on Twitter with the hashtag #FastForTheClimate.

On the thirteenth, he undertakes a personal fast to remind himself of the catastrophic super-typhoon that hit the Philippines in November last year.

Og akademikere kvæles i egen galde i tidsskrifter som The Conversation

More deaths can already be attributed to climate change than the L’Aquila earthquake and we can be certain that deaths from climate change will continue to rise with global warming. Nonetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.

Climate denial funding

We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.

Criminal negligence is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can reasonably predict the public’s diminished ability to respond to climate change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists.

Så læg piben til side, verden er skør nok endda.

Lidt mere om kristenforfølgelse

Arabiske forår, Jihad, Kristenforfølgelse, Multikultur, Pressen, islam, muhammed — Drokles on September 16, 2013 at 8:56 am

Indian Christian Activist Network skriver om kristenforfølgelser

World, January 09, 2013: Christianophobia, which was published last month, written by journalist Rupert Shortt for Civitas, argues that “Christians are targeted more than any other body of believers.” He quotes research by the Pew Forum and the World Evangelical Alliance, which estimates that 200 million Christians (ten per cent of the global total) are socially disadvantaged, harassed or actively oppressed for their faith.

Focusing on the plight of Christians in seven countries (Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, India, Burma and China), Shortt catalogues some of the most egregious attacks on Christians in recent years.

He states: In the large area between Morocco and Pakistan … there is scarcely a country in which church life operates without restrictions. Syria, he writes, had been “one of the exceptions until now”, but the country is currently wracked by civil war, and thousands of Christians have been driven from their homes.

Quoting the estimates of scholars that between half and two-thirds of Christians in the Middle East have left or been killed over the last century, Shortt states, “There is now a serious risk that Christianity will disappear from its Biblical heartlands.”

Artiklen åbner muligheden for at den islamiske forfølgelse af kristne og andre mindretal er teologisk og altså indbygget i islam. Det er begreber som Jihad, der konstant er en krigserklæring mod alt u-islamisk og så læren om overhøjhed overfor kristne, jøder og andre der gør islamisk vold og undertrykkelse systemisk. Som en modsætning til denne triste sandhed om islam trækker artiklen en bekræftelse frem, nemlig at Bush’s korsfarer ordvalg har givet islamistiske grupper et figenblad af en undskyldning til at kaste sig over de kristne. Denne typiske og forfejlede ækvivalens er her særligt ironisk fordi artiklen fokus først og fremmest er, hvorfor Vesten og den kristne verden ignorerer kristenforfølgelser og finder at det er fordi det er for svært at forholde sig til uden at skulle forholde sig mindre rosenrødt til religiøs frihed.

Samme fejl gør en artikel i Foreign Affairs, der efter noget ævl om kolonitiden og 1. Verdenkrig alligevel perspektiverer ganske politisk ukorrekt

The tragedy for Christians in the region is obvious. They are losing their lives, their homes, and their houses of worship. They are being driven from their ancestral homelands and forced to flee as refugees to neighboring countries where they are, in many cases, equally unwelcome.

But it is important to note that the removal of the region’s Christians is a disaster for Muslims as well. They are the ones who will be left with the task of building decent societies in the aftermath of these atrocities. And that task will be made immeasurably harder by the removal of Christians from their midst. It is not just that the memory of these brutal actions will taint these societies — perpetrators and victims alike — for the indefinite future; it is also that Muslims are removing the sort of pluralism that is the foundation for any truly democratic public life. One of the refrains of the Arab Spring has been that Muslims want to put an end to tyranny. But the only lasting guarantor of political rights is the sort of social and religious diversity that Muslims in the region are in the process of extinguishing. If nothing is done to reverse the situation, the hope for peace and prosperity in the Middle East may vanish along with the region’s Christian population.

Eller som en landflygtig muslim advarede sine landsmænd under Muhammedkrisen; “hvis I får held til at omdanne islamificere Vesten, hvor vil i så flygte hen da?”

Grådige løgnagtige svin

Diverse — Drokles on March 12, 2013 at 11:04 am

Filmen “Greedy Lying Bastards,” af Craig Scott Rosebraugh handler og de grådige løgnagtige svin “who have fought, stalled and misdirected the international conversation about this dire subject for decades.”. Det alvorlige problem er klimaforandringerne, som Rosebraugh fortæller Zap 2 It

“Climate change is already with us,” Rosebraugh narrates over a montage of very recent natural disasters, from floods to droughts, wildfires to hurricanes. “We knew decades ago” that this was coming, he adds. And to make his point, he shows a very young actor Darren McGavin converse with a scientist in a 1950s educational film, shaken by descriptions of “the drowned towers of Miami.”

Rosebraugh’s film is about why no action has been taken, and it names names — discredited scientists, oil industry shills and out-and-out clowns (e.g. Lord Christopher Monckton), the people the climate change-denying corners of the media trot out to cast doubt and delay action on the warming planet.

We visit Kivalina, Alaska, an island village suing Exxon-Mobil and other big oil companies for the rising sea levels that are washing it away. Tuvalu, the South Pacific’s poster-nation for rising sea levels, has its say. But we’re also treated to wildfire victims who have lost their homes in Colorado.

And then the filmmaker gets after the usual suspects. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, who finance tea party politicians and cloaked “grassroots” lobbying groups like Americans for Prosperity, take their seat next to assorted un-credentialed paid spokespeople such as Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ex-convict “Dr.” Jay Lehr of The Heartland Institute.

Og det er et budskab, som er populært - hos nogle

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-03-12-kl-095238

En kvalitet jeg forventer mig af filmen er at jeg ikke belastes med ambivalens

Skræmmende

Diverse — Drokles on March 10, 2013 at 11:08 am

Mens troen på menneskeskabt global opvarmning falder sammen under vægten af virkeligheden opruster alarmisterne propagandaen. I Jyllands-Posten kunne man på en overskrift læse at at Jorden har “Den højeste temperatur i 11.300 år“, et udsagn der virkelig går imod konsensus. Anledningen er udledningen af CO2, der ”fungere[r] som et termotæppe om jorden“. Ikke bare et almindeligt tæppe, men et termotæppe. Uha

Undersøgelsens klimamodel forudser, at den globale temperatur vil være steget med 1,1 grad til 6,3 grader i slutningen af dette århundrede.

Men, hvis man læser CNNs dækning, er det måske ikke så slemt alligevel

The Earth was very cold at the turn of the 20th century. The decade from 1900 to 1909 was colder than 95% of the last 11,300 years, the study found.

Fast forward to the turn of the 21st century, and the opposite occurs. Between 2000 and 2009, it was hotter than about 75% of the last 11,300 years.

If not for man-made influences, the Earth would be in a very cold phase right now and getting even colder, according the joint study by Oregon State University and Harvard University. Marcott was the lead author of the report on its results.

Vi har faktisk forhindret en ny istid ved almen driftighed og søndagsbilisme. Og hvem vil ikke hellere have palmer i kolonihaven end en gletcher? Den slags ævl er selvfølgelig et forsøg på at rykke målstolperne. CO2 effekten er udeblevet de seneste 17 år og temperaturen opfattes generelt som behagelig, så derfor omskriver man historien og projicerer effekten gennem en computermodel og viola; en ny ishockeystavgraf.

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-03-10-kl-083252

Men det er grelt, for socialdemokraternes vælgerbase er truet fortæller Rockefeller Foundation

The world must transition to a low-carbon growth model to meet the climate challenge. This paradigm shift can only take place if women, half of the world’s population, are fully empowered to contribute to the solution.

The issue of gender in climate change may sound general, but it represents repeated, heartbreaking experiences and observations— from development to disaster management around the globe. Climate change vulnerability has a woman’s face.

Particularly in developing countries, women are disproportionately impacted by climate change, as they stand at the core of the water, food and energy nexus. In addition, due to continuing gender imbalances, women are likely to be worse affected by natural disasters. For instance, a recent report found that women accounted for 80% of fatalities from the Asian tsunami in 2004.

Og Socialistisk Folkeparti’s vælgerbase står overfor masseudryddelse fortæller Science Daily

Globally it has been observed that lizards with viviparous reproduction (retention of embryos within the mother’s body) are being threatened by changing weather patterns. A new study suggests that the evolution of this mode of reproduction, which is thought to be a key successful adaptation, could, in fact, be the species’ downfall under global warming.

Masseskræmning er den mest udbredte taktik, men man kan også præcisionsskræmme, som Inside Climate News rapporterer

Two advocacy groups have come up with a new tactic to show how climate change—and laws to deal with it—could make investments in fossil fuel companies riskier and rock financial markets.

Og løsningen er at skræmme investorerne ved at præsentere dem for økonomiske computermodeller der fortæller hvor meget de kommer til at tabe når fossile brændstoffer enten forbydes eller brandskattes yderligere.

The carbon bubble concept is relatively new, born out of a recent scientific paper that has united climate change activists and some in the financial community in a common pursuit: to rethink the value of investments in coal, oil and gas.

The paper, published in 2009 in Nature, said that at current rates of fossil fuel burning, the world could face catastrophic warming in as soon as a dozen years. The finding triggered international attention, because the values of energy companies—which represent a significant portion of stock traded in financial markets—are pegged to future earnings from selling fuels that may have to stay underground.

According to a recent report by banking giant HSBC, major firms like BP, Shell and Statoil could lose up to 60 percent of their market values if countries get tough on carbon.

Shareholder activists often use shareholder votes to challenge fossil fuel companies on climate change issues, but this is the first time social investment groups filed carbon bubble resolutions.

They represent a “new and powerful way” of pressuring firms to act on global warming, said Dan Bakal, director of electric power programs at Ceres, a coalition of sustainability focused investors with $11 trillion in assets. “I think it’s likely that more investors will get involved in this kind of activity.”

Og endelig kan man jo altid sikre fremtiden og skræmme børnene, som Inside Climate News sorgløst fortæller

New national science standards that make the teaching of global warming part of the public school curriculum are slated to be released this month, potentially ending an era in which climate skepticism has been allowed to seep into the nation’s classrooms.

The Next Generation Science Standards were developed by the National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nonprofit Achieve and more than two dozen states. The latest draft recommends that educators teach the evidence for man-made climate change starting as early as elementary school and incorporate it into all science classes, ranging from earth science to chemistry. By eighth grade, students should understand that “human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming),” the standards say.

Men vær ikke bange kære læser (ental er tilsigtet): Stigningen i den slags skræmmebilleder vendt mod den befolkningen er naturlige menneskeskabte udsving op til udgivelsen af en af FN’s klimarapporter.

