Den synkende klimaskude

Diverse — Drokles on April 17, 2012 at 5:18 am

Det går ikke godt for klimasektoren. Pointman fortæller om solcelleindustrien, der ikke længere kan overbevise nogen om sine fortræffeligheder, mister sin statsstøtte og går alle giftstoffers gang

If you keep an eye on the financial world, which I do, and especially the green sectors, which I also do, it’s been an interesting time of late. Within the last few weeks, Solar Trust of America (STA), owner of the world’s largest solar plant, filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11, and nobody expects much of it, if anything, to emerge from it. STA joins a long list of companies in the solar energy sector, who’ve gone bankrupt, ducked into protection from their creditors, suspended production indefinitely or are simply circling the plughole.

Across the world, a few of the more prominent and expensive casualties are Solyndra, Solar Millennium AG, Energy Conversion Devices Inc, Q-Cells, Solon, Solar Millenium, Solarhybrid, Ener1, Range Fuels, Beacon Power Corp and there’s a whole lot of others. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s probably not a good idea to invest your hard-earned pennies in any company with “solar” in its name. It’s almost as bad a mistake as thinking you had some sort of long-term future employment with one of them.

Nearly all of these companies were the beneficiaries of huge government startup grants or loan guarantees. The products they made were effectively sold to consumers with a subsidy, to make them more attractive. The customers also had the benefit of some generous feed-in tariff schemes. All that money that was sunk into them has now gone and the specific green industry sector it was expected to create, is pretty much moribund.

In Germany, which gets the same amount of sunshine as the US state of Alaska and where inexplicably nearly half the solar power output of the world was installed, investment experts expect not a single solar cell company to be in business in five years time, since not one of them is currently showing an operating profit, nor is expected to do so in the foreseeable future. In Germany alone, the government have to date handed out about €100 billion in subsidies to renewable energy and even there, the most fervently green country in Europe, they’ve begun to have some serious doubts. It’s a money pit. The promised green jobs haven’t appeared and unemployment in the developed nations continues to rise. On a world-wide basis, the money wasted runs into the billions of dollars.

Billions and billions and we’ve ended up with pretty much nothing. Actually, that’s not quite correct. What we will have, within a decade or two, is a clear up job that’ll make Chernobyl look like a training day. As the vast arrays of panels age, they’ll crack and contaminate the topsoil with poisonous chemical particles.

Jamen havde man da ikke konsulteret ekspertisen?

The business case for the whole industry was supported by numerous studies by scientists, academia, so-called industry experts and advocates of renewable energy, all of whom said it was the clean and profitable future of energy production. Obviously, all those studies were seriously wrong and ended up costing governments billions. Has anyone got back to these “experts” and asked why the studies and their financial models were all so bad? Given how shoddy their expert advice has proven to be, is anyone asking for the money back, which we paid for this supposed expertise? In the light of how bad expert advice in this area has been, is anyone reviewing advice for similar green sectors, such as wind power? Anyone? Anywhere?

Det er hvad der kommer ud af at stole på folk, der ikke har bestilt andet i deres beskyttede tilværelse end at øve sig i at reproducere deres undervisere så de siden kan reproducere sig selv. Men de faste stillinger beholder de for videnskabelige artikler bliver ikke genlæst,  de bliver talt og således akkumulerer eksperterne (nej, ikke plutonium - selvom det havde været cool) prestige alligevel. Så er rønnebærene så sure som de kan være herfra og vi skal videre for gassen er også gået af ballonen når det drejer sig om den absurde handel med CO2 som kan man læse i European Energy Review

If European policymakers do not intervene soon in the EU’s emission trading scheme, Europe’s flagship climate policy risks sinking into oblivion. This is bad news when debate is just beginning over a new EU climate and energy package for 2030. If the EU ETS cannot deliver, what should lie at the heart of this new package? A carbon tax? A myriad of national policies? To save the ETS, many stakeholders - including energy companies - are advocating a ”set-aside”, or one-off removal of carbon allowances from the market, to raise the CO2 price. Others want a complete overhaul of the system. Sonja van Renssen reports from Brussels.

Og Sonja’s rapport er en lang analyse af hvad den ene EU-kommisær siger til den anden kommisær, udtalelser fra gigantiske energiselskaber og forhold mellem nationale og supranationale organisationer og fanden og hans pumpestok. Alt sammen uden at forholde sig til den bærende præmis, nemlig om der overhovedet er mening i galskaben. Det er der ikke og det finder flere og flere ud af, også i det politiske system. For nok taler man medfølende om fremtidens udfordringer, men i realiteten lurepasser man sig til en bedre position her i hundredeåret for Titanics forlis så man ikke trækkes med ned i det kolde hav når det gigantiske skib CO2-ødelægger-Verden synker. Og den synker, gør den, for virkeligheden akkumulerer også målinger.

Ingenøren kan man læse et af de eksempler som hober sig op på virkelighedens indtog, hvor Jens Morten Hansen og Troels Aagaard skriver om en analyse der tilbageviser de hidtidige prognoser for alarmerende havspejlsstigning. ”Man har ikke taget de såkaldte nodalsvingninger i betragtning“, “et velkendt fænomen, der skyldes, at det tager Månen 18,6 år at komme tilbage til den samme position i forhold til Jordens bane omkring Solen“. Og der forklares videre hvorfor man aldrig skal gå i byen uden sine nodalsvingninger

Eftersom Månens bane ligger skævt i forhold til Jordens ækvatorplan, vil Månen i en periode på 9,3 år ligge nærmest den nordlige halvkugle og i de følgende 9,3 år ligge nærmest den sydlige. Massetiltrækningen mellem Månen og Jorden vil derfor få havniveauet til at stige og falde på de to halvkugler, alt efter hvor Månen befinder sig i den 18,6 år lange rundtur.

Analysen fremkom i martsnummeret af Journal of Coastal Research og er skrevet af fem hollandske eksperter fra universitetsinstitutter og kystmyndigheder. De fem eksperter viser, at hvis man korrigerer vandstandsmålingerne for disse naturlige udsving som følge af Månens position, så forsvinder den acceleration af havets stigning, som prognoserne bygger på.

Tilbage bliver kun en almindelig fuldstændig jævn havspejlsstigning på 1,9 mm/år, som har stået på lige siden man begyndte at måle havniveauet i 1890’erne.

I disse 1,9 mm/år indgår endda, at Hollands undergrund synker med en hastighed på 0,4 +/- 0,9 mm/år. Det vil sige, at selve den målte havstigning kun er på ca. 1,5 mm/år (0,6-2,4 mm/år) – eller en femtedel af worst case-scenariet.

De fem forskere viser også, at der på samme måde er sket en fejltolkning af satellitdata fra Nordsøen, fordi man her har valgt tidsserier, der begynder, hvor nodalcyklussen giver et minimum, og slutter, hvor den kulminerer.

Vælger man derimod tidsserier, der omfatter præcis 1 nodalperiode (18,6 år) eller et multiplum deraf, vil den havstigning, som satellitfolkene har sat til 2,3 mm/år skrumpe ind til 0,7 mm/år. De fem eksperter konkluderer, at også de satellitbaserede prognoser er fejlagtige ‘fordi de, tilfældigvis, anvender et tidsvindue, der begynder ved bunden og slutter ved toppen af en nodal cyklus’.

Jeg vil her nøjes med at kalde det et bemærkelsesværdigt uheld at prognoserne bygger på analyser, hvis mangler kun giver stigninger. Dr. Roy Spencer har set på amerikanske temperaturdata

Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.

(…)

Given the amount of work NOAA has put into the USHCN dataset to increase the agreement between neighboring stations, I don’t have an explanation for this result. I have to wonder whether their adjustment procedures added more spurious effects than they removed, at least as far as their impact on temperature trends goes.

And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments.

Watts Up With That skriver om endnu en undersøgelser, der viser manglende sammenhæng mellem rekonstruerede klimamodeller og rekonstruerede temperaturmålinger

One of the main points of criticism of the CO2-dominated climate models is that they fail to reproduce the temperature fluctuations over the last 10,000 years. This surprises no one as these models assign scant climate impact to major factors, i.e. the sun. As numerous IPCC-ignored studies show, the post-Ice Age temperature curve for the most part ran synchronously with solar activity fluctuations. The obvious discrepancy between modeled theory and measured reality has been brought up time and again.

The journal Climate of the Past Discussions has published a new paper written by a team led by Gerrit Lohmann of the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven, Germany. The group compared geologically reconstructed ocean-temperature data over the last 6000 years to results from modeling. If the models were indeed reliable, as is often claimed, then there would be good agreement. Unfortunately in Lohmann’s case, agreement was non-existent.

Lohmann et al plotted the geologically reconstructed temperatures and compared them to modeled temperature curves from the ECHO-G Model. What did they find? The modeled trends underestimated the geologically reconstructed temperature trend by a factor of two to five. Other scientists have come up with similar results (e.g. Lorenz et al. 2006, Brewer et al. 2007, Schneider et al. 2010).

The comprehensive temperature data collection of the Lohmann team distinctly shows the characteristic millennial scale temperature cycle for many regions investigated, see Figure 1 below. Temperatures fluctuated rhythmically over a range of one to three degrees Celsius. In many cases these are suspected to be solar-synchronous cycles, like the ones American Gerard Bond successfully showed using sediment cores from the North Atlantic more than 10 years ago. And here’s an even more astonishing observation: In more than half of the regions investigated, temperatures have actually fallen over the last 6000 years.

Lohman konkluderer friskt at siden modellernes rekonstruktioner af temperaturkurverne ikke er i overensstemmelse med de indsamlede proxy data, så måtte proxydata’ene tage fejl. Det er selvfølgelig den ene mulighed, men det slider næsten mere på troværdigheden med den slags farverige tolkninger, som at kæde Global Opvarmning sammen med HIV/AIDS.