Et konsensus vakler

Diverse — Drokles on March 5, 2013 at 7:40 am

Independent skriver om Globescan’s undersøgelse af at den globale bekymring for klimaforandringer er for stærkt aftagende. Det har medført proportionalt stigende bekymring blandt alarmister, som ser deres levebrød truet. De bebrejder manglende politisk lederskab for den svindende interesse

David Nussbaum, head of WWF UK, said “sustained pressure” was required from political leaders to combat climate change. He said it was only when “real indicators” of climate change came, such as floods and droughts, that public perceptions changed.

He told The Independent: “Of course people’s concerns about climate change changed in 2009 when economic pressures were rising… [But] the problems haven’t gone away… There are longer-term concerns that may not seem imminent that are extremely serious. A skilled political leader has got to grapple with how you act and respond to the immediate pressure people feel while helping [to take] account of the wider concerns and interests.”

Campaigners said the “perceived seriousness” of climate change had also fallen sharply since the unsuccessful UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. The summit ended in what was described as “confusion, disagreement and disarray” as political leaders failed to agree a legally binding deal to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Graham Thompson, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: “The public can see that the response of our politicians is completely inadequate to the threat scientists have revealed, and that dissonance is reflected in these polls.”

Doug Miller, chairman of GlobeScan, said: “Evidence of environmental damage is stronger than ever, but our data shows that economic crisis and a lack of political leadership mean that the public are starting to tune out.”

The Department of Energy and Climate Change reiterated the view of Ed Davey, Climate Change Secretary, that “the basic physics of climate change is irrefutable”.

At beviserne for en snarlig klimakatastrofe er “stronger than ever” og at “the basic physics of climate change is irrefutable” er der nu mere end delte meninger om. Siden det blev officielt at atmosfærens temperatur ikke er steget i 17 år er bekymrede alarmistforskere begyndt at indrømme deres manglende fuldkommenhed. E&E Publishing

If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”

The question itself, while simple sounding, is loaded. By any measure, the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest in modern history. However, 1998 remains the single warmest year on record, though by some accounts last year tied its heat. Temperatures following 1998 stayed relatively flat for 10 years, with the heat in 2008 about equaling temperatures at the decade’s start. The warming, as scientists say, went on “hiatus.”

The hiatus was not unexpected. Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily, though before this decade scientists were uncertain how long such pauses could last. In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required.

(…)

….for others, this simple answer was a failure. If scientists were going to attribute the stall to natural variability, they faced a burden to explain, in a precise way, how this variation worked. Without evidence, their statements were no better than the unsubstantiated theories circulated by climate skeptics on the Internet.

“It has always bothered me,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “Natural variability is not a cause. One has to say what aspect of natural variability.”

(…)

“What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,” said Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist and former lead author of the United Nations’ climate change report, during a recent visit to MIT. “And that’s all good. There is no silver bullet. In this case, it’s four pieces or five pieces of silver buckshot.” [fortsætter Trenberth]

(…)

Indeed, the most important outcome from the energy hunt may be that researchers are chronically underestimating air pollution’s reflective effect, said NASA’s James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Recent data has forced him to revise his views on how much of the sun’s energy is stored in the oceans, committing the planet to warming. Instead, he says, air pollution from fossil fuel burning, directly and indirectly, has been masking greenhouse warming more than anyone knew.

It is a “Faustian bargain,” he said, and a deal that will come due sooner than assumed.

(…)

Researchers have long argued that using 1998 as a starting point was, then, unfair.

“Climate scientists were right that it was a cherry-picked observation, starting with an El Niño and ending with a La Niña,” said Robert Kaufmann, a geographer at Boston University who recently studied the hiatus period.

The temperature spike of 1998 was not just about El Niño, though; it was also enabled by an absence in the air. From the 1950s to the late 1970s, it is now widely agreed that the smog and particles from fossil fuel burning, by reflecting some of the sun’s light back into space, masked any heating that would be felt from increased greenhouse gases. As clean air laws began to pass in the United States and Europe, this pollution began to disappear in the 1990s, a process known as “global brightening.”

(…)

“We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.”

For a decade, that’s exactly what happened. Skeptics made exaggerated claims about “global cooling,” pointing to 1998. (For one representative example, two years ago columnist George Will referred to 1998 as warming’s “apogee.”) Scientists had to play defense, said Ben Santer, a climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“This no-warming-since-1998 discussion has prompted people to think about the why and try to understand the why,” Santer said. “But it’s also prompted people to correct these incorrect claims.”

Even without skeptics, though, the work explaining the hiatus, and especially refining the planet’s energy imbalance, would have happened, NASA’s Hansen added.

It was in no “way affected by the nonsensical statements of contrarians,” Hansen said. “These are fundamental matters that the science has always been focused on. The problem has been the absence of [scientific] observations.”

(…)

Indeed, many of the scientists sorting out the warming hiatus disagree with one another — in a chummy, scholarly way. Judith Lean, the solar scientist, finds Kaufmann’s work unpersuasive and unnecessarily critical of China. Kaufmann finds Solomon’s stratosphere studies lacking in evidence. Hansen and Trenberth can’t agree on a budget.

It seems staggering, then, that in a few years’ time a new consensus will form for the next U.N. climate change report. But it will, and lurking beneath it will remain, as always, the churning theories and rivalries, the questions, the grist of scientific life.

So, in the end, can anyone say explicitly what caused the warming hiatus?

Kinesisk kul og oceanerne får skylden for enten at blokere for varmen eller opsuge den og centralt står computermodeller, der skal kompensere for manglende data. Grundlæggende holdes den sikre teori i live af de muligheder der stadig ligger i hvad man endnu ikke ved. Et langt stykke fra den skråsikkerhed der bruger udtryk som “unequivocal” og “irrefutable”. Det er blandt andet det, som får den tyske alarmist Hans von Storch til at beskylde sine allierede klimaforskere for “hype and ‘methodical failure’”. Selv om Storch langer ud efter skeptikerne for at være skyld i alarmisternes udmeldinger falder krabadsken hårdt

As the scientific community, we were just not prepared for the temperature not rising for a decade as CO2 concentrations rose. We had not thought enough about the possibility of falsification. [...] We concentrated too much on looking ahead and said: Great! Everything fits our explanation. For many colleagues asking questions was frowned upon because this ‘could provide the climate skeptics with ammo‘. And that is a methodical failure.”

Og mens der arbejdes på at få konsensus om bortforklaringerne så dannes der et andet videnskabeligt konsensus af tvivl, skriver Forbes

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

Og for de fleste forskere er det ligegyldigt, hvilket konsensus, der hersker, så længe det tjener ens karriere

Økofascismen marcherer uanfægtet videre

Diverse — Drokles on May 6, 2012 at 5:37 am

Raheem Kassam minder os om historiens lære i Commentator

Edmund Burke’s prescience regarding the French Revolution and the inherent nature of ‘radicalism’ – that is to say the inevitability of spending, debt and tyranny inflicted by leftist ideals – is just as relevant in the 21st century as it was at the time of his writing ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’.

One of Burke’s most crucial points in my mind is the remarkable nature of populist rhetoric and how the ideas of ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité’ would result in further subjugation of the masses at the hands of Robespierre and subsequently, Napoleon.

Sold to the French in 1789 terms as, “We are the 99%”, the doctrine of maximum pricing (the ‘General Maximum’) led not only to rampant social discord as citizens squealed on their wealth creating neighbours, but further throttled the economy, the will to produce and made unfair scapegoats of those who had previously contributed the most to the French economy. Sound familiar?

Det er et velkendt fænomen at man kan slippe afsted med at skrive ganske skrækkelige ting på de digitale medier, hvis blot man tilføjer en smiley. “Dræb jøderne hvorend i finder dem!” er meget værre end “Dræb jøderne hvorend i finder dem :-)”, men heldigvis har islamisterne ikke fundet ud af det endnu. Sådan en smileyeffekt har økologi, bæredygtighed og klimaet. Den rene fascisme regnes som helt legitime demokratiske argumenter hos de fleste debattører, politikere og journalister når blot man tilføjer noget sympatisk om Moder Jord.

Tidens største trussel mod jorden, som den beskrives af det esoteriske klimapanel, tages så meget for givet at dissens og nådesgaven tvivl anses som obstruerende og skadelig. Den logiske følge - så langt som nogen tænker i logiske følger (hvilket ikke alle heldigvis gør, men mange) - er naturligvis at overveje, hvorledes man får fjernet opposition eller endda oppositionen fra debatten - hvorledes man redder debattens økologi så vi kan diskutere at vi gør som vi får besked på.

Guardian, som ellers har sine helt egne øko-fascister i sin stab, fortæller hvorledes fair debat er unfair

An Australian television documentary that gives equal weight to a climate sceptic and a believer has been strongly criticised by scientists as unfairly skewing the evidence on global warming.

The hour-long programme, I Can Change Your Mind About Climate, broadcast on ABC TV, pits Anna Rose, co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition against conservative political power broker and climate sceptic, Nick Minchin (until recently Minchin sat in the upper house of parliament as an opposition Liberal party senator). In the film, each chooses an equal number of people anywhere in the world to introduce the other to, in a bid to change their mind on climate change.

Scientists and environmentalists say the film gives the misleading impression that the debate on the science of climate change is not settled.

Kunne man forestille sig en debat mellem Johanne Schmidt Nielsen og Claus Hjort Frederiksen som ikke var vægtet lige fordi Enhedslisten på så mange planer er sekterisk i sin virkelighedsopfattelse? Men med klimaet er det anderledes for det er virkeligt vigtigt og så kan det ikke overlades til debat. Alert Net fortæller at også klimapanelets formand ser tvivl, som en trussel mod planeten

BANGKOK (AlertNet) - Continuing scepticism about climate change in some parts of the world threatens the planet and the people on it, according to Rajendra K. Pachauri, chief of the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“I think global society has to realise that we are affecting the climate of this planet and this is the only planet that we have,” he said in Bangkok Friday at the Southeast Asia launch of the IPCC special report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters

 While scepticism about climate change continues in some parts of the world – particularly the United States – “some facts, which are incontrovertible need to be accepted by the public,” he urged.

Eller som klimadebattøren Joe Romn skriver på Think Progress i vrede over at PBS har bragt et indslag om den klimaskeptiske tænketank Heartland Institute

Would you give air time to someone who says the Earth is flat or cigarettes don’t cause cancer and simply follow those falsehoods by ”These are views challenged by scientific evidence.” How about a Holocaust denier?