Så op mod empirien, videnskabens dronning, sætter NASA’s Jim Hansen computermodeller, modelleret efter hans egne fantasier og affærdiger al skepticisme som amoralsk på linje med slavehandel. Her fra Guardian

Averting the worst consequences of human-induced climate change is a “great moral issue” on a par with slavery, according to the leading Nasa climate scientist Prof Jim Hansen.

He argues that storing up expensive and destructive consequences for society in future is an “injustice of one generation to others”.

Hansen, who will next Tuesday be awarded the prestigious Edinburgh Medal for his contribution to science, will also in his acceptance speech call for a worldwide tax on all carbon emissions.

In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use. Ahead of receiving the award – which has previously been given to Sir David Attenborough, the ecologist James Lovelock, and the economist Amartya Sen – Hansen told the Guardian that the latest climate models had shown the planet was on the brink of an emergency. He said humanity faces repeated natural disasters from extreme weather events which would affect large areas of the planet.

“The situation we’re creating for young people and future generations is that we’re handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control,” he said. “We’re in an emergency: you can see what’s on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction.”

Den slags rablen underminerer selvsagt tilliden. Hos Real Science kan man læse mere om NASA og Jim Hansens fiflerier. Tidligere astronauter og forskere skrev forleden et åbent brev til NASA, hvori de udtrykte deres bekymring med og utilfredshed over at NASA satte sit gode navn og rygte ind på at fremme en klimahysterisk dagsorden

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

Peter C Glover skrev efterfølgende i Spectator

This new letter now reflects the level of dissent that must run through NASA’s ‘finest’, as it already does in the writings of numerous scientists concerned over NASA’s climate advocacy role. Over the past decade Hansen has, in NASA’s name, variously been shown to have conducted “tremendous data tampering” while assuming a growing persona as the “new Paul Ehrlich”. Hansen even claimed that “climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery”.

During that time, NASA astronaut Buzz Aldrin formally rejected NASA’s global warming fears, stating: “The climate has been changing for billions of years”. Hansen’s own former supervisor, Dr John Theon, also went on record to complain that Hansen had “embarrassed NASA” and yet “was never muzzled”. Just for good measure, Hansen famously wrote on NASA letterhead paper to Queen Elizabeth and to the then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in a bid to derail a UK Government decision to build a new coal-fired power plant. Not surprising since Hansen’s crusading zeal includes the belief that coal is “the enemy of the human race”.

Taken together, Hansen’s growing cult status with hard-lobbying activist green groups, including Greenpeace, appears to have paralyzed the NASA hierarchy into inaction, when anyone else would almost certainly have been relieved of their post.

While Al Gore regards NASA’s Hansen as an “objective scientist”, Walt Cunningham’s assessment back in 2008 was more ‘empirical’: “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or anthropogenic global warming.” Instead he is forced to lament NASA’s declining scientific gravitas.

“Unfortunately”, he writes about NASA, “it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation data, while scientific data is being ignored in favour of emotions and politics.” And Cunningham drove home his point with typically ‘scientific’ force: “Warming in the upper atmosphere should occur before any surface warming effect, but NASA’s own data show that has not been happening.”

NASA’s James Hansen has endorsed a book wanting to “rid the world of Industrial Civilization”. But wouldn’t that mean ridding it of rocket-launching, space-cluttering, fuel-spewing, aeronautic agencies, too? Worth asking him at his next job appraisal, no?

Beskyldningerne mod skeptikere for at promovere ‘junk videnskab’ gør stadigt mindre indtryk, som der ikke leveres meningfulde modsvar mod de faktiske målinger. De stats- og olie finansierede græsrødder er endda gået op i limningen og beskylder hinanden for uvidenskabelighed i en bitter debat om den onde, men klimavenlige atomkraft, som man kan læse i Observer

The war of words between the pro- and anti-nuclear environmentalists shows no sign of ending, with those writers in favour – George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, Fred Pearce and Stephen Tindale – now slugging it out with those campaigning against – Jonathon Porritt, Tom Burke, Tony Juniper and Charles Secrett. Everyone is pretending to be quite grown-up, polite and cool, but actually it’s getting vicious.

Apart from a few gratuitous insults on either side, the dispute that has rumbled on for a few years has so far been largely technocratic and conducted with political and personal respect. In the latest skirmishes, the four former heads of Friends of the Earth (FoE) politely wrote to the prime minister advising him to drop nuclear power on cost and other grounds; whereupon the hacks also wrote to No 10 saying this advice undermined government climate change policy. Over the next month Porritt, Burke & co will issue four or five more intellectual blasts, and will convene a press conference, and we can expect the hacks to respond.

Until now it has been a classic “fundi” and “realo” split with the pros’ (the realos) desperation to address climate change set against the antis’ (the fundis) conviction that nuclear takes too long, is too expensive and won’t actually work.

But now, the dispute is getting personal and much closer to the political bone with the fallout potentially damaging the whole idea of “environmentalism”. First we have Lynas suggesting that nuclear protesters are not really environmentalists at all, then Monbiot doubted Burke’s commitment to the environment – despite his 40 years’ active service. Now, in an extraordinary exchange of emails between Monbiot and Theo Simon – who is one half of the renowned radical protest band Seize the Day – all opponents of nuclear power are said to have made their arguments “with levels of bullshit and junk science”.

Det er de sidste rester af videnskabelig troværdighed, der her smides overbord da man nu også har klimabevægelsens egne ord for deres videnskabelig uredelighed. De slider luven af hinanden. Imens smelter Himalayas gletchere ikke, deres naboer vokser og der er en overflod af isbjørne og pingviner. CO2 teorien holdes kun oppe af protagonisternes frygt for tiden efter dets uundgåelige kollaps.

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.

I know what you did last summer

Diverse — Drokles on March 31, 2012 at 12:43 pm

Engang var denne graf almen viden for de der interesserede sig for det historiske klima

screenhunter_78-may-11-10-03

Som man kan se går det op og ned i denne verden uanfægtet vores tilstedeværelse. Sådan noget rod gør det svært at sælge ideen om klimaet i harmonisk og uforstyrrelig balance, som bliver fuck’ed-up af vores eksistens. Hvis man lægger en CO2 kurve, som har en form som en is-hockeystav med bladets begyndelse hvor industrialiseringen tager fart henover denne klimagraf vil der således ikke være noget sammenfald. Og uden sammenfald er det svært (skønt ikke umuligt) at etablere sammenhæng. Derfor ville det for alle der oprigtigt mente at CO2 var en trussel imod klimaets stabilitet være en velsignelse, hvis ikke temperaturen havde udviklet så umedgørligt. Drømmen satte sig også hos de, der ikke var helt så oprigtige. Dr. David Deming fortalte om et møde med en ikke helt oprigtig forsker. Fra Appinsys.com

“I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous.”

Hvis man dog bare levede i en verden, hvor den accelererende udledning af CO2 nøje matchede den globale temperaturs udvikling ville der ikke være noget at rafle om. Så ville udviklingen i sandhed være unprecedented, uden fortilfælde - i hvert fald i de seneste 1000 år. Og med et så klart og unikt bevis ville man også kunne tale om at teorien var unequivocal - ubestridelig. Debatten ville være ovre. Resultatet af drømmen om at komme af med den middelalderens varmeperiode var følgende graf

hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large

Som man kan se er klimaet nu i en naturlig balance indtil mennesket begynder at sænke børnedødeligheden. Enkel og overbevisende graf, som nøje korresponderer med udledningen af CO2; hvor der er sammenfald er der nok også sammenhæng. Så overbevisende var denne graf, konstrueret af en amerikansk dendrolog, Michael Mann, at den på tværs af hidtidig konsensus blev vedtaget af Klimapanelets inderkreds og røg på forsiden af deres store klimarapport. Et nyt konsensus var vedtaget på baggrund af en enkelt graf, der ikke engang var blevet peer-review’ed. Det vakte undren og bekymring blandt flere fagfolk, selv ind i inderkredsen af FN’s forfatterpanel, men fristelsen til at lukke debatten en gang for alle var altså uimodståelig. Grafen blev et ikon for klimaet og Michael Mann blev en del af en inderkreds i FN’s Klimapanmel, der skrydende kaldte sig selv for The Hockey Team efter deres begejstring for ishockeystavsgrafen.

Ishokeystaven skurede også i øjnene på ærlige mennesker og kom under stigende kritik, og efter nogle år med bitter tovtrækning om adgang til de rå data blev den afsløret som afsindigt videnskabeligt sjusk - i mangel af bevis på at den var bevidst svindel - af et par canadiske matematikere. Skønt The Team har holdt fast i grafens videnskabelige lødighed opstod der også hos dem, endda også Mann selv, et behov for at distancere sig fra dens kontroversiellitet. The Hockey Team har derfor siden da fortrudt deres eget øgenavn.

I et afgørende interview med BBC i 2010 udtalte kreatøren af Klimapanelets temperaturkurver, Phil Jones, sig derfor således om den middelalderlige varmeperiode

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

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

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

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

En gang til

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.

Dette er betydningen af middelalderens varmeperiode. Hvis ikke der er sammenfald er der sikkert heller ikke sammenhæng. Udviklingen er i så fald ikke unprecedented og så vil teorien ikke være unequivocal. Men mere end det, Panelets videnskabelige troværdighed vil være grundstødt. Jones erkender den store betydning men holder dog også døren åben for at MWP ikke nødvendigvis var global ved at nævne at vi ikke kender udviklingen på den sydlige halvkugle, der jo mest er dækket af vand. Den sikre overbevisning om klimaets virkelighed og udvikling hvilede altså i dette nu på en teoretisk mulighed i det man ikke vidste noget om. Hvilken skråsikkerhed. Men nu har man fundet beviser på Middelalderens varmeperiode og den Lille Istids eksistens på den sydlige halvkugle. Fra Daily Mail

Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.