(…)

By quoting Heartland, PBS  is conferring legitimacy on it as a source. After all, the NewsHours is highly credible news outlet. The message PBS sends to the audience and the world by quoting Heartland at all is that these folks have a legitimate place in the debate. They don’t.

Ja, man skal ikke gå og brænde inde med den slags. Det er bare med at få det sagt, hvis man da må. Peter C Glover fra Commentator gennemgår en række tidligere eksempler

Journalist Alex Lockwood (in the leftwing UK Guardian) proposes “the internet should be nationalised as a public utility in order to contain the superfluous claims of warming skeptics”. Fred Pearce (again in the UK Guardian) demands we “silence the doubters”. At the 2007 Live Earth concert, Robert F. Kennedy Jnr called for skeptics to be “treated as traitors” following this up with the demand that all coal execs “should be in jail for all eternity”.
Fascist intolerance? We’re only getting started.

Alarmist high priest James Hansen has called for skeptics to be put on trial for “high crimes against humanity”. Hansen has also endorsed a book by Keith Farnish that advocates sabotage and environmental terrorism by blowing up dams and demolishing cities to return us to an agrarian age. Hard left Grist magazine columnist David Roberts wants“war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Canadian environmentalist author, David Suzuki, suggests finding a “legal way of throwing our [climate foot-dragging political] leaders into jail” their climate negligence being “a criminal act”. Wouldn’t the Canadian Civil Liberties Association be appalled? After all, Suzuki is a former board member. Talking Points Memo is fairly representative of the views of hard left websites, asking, “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?” Don’t you just love the liberal virtue of tolerance?

Kari Norgaard is professor of climate change at the University of Oregon. At a recent London conference she called forskeptics to be viewed as “racists” and climate scepticism as a “sickness” needing to be “treated”. And the infamous Climategate emails scandal revealed key contributors to the UN IPCC reports threatening science editors, burying data and sounding generally like Richard M. Nixon at his most paranoid.

Surely we can expect better from government-sponsored officials? Apparently not. The above mentioned Professor Norgaard has recently urged President Obama to “ignore democracy”and act on climate via executive fiat. She also backed Obama’s appointment of John P. Holdren – an avowed eugenist who has called for a “planetary regime” to enforce abortions and mandatory sterilization programs – as his senior advisor on science and technology issues. Eugenist? Ah, enforced population control. Isn’t that what the German National Socialists were most famous for practising? Not to mention Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot – leftists all – of course.

In 2007, US EPA chief, Michael T. Eckhart was exposedas authoring an email threatening to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. In April this year, a senior Obama-appointee to the EPA boastedthat the agency’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of US energy producers – the people without whom all modern society would grind to a halt, by the way.

Let’s sum up for a moment: burning houses, threats to life, limb, business, destroying careers, inflammatory rhetoric, deception, lies and preventing free speech. The message from the eco-fascist Left is resolute: don’t mess with us, or else. These are not guys Joe Public would want to break bread with.

And we should also be clear about this: fascism per se has its roots in the beliefs and ideology of the radical Left, not as is often portrayed, the Right, radical or otherwise. German National socialism (it still exists), communism, even Islamism, all favour Big Government, centralized power and control, the subversion of democratic processes and, especially, the restriction of liberty and free speech.

If fascism in any guise doesn’t get what it wants, it has always sought ways of grabbing power first by bullying others to keep silent, then asserting the need to “put democracy on hold”.

Big Government eh? Ja og jo større en regering er jo mere kompleks og uigennemskuelig er den også for vælgerne, som derfor må slukke lyset så de ikke distraheres af det de kunne tænkes at læse.

Peter “Debatten er ovre” Glieck synker længere ned i ‘Fakegate’

Diverse — Drokles on May 3, 2012 at 3:24 am

For et par måneder siden brød en skandale ud i klimadebatten. Den fremtrædende klimaforsker og videnskabsetiker Peter Glieck, der havde vundet international berømmelse på frasen “debatten er ovre” kunne afsløre den klimaskeptiske tænketank Heratland Institute’s skumle strategi til nedbrydelse af skolebørns tro på videnskab. Sponseret af oliepenge og  Big Koch (som James Delingpole med infantil fornøjelse elsker at kalde dem) var det Heartlands velsmurte kampagnemaskine der var skyld i at tiltroen til FN’s klimapanels fortælling dalede kraftigt i offentligheden.

Glieck havde fra en anonym kilde, som påstod at være tilknyttet Heartland Institute modtaget hemmelige papirer fra Heartland om bl.a. deres finansiering. Med i dokumenterne var det saftigste bevis på at klimaskeptiscisme blev drevet frem af onde hensigter, nemlig det hurtigt berømte strategimemo. Og det var i strategimemo’et at alle sandhederne om, hvorledes Heartland lavede disinformationskampagner, hyrede forskere der tidligere havde benægtet sammenhængen mellem rygning og cancer og udarbejde taktikker til at skræmme amerikanske lærere fra at undervise i videnskab. Klimaredaktionerne på alverdens etablerede medier sprøjtede over med ekstatisk forargelse.

Men festen blev kort. Hurtigt gik det op for journalister der besad den gamle vane at tjekke kilder at Heartland Institute havde en god pointe i deres påstand om at strategimemo’et var et falskneri. Strategimemo’et var skrevet i et andet format end resten af dokumenterne og med en anden sproglig stil med en særegen brug af parenteser og binde-streger(!) der til forveksling lignede Glieck’s eget sprog. Og ifølge Atlantics Megan Mcardle lignede dets indhold noget der var forfattet i en tegneserie skurkegrotte - af en praktikant. Strategimemo’et svarede ifølge Mcardle på ingen måde til skeptikernes selvforståelse som en David mod Goliat i kamp for sandhed.

Mens Strategimemo’et var et falskneri var resten af dokumenterne, om bestyrelsesmedlemmer og samarbejdspartnere og deres adresser osv, samt Heartland budgetter ægte. Men de ægte dokumenter afslørede intet fordækt. Faktisk kunne man se at Heartland var en meget lille tænketank med et beskedent budget, hvoraf klimaet kun var en af fire områder, som Heartland havde interesse i. Deres store betydning for klimadebatten kunne alene tilskrives deres flid og dygtighed samt måske det faktum at det er billigere at tale sandt fremfor at betle skræmmescenarier og som en anden alkoholiker at bruge stadigt flere ressourcer på at holde styr på alle sine mange små løgne igennem daglidagen.

Peter Glieck måtte hurtigt indrømme at han var manden der selv havde fremskaffet de ægte dokumenter ved at foregive at være et medlem af Heartlands bestyrelse. Dette havde han endda gjort kun få dage efter at han havde takket nej til en invitation, som debattør på en af Heartlands klimakonferencer, hvor han ville have mulighed for at præsentere sin sag og gå i kødet på sine skeptiske modstandere. Men Glieck fastholdt at strategimemo’et var blevet ham tilsendt af en anonym person i dagene mellem han skaffede sig Heartlands fortrolige dokumenter og til han offentliggjorde det hele. Denne forklaring virker ikke troværdig. Heartland Institute offentligjorde forleden en rapport, der slog fast at strategimemo’et var et falskneri

The Heartland Institute today released more evidence that Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick was the likely author of a fake “climate strategy memo” that Gleick originally claimed came from a “Heartland insider,” and later said he received “in the mail” from an anonymous source.

Heartland released a computer forensics report, conducted by Protek International, which states: “We conclude that the Memo did not originate on the Heartland System. It was not created on the Heartland System and was never present there prior to its February 14 posting online.”

Og Anthony Watt’s fra Watt’s Up With That bestilte en analyse hos Patrick Juola, Ph.D der leder Evaluating Variations in Language Laboratory ved Duquesne University i Pittsburgh til at analysere om det var Glieck eller Heartlands direktør Joe Bast i et anfald af agent provocateur der mest sandsynligt havde forfattet strategimemo’et. Med nogle vigtige forbehold konkluderes der

In response to the question of who wrote the disputed Heartland strategy memo, it is difficult to deliver an answer with complete certainty. The writing styles are similar and the sample is extremely small, both of which act to reduce the accuracy of our analysis. Our procedure by assumption excluded every possible author but Bast and Gleick. Nevertheless, the analytic method that correctly and reliably identified twelve of twelve authors in calibration testing also selected Gleick as the author of the disputed document. Having examined these documents and their results, I therefore consider it more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled ”Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute.

Imens i Danmark har Information endnu ikke berigtiget deres kolportering af historien, som den så ud da klimaredaktioner rundt om i verden troede at de havde fundet skeptikernes rygende pistol. “Klimaskeptikere smager egen medicin” skrev Informations Jørgen Steen Nielsen som overskrift til en artikel, der i bedste fald kan betragtes som et afskrift af Desmogblogs første blogpost om sagen.

Heartland svarer igen

Diverse — Drokles on April 4, 2012 at 4:22 am

På Watts Up With That kan man læse Heartland institutes svar på Fakegate.

Background on Fakegate from The Heartland Institute

1. What is Fakegate?

Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Mee...

Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009 (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

On February 14, 2012, an environmental activist named Peter Gleick sent to liberal activists and sympathetic journalists several documents he stole from The Heartland Institute, along with a fake memo he claimed was also from Heartland. On February 20, Gleick confessed to stealing the documents but claimed to have received the fake memo “in the mail” from an anonymous source.

The fake memo, titled “January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a mixture of text copied and pasted from the stolen documents and original commentary by the forger. By distorting and misrepresenting the plans set forth in the stolen documents, the fake memo paints a false and disturbing picture of Heartland’s motives and tactics.

2. What did the stolen documents reveal?

 

The budget document revealed that Heartland has a broad base of support – about 1,800 donors – and expects to raise about $7.7 million in 2012. It presents confidential personnel information including reasons for termination of former employees and salaries. It also lists scientists we work with to produce Climate Change Reconsidered, a series of reports presenting an alternative perspective to the United Nations’ IPCC reports.

The fundraising plan identifies some of the donors to The Heartland Institute during the past two years and our estimate of how much they would contribute in 2012. It also describes a series of new programs, including four on climate change, that we plan to fundraise for. Are all well within our charitable mission of “discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”

Another stolen document reveals contact information for members of Heartland’s Board of Directors, including home addresses for some Directors.

Three things the stolen documents do not reveal are substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry for our work on climate change, substantial funding from David or Charles Koch or Koch Industries, and anything other than a sincere and professional effort to advance the organization’s tax-exempt mission.