It then cooled down naturally and there was even a ‘mini ice age’.

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.

Nu er middelalderens varmeperiode, altså global. Med Phil Jones egne ord og de ord som konsensus tænker i er opvarmningen i det tyvende århundrede ikke uden fortilfælde og derfor er teorien om menneskeskabt global opvarmning ikke ubetvivlelig. Klimapanelets skråsikkerhed og de medfølgende forudsigelser hviler på forkerte præmisser, hvilket så fint forklarer hvorfor deres forudsigelser altid tager fejl. Og det betyder at FN’s klimapanel ubetvivleligt er i en troværdighedskrise uden fortilfælde.

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.

Slutspil for klimaet (Groundbroken Science II)

Diverse — Drokles on March 6, 2012 at 11:50 pm

I slutningen af Januar skrev 16 videnskabsmænd et indlæg til Wall Street Journal, hvor de gjorde op med påstanden om at der er et videnskabeligt konsensus om klimaet. Det affødte selvfølgelig en del reaktioner fra andre videnskabsmænd, som forfægtede konsensus og nu har de 16 svaret - igen i Wall Street Journal

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is “falsified” and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

billede-311

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that “computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.” The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world’s oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of “missing heat” hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion.

(..)

The continued efforts of the climate establishment to eliminate “extreme views” can acquire a seriously threatening nature when efforts are directed at silencing scientific opposition. In our op-ed we mentioned the campaign circa 2003 to have Dr. Chris de Freitas removed not only from his position as editor of the journal Climate Research, but from his university job as well. Much of that campaign is documented in Climategate emails, where one of the signatories of the Trenberth et al. letter writes: “I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from Climate Research [then edited by Dr. de Freitas] is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken.”

Or consider the resignation last year of Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. In a fulsome resignation editorial eerily reminiscent of past recantations by political and religious heretics, Mr. Wagner confessed to his “sin” of publishing a properly peer-reviewed paper by University of Alabama scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell containing the finding that IPCC models exaggerate the warming caused by increasing CO2.

Det ligner mere end blot en kritik af af en videnskabelig tese. Det ligner beskyldninger, som No Tricks Zone godt tør sætte ord på

Deliberately ignoring the major natural factors while wildly exaggerating another, despite the volumes of data out there, has been going on in the IPCC models for years now. We’ve seen the culture of deception in the Hockey Stick, Al Gore’s exaggerated AIT, Climategate, Hansen’s adjustments and just recently with the behavior of Peter Gleick. With every passing year, scientists have noticed the widening deviation between their models and reality, yet they continue to ignore the major factors of sun, oceans and soot, and they manipulate the models even more to make CO2 appear as the culprit.

This systematic fudging and manipulation of models is increasingly fitting the definitions of criminal fraud. Unless the IPCC changes its course and starts acknowledging the sun, oceans and soot in its models in its next report, then the public will have grounds to sue them for fraud in a class action suit. The sheer weight of the data showing that the sun, oceans, etc. have considerable impacts is overwelming and can no longer be ignored in good faith.

A society the feels defrauded needs to start taking the legal steps to begin moving the case forward. It can be argued that the line between wrong science and fraud science was crossed long ago and that the hand of justice needs to intervene.

Der er altid en regning, der skal betales, som vismanden Indurain gjorde rede for.

Tysk klimatvivl

Diverse — Drokles on February 8, 2012 at 6:36 am

Det er en historie, som i længden er for god til at lade ligge, den manglende varme midt i frygten for varmen. Der er gennem et par årtier opbygget en religiøs stemning om udsigten til en klimakatastrofe, som gennem anklager om kætteri, hvilket i ånden af religiøs sækularisme kaldes benægtelse, og anklager om at stå i ledtog med Belzebub, som er olieindustrien i første række og almindelig kapitalisme/driftighed i anden række. Og ingen har i den stemning lyst til at udtrykke sine anelser og tvivl for den der står alene bliver oftest knust. Men det varer ikke ved. På et eller andet tidspunkt er der en dreng, som siger at kejseren går rundt i bar røv og dolk og jo længere han siger det jo mere rører mængden på sig, nogle fniser og enkelte kommer med spæde tilkendegivelser. Og så er katten ude af sækken.

Forleden henviste jeg til en aftagende interesse for klimakatastrofen i både USA og England. Nu ser det også ud til at falde i økologiens moderland Tyskland, hvor kun 31% mener at klimaet udgør et usædvanligt problem. Men tvivlen vinder ikke kun frem blandt de svedende masser. Også tidligere klimatro støtter falder fra, som Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt. Han har sammen med geolog og palæontolog Dr. Sebastian Lüning skrevet den skeptiske bog Die Kalte Sonne, som endnu inden udgivelsen er strøget ind i top 10 på Amazon.de’s bestsellerliste, som No Tricks Zone fortæller

Undeniably there’s a feeling that the stars are now aligned, the mood has swung, and key players are changing their minds. As FOCUS reports, even the most die-hard of warmists are converting, or at least softening their tones. Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, a renewable energy expert, was once one of the fathers of the modern green movement in Germany and believed everything the IPCC preached – until 2 years ago. FOCUS writes:

Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the green movement, no longer trusts the forecasts of the IPCC.”

and FOCUS tells us why, quoting Vahrenholt:

Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. ‘I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy.”

In his book he explains how he dug into the IPCC climate report and was horrified by what he had found. Then add the 10 years of stagnant temperatures, failed predictions, Climategate e-mails, and discussions he had with dozens of other skeptical elite scientists. That was more than enough. FOCUS quotes:

I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.”

For de tyskkyndige er der er interview med Varenholdt på Welt Online. Vahrenholdt blev bl.a rystet over at læse Andrew Montfords essentielle The Hockey Stick Illusion, som nøgternt afdækker et forsumpet forskningsmiljø. Og også andre forskere, som ellers har talt varmt om klimaet bløder op på deres udtalelser.

A few days after Schellnhuber’s admission, Vahrenholt and Edenhofer were both at a press conference in Munich, where Vahrenholt claimed that temperatures had not risen in a decade and that they would likely cool a bit in the future. FOCUS tells us Edenhofer’s reaction:

Edenhofer did not wish to contradict, even when requested.”

Medierne kan som sagt ikke i længden sidde den slags overhörich og udover Welt Online har Bild en artikelserie i tre dele, som indledes med overskriften Die CO2 Lüge, hvor de påstår at klimaalarmismen er uden grundlag. Fra No Trick’s Zone

The widely read Bild will follow with the rest of the series in the days ahead. In part I today Bild presents “What the IPCC of the UN doesn’t tell you.” Bild asks “what if the IPCC is wrong? Can we really blindly trust these experts? Are they really independent?”

Bild then writes:

The phenomenal prognoses of heat from the IPCC are pure fear-mongering.”

The Bild series is sure to cause radical environmentalists to seethe and lash out. Expect an all-out assault in the days and weeks ahead. Already the reaction from activists has been swift and virulent – though they have yet to read the book.

They never wanted the debate – and now the dam has broken

And the floods of skepticism are sweeping over the country. Worse, Germany’s flagship weekly news magazine Der Spiegel today also featured a 4-page exclusive interview with Vahrenholt, where he repeated that the IPCC has ignored a large part of climate science and that IPCC scientists exaggerated the impact of CO2 on climate. Vahrenholt said that by extending the known natural cycles of the past into the future, and taking CO2?s real impact into effect, we should expect a few tenths of a degree of cooling.

For lige at kippe lidt med Dannebrog bliver danske Svensmarks forskning nævnt her og der som en uimodståelig modvægt til FNs Klimapanels propaganda. Watt’s Up With That har ligeledes refereret til den tyske udvikling i debatten og koblet det sammen med Tysklands ambitiøse energiomlægning

Dr. Guenter Keil’s report focusses in detail on the amazing absurdities of Germany’s Renewable Energy Feed-In Act and the country’s utopian Energy Transformation. The government, through intrusive meddling and ballooning bureaucracy, has maneuvered Germany’s energy supply system into a vicious death spiral: the more the government intervenes, the greater the mess becomes. And the greater the mess becomes, the more the government intervenes! Dr. Keil concludes:

“Germany’s energy transformation has already failed. For Germans, the outlook is bleak. …the planned mismanagement is heavily damaging the economy and will fail spectacularly some years later because its economic and social costs will have become unbearable. The question remaining open is how many billions of euros will have to be destroyed before a new energy policy (a new energy transformation?) picks up the shattered pieces.”

So it’s no wonder that according to a survey of experts from 21 national committees by the World Energy Council, 0% said they could imagine their own country completely taking over the German political approach. An equal number believe Germany will reach its stated targets.

Germany’s model will serve as a classic lesson on how not to handle energy production and management.

I oktober ville addministrerende direktør for Vestas i en kronik i Politiken, anglede efter skatteydernes penge, hvilket han kaldte ‘rammebetingelser’. ‘Rammebetigelser’ er

..globalt set, den eneste måde at løfte milliarder af mennesker ud af fattigdom på gennem udvidet bæredygtig økonomisk aktivitet, mens den grønne vækst samtidig vil mindske virkningen på Jordens begrænsede ressourcer i en voksende økonomi.

Vi er derfor nødt til at handle nu for at skabe grundlaget for en grøn økonomisk forvandling, der vil føre til en bæredygtig model for økonomisk vækst.

Men i Danmark har vindmøllerne svært ved at klare sig i, ja i modvind.

Den negative udvikling i vindmølleproducenten Vestas’ økonomi kommer nu til at koste et hoved i selskabets øverste liste.