3. How do you know the “climate strategy” memo is fake?

We know the memo is a forgery for four reasons:

  • The memo contains numerous errors of fact and interpretation that no one at Heartland would have made. Significantly, every error in the fake memo has the effect of casting Heartland’s fundraising and education efforts in a negative light.
  • Juola & Associates, the country’s leading provider of expert analysis and testimony in the field of text and authorship, studied the document and concluded Gleick is the most likely author. So have many other independent scholars.
  • A thorough forensic analysis of Heartland’s computers (and those owned by Heartland’s president and his spouse) by Protek International concludes “the Memo was not created on Heartland’s computer systems and never existed there, or within Heartland’s email systems, prior to its posting online on February 14, 2012.”
  • The memo references only the documents that were stolen by Gleick. Except for Board members, no one except Gleick had access to all of the documents cited in the memo.

4. What does the fake “climate strategy” memo say?

The memo contains several false statements about The Heartland Institute’s work on climate change. Following is our refutation of some of the most damaging claims:

  • The Charles G. Koch Foundation does not fund our climate change efforts and did not contribute $200,000 to us in 2011. The foundation has issued a statement confirming that its 2011 gift of $25,000 – its first to Heartland in ten years – was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not climate.
  • “[D]issuading teachers from teaching science” is not and never has been our goal. As the “Fundraising Plan” clearly states, we are working with a highly qualified and respected expert to create educational material on global warming suitable for K_12 students that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. We don’t believe this should be controversial.
  • We do not seek to “undermine the official United Nation’s [sic] IPCC reports.” We have openly and repeatedly shown that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports are not peer reviewed in any meaningful sense, exaggerate the certainty of scientific understanding and forecasting abilities, and are written and promoted to serve political rather than scientific objectives. We have produced two highly regarded volumes of scientific research, part of a series titled Climate Change Reconsidered, showing how peer_reviewed science rebuts many of the IPCC’s claims.
  • We do not pay scientists or their organizations to “counter” anyone else in the international debate over climate change. We pay them to help write the Climate Change Reconsidered reports, in the same way as any other “think tank” or scientific organization pays the authors of its publications.
  • We do not try to “keep opposing voices out” of forums, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events. In fact, we invited Peter Gleick to debate a Heartland expert on climate change at our upcoming annual benefit dinner and he turned us down.

5. How does Fakegate compare with Climategate?

Fakegate invites comparison with Climategate, the unauthorized release of emails from the University of East Anglia in 2009 and again in 2011. Both scandals reveal how desperate and delusional the leading figures in the global warming movement are. If you are confident that you are right, you don’t steal documents and try to undermine other organizations.

Groups on the left claim The Heartland Institute, which reported frequently on the Climategate story, is being hypocritical now when it denounces the theft of its documents and calls on journalists to stop assuming the fake memo is authentic. But the “hypocrisy” charge is easily answered:

  • The Climategate documents show a pattern of misbehavior – trying to suppress debate, destroying data, fudging research findings – while the documents stolen from Heartland actually vindicate the organization from claims that it is a “front group” for the fossil fuel industry.
  • None of the Climategate documents was fake. One of the Fakegate documents was.
  • The documents in the Climategate scandal were leaked, not stolen: apparently no crime was committed. Our documents were clearly stolen, and the culprit, Peter Gleick, has confessed.
  • The Climategate documents were apparently being stored to respond to FOIA requests that the University of East Anglia had been stonewalling. The university is a government agency and subject to FOIA; The Heartland Institute is a private nonprofit organization, and is not.

So where Climategate and Fakegate are similar, they reveal the dishonesty and basic moral corruption of the global warming movement. Where they differ, they justify The Heartland Institute taking legal action against Peter Gleick and his co-conspirators.

6. Where does Fakegate stand today?

Environmental groups are using false statements contained in the fake memo and the list of donors in the stolen fundraising document to demand that our corporate donors stop funding us. Since many of our donors give to support our work on topics other than climate change – school reform, health care policy, insurance regulation, and others – they should not be exposed to this kind of harassment.

Similarly, Greenpeace is using the fake memo and the list of scientists in the stolen budget document to demand that universities discipline or fire the climate scientists who work with Heartland. This is an outrageous attack on free and open debate, yet it is being cheered on by many reporters and other environmental activists.

Environmental groups and their allies in the mainstream media still refuse to remove the stolen and fake documents from their Web sites or to issue retractions of editorials and news stories that assumed the authenticity of the fake memo, despite our repeated requests that they do so. This is a clear violation of journalistic ethics.

The Heartland Institute has assembled a top-notch legal team and is asking the government to pursue criminal charges against Peter Gleick and his accomplices, as well as preparing to file civil suits against Gleick and his accomplices on behalf of Heartland and the scientists who have come under attack because of his actions.

7. What is The Heartland Institute?

The Heartland Institute is a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization with offices in Chicago and Washington, DC. The Heartland Institute was founded in 1984. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

Three things make Heartland unique among free-market think tanks:

  • State and local elected officials nationwide are our primary audiences. We are in frequent contact with some 7,300 state elected officials and more than 8,400 county and local officials.
  • We produce publications that actually get read by elected officials. Six monthly public policy newspapers – Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, FIRE Policy News, Health Care News, InfoTech & Telecom News, and School Reform News – present free-market ideas as news rather than research or opinion.
  • We promote the best work of other free-market think tanks on our Web sites, in our newspapers, at our events, and through our extensive government relations and media relations efforts.

Expertise: Approximately 140 academics and professional economists participate in Heartland’s peer review process as policy advisors and 213 elected officials serve on its Legislative Forum. Fourteen senior fellows are available to write, speak, or comment in depth on a wide range of policy issues.

Media Relations: We send out a constant stream of op-eds, news releases, letters to the editor, podcasts, and much more. In 2011, we contacted journalists more than 410,484 times and appeared in print and on television or radio 1,093 times.

Online: We are leaders in online communication and grassroots organizing, generating nearly 2 million page views and 1.3 million visitors on 16 Web sites and blogs in 2011. Our Facebook page has more than 52,000 fans, and registers approximately 75,000 impressions every week.

Credibility and Influence: Our 28 years producing solid research and educational materials and repeated communications with state legislators have made Heartland a credible, independent, “go-to” source for thousands of elected officials and other opinion leaders. A 2011 survey by Victory Enterprises of 500 randomly selected public officials found 79 percent of state legislators and 66 percent of local elected officials read at least one of our publications, and almost half of state legislators say a Heartland publication changed their mind or led to a change in public policy.

Bipartisan: The Heartland Institute’s influence is not limited to a single political party. The Victory Enterprises survey showed strong across-the-aisle appeal as well. Approximately 73 percent of state Democratic legislators said they read at least one Heartland publication sometimes or always, 64 percent of these legislators said they consider one or more publications a useful source of information, and 38 percent said a Heartland publication influenced their opinions or led to a change in public policy.

Besides its monthly public policy newspapers, Heartland publishes books, policy studies, booklets, and other publications and produces videos, podcasts, and other online features.

Heartland’s 13_member Board of Directors is chaired by Dr. Herbert Walberg, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and research professor emeritus of psychology and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Heartland’s 2012 annual budget is $7.0 million. It has a full-time staff of 41. Funds come from approximately 1,800 individuals, corporations, and foundations. No corporate donor contributes more than 5 percent of Heartland’s annual budget. Contributions are tax-deductible under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

8. What is Heartland’s position on climate change?

Heartland’s researchers acknowledge, as do most scientists, that the Earth experienced a rise in temperatures during the second half of the twentieth century, that human activities may have played a role in that increase, and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Heartland disagrees with three claims made by many environmental groups: That most of the warming of the twentieth century can be attributed to anthropogenic causes, that computer models are sufficiently reliable to forecast future climate conditions, and that a continued moderate warming would be harmful to humanity or the natural world.

Heartland’s position is supported by many of the world’s leading climate scientists, and many (possibly most) scientists in the United States. We are not “on the fringe” or “anti-climate science.” We are expressing a perspective that is very mainstream, even if it is not what liberal environmentalists and reporters believe.

9. What is Heartland doing on climate change?

We produce more research and commentary on climate change than any other free-market think tank in the world. We have distributed millions of books, booklets, videos, and other educational products to opinion leaders in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Britain, and other parts of the world.

We report on the climate change debate every month in Environment & Climate News, a publication sent to every national, state, and most local elected officials in the U.S. We fund the writing and publication of the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), including two volumes in a series titled Climate Change Reconsidered totaling more than 1,200 pages and citing thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles.

We have hosted six International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC), attracting nearly 3,000 scientists, policy experts, and policymakers from around the world. We plan at least one and possibly two ICCCs in 2012.

During 2012, we plan to undertake nearly a dozen projects specifically addressing climate change. An updated proposal is available to donors and potential donors.

# # #

For more information about Fakegate, please visit www.fakegate.org or call Jim Lakely, communications director, at 312/377-4000. For more information about The Heartland Institute, please visit www.heartland.org or call Gwen Carver, membership manager, or Rachel Rivest Dunbar, corporate relations manager, at 312/377-4000.

Contributions to The Heartland Institute are tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC. Please send your gift to The Heartland Institute, One South Wacker Drive #2740, Chicago, IL 60606.

Full report in PDF form here: Background on Fakegate

Information kolporterede også Gliecks løgne og har i skrivende stund endnu ikke fulgt op med en berigtigende artikel.

Klimaredaktion

Diverse — Drokles on April 3, 2012 at 3:45 am

Information har rent faktisk haft en historie om Fakegate, forfalskningen af tænketanken Heartland Institute’s papirer for at bringe dem i miskredit, som jeg har overset da jeg tidligere skrev om sagen. Som de fleste abonnenter på FN’s Klimapanels svovlende dystopier faldt også Information i gryden. Under overskriften “Klimaskeptikere smager egen medicin” lægges der allerede i første sætning mere i kakkelovnen

Da ukendte gerningsmænd i november 2009 hackede en klimaforskers computer på det britiske University of East Anglia og lagde omkring 4.000 interne e-mails og andre stjålne dokumenter på nettet, blev det af klimaskeptikere set som den ultimative chance for at få punkteret klimaforskningens troværdighed, aflivet påstanden om menneskeskabt global opvarmning og skudt klimatopmødet i København, COP15, i sænk.

Ingen ved til dags dato hvorledes e-mails’ne fra East Anglia universitetet fremkom. Politiet har ikke fundet tegn på indbrud - hackning - og det vil derfor være en mere naturlig konklusion at de blev lækket til offentligheden. Betydningen af dette ligger i den afledte tolkning - for er der tale om en hackning, som Information’s Jørgen Steen Nielsen antager uden skyggen af bevis, er skeptikerne forbrydere, eller gerningsmænd, i tanke, hvis ikke i direkte handling og deres indveninger mod Klimapanelets autoritet derfor forbryderiske. Er der derimod tale om et internt læk bliver e-mails’nes indhold derimod det forbryderiske, som en whistleblower af samvittighedsgrunde ikke længere kan stå model til.