Henrik Nørremark, koncernfinansdirektør og viceadministrerende direktør, er tirsdag aften blevet fyret, oplyser selskabet i en fondsbørsmeddelelse.

(…)

Vestas har den seneste tid været i økonomisk modvind med to nedjusteringer af selskabets resultatforventning i løbet af få måneder.

I slutningen af oktober måtte selskabet skrue ned for forventningerne til resultaterne for 2011 på grund af problemer på en fabrik i Tyskland.

Jeg skal ikke være investeringsrådgiver, men hvis man vil købe vindmølleaktier er det nok mere relevant at læse de politiske vinde frem for at studere virksomhedernes nøgletal, det er jo skat…øh rammebetingelser hele industrien drives af. You don’t need a weatherman to know wich way the wind blows.

Groundbroken science

Diverse — Drokles on January 30, 2012 at 5:42 am

16 videnskabsmænd har underskrevet et indlæg i Wall Street Journal, der benægter at der er konsensus om FN’s fortælling om global opvarmning.

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

Mindst ti år uden opvarming - med mindre man bor i England, hvor det engelske meterologiske institut godt tør strække den til 15 år ifølge Daily Mail

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. 

10 til 15 år. Usikkerheden skyldes for en stor dels vedkommende en kraftig El-Nino, varmeafgivelse fra Stillehavet, som drev temperaturen rekordhøjt op i 1998. Den blev efterfulgt af sit kolde modstykke, La-Nina og de to fænomener laver svært tolkelige buler i temperaturkurven. Hvorom alting er peger nogle forskere på den absurde tanke at temperaturen hænger sammen med Solen.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Det er selfølgelig ikke MET’s opfattelse, som mener at skønt Solen har indflydelse vil den kun mildne den temperaturstigning, som CO2 forsager ganske lidt. Enter Svensmark

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

Jeg hæfter mig ved formuleringen “pointed out”. Tvivlen ved fortællingen nager lidt i medierne. Men MET holder fast i deres modeller, som de kalder ”grundbreaking science”. Men, som Svenmark pointerer, lad os se, hvad Solen siger til det.

Reaktioner på Durban

Diverse — Drokles on December 13, 2011 at 5:06 am

Det er svært at blive klog på, hvad en klimakonference egentlig handler om, hvis man blot læser de danske aviser, som goldt kolporterer enten politikernes eller interesseorganisationers ud- og indfald ved deres egne klimajournalister, der endda også blot politiserer til fordel for interesseorganisationer. En sluttet ring af rygklappere. Politikerne var i første omgang svært tilfredse med de fremskridt imod en smadring af økonomien og folkets selvbestemmelsesret man havde opnået ved tilsagn som Politiken rapporterer

Mødets leder, den sydafrikanske udenrigsminister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, vurderer, at man fik det resultat, der skulle nås.

»Vi kom her med en Plan A og vi har afsluttet mødet med en Plan A for at redde en planet. Det, vi har gjort, er historisk«, erklærer hun.

Andre hæfter sig ved, at det for første gang er lykkedes at få kontrære lande som USA og Kina til endeligt at gå med på, at der skal indføres bindende aftaler om at mindske udslippene af CO2. De to lande har hidtil modarbejdet bestræbelserne på at få dem til at tilslutte sig kampen mod klimaforandringerne.

Interesseorganisationerne var selvfølgelig hurtige til at drysse malurt i bægeret, som man kunne læse i Berlingske Tidende

Det er et usselt resultat. Sådan stempler de danske NGO-organisationer den klimaaftale, som verdens industri- og udviklingslande er nået frem til på FN’s klimakonference i den sydafrikanske by Durban.

På klimamødet, der sluttede tidligt søndag morgen, blev det aftalt, at Kyoto-aftalen skal forlænges, og at en ny global klimaaftale skal forhandles færdig inden 2015 og gælde fra 2020.

Og det resultat skuffer miljøorganisationerne.

- Det er for usselt, at de store lande med USA i spidsen nu får lov at vente til efter 2020 med at igangsætte den nødvendige klimaindsats. Med aftalen accepterer verdens lande at sætte kurs mod kaos i klodens klimasystem, siger Troels Dam Christensen, koordinator for 92-gruppen, der er en sammenslutning af danske miljø- og udviklingsorganisationer.

Og midt i det hele kunne man læse en besynderlig historie i Jyllands-Posten om hvorledes ekstra afgifter på erhvervslivet var en fordel for dansk konkurenceevne.

Først i 2020 vil verdens 192 lande for alvor tage hånd om CO2-udledningen, der skal bremse den globale opvarmning.

Sådan lyder resultatet af klimaforhandlingerne i Durban, og den udvikling kan på sigt styrke danske virksomheders konkurrenceevne.

Mange års brug af grønne afgifter har nemlig tvunget dansk erhvervsliv ud i energibesparelser og alternative energiløsninger, som har skærpet vores konkurrenceevne.

Tendensen kan fortsætte, hvis resultatet i Durban udskyder udenlandske konkurrenters grønne omstilling, mens danske virksomheder står over for nye grønne afgifter.

Logikken er at de sure forhold for dansk erhvervslivs har hærdet dansk erhvervsliv så de er klar, hvis nu resten af verden skulle være lige så dumme. Håbet er lysegrønt. Fælles for disse meninger er at klimaet er truet af forandring og ingen forandring er farligere end den mennesket kan have foresaget ved sin virksomhed. På Watts Up With That skriver Dennis Ray Wingo

There are two critical assumptions that underpin the entire Durban conference as well as previous efforts; the first assumption is that we live in a limited world and that this wealth transfer and the immediate cessation of CO2 emissions is the only possible path toward a “sustainable” future. The second is that technology cannot solve the problem but politics can. What are these assumptions built upon and are they valid? Is this the only path forward? Are we destined to leave our global posterity in a state of perpetual semi-poverty? Human nature rebels against this doom and gloom view of the future, and with good reason.

The Assumptions

I do not wish to seem overdramatic, but I can only conclude from the information that is available to me as Secretary-General, that the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems that I have mentioned will have reached staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.

Who said this? This statement could have very well have been the preamble to the Durban conference but it actually was uttered by UN Secretary General U Thant in 1969 and is included as the introduction to the book, Limits to Growth. The book “Limits to Growth” (LTG) is the touchstone of the environmental movement as well as the ultimate source of the two underpinning assumptions of the Durban conference.

Men det indebære også et paradoks, som Reason Foundation pointerer

But there is an internal contradiction in the IPCC’s own claims. Indeed, the same highly influential report from the IPCC claims both that poor countries will fare terribly and that they will be much better off than they are today. So, which is it? The apparent contradiction arises because of inconsistencies in the way the IPCC assesses impacts. The process begins with various scenarios of future emissions.

These scenarios are themselves predicated on certain assumptions about the rate of economic growth and related technological change. Under the IPCC’s highest growth scenario, by 2100 GDP per capita in poor countries will be double the U.S.’s 2006 level, even taking into account any negative impact of climate change. (By 2200, it will be triple.) Yet that very same scenario is also the one that leads to the greatest rise in temperature—and is the one that has been used to justify all sorts of scare stories about the impact of climate change on the poor. Under this highest growth scenario (known as A1FI), the poor will logically have adopted, adapted and innovated all manner of new technololgies, making them far better able to adapt to the future climate. But these improvements in adaptive capacity are virtually ignored by most global warming impact assessments. Consequently, the IPCC’s “impacts” assessments systematically overestimate the negative impact of global warming, while underestimating the positive impact. Moreover, in these “impacts” assessments, global warming is not expected for the most part to create new problems; rather, it is expected to exacerbate some existing problems of poverty (in particular, hunger, disease, extreme events), while relieving others (such as habitat loss and water shortages in some places).

Den slags skal selvfølgelig ikke stå i vejen for en god vilje og hvad er en bedre vilje end afskaffelse af krig og andre dårligdomme når de nu har en skadelig virkning på klimaet? Lord Monckton giver en glimrende gennemgang af FN’s arbejdpapirer, her i uddrag

The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call “transparent impenetrability”, are not just off the wall – they are lunatic.

Main points:

Ø A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.

Ø “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.

Ø “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years’ data from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.

Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.

Ø A new global temperature target will aim, Canute-like, to limit “global warming” to as little as 1 C° above pre-industrial levels. Since temperature is already 3 C° above those levels, what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in today’s temperatures. This would take us halfway back towards the last Ice Age, and would kill hundreds of millions. Colder is far more dangerous than warmer.

Ø The new CO2 emissions target, for Western countries only, will be a reduction of up to 50% in emissions over the next eight years and of “more than 100%” [these words actually appear in the text] by 2050. So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains. Back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your caves. Windmills, solar panels and other “renewables” are the only alternatives suggested in the draft. There is no mention of the immediate and rapid expansion of nuclear power worldwide to prevent near-total economic destruction.

Ø The new CO2 concentration target could be as low as 300 ppmv CO2 equivalent (i.e., including all other greenhouse gases as well as CO2 itself). That is a cut of almost half compared with the 560 ppmv CO2 equivalent today. It implies just 210 ppmv of CO2 itself, with 90 ppmv CO2 equivalent from other greenhouse gases. But at 210 ppmv, plants and trees begin to die. CO2 is plant food. They need a lot more of it than 210 ppmv.

Ø The peak-greenhouse-gas target year – for the West only – will be this year. We will be obliged to cut our emissions from now on, regardless of the effect on our economies (and the lack of effect on the climate).

Ø The West will pay for everything, because of its “historical responsibility” for causing “global warming”. Third-world countries will not be obliged to pay anything. But it is the UN, not the third-world countries, that will get the money from the West, taking nearly all of it for itself as usual. There is no provision anywhere in the draft for the UN to publish accounts of how it has spent the $100 billion a year the draft demands that the West should stump up from now on.