En ukendt person har narret den indflydelsesrige konservative og klimaskeptiske tænketank The Heartland Institute til at maile sig et antal fortrolige strategidokumenter, som nu er blevet delt med offentligheden via hjemmesiden www.desmogblog.com

Modsat e-mails’ne fra East Anglia ved vi nu, hvem der narrede The Heartland Institutet til at maile sig fortrolige dokumenter - han hed Peter Glick. Glieck var, for hans tid som gårdsanger ser ud til at være ovre, en fremtrædende klimadebattør, som for mere end ti år siden kom på frasen om at debatten er ovre. Han har senere undskyldt sit svig med at det var et forsøg på at højne debatten. Det skal man vist være klimaekspert for at forstå. Han havde også en fremtrædende post som videnskabsetiker grundet den store tiltro til hans hæderlighed og integritet. Med Jørgen Steen Nielsens ord var denne hædersmand og debathøjner, Peter Glieck, gerningsmanden.

Jørgen Steen Nielsen’s artikel bygger, som man kan se i citatet, på Desmogblog, en klimablog som deler FN’s Klimapanels dystre verdensbillede, men han lader læseren forstå at han selv har studeret det belastende materiale fra Heartland; “…forstår man godt, når man studerer dokumenterne”. Og det er bemærkelsesværdigt for han kommer til nøjagtigt de samme spektakulære fejlkonklusioner som Desmogblog

Ét [dokument] fortæller bl.a., at en anonym donor siden 2007 har givet over otte mio. dollar til Heartlands klimaskeptiske arbejde og for 2012 lovet yderligere 629.000 dollar. Blandt andre donorer er Charles G. Koch Foundation, der med midler fra den multinationale olie-, gas- og kemikoncern Koch Industries støtter f.eks. Teaparty-bevægelsen. Ifølge dokumenterne går tænketankens midler på klimaområdet bl.a. til at betale »et hold forskere« 300.000 dollar om året for med en modrapport at »undergrave« de officielle rapporter fra FN’s klimapanel, IPCC. Dertil får en håndfuld ’eksperter’ fast betaling af for deres klimakritiske arbejde i offentligheden, bl.a. den mest prominente, pensioneret miljøprofessor Fred Singer fra University of Virginia, der modtager »5.000 dollar om måneden plus omkostninger.«

Mest opsigtsvækkende er et projekt, hvor Dr. David Wojick — en velkendt klimaskeptiker, der har arbejdet for kulindustrien, men aldrig publiceret én videnskabelig artikel om klimaspørgsmål — skal hyres til at fremstille et undervisningsmateriale til de amerikanske skoler, som kan så tvivl om den menneskeskabte klimaeffekt.

»Hans indsats vil fokusere på at levere et undervisningsmateriale, der viser, at emnet klimaforandring er kontroversielt og usikkert — to centrale punkter, der er effektive, når det gælder at få lærere til at afstå fra at undervise i naturvidenskab.« »Vi planlægger foreløbig at betale Dr. Wojick 5.000 dollar pr. modul, omkring 25.000 dollar pr. kvartal, for dette arbejde med start i andet kvartal 2012. Den Anonyme Donor har givet tilsagn om de første 100.000 dollar til dette projekt,« hedder det.

Det pinlige er nemlig, at det eneste dokument, der indeholdt belastende oplysninger var forfalsket. Men det var ikke blot forfalsket, der var helt tydeligt forfalsket. Skrevet i et andet format, på et andet tidspunkt, i en anden tidszone og med et anderledes sprog, et sprog som Atlantics Megan MarCarthy beskrev som forbrydersprog i en batman tegneserie - “det gælder at få lærere til at afstå fra at undervise i naturvidenskab“! ih, hvor er vi onde - end de andre og ægte dokumenter. Og så havde det tillige en særlig brug af tegnsætning og stavemåde, som Steven Mosher hurtigt genkendte som Glieck’s egen. Glieck havde jo været en flittig publicist, hvilket han åbenbart selv havde glemt.

Jørgen Steen Nielsen og Desmogblog havde altså overset nøjagtigt det samme i deres grundige og kritiske research, hvem skulle have troet det kunne lade sig gøre? Og så meget mere pinligt bliver det når Jørgen Steen Nielsen slutter sin artikel med denne hoverende sarkasme

…i en særlig henvendelse direkte til sine sympatisører skriver Heartland Institute:

»En flok bloggere og venstreorienterede aktivister og deres nikkedukker i de følgagtige medier publicerer og citerer nu disse ’lækkede’ dokumenter. Jeres modige støtte er nu mere nødvendig end nogensinde. Dette angreb ville ikke være kommet, hvis det ikke var fordi, vi afslører sandheden.«

Well, 2-0 til Heartland, de kunne præcist forudse hvor stupide deres selvglade modstandere var, fra Desmogblog henover BBC til Information. De ægte dokumenter afslørede at Heartland havde et meget lille budget, 4,4 mill dollars, som de fordelte på fire interesseområder, hvor klimaet altså blot var et. Grinagtigt bliver det at en så lille organisation skulle kunne true FN’s organer. Eller have sat sig for at skræmme lærere over hele USA fra at undervise i videnskab.

Det værste er dog at jeg ikke kan se at Information og Jørgen Steen Nielsen har bragt en rettelse til dette nonsens, hvilket måske betyder at de har efterladt deres læsere med en fejlagtig opfattelse af virkeligheden? Nåh ja, det er jo Information så læserne har alligevel fået hvad de kom efter.

Fakegate - et søm i klimakisten

Diverse — Drokles on March 12, 2012 at 12:54 pm

Der har udspillet sig en bizar sag mellem modpolerne i klimadebatten i den seneste måneds tid. Den estimerede klimaforsker Peter Glick, der sideløbende med dommedagsprofetier kraftigt har slået til lyd for videnskabelig etik kunne pludselig afsløre slibrige detaljer om en af benægterfløjens kerneinstitutioner, The Heartland Institute, som var blevet ham tilsendt af en “Heartland Insider”. En whistleblowers moralske habitus giver ubetalelig tyngde til enhver afsløring. Gennem fortrolige dokumenter blev både Heartlands finansiering og målsætning rullet op og til ingens overraskelse var det den fossile industri, sammen med andre skurkagtige kapitalister der købte sig ind på Heartlands plan om at forkludre klimadebatten og videnskaben som sådan. Historien spredte sig hurtigere end nogle kunne nå at fact-tjekke dokumenterne - lige indtil altså, at nogle gjorde. Og så gik det stærkt den anden vej.

Det viste sig ikke bare at dokumenterne ikke var fra en Hertland insider, men var fremskaffet af Glieck selv på en ikke særlig videnskabsetisk måde. Glieck havde udgivet sig for et medlem af Heartlands bestyrelse, identitetstyveri, for at opdage at Heartlands finansiering var ganske beskeden, ikke ulovlig, ikke hemmelig, men faktisk ganske uskummel. For hele den umiddelbare bestyrtelse hvilede alene på et enkelt dokument, det nu berygtede “stategi-memo”, som var en fabrikation - og endda en dårlig en af slagsen. Og mon ikke dette forfalskede strategimemo stammer fra Gliecks egen hånd?

Heartland leverer det bedste samlede modstykke til FN’s Klimapanels fortælling, men med et budget på på 4-5 mill. $, hvoraf kun en del er afsat til klimadebatten er Heartland økonomisk en dværg i klimadebatten. EUReferendum sammenlignede Heartlands budget med, hvad der regnes for moderat på den modsatte side af klimadebatten

The Climate Works Foundation, though, is of special interest as it was in 2008, awarded $460,800,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a grant-making organisation with assets of $7.2 billion, which disbursed $353,400,000 in grants in 2011. It has made another grant to Climate Works only last week of $100 million – bringing the total grants to this organisation to just short of $600 million.

Eksemplerne på økomastodonter og deres statslige opbakning er mange og man kan med fornøjelig gru læse flere hos EURerendum. Judith Curry har bl.a derfor undret sig over, hvorfor Heartland af alle benægtere blev et mål for bagvaskelsesattentatet og meget aktuelt spurgt Heartlands chef Peter Bast, som pr. email bl.a svarede

We send publications to every national, state, and 8,400 county and local officials in the U.S. on average about once a week. 79% of state legislators say they read at least one of our publications. “Environment & Climate News,” one of six monthly publications we produce, is read by 57% of state legislators, a higher percentage than read the New York Times. It has been published continuously for 15 years, and every issue features the work of leading climate realists. No other organization produces a regular publication that reaches more people with this message.

Many policymakers and other opinion leaders in the U.S. and around the world recognize the names of (to use those in your list) Pat Michael, Chris Horner, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer only because they read their work or about their work in Environment & Climate News.

ECN is just the tip of the iceberg. You know about our International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCCs) – six held since 2008, total attendance of more than 3,000 people. The press and online coverage of these conferences was greater than anything else done by climate realists, and the videos of the presentations posted online have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. The personal connections created among scientists from all around the world created a genuine social movement in favor of a more realistic understanding of climate change.

(…)

In addition, we’ve distributed more than a million DVDs, nearly 2 million short booklets and reprints, and 200,000 copies of a New York Times best-seller. Most were sent to educators, opinion leaders, and policymakers over the course of the past five years. We deliberately bypassed the mainstream media, for reasons made obvious by their coverage of the Fakegate scandal. Our strategy worked. All surveys show informed opinion has moved decidedly in the direction of climate realism and away from alarmism.

Heartland er altså gode til at advokere for sin sag ved hårdt benarbejde, rene argumenter og i åben kamp. Heartlands konferencer er ikke kun for de indviede også fortalere for det herskende paradigme inviteres med selv om de oftest udebliver. Efterhånden har nogle dog taget mod til sig, som ovennævnte Judith Curry og har fundet om end ikke enighed så en behagelig, saglig og fagligt berigende debat. Peter Glieck var endda var inviteret til åben debat på Heartlands konference, men takkede nej dagen før han bestemte sig for at forfalske Heartlands motiver! Han har senere forklaret sit attentat på Heartlands renomme med at han forivrede sig i forsøget på at højne debatten. Ironisk nok for Peter Glieck er efter sigende manden som for ti år siden opfandt sætningen “debatten er ovre!