The real lunacy comes in the small print – all of it in 8-point type, near-illegibly printed on grubby, recycled paper. Every fashionable leftist idiocy is catered for.

Talking of which, note in passing that Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who, in the topsy-turvy looking-glass world of international climate insanity is the “science” chairman of the UN’s climate panel, has admitted that no one has been talking about climate science at the climate conference here in Durban. Not really surprising, given no real warming for getting on for two decades, no recent sea-level rise, no new record Arctic ice-melt, fewer hurricanes than at almost any time in 30 years, no Pacific atolls disappearing beneath the waves.

Here – and, as always, you heard it here first, for the mainstream media have conspired to keep secret the Madness of King Rajendra and his entire coterie of governmental and bureaucratic lunatics worldwide – is what the dribbling, twitching thrones and dominions, principalities and powers of the world will be asked to agree to.

“International Climate Court of Justice”: This kangaroo court is to be established by next year “to guarantee the compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of this decision, which are essential elements in the obtaining of the global goal”. Note that, here as elsewhere, the bias is only against the nations of the West. However badly the third-world countries behave, they cannot be brought before the new court. Though none of what the draft calls the “modalities” of the proposed marsupial dicastery are set out in detail, one can imagine that the intention is to oblige Western nations to pay up however much the world government run by the Convention secretariat feels like demanding, just as the unelected tyrants of the EU demand – and get – ever-larger cash payments from the ever-shrinking economies and ever-poorer tribute-payers of their dismal empire.

(…)

“Historical responsibility”: The nations of the West (for which the UN’s code is “Annex I parties”) are from now on required to beat their breasts (or at least their strait-jackets) and acknowledge their “historical responsibility” for increasing CO2 emissions and giving us warmer weather. The draft says: “Acknowledging that the largest share of the historical global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in Annex I Parties and that, owing to this historical responsibility in terms of their contribution to the average global temperature increase, Annex I Parties must take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.” This new concept of “historical responsibility” – suspiciously akin to the “war-guilt” of post-1918 Germany, declared by the imprudent governments of the world at the Versailles conference, which was no small cause of World War II – further underscores the rapidly-growing anti-Western bias in the UN and in the Convention’s secretariat.

Who pays? Oh, you guessed it before I told you. The West pays. The third world (UN code: “non-Annex-I parties”) thinks it will collect, so it will always vote for the UN’s insane proposals. But the UN’s bureaucrats will actually get all or nearly all the money, and will decide how to allocate what minuscule fraction they have not already spent on themselves. As a senior UN diplomat told me last year, “The UN exists for only one purpose: to get more money. That, and that alone, is the reason why it takes such an interest in climate change.” The draft says: “Developed-country Parties shall provide developing-country Parties with new and additional finance, inter alia through a percentage of the gross domestic product of developed-country Parties.” And, of course, “The extent of participation by non-Annex-I parties in the global effort to deal with climate change is directly dependent on the level of support provided by developed-country Parties.”

(…)

Review of Western nations’ conduct: Once the multitude of mechanisms for Western nations’ compulsory reporting to the world government are in place, the information gathered by it will be used as the basis of a continuous review of every aspect of their compliance with the various agreements and concords, whether legally-binding or not. Teams of five to eight members of the Convention’s secretariat will scrutinize each Western nation’s conduct, and will have the power to ask questions and to require additional information, as well as to make recommendations that will gradually become binding. The world government will then prepare a record of the review for each Western nation, including reports of various aspects of the review, an assessment of that nation’s compliance, questions and answers, conclusions and recommendations (eventually instructions) to that nation, and a “facilitative process” (UN code for a mechanism to compel the nation to do as it is told by people whom no one has elected).

Det bringer mig til et andet paradoks, som jeg ofte har fremhævet, nemlig at en eventuel ødelæggelse af verdensøkonomien, om den så blot er midlertidig, under vægten af dyre og irrationelle klimatiltag kan medføre social uro og eventuelt politiske omvæltninger, hvilket, som historien har vist, er gode vækstbetingelser for ikke bare krig, men endda klimauvenlig krig. Nok om det, det handler om klimaet og nu Løkke ikke er ved roret kan man ikke skyde skylden på ham så i stedet roser man Connie Hedegaard, som en “klimahelt” ifølge Jyllands-Posten

“Hun er meget, meget dygtig, og det er heldigt, at vi har hende. Hun holdt det hele sammen på en meget imponerende facon - en klassepræstation,” lyder de rosende ord fra Storbritanniens energi- og klimaminister, Chris Huhne om Hedegaard.

Spørgsmålet om, hvorfor de store lande som USA og Kina ikke vil lave en bindende aftale forklares skolaanalyserende med særinteresser og reaktionære republikanere, som end ikke en klimahelt kan kæmpe imod. Sandheden er måske snarere den at de store lande venter klimahysteriet ud i tiltro til dens snarlige død under vægten af dels en skuffende klimaudvikling og dels hysteriets arnesteds åbenlyse korruption, som selv de engelske medier er begyndt at skrive om her ved Daily Mail

More than 5,000 documents have been leaked online purporting to be the correspondence of climate scientists at the University of East Anglia who were previously accused of ‘massaging’ evidence of man-made climate change.

Following on from the original ‘climategate’ emails of 2009, the new package appears to show systematic suppression of evidence, and even publication of reports that scientists knew to to be based on flawed approaches.

And not only do the emails paint a picture of scientists manipulating data, government employees at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are also implicated.

One message appeared to show a member of Defra staff telling colleagues working on climate science to give the government a ‘strong message’.

The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.

‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.

‘They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny.

Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones - who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: ‘Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.

‘I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.’

Det er min fremhævelse af Daily Mail’s konklusioner som ligger i tråd med Forbes “fraud of massive scope”.

De sidste tider i den klimatiske vækkelse

Diverse — Drokles on December 9, 2011 at 6:58 pm

En anekdote fra slutningen af 1800 tallet fortæller om en indremissionsk præst der i ærgelse over at menigheden var blevet for slap i troen og stram i synden brugte hele gudstjenesten på at hælde svovl ud fra prædikestolen over de stakkelels og skamfulde hoveder. Da han på et tidspunkt tager en ny vejrtrækning opdager han at flere af kvinderne græder højlydt, børnene knuger deres hoveder i deres mødres skørter og de ellers så barske mænd er lig blege i ansigterne. Og præsten siger “Så, så, børn, det kan jo være løgn alt sammen”.

Kristne siger ofte at hvis ikke man tror på Gud tror man på hvad som helst. Som ateist finder jeg dette udsagn lige vel kategorisk, men det er heller ikke helt usandt. Ved ikke at tro på Gud, den kristne altså, mangler man hurtigt et sprog for sin egen tvivl og lader sig derfor lettere forføre af sin religiøsitet, som er iboende uanset om man navngiver og tror på et eller andet væsen eller om man er overbevist om sin evne til at kende eller komme til at en endelig materiel sandhed. Kommunisme er en religiøs forstilling helt blottet for Gud og selverkendelse. Intet menneske går fri af dette dårskab uanset, hvilken klub man melder sig ind eller ud af og hvilke bekendelser man slynger ud.

Det religiøse er skam ganske gavnligt da det giver os en følelse af sammenhæng, formål og retning i en verden, der ellers er kaotisk, tilfældig og meningsløs. Men der påhviler os samtidig en pligt til at erkende vores forestillings faldgruber, så vi ikke bevæger os i en uhensigtsmæssig retning. Ateismen, som dyrkelsen af sin manglende tro på Gud, tror sig hævet over sin menneskelige begrænsninger, identificerer sig faktisk som sådan, og er således dømt til et syndefald. Troen er personlig men religionen er kollektiv og fra tid til anden kaldes der til samling i den dominerende religiøse forestilling - en religiøs vækkelse.

Klimadebatten er præget af en religiøs tro på at kende sandheden, hvor udsagn som ”vi ved nu…”, “debatten er ovre, nu skal der handles” og “FN siger…” helt ud til det nærmest selvmodsigende “jeg tror på videnskaben” følges naturligt op af begreber som “benægtere” om mennesker i dissens, som spiller lige dele på Holocaustbenægtelse og alment kætteri, som flyder frit fra især grønne interesseorganisationer og politikere. Der har i samme underforståede logik derfor været flere forslag om at betragte skeptisisme som en forbrydelse mod menneskeheden da de står i vejen for en redning af Jordens klima og dermed potentielt millioner og atter millioner af menneskeliv. Også tanker om at afskaffe demokratiet fordi problemet var for alvorligt til at det kunne løses med en uforstandig og vrangvillig befolkning og en eksisterende hæmmende lovgivning nyder indpas. Og det endda fra personer, som betragter sig selv som pæne mennesker der kæmper for demokratiet.

Diskrepansen i hekseforfølgelse af anderledes tænkende og plæderen for fascime samtidig med selvopfattelsen af egen civilitet og demokratisk tilkendegivelse er grundet i den manglende erkendelse af at den religiøse vished har overtaget fundamentet for tanken og har gjort blind. Behovet for de mange vejer tunget end behovet for de få, som det hedder på Starship Enterprise eller hensigten helliger midlet, som det hed bag jerntæppet - og den logik kræver vished for nødvendigheden.

Fra American Thinker

More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation. They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2, and rising temperatures. They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.

(…)

As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending. The Royal Society, Britain’s premier scientific institution — whose previous president declared that “the debate on climate change is over” — “is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures. … The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.” Most of the rebels were retired, as one of them explained, “One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective.”

In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society’s policy statement: “The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring.” Dr. Giaver:

Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this “warming” period.

(…)

Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world’s top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak “frankly” on global warming and announce that “as a scientist I remain skeptical.” She says she remained silent for fear of personal attacks. Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather — we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.

Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the computer models are fed questionable data and assumptions that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to see.

(…)

Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn’t know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.

This is important. Global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research that enabled us to understand our climate. We still don’t understand global climate any more than we understand the human brain or how to cure cancer. The science of global climate is in its infancy.

Yet the U.N. IPCC reports drive American policy. The EPA broke federal law requiring independent analysis and used the U.N. IPCC reports in its “endangerment” finding that justifies extreme regulatory actions. Senator Inhofe is apoplectic:

(…)

This is not all about idealism. There are crasser reasons of money and power for wanting to close the debate. Billions of dollars in federal grants and subsidies are spent to fight global warming. The cover of fighting to save the planet gives the government unlimited powers to intrude into private business and our individual homes. The government can reach its long arm right into your shower and control how much hot water you are allowed to use. In the words of MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Lindzen, “[c]ontrolling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”

Fra National Post

Environmentalists imagine that Kyoto was a sort of bonding moment for the world’s nations. In fact, it was an exercise in multilateral cynicism, with each group of nations tying to extract advantage through green posturing. The developing countries, including China, were happy that the treaty would handcuff the industrialized world’s economic expansion until they caught up. The Europeans wanted it set up in such a way that they could boast about their environmental bona fides without doing anything. And the Russians wanted everyone else to be bound by CO2 limits because they had plenty of unused emission credits they wanted to sell for billions to guilt-ridden Western governments. No one was willing to make the massive, economy-crippling measures that would be required to actually reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, such as replacing cheap carbon-based fuel en masse with more expensive renewable fuels.

Even if all the world’s nations had somehow found some magical method for meeting their emission limits, the most the environmental treaty could have accomplished would have been to delay the total 21st-century warming projected by scientists by a decade or less. The Earth would have warmed as much under Kyoto, just at a slightly slower rate.

Steve McIntyre, som nærmest egenhændigt afslørede Ishockeystavs-grafen som svindel, lægger i dette interview vægt på, hvad også jeg finder er den afgørende afsløring i anden del af sagen om de lækkede emails fra de centrale forskere ved FN’s Klimapanel, nemlig FN-forskernes grundlæggende tvivl på egne påstande og en etisk kvabbelse over deres egne metoder, mens de udadtil fodrede ikke bare det politiske system, men også deres kollegaer i det videnskabelige miljø med den tyraniserende påstand om konsensus og en intimiderende insisteren på absolut sikkerhed.

Den canadiske journalist Donna Laframboise har som tidligere omtalt undersøgt klimapanelet i hendes morsomme og let (nogen gange dog lidt for let) læselige bog The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate Expert.

Op imod denne virkelighed står et enormt system af forskellige interesser, som har satset hårdt på at være først på fremtidens bølge, som vil være ganske tøvende i deres erkendelse. Men de vil blive tvunget til det efterhånden og når først erkendelsen spreder sig vil det gå stærkt - det er en ånd, der slippes ud af en flaske.

I The Leader Episode (tror jeg den hedder) af Simpson flytter en nyreligiøs sekt til Springfield og får snart det meste af byen i sin magt, som giver alle deres værdier til Lederen, mens de selv træller i marken for at giver Lederen mulighed for bag lukkede døre at bygge det rumskib, der skal bringe dem alle til en anden galakse, hvor de kan blive lykkelige (Homer starter på sin samling af Lederbønner, bønner han synes ligner den Leder han aldrig har set). Da illusionen endelig afsløres flygter Lederen på det store rumskib, der viser sig ikke at være andet end en almindelig cykel dækket af papmache, mens alle udtrykker deres vrede over bedraget - alle undtagen Groundskeeper Willie, der som en anden Joey Starret desperat råber “Come Back, Willie still loves you!”. Hvem der ender i rollen som Willie bliver i sig selv spændende at se, men mere vigtigt bliver den selvrangsagelse i den vestlige verden af at Gudløsheden ikke er befrielsen for religionen. Vigtigt er det nemlig altid at holde sig for øje at det kan være løgn alt sammen - endda også dette.

Endnu en chance for at redde klimaet, eller redde sig noget toldfrit og eventuelt en dårlig

Diverse — Drokles on November 29, 2011 at 7:23 am

De fleste kommentatorer spår et magert resultat af klimaforhandlingerne ved COP17 grundet alle andre end EU’s vrangvillighed til at lade sig spænde for en europæisk selvtugtelsesvogn. Dan Jørgensen anerkender også en politisk virkelighed, som han henkastet bebrejder amerikanerne, men prøver alligevel at holde fanen højt og vil ”så længe der overhovedet er en chance at redde klimaet – kæmpe for at holde gang i forhandlingerne“. Det er en nobel mission sådan at ville redde klimaet, som måske forsvinder uden Dan Jørgensen stålsatte indsats. Dan selv…

…drager [...] til Durban om en uge. Og vi i EU-Parlamentets delegation er faste i kødet. Vi kæmper benhårdt for at verdens rige lande skal give flere penge til verdens udviklingslande, i støtte til tilpasning til klimaforandringerne.

Det bliver sikkert også dejligt i Durban, som Fred Singer beskriver det i American Thinker

But the 10,000 or so Durban attendees — official delegates, U.N. and government officials, journalists, NGO types, and other hangers-on — will have a grand old time: two weeks of feasting, partying, living it up in luxury hotels, and greeting old friends at this 17th reunion — all at someone else’s expense. Statesmen will arrive on the last day to sign important-sounding communiqués and quickly depart before having to explain just how they will “save the climate” and humanity.

God fornøjelse Dan. Inden Singer når så langt ridser også han perspektiverne op for en ny aftale

 Things don’t look promising for the perennial climate confab which convenes in Durban, South Africa today. There is little chance of extending the expiring 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Kyoto has turned into a giant international scam that has already wasted hundreds of billions, with little to show for it; in fact, the increase in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases has been accelerating.

What brings nearly 200 delegations together is a dream — the forlorn hope that developed nations who have ratified the Protocol will come up with a $100-billion-per-year aid program. This is supposed to allow developing nations to adapt to the putative climate disasters that the IPCC, the U.N.’s climate-science panel, has been predicting for more than 20 years. The U.S., which never ratified Kyoto, is expected to supply the lion’s share of this subsidy. Fat chance; just look at the polls and listen to the statements from leading Republican presidential candidates who denounce these disaster predictions as “hoax” and “poppycock.”

Og det er skriften på væggen verdens ledere er begyndt at kunne se. Op til klimatopmødet i København blev en mængde interne emails mellem centrale klimaforskere i FN systemet lækket og for et par uger siden blev yderligere 5.000 emails lækket, som tegner et alt andet end seriøst billede af det ubetvivlelige konsensus. Eksemplerne er mange, men Forbes ridser ganske godt essensen op

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Ikke et konsensus man ville købe en brugt bil af. Med mindre man er Dan Jørgensen, som håber på at tørre regningen af på os andre, mens han handler toldfrit. Eller Politikens leder

Intet tyder på, at problemet med menneskeskabte klimaforandringer er mindre, end vi troede, eller at vi er ved at løse det. Tværtimod.

Virkningerne af klimaændringer og ekstremt vejr mærkes allerede overalt på Jorden, og udledningen af drivhusgas stiger med uformindsket hast.

Erkendelsen af, at vi står over for et gigantisk problem, har ikke ført til en spirende enighed om, hvad vi skal gøre ved det, og forventningerne til COP17, der begynder i Durban i dag, er i bund.

Der er noget Ole-Sohn-kysser-Honecker-tillykke–med-de-fyrre-år over stemningen. Selv om det i disse tider vælter frem med oplysninger om, hvor utroværdigt klimapanelet er holder man stadig nagelfast i klimapanelets fortælling. Det slutter vel først når pengestrømmen rinder ud, ligesom for Sohn. BBC, som har vedtaget at klimaforandringer var virkelige og menneskeskabte, den eneste videnskabelig teori der nogensinde er vedtaget som et politisk faktum viser sig også at være sunket ned i klimapanelets indavlede klakører fortæller Daily Mail 

For example, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, admitted there was no evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of climate change, and he and his colleagues agreed there were serious problems with the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph – the depiction of global temperatures that suggests they were broadly level for 1,000 years until they started to rise with industrialisation.

But although there is now more scientific debate than ever about influences on climate other than CO2, prompted by the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years, a report from the BBC Trust this year compared climate change sceptics to the conspiracy theorists who blame America for 9/11, and said Britain’s main sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, should be given no air time.

The man at the centre of the BBC-UEA web is Roger Harrabin, the Corporation’s ‘environment analyst’, who reports for a range of programmes on radio and TV.

Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that in 1996, he and his friend, Professor Joe Smith of the Open University, set up an informal two-man band to organise environment seminars for BBC executives.

Known as the Cambridge Media Environment Programme (CMEP), it operated until 2009, and over three years (2002 to 2005) received £15,000 from the Tyndall Centre. Mr Harrabin did not derive personal financial benefit, although Prof Smith was paid.

Ånden er ude af flasken. Det er ikke blogs, men aviser og tidsskrifter, som har taget historien op med nonchalante formuleringer som “the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years” og det varsler de sidste tider for klimahysteriet.

Climategate fortsætter

Diverse — Drokles on November 24, 2011 at 9:21 pm

Klimatopmødetid er åbenbart også lækkede emailstid. Nøjagtig som for to år siden, op til klimatopmødet i København, har den samme (gruppe?) lækket yderligere 5.000 emails fra den oprindelige  og enorme korrespondence mellem centrale klimaforskere for FN centreret om det engelske East Anglia universitet’s klimaenhed CRU (Climate Research Unit). Anthony Watts slår på sin blog Watts Up With That fast at emails’ne er ægte med de udødelige ord fra Seinfeld “They are real and they are spectacular!”. Og de er overraskende hurtigt omtalt i et større dansk medie. Berlingske Tidende fandt hurtigt en dansk vinkel ved emails negative omtale af den danske astrofysiker Henrik Svensmark

En af de nye mails – med chefen for CRU, Phil Jones, som afsender - kan således tolkes som et forsøg på at forhindre, at der skal tages hensyn til såkaldte klimaskeptiske røster i FN-klimapanelet IPCC. Og det drejer sig om Svensmark.

I den omtalte mail, der er helt tilbage fra 2004, skriver Phil Jones således:

“Det er vitalt, at vi får folk (angiveligt i IPCC – red.), som vi kender og kan stole på (…). Brugbare folk kan være Baldwin, Benestad (har skrevet om sol/sky-emnet – på den rigtige side, med andre ord anti-Svensmark)”.

Og at Svensmark trods alt kun er på den forkerte side af stregen og ikke er i nar-kategorien bliver slået hen som harmløst

Chefen for CRU, professor Phil Jones, har allerede givet en forklaring på en række af de nye offentliggjorte emails - herunder den, hvor Henrik Svensmark optræder.

Phil Jones forklarer, at mailen ”var relateret til udvælgelsen af medvirkende forfattere, ikke IPCC-udpegede kapitel-forfattere, som jeg ikke har nogen indflydelse på. Det handler om forskere, som vi kan stole på, kan skrive en koncis og klar tekst.”

Hmm, mon ikke det netop er Svensmarks koncise sprog man netop er garanteret, som når han i en kronik i Jyllands-Posten for to år siden skrev

Faktisk er den globale opvarmning standset, og en afkøling er så småt begyndt. Ingen klimamodel har forudsagt en afkøling af Jorden, tværtimod. Det betyder, at prognoser for fremtidens klima er utilregnelige, skriver Henrik Svensmark.

(…)

Spørger man det Internationale Klimapanel IPCC, som repræsenterer den gældende konsensus på klimaområdet, så er svaret et betryggende »ingenting«.

(…)

Man kan undres over, at det internationale klimapanel IPCC ikke mener at Solens forandrede aktivitet har nogen betydning for klimaet, men grunden er, at man kun medtager forandringer i Solens udstråling.

(…)

Da Solens magnetisme har fordoblet sin styrke i løbet af det 20. århundrede, kan denne naturlige mekanisme være ansvarlig for en stor del af den globale opvarmning i denne periode.

Dette er også forklaringen på, at de fleste klimaforskere prøver at ignorere denne mulighed. Den griber nemlig ind i forestillingen om, at det 20. århundredes temperaturstigning hovedsagelig skyldes menneskelig udledning af CO2. Hvis Solen nemlig har haft betydning for en anselig del af opvarmningen i det 20 århundrede, så betyder det, at CO2’s andel nødvendigvis må være mindre.

(…)

Faktisk er den globale opvarmning standset, og en afkøling er så småt begyndt. I sidste uge blev det fremført af Mojib Latif fra universitet i Kiel på FN’s World Climate Conference i Geneve, at afkølingen muligvis fortsætter gennem de næste 10 til 20 år.

(…)

En konsekvens må være,at Solen selv vil vise sin betydning for klimaet og dermed teste teorierne for den globale opvarmning. Ingen klimamodel har forudsagt en afkøling af Jorden, tværtimod.

Svensmark skriver sig således overmåde klart og koncist over på den forkerte side af stregen. Også Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard er interesseret i den nye emaillæk, men fokuserer mere på forskernes almindelige politiske og intrigante omgang med den videnskabelige disciplin og han bringer disse tankevækkende citater

I en e-mail instruerer Professor Phil Jones sine kolleger i, hvorledes de kan omgå reglerne om aktindsigt:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts [d.v.s. love om aktindsigt, red.]. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. ”

Samme Professor Jones ønsker bestemt ikke at dele sine data med andre forskere (der derved vil kunne efterprøve resultaterne):

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

“Follow the money!” som Deep Throat sagde - i filmen.

Akademisk rygklapperi

Diverse — Drokles on October 13, 2011 at 8:11 pm

Jeg har været tøvende med at lægge egentlig vægt på climategate, historien om omfattende mailkorrespondence mellem førende klimaforskere, som blev lækket og afslørede videnskabelig uredelighed og aktiv obstruktion af dissiderende (ja, det er rent faktisk et ord og det kom en del bag på mig) synpunkter, fordi der er for meget sensation, der kommer til at skygge for det viudenskabelige spørgsmål. En teori er uafhængig af forskeres uredelighed.

Men sensationen er alligevel og selvfølgelig interessant i sig selv da den afslører en ekspertise, som hævder alvidenhed i at være svindlere. Vores politikere burde være vågnet af den larm, som sagen trods alt skabte og spurgt, hvad det egentlig er for en brugt bil vi alle er ved at blive prakket på. En af de implicerede forskere, professor Michael Mann, havde skabt sin karriere på en enkelt graf, der rekonstruerede den globale temperatur for de seneste tusind år. Grafen tegnede en alarmerende ishockeystav, som da også blev grafens navn, da den viste et temperaturmæssigt stabilt klima indtil industrialiseringens begyndelse hvor temperaturen derefter stiger ubønhørligt og accelererende, hvilket praktisk nok var sammenfaldende med menneskets ekstra bidrag af CO2 i atmosfæren i perioden.

Grafen var, skønt flere års prominens, hvor den kom på forsiden af FN’s klimarapport, for god til at være sand. Forskningen bag blev gennem møjsommeligt arbejde pillet fra hinanden af to vedholdende canadiske nørder og da climategate brød ud og afslørede at Mann havde anbefalet sine kollegaer til at benytte sig at af de “tricks” han selv havde skabt ishockeystavs grafen med til at binde alle løse ender sammen med havde man pludselig mere end blot inkompetent videnskabeligt arbejde at anke Mann på. Mann havde forsæt.

Derfor blev der indledt interne undersøgelser af professor Michael Mann arbejde, som alle frikendte ham for alle anklager om videnskabelig uredelighed og anden sjofel omgang med data og kollegaer. Her er en skræmmende bedømmelse The Atlantic af den frikendelse, fra Clive Crook, der selv tror på menneskets negative inflydelse på klimaet og hyppigt råber vagt i gevær med forslag om at beskatte CO2 (det, der kommer ud af din mund når du forbander den slags ideer).

The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann — the paleoclimatologist who came up with “the hockey stick” — would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for “lack of credible evidence”, it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT’s Richard Lindzen tells the committee, “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what’s going on?” The report continues: “The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen’s statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.”) Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers — so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

You think I exaggerate?

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…

Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions…

Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.

In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.

Husk at det er på det grundlag din varme- og elregning stiger.

Frikendt, men… II

Diverse — Drokles on January 30, 2011 at 4:36 am

I sommer refererede jeg til nogle reaktioner på nogle undersøgelser af den klimaforskning og forvaltning af data, der var foregået på East Anglia universitetets klimaenhed (CRU) under ledelse af professor Phil Jones. De fandt at de to undersøgelskommisioner var utilstrækkelige da de ikke stillede de væsentligste spørgsmål, ikke gik i dybden med flere afgørende emner og mest af alt lignede en intern hvidvask.

En ny uafhængig undersøgelse bekræfter nu denne skepsis, der har fået panderynkerne frem hos flere parlamentsmedlemmer i Underhuset

TWO inquiries into claims that scientists manipulated data about global warming were yesterday condemned by MPs as ineffective and too secretive.

The row, which became known as Climategate, erupted in 2009 over allegations that researchers had deliberately strengthened evidence suggesting human activity was to blame for rising temperatures.

MPs on the Science and Technology Committee have now concluded that both probes into the scandal had failed to “fully investigate” claims that scientists had deleted embarrassing emails.

(…)

They criticised the brevity of the appraisal panel report, at “a mere five pages”, and said both investigations should have been more open to the public.

The committee also said the emails review “did not fully investigate the serious allegation” relating to the deletion of emails and instead relied on a verbal reassurance that the messages still exist.

Though the committee was split over the credibility of the inquiries, an amendment put forward by Labour MP Graham Stringer which said that they had not been independent was voted down by members.

He said Lord Oxburgh appeared to have a “conflict of interest” because of his links to green businesses while the Emails Review panel included a former Climate Research Unit scientist.

Stemt ned eller ej så har det offielle England udtrykt skepsis ved det konsensus, der hævder ikke bare videnskabelig autoritet, men også moralsk. Og det sidste en nærmest guddommelig overhøjhed kan bære er tvivl om dets ufejlbarlighed.

Minder fra BBC

Diverse — Drokles on January 25, 2011 at 5:16 am

Peter Sissons har været pogramvært på BBC Nine O’Clock News, News At Ten og Question Time, men forlod i 2009 TV stationen. I en serie artikler på Mail Online mindes han sin tid på BBC og det han opfatter som politisk korrekt slagside, der “gennemsyrer stationens DNA“. Her et uddrag om BBC opfattelse af global opvarmning

For me, though, the most worrying aspect of political correctness was over the story that recurred with increasing frequency during my last ten years at the BBC — global warming (or ‘climate change’, as it became known when temperatures appeared to level off or fall slightly after 1998). From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC’s environment correspondents.

These, without exception, accepted the UN’s assurance that ‘the science is settled’ and that human emissions of carbon dioxide threatened the world with catastrophic climate change. Environmental pressure groups could be guaranteed that their press releases, usually beginning with the words ‘scientists say?.?.?.?’ would get on air unchallenged.

On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change ­doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid.

On one occasion, after the inauguration of Barack Obama as president in 2009, the science correspondent of Newsnight actually informed viewers ‘scientists calculate that he has just four years to save the world’. What she didn’t tell viewers was that only one alarmist scientist, NASA’s James Hansen, had said that.