Gliecks karriere ligger nu i ruiner og i den spillevende klimadebat deler skeptikerne lystigt håndmadder ud til rå mængder af røde ører. Denne absurde sag er altså mere end en enkelt mands momentane galskab og en enkeltstående ydmygelse af klimasagen - det er et afgørende punkt i klimadebatten. Det mener jeg fordi Fakegate, som sagen hurtigt blev døbt, er så pinlig for så mange betydningsfulde forskere og meningsagenter, som opretholder det samlede klimaparnas at det er katastrofalt for parnassets i forvejen slidte renomme - og det renomme er med virkelighedens manglende samarbejdsvilje parnassets sidste argument. Tag dette nylige eksempel fra LA Times anmeldelse  af Ishockeystavgrafens skaber Michael Mann’s seneste bog (Mann vender jeg tilbage til)

As of January, the Earth’s atmosphere contained 393 parts per million of carbon dioxide. And rising.

To understand why that’s a very sad number, it helps to know that from the dawn of human civilization until the 19th century, the concentration was about 275 parts per million, and that many scientists believe 350 parts per million is a sort of tipping point: Irreversible impacts and feedback loops start to kick in, and the cost of repairing the resulting damage from such things as sea-level rise and droughts not only skyrockets, the cost of adapting to the changes does too. But we’ve already sailed past that point. And , the truly scary level at which 3.5 degrees of warming above pre-industrial global average temperatures is locked in. The predicted result: centuries of weather extremes, drought-fueled global famine, mass migration, the vanishing of low-lying islands and territories as sea ice melts away, wide-scale species extinction and other horrors too numerous and depressing to list.

To global warming denialists, the above paragraph constitutes the “alarmist” perspective on climate change. Never mind that it is backed by a wealth of research, the world’s most state-of-the-art climate models (whose accuracy in predicting the recent effects of climate change has been repeatedly demonstrated), the national science academies of the world’s developed nations (including the U.S. National Academies), the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among other prominent academic and scientific organizations.

Kun tåber går op imod så imposant prominens. Men, men, men. Påstanden om at klimaet allerede har passeret et ‘tipping point’ komplet med ’feedback loops’ står uagtet de mange fine institutioners opbakning svagt i lyset af at temperaturen ikke er steget i 15 år. Noget må altså have modvirket CO2 effekten med stigende styrke i samme tidsrum. Men alle naturlige noget er allerede udelukket gennem analyser af de bedste klimamodeller milliardbeløb kan købe og det kan enhver tåbe se er problematisk. Clive Best har f.eks denne graf, som sammenstiller Klimapanelets virkelighedsopfattelse, hvor “we’re heading inexorably toward another one that’s far worse: 450 parts per million” med den virkelige verden

ipcc-20071

Så argumentet hviler alene på de centrale institutioners allerede tyndslidte renomme. Fakegate’s betydning er at det afslører niveauet og anatomien af klimaparnassets på alle måder dårlige dømmekraft og i tillæg en moralsk som politisk skruppelløshed. Og det er en katastrofal skade på den troværdighed der er deres sidste våben i kampen, som vi skal se. Den ellers klimavenligt stemte Megan Mcardle skrev tro mod sin journalistiske træning i The Atlantic hurtigt om sin mistanke om ugler i mosen da afsløringen af Heartlands arbejdspapirer blev nyhedsstof

Heartland denied that the “strategy memo” was theirs.  And after reading through it–and the documents–carefully, I was inclined to believe them; the text was all wrong, and while the other documents had been printed to PDF sometime in January, this one had been scanned into a computer less than one day before it was sent to the climate bloggers.  While some journalists argued that all the checkable facts in the memos were backed up by the other documents that Heartland admitted to sending, to me, that merely suggested that it was written by someone who had those documents in their possession.

Endnu hurtigere var Steven Mosher, som havde bemærket at det falske memo’s sprog var ganske mistænkeligt af flere årsager. Det adskilte sig ikke bare klart fra Heartlands egne skribenters normale sprogbrug med et barnligt skurkesprog, som i sætningen “key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science” - det passede som fod i hose på Gliecks eget sprog, komplet med specifikke grammatiske fejl (en af grundende til at jeg holder mig på dydens smalle sti). Her er, hvad han smed som en foreløbig kommentar i et kommentarfelt

If you want to look for the author of the fake memo, then look for somebody who tweets the word “anti-climate”. you’ll find it. Look for somebody on the west coast ( the time zone the document was scanned in)

You’ll find somebody who doesnt know how to use parenthesis or commas, both in this memo and in other things he has written.

you’ll find he mentions himself in the memo

that’s all the clues for now. of course its all just speculation. Note, he’s not tweeted for a couple days. very rare for him.

Sammenhold med at det forfalskede dokument var blevet til på baggrund af det uforfalskede materiale, som Glieck var den eneste udenfor Heartland der var i besidelse af. Og læg mærke til, hvor let det er for Mosher ikke bare at se forfalskningen, men hurtigt at stille med en kandidat, mens klimaparnassets mest prominente aktører villigt lod sig forføre. New York Times havde f.eks. under overskriften “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science” følgende vurdering af strategimemoets ægthed

Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute.

Som jeg refererede ovenfor så skilte det falske dokument sig på alle måder ud fra det ulovligt rekvirerede materiale og matchede ikke i tone og indhold de andre dokumenter. Et mildt ord for New York Times stykke research er “confirmation bias”, det at man søger bekræftelse for sin tro. Og det New York Times her tror bekræftet er altså en paranoid forestilling om oliefinansierede konspirationer mod videnskaben til menneskehedens store fortrydelse. Men det har pinligt intet med sandheden at gøre. Den mastodont, som de ser true deres fortælling er intet andet end en undseelig tænketank kun bevæbnet med saglig interesse og gode argumenter - Kan en god sag være bange for det?

BBC’s miljøskribent Richard Black havde kun sympati for Gliecks handlinger og resonnerede således

As the old saying goes, “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’t want you to know” - and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that it certainly didn’t want you to have.

In saying one of the documents was a fake, the institute also signified that the rest were genuine.

Ja, det er rigtigt at Heartland på den måde inddirekte bekræftede de andre dokumenters ægthed (og senere blev de direkte bekræftet da Heartland ganske fornuftigt havde sikre sig at der ikke var manipuleret med dem). Men ved at forfalske et dokument udtrykker man også at de ægte dokumenter ikke indeholder noget belastende. Og dette er jo netop den åbenlyse pointe som BBCs Black overser! Man havde selv ved bedrag ikke kunnet afsløre noget som helst sinistert. Forfalskningen udtrykker netop, hvor stærkt argumenterne imod FN’ Klimapanels forløjede konsensusteori er - og derfor også, hvor svagt klimabevægelsen ikke blot står, men også føler sig. Derfor måtte en bizar ondskab fabrikeres og tilsættes for at forklare, hvorledes det kan gå til at de forkerte vinder en debat om rationaler.

Også Time leverede et forvrænget billede af virkeligheden da de indledte deres referat af sagen således

For advocates of climate action, the Heartland documents offered a rare glimpse into the world of the conservative power players who work to cast doubt on climate science and delay action on global warming — the same people authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called the “Merchants of Doubt” in their 2010 book by the same name.

Saglig debat forveksles med økonomisk overlegenhed - et budget, som end ikke kunne betale huslejen for Geenpeace’s frivillige medarbejdere ses som en “power player”. Dog skal det retfærdigvis med kunne Time se at løgne ikke er vejen frem for noget konstruktivt. Det havde de sværere ved hos Guardian. Guardians fremtrædende klimakommentator George Monbiot sprang lige ud i det og erklærede

I see Peter Gleick, the man who obtained and leaked the devastating documents from the Heartland Institute, as a democratic hero. I do not think he should have apologised, nor do I believe that his job should be threatened. He has done something of benefit to society.

Det er, må man nok sige, den slags udtalelser som slider på troværdigheden når man sammenholder at Glieck gennem amoralsk adfærd har afsløret at Heartland har rent mel i deres meget lille pose. Eller, hvad med dette filosofiske spørgsmål fra økoetikeren James Barvey i samme Guardian

Are his actions wrong just because he lied?

(…)

You can see where I’m headed. Gleick’s intentions matter when we try to work out whether he was wrong to lie. It’s worth noticing that he wasn’t lying for personal gain. What resonates for me, though, are the consequences of his action. If Gleick frustrates the efforts of Heartland, isn’t his lie justified by the good that it does?

Når man stiller sig selv et så ledende spørgsmål er det nemt at svare på især hvis man er fascist

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action.

Så er der vel ikke mere man sige. Jo, hvis man hedder Mann, en af hovedpersonerne fra Climategate, de lækkede emails, som afslørede urent trav hos klimapanelets centrale eksperter. Mann var sammen med sine emailkammerater (lidt for) hurtigt ude med en fordømmelse af Heartland Institute i et åbent brev

The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.

These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.

What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations.While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.

We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.

At argumentere ud fra autoritet kræver autoritet og med dette utidige udfald af dårlig dømmekraft undergraver FN’s centraleste af centrale klimaforskere endnu engang deres autoritet. Attentatet mod Heartlands troværdighed, som selfølgelig skulle smitte af på selve klimatvivlen blev hurtigt sammenlignet med den lækkede emailkorrespondence fra East Anglia universitetets klimaenhed, den såkaldte climategate. Climategate var et stort nederlag for klimabevægelsen fordi den afslørede uhæderlighed i kernen af klimaforskningen og underminerede ideen om et videnskabeligt konsensus og dets krav på respekt. Men modsat hensigten med at bringe balance i regnskabet ved at hænge Heartland ud i en tilsvarende afsløring af fordækthed er “Fakegate” blot en bekræftelse af den tvivl, som Climategate efterlod  - klimabevægelsen er politisk og pilrådden. Uhæderligheden taler et tydeligt sprog om at argumenterne er tørret ud, som kun bliver forstærket af flokmentalitetens larmende demonstration af inkompetence og villighed. Det værste er ikke at svindel og manipulation klæber til deres side af debatten, men at de i nær samlet flok ikke kan skelne mellem det virkelige og det åbenlyst uvirkelige, at de ikke kan se hvor løgnene begynder og slutter, at de på alle planer ikke kan skelne mellem rigtigt og forkert.

Hidtil er det lykkedes at benægte naturens uvilje mod at spille med på konsensusteoriens diktater ved at henvise til at debatten er ovre fordi vi siger den er ovre. Med Fakegate er “vi”’s troværdighed knust og journalister vil nu igen driste sig til at rette mikrofonerne mod naturen og spørge hvorledes den egentlig reagerer på alt dette hurlumhej. Og naturen vil svare “Jeg gør som det passer mig!” Titanic sank ikke så hurtigt som en kåd jæger i vaders og fortællingen om den udiskuterbare globale opvarmning vil fortsætte en rum tid endnu. Mange et budget og mangen en karriere er stadig afhænig af at bølgen fortsat ruller. Men troværdigheden, som hele argumentet om konsensus hviler på, er endeligt udhulet.

Små betragtninger fra weekenden

Diverse — Drokles on February 28, 2011 at 6:37 am

Først en glimrende diagnose på The News Real Blog (set via Elder Of Zion)

America in the 1950s and 1960s was also a more outwardly religious nation. No one was insulted at the idea that the Founding Fathers would invoke Scripture and the word “God” was not considered inappropriate to use in public. The idea of a Jewish state in the land of the Bible was simply considered fitting.

As a result, Americans were very receptive to Israel’s narrative. The “barrier” between the two nations was very low, and trust was implicit.

Today the situation is different. Because of decades of propaganda and indoctrination, America is less patriotic and less religious. Moreover, the culture of hard work being its own reward is being slowly replaced with a culture of entitlement. The unity of purpose that America had during World War II – and even after Sputnik – has eroded.

To be sure, the heartland of America remains much as our nation was five decades ago. But on college campuses and in large cities, American ideals are being replaced with a philosophy that is truly dangerous to the nation over the long term.

Og dette konkluderer Elad Tzioni har på længere sigt store konsekvenser for USA og derved også for det næsten venneløse Israel. Men det skal nu også være lidt mere muntert.

Martin Krasnik rapporter om situatioen i Bahrain i dagens udgave af Weekendavisen. I Bahrain holder det sunnimuslimske mindretal ved den kongelige Al-Khalifa familie det shiamuslimske mindretal nede, hvilket selvfølgelig har ført til stadigt stigende modstand og protester. Så hvad gør den magthavende elite så? De spiller det marxistisk-kulturradikale kort, som S-SF-R-Ø spillede det i Danmark fra 1982

Dertil kommer, at magthaverne sidste år begyndte at give statsborgerskab til sunnier fra Yemen, Syrien, Jordan og Pakistan og tilbyde dem arbejde i sikkerhedsstyrkerne. Det kan dreje sig om helt op til 100.000 mennesker, og det har givet anledning til beskyldninger om, at al-Khaliffa familien stræber efter et sunnimuslimsk flertal.

“Det er befolkningen, der er problemet!”, som Seidenfaden slog fast (tak til Snaphanen for at forevige dette uopslidelige citat) . Ja, hvis ikke man evner den Jelved’ske løsning “at holdningsbearbejde” befolkningen må man jo ændre den demografiske sammensætning så den falder mere i tråd med den herskende mening.

SÅ er der matematik for viderekomne når forfatter og spåmand Ray Kurzweil svarer på Guardians energispørgsmål

Today, solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, and in most situations it still needs subsidies or special circumstances, but the costs are coming down rapidly — we are only a few years away from parity. And then it’s going to keep coming down, and people will be gravitating towards solar, even if they don’t care at all about the environment, because of the economics.

So right now it’s at half a percent of the world’s energy. People tend to dismiss technologies when they are half a percent of the solution. But doubling every two years means it’s only eight more doublings before it meets a 100 percent of the world’s energy needs. So that’s 16 years.

Blot 16 år siges der. Man kunne også sige at behovet for solpaneler er 256 gange større end det nuværende niveau. Men det lyder ikke så optimistisk.

BT havde lørdag helliget hele 4 sider til Villy Søvndals mange uenighder med sig selv. Her var en lang liste med det han var for i går, men, som han er imod i dag; dagpenge, straffe, børne/ældrecheck, 24 års regel, boligskat osv. Hans dobbelte holdningsskift til ytringsfrihed (for-imod-for) glimrede ved sit fravær, men i interviewet med BT føjede Villy til gengæld endnu et punkt til rækken af holdningsskift for på spørgsmålet om den tilsyneladende fredning af boligskatten lød det sådan

BT: -Men samtlige økonomer siger at [forhøjelse af boligskatten] er sund fornuft.

Villy: -Det er ikke dem, der regerer landet!

Hvabehar! Villy går imod smagsdommeriet og ekspertvældet. Vi behøver ikke, deres indsigt for de har ingen magt. Og det vil Villy rigtig, rigtig gerne have og så må man jo ændre holdning til 24 års reglen med en ny principfasthed

Vi har erkendt, at vi ikke kunne få den ændret. Dels fordi der ikke er flertal, dels fordi befolkningen ikke ønsker det.

Så meget desto morsommere er det når Villy slår fast at “Det er kernen i [SFs] politik, der er den samme!“. Den samme som de partier, der har vind i sejlene for tiden må han vel mene.

Og så lige dette flotte svar til at slutte af på så arbejdsugen kan komme godt i gang

BT: -Du er blevet beskyldt for at tale med to tunger?

Villy: -Jeg bestræber mig på at nuancere mine synspunkter.

Og en klassiker er født! Oh, havde rejseimamerne dog bare kommet på den i sin tid.

Forudsigelser

Diverse — Drokles on January 3, 2011 at 3:31 am

Fox News har et ganske morsomt tilbageblik på nogle gamle forudsigelser

1. Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

2. “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

3. “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

4. “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

5. “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life magazine, January 1970.

6. “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970.

7. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

8. “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

Ak ja det var dengang.

Klimadebatten set historisk

Diverse — Drokles on March 8, 2010 at 2:59 pm

Linket til denne artikel fra Examiner virker ikke og jeg tillader mig derfor at gengive den i sin helhed

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,” according to a Commerce Department report published by the Washington Post. Writes the Post: “Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . all point to a radical change in climate conditions and . . . unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone . . . Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones . . . while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

More evidence of human-caused global warming? Hardly.

The above report of runaway Arctic warming is from a Washington Post story published Nov. 2, 1922 and bears an uncanny resemblance to the tales of global warming splattered across the front pages of today’s newspapers. It is one of many historical accounts published during the past 140 years describing climate changes and often predicting catastrophic cooling or warming.

Here are excerpts from a few of those accounts, appearing as early as 1870:

“The climate of New-York and the contiguous Atlantic seaboard has long been a study of great interest. We have just experienced a remarkable instance of its peculiarity. The Hudson River, by a singular freak of temperature, has thrown off its icy mantle and opened its waters to navigation.” - New York Times, Jan. 2, 1870

“Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.” - New York Times, June 23, 1890

“The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.” - New York Times, Feb. 24, 1895

Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” - Chicago Tribune, Aug. 9, 1923

“The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” - Time Magazine, Sept. 10, 1923

Headline: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” - New York Times, March 27, 1933

“America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists to be on the verge of a change of climate, with a return to increasing rains and deeper snows and the colder winters of grandfather’s day.”- Associated Press, Dec. 15, 1934

Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says - “A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today. - New York Times, May 30, 1937

“Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistntly that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters.” - New York Times, Aug. 29, 1954

“An analysis of weather records from Little America shows a steady warming of climate over the last half century. The rise in average temperature at the Antarctic outpost has been about five degrees Fahrenheit.” - New York Times, May 31, 1958

“Several thousand scientists of many nations have recently been climbing mountains, digging tunnels in glaciers, journeying to the Antarctic, camping on floating Arctic ice. Their object has been to solve a fascinating riddle: what is happening to the world’s ice? - New York Times, Dec. 7, 1958

“After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.” - New York Times, Jan. 30, 1961

“Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age.” - Los Angeles Times, Dec. 23, 1962

“Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.” - New York Times, Feb. 20, 1969

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half …” - Life magazine, January 1970

“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” - Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day, 1970

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” - Barry Commoner (Washington University), Earth Day, 1970

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor, “the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” - Newsweek magazine, Jan. 26, 1970

“The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” - New York Times, July 18, 1970

“In the next 50 years, fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” - Washington Post, July 9, 1971

“It’s already getting colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes. . . .” - Los Angles Times, Oct. 24, 1971

“An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.” - New York Times, Jan. 5, 1978

“A poll of climate specialists in seven countries has found a consensus that there will be no catastrophic changes in the climate by the end of the century. But the specialists were almost equally divided on whether there would be a warming, a cooling or no change at all.” - New York Times, Feb. 18, 1978

“A global warming trend could bring heat waves, dust-dry farmland and disease, the experts said… Under this scenario, the resort town of Ocean City, Md., will lose 39 feet of shoreline by 2000 and a total of 85 feet within the next 25 years.” - San Jose Mercury News, June 11, 1986

“Global warming could force Americans to build 86 more power plants—at a cost of $110 billion—to keep all their air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says…Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press, May 15, 1989

“New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”—St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 17, 1989 (actually Florida was more like New York 20 years later)

“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots . . . [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers . . . The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.” - “Dead Heat: The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect,” Michael Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, 1990.

“It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years,” according to Dr. Russ Schnell, a scientist doing atmospheric research at Mauna Loa Observatory. - BBC, Nov. 7, 1997 (followed immediately in late 1998 by three straight years of La Nina)

“Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”—The Birmingham Post in England, July 26, 1999

“This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998.” - ScienceDaily, Jan. 5, 2007

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News, June 20, 2008

“So the climate will continue to change, even if we make maximum effort to slow the growth of carbon dioxide. Arctic sea ice will melt away in the summer season within the next few decades. Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years. . . Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know . . . We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher. Climatic disasters would occur continually.” Dr. James Hansen (NASA GISS), The Observer, Feb. 15, 2009.

Climate change? Yes, there has been plenty of that during the past 140 years. Despite warnings by “experts of the day” of approaching climate disasters, mankind somehow managed to survive. A decade or so from now, after earth’s climate changes once again, those who are old enough will recall with amusement the time, early in the 21st century, when the world went crazy over an imaginary threat called “global warming.”

[Kirk Myers is one of the few environmental reporters who is bothering to look at actual data - not reading from the guidelines provided by the Society of Environmental Journalists. We applaud him for his boldness.]

I modsætning til en kendt talemåde så virker det som om at jo mere man hører den samme løgn jo mindre overbevisende virker den.

En stemningsrapport fra England

Forbrydelse og straf, Londonistan, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on March 1, 2010 at 4:08 pm

Guardian fortæller en typisk vesteuropæisk historie

If there were a general election tomorrow, 35% of voting Muslims (meaning those Muslims who claim they are more likely than not to vote) would vote Labour. This compares with 22% of voting Christians and 23% of the entire voting population. By comparison, whereas 30% of the voting population would tick the Conservative box, only 13% of voting Muslims would do so.

Polling questions are liable to misinterpretation so the same question was tackled from different angles. The results concurred. Only one in 20 of those who call themselves Muslim say that they “generally” consider themselves to be Conservative compared, with 42% who consider themselves Labour (the national figures are 23% Conservative and 28% Labour). Similarly, 49% of Muslims claim they feel that the Labour party has been most friendly towards the Muslim faith over recent years, compared with 6% who think that the Conservatives have been.

The narrative appears to receive a dent when data show that a fifth of Muslims think Labour has been least friendly towards the Muslim faith over recent years. However, given that more Muslims (nearly a quarter) think the Conservatives have been the least friendly party, despite the fact they haven’t really been in a position to do anything, the dent appears illusory. In spite of everything, Labour appears to remain the natural home for British Muslims.

Fra Telegraph

The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) — which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state — has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve “mass mobilisation” of voters.

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties.

“They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it’s at local government level or national level,” he said.

“They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”

Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and “corrupted” his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years.

In a six-month investigation by this newspaper and Channel 4’s Dispatches, involving weeks of covert filming by the programme’s reporters:

  • IFE activists boasted to the undercover reporters that they had already “consolidated … a lot of influence and power” over Tower Hamlets, a London borough council with a £1 billion budget.
  • We have established that the group and its allies were awarded more than £10 million of taxpayers’ money, much of it from government funds designed to “prevent violent extremism”.
  • IFE leaders were recorded expressing opposition to democracy, support for sharia law or mocking black people. The IFE organised meetings with extremists, including Taliban allies, a man named by the US government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and a man under investigation by the FBI for his links to the September 11 attacks.
  • Moderate Muslims in London told how the IFE and its allies were enforcing their hardline views on the rest of the local community, curbing behaviour they deemed “un-Islamic”. The owner of a dating agency received a threatening email from an IFE activist, warning her to close it.
  • George Galloway, a London MP, admitted in recordings obtained by this newspaper that his surprise victory in the 2005 election owed more to the IFE “than it would be wise – for them – for me to say, adding that they played a “decisive role” in his triumph at the polls.

Mr Galloway now says they were one of many groups which supported his anti-war stance and had never sought to influence him.

Hvorledes gik det dog til at lige netop Labour er udsat for dette? Fra Daily Mail

Labour encouraged mass immigration even though it knew that voters opposed it, Whitehall documents confirmed yesterday.

The Government said the public disagreed with immigration because of ‘racism’ and ministers were told to try to alter public attitudes.

The thinking on immigration among Labour leaders was set down in 2000 in a document prepared for the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, but the key passages were suppressed before it was published.

The paper was finally disclosed under freedom of information rules yesterday. It showed that ministers were advised that only the ill-educated and those who had never met a migrant were opposed to immigration.

They were also told that large-scale immigration would bring increases in crime, but they concealed these concerns from the public.

Sections of the paper, which underpinned Labour policies that admitted between two and three million immigrants to Britain in less than a decade, have already been made public.

These have showed that Labour aimed to use immigration not only for economic reasons but also to change the social make-up of the country.

Fuller details released yesterday showed that Tony Blair’s ministers opened the doors to mass migration in knowledge of public opposition and with the view that those who disagreed with them were racists.

Labour’s accusation that opponents of immigration are racist has been dropped over the last two years as it has become clear that former Labour voters in party heartlands have been turning to the far right British National Party.

Ministers accept there is frustration at the loss of jobs to migrants and pressure on public services.

Yesterday Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: ‘The Government has simply not been telling the truth about its policies on immigration.

‘More and more evidence is now emerging to show that they deliberately planned a big jump in immigration for their own political purposes.

Når man nærer slangen ved sit bryst. Men ikke det er en ganske typisk vesteuropæisk historie, hvor De Internationale med større eller mindre held har forsøgt det samme demografiske attentat på Nationen?

Piers Corbyn forudser kuldeperiode

Diverse — Drokles on December 26, 2009 at 1:24 pm

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

Mere end uhæderlighed?

Diverse — Drokles on November 25, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Videnskabshistorikeren Thomas Kuhn lancerede i sin bog Videnskabens Revolutioner begrebet Paradigme, der er de grundpræmisser eller antagelser som forskere tilslutter sig (det Newton’ske verdensbille eksempelvis). Et paradigmes skæbne afgøres ikke blot af om det modbevises, men også af, hvor stor tilslutning det får blandt forskere, der jo er mennesker der skal overbevises inden for deres egen begrænsning og måske endda interesser. At anskue forskning, som underlagt sociologiske og menneskelige processer bliver mere relevant jo længere ned af den videnskablige rangstige man befinder sig. Her vil man i mod sætning til “Fysikkens verden”, hvor det ene paradigme afløser det andet kunne operere med flere stridende paradigmer samtidigt, da man groft sagt ikke kan verificere, men blot sandsynliggøre, hvilket vil sige overbevise sine kollegaer. At de videnskabelige samfund således er underlagt “almindelige menneskelige love” så at sige. Mobningen af Alfred Wegener for at fremsætte sine teorier, der senere blev kendt som pladetektonik er lærerig for, hvor banalt også videnskabsfolk opfører sig. Wegener var ud over at være tysker også tilhænger af at lave geologiske undersøgelser uden for den civiliseret verden, hvilket blev anset for uciviliseret. Den videnskabelige konsensus fortælling lod sig simpelt hen ikke udfordre af en mand, der på en gang var amoralsk og farlig for den enkeltes position. Hvilken førende forsker ville efter et langt og hårdt karriereræs stille sig bagerst i køen af videnskabelig prestige?

Det suverænt hotteste videnskablige emne er det globale klima. Og her render en relativt ny og ekstremt kompliceret videnskabelig disciplin ind i en overeksponering af bibelske propotioner. Og det ser de alt for menneskelige forskere ikke ud til at have håndteret synderlig analytisk. East Anglia Universitets Climate Research Unit (CRU) er for nylig blevet hacket og deres email-korrespondance offentliggjort angiveligt, som svar på at CRU ikke har villet samarbejde med hvad de betragtede som skeptiske forskere og offentliggøre deres data angående temperaturmålinger. CRU beskrives af Pajamas Media som den globale opvarmnings Pentagon

They’re calling it “Climategate.” The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade or so revealed by a thousand or so emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following a leak from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.

This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.

At tilbageholde data ud fra frygt for at blive modbevist, som de direkte skrev til Steve McIntyre er for at sige det mildt ikke særlig videnskabeligt. Videnskab er jo kun videnskab, hvis det kan falcifiseres. På Steve McIntyres midlertidige blog kan man læse et indlæg af Judy Curry om tribalisme.

Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty and regarding other groups differing from the tribe’s defining characteristics as inferior. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally. As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc. The reaction of the climate tribes to the political assault has been to circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit misinformation from politicized advocacy groups. The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be less about politics and more about professional ego and scientific integrity as their research was under assault for nonscientific reasons (I’m sure there are individual exceptions, but this is my overall perception). I became adopted into a “tribe” during Autumn 2005 after publication of the Webster et al. hurricane and global warming paper. I and my colleagues were totally bewildered and overwhelmed by the assault we found ourselves under, and associating with a tribe where others were more experienced and savvy about how to deal with this was a relief and very helpful at the time.

After becoming more knowledgeable about the politics of climate change (both the external politics and the internal politics within the climate field), I became concerned about some of the tribes pointing their guns inward at other climate researchers who question their research or don’t pass various loyalty tests. I even started spending time at climateaudit, and my public congratulations to Steve McIntyre when climateaudit won the “best science blog award” was greeted with a rather unpleasant email from one of the tribal members. While the “hurricane wars” fizzled out in less than a year as the scientists recovered from the external assault and got back to business as usual in terms of arguing science with their colleagues, the “hockey wars” have continued apparently unabated. With the publication of the IPCC 4th Assessment report, the Nobel Peace Prize, and energy legislation near the top of the national legislative agenda, the “denialists” were becoming increasingly irrelevant (the Heartland Conference and NIPCC are not exactly household words). Hence it is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at skeptical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thwart the peer review process, and keep papers out of assessment reports. Scientists are of course human, and short-term emotional responses to attacks and adversity are to be expected, but I am particularly concerned by this apparent systematic and continuing behavior from scientists that hold editorial positions, serve on important boards and committees and participate in the major assessment reports. It is these issues revealed in the HADCRU emails that concern me the most, and it seems difficult to spin many of the emails related to FOIA, peer review, and the assessment process. I sincerely hope that these emails do not in actuality reflect what they appear to, and I encourage Gavin Schmidt et al. to continue explaining the individual emails and the broader issues of concern.

Vi er altså med, hvad man kalder climate-gate degenereret fra konkurerende paradigmer over i tribalisering, hvor man har chikaneret sine modstandere og tilbageholdt dataset osv. Men det er måske langt værre. Måske er der blevet manipuleret med de dataset, der danner bagrunden for computermodellerne (og måske endda også dem) og som hele teorien om den globale opvarmning (der har fået det truistiske navn klima-ændring) hviler på. Alan Caruba er ikke bange for ligefremme konklusioner

The revelations that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) doctored the data supporting the global warming claims of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) means that EVERYTHING attributed to or based upon “global warming” is invalid.

It means the Kyoto Climate Protocols that nations agreed to on December 11, 1997 and which entered into force on February 16 2005, and all subsequent agreements based on “global warming” have no validity, scientifically or as the basis for public action by any nation, state, province, city or town.

It means that Al Gore’s pusillanimous “documentary” is a fraud along with just about every other statement uttered by any scientist, academician, or politician claiming that something, anything, should be done to avoid “global warming.”

Caruba taler om at nogle må i fængsel og man aner endda en konspiration en vaske ægte konspiration. Tim Ball tegner (Hat tip Watts Up With That) et rystyende billede af en gruppe forskere, der tilsyneladende har fundet et hul i videnskabens fundament af “peer review” nemlig at være enige om målrettet uhæderlighed

James Delingpole trækker det væsentligste frem fra interviewet med Tim Ball på sin blog

“It confirms suspicions that I’ve had working in my thirty years of climate science. I saw the hijacking of climate science particularly by computer modelers and then by a small group associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change….”

“What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature. So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’..And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.”

“On a global scale it’s frightening because this group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….”

Steve McIntyre, der er manden bag nedskydningen af Hockeystokken gennemgår løbende de mange afslørede mails og det er værd at følge med i. F.eks. denne

phil-jones

Obama kommer i øvrigt til København under klimatopmødet. Han er ikke inde i den heldigste stime i øjeblikket.

Monokultur kører på WordPress