My interest in climate change grew out of my concern for the failings of BBC journalism in reporting it. In my early and formative days at ITN, I learned that we have an obligation to report both sides of a story. It is not journalism if you don’t. It is close to propaganda.

The BBC’s editorial policy on ­climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.

The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus.

But the Trust continued its ­pretence that climate change ­dissenters had been, and still would be, heard on its airwaves. ‘Impartiality,’ it said, ‘always requires a breadth of view, for as long as minority ­opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.’

In reality, the ‘appropriate space’ given to minority views on climate change was practically zero.
Moreover, we were allowed to know practically nothing about that top-level seminar mentioned by the BBC Trust at which such momentous conclusions were reached. Despite a Freedom of Information request, they wouldn’t even make the guest list public.

There is one brief account of the ­proceedings, written by a conservative commentator who was there. He wrote subsequently that he was far from impressed with the 30 key BBC staff who attended. None of them, he said, showed ‘even a modicum of professional journalistic ­curiosity on the subject’. None appeared to read anything on the subject other than the Guardian.

This attitude was underlined a year later in another statement: ‘BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made.’ Those scientists outside the ‘consensus’ waited in vain for the phone to ring.
It’s the lack of simple curiosity about one of the great issues of our time that I find so puzzling about the BBC. When the topic first came to ­prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it.

Anyone who does this with a mind not closed by religious fervour will find a mass of material by respectable scientists who question the orthodoxy. Admittedly, they are in the minority, but scepticism should be the natural instinct of scientists — and the default setting of journalists.

Yet the cream of the BBC’s inquisitors during my time there never laid a glove on those who repeated the ­mantra that ‘the science is settled’. On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change ­doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid.

Meanwhile, Al Gore, the former U.S. Vice-President and climate change campaigner, entertained the BBC’s editorial elite in his suite at the Dorchester and was given a free run to make his case to an admiring internal audience at Television Centre.

His views were never subjected to journalistic scrutiny, even when a British High Court judge ruled that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, ­contained at least nine scientific errors, and that ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened in schools. From the BBC’s standpoint, the judgment was the real inconvenience, and its ­environment correspondents downplayed its significance.

At the end of November 2007 I was on duty on News 24 when the UN panel on climate change produced a report which later turned out to contain ­significant inaccuracies, many stemming from its reliance on non-peer reviewed sources and best-guesses by environmental activists.

But the way the BBC’s reporter treated the story was as if it was beyond a vestige of doubt, the last word on the catastrophe awaiting mankind. The most challenging questions addressed to a succession of UN employees and climate ­activists were ‘How urgent is it?’ and ‘How much danger are we in?’

Back in the studio I suggested that we line up one or two sceptics to react to the report, but received a totally negative response, as if I was some kind of lunatic. I went home and wrote a note to myself: ‘What happened to the journalism? The BBC has ­completely lost it.’

A damaging episode illustrating the BBC’s supine attitude came in 2008, when the BBC’s ‘environment ­analyst’, Roger Harrabin, wrote a piece on the BBC website reporting some work by the World ­Meteorological Organization that questioned whether global ­warming was going to continue at the rate ­projected by the UN panel.

A green activist, Jo Abbess, emailed him to complain. Harrabin at first resisted. Then she berated him: ‘It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics’ — something Harrabin had not actually done — ‘Please reserve the main BBC online channel for emerging truth. Otherwise I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated.’

Did Harrabin tell her to get lost? He tweaked the story — albeit not as radically as she demanded — and emailed back: ‘Have a look and tell me you are happier.’

This exchange went round the world in no time, spread by a ­jubilant Abbess. Later, Harrabin defended himself, saying they were only minor changes — but the sense of the changes, as specifically sought by Ms Abbess, was plainly to harden the piece against the sceptics.

Many people wouldn’t call that minor, but Harrabin’s BBC bosses accepted his explanation.
The sense of entitlement with which green groups regard the BBC was brought home to me when what was billed as a major climate change rally was held in London on a ­miserable, wintry, wet day.
I was on duty on News 24 and it had been arranged for me to ­interview the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas. She clearly expected, as do most environmental activists, what I call a ‘free hit’ — to be allowed to say her piece without challenge.

I began, good naturedly, by observing that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment, and that we were having a particularly cold winter while carbon emissions were powering ahead.
Miss Lucas reacted as if I’d ­physically molested her. She was outraged. It was no job of the BBC — the BBC! — to ask questions like that. Didn’t I realise that there could be no argument over the science?
I persisted with a few simple observations of fact, such as there appeared to have been no warming for ten years, in contradiction of all the alarmist computer models.

A listener from one of the sceptical climate-change websites noted that ‘Lucas was virtually apoplectic and demanding to know how the BBC could be making such ­comments. Sissons came back that his role as a journalist was always to review all sides. Lucas finished with a veiled warning, to which Sissons replied with an “Ooh!”’

A week after this interview, I went into work and picked up my mail from my pigeon hole. Among the envelopes was a small Jiffy Bag, which I opened. It contained a substantial amount of faeces wrapped in several sheets of toilet paper.

At the time no other interviewers on the BBC — or indeed on ITV News or Channel Four News — had asked questions about climate change which didn’t start from the assumption that the science was settled.

Afsnittet her afspejler min interesse, men artiklen kan kun anbefales, hvis man vil more sig. Ikke mindst hans minder med sikkerhed i studiet, hvor vandglas skulle erstattes af plasticglas er kostelig underholdning. Og så ikke et ord om Danmarks Radio.

Et konsensus bliver til

Diverse — Drokles on January 3, 2011 at 7:59 am

Fra National Post

“97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Meget overbevisende.

Status for Climate-gate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Og Al Gore kan mærke det og han bebrejder medierne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Klimaforandring

Diverse — Drokles on August 13, 2010 at 5:30 am

Det tog ikke lang tid for medierne at kæde hedebølgen i det Rusland, der i vinter satte kulderekorder sammen med klimaforandringer/global opvarmning. Og ligeledes med oversvømmelserne i Pakistan. De mange interesseorganisationer, der vil slå politisk plat på folks ulykke henleder nogle gange tankerne på religiøse sekter, der opsøger døende ældre på hospitalerne og sagførere, der hænger ud på skadestuerne. Men vejr og klima er ikke det samme, som man kan læse i Daily Mail

A massive heatwave in Russia and the current devastating floods in Pakistan could be linked by the unusual behaviour of the jetstream, scientists believe.

The jetstream is the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain.

But meteorologists who study the phenomenon say that it is producing unusual holding patterns which keep weather systems in one place and produce freak conditions.

Selvfølgelig kunne moskovitterne ønske sig køligere temperaturer, men alt alle forandringer kan komme bag en, også på naturen. Fra Sify News

At least six million fish have died in three rivers of Bolivia due to the intense cold wave sweeping through the country in the past few weeks.

Authorities in the eastern Bolivian province of Santa Cruz declared an alert following the death of fish in the Grande, Pirai and Ichilo rivers that run through the tropical region.

This is an ‘environmental catastrophe’ brought on by the lowest temperatures registered in Santa Cruz in nearly half a century, Gov. Ruben Costas told reporters.

Tillige skal tælles “thousands of alligators, turtles, dolphins and other river wildlife” ifølge Bolivia Bella, der ironisk bruger “unprecedented” om katastrofens omfang. Med den igangværende La Nina - et skift i oceanstrømmene - er den sydlige halvkugle et koldt sted ifølge Bloomberg

Argentina is importing record amounts of energy as the coldest winter in 40 years drives up demand and causes natural-gas shortages, prompting Dow Chemical Co. and steelmaker Siderar SAIC to scale back production.

Electricity supplied from Brazil and Paraguay rose to a daily combined record of about 1,000 megawatts on July 12, while consumption peaked at 20,396 megawatts three days later, according to Buenos Aires-based energy broker Cammesa. Shipments of liquefied natural gas are set to double this year.

Det er svært at gøre alle tilpas, men klimaets fordelingsnøgle vækker kun bekymring og overskrifter hvor temperaturen stiger.

Natures trick to hide the incline

Diverse — Drokles on July 28, 2010 at 4:43 am

Debatten om klimaet er dykket langt ned i havet. En rimelig ny videnskabelig rapport fra Kevin E. Trenberth  og John T. Fasullo slår til lyd for at den overskydende varme, vi ikke har registreret siden 2001, men, som altså burde være der desværre er undsluppet alle målinger og gemmer sig langt nede i havet. Og havene inderholder ved deres store masse så langt det største varmereservoir (energi) afgørende for klimaet.

By measuring the net radiative incoming and outgoing energy at the top of Earth’s atmosphere, it is possible to determine how much energy remains in the Earth system. But where exactly does the energy go? The main energy reservoir is the ocean, which sequesters energy as heat. Because energy is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, this heat can resurface at a later time to affect weather and climate on a global scale. A change in the overall energy balance will thus sooner or later have consequences for the climate. Existing observing systems can measure all the required quantities, but it nevertheless remains a challenge to obtain closure of the energy budget. This inability to properly track energy—due to either inadequate measurement accuracy or inadequate data processing—has implications for understanding and predicting future climate.

Hvem ved, måske spiser fotosyntesen indstrålingen? Eller måske er opvarmningen siden Lille Istid et udtryk for at verdenshavene afgav en opsparet mængde varme og nu skal de måske fyldes igen. Selv om enhver i princippet kan komme rendende og sige at virkeligheden ligger begravet et andet sted kan man ikke uden videre afvise påstanden, som typisk for videnskaben er fanget mellem teori og måling. Målingerne og analyserne af resultaterne er ganske svære og usikre. Men det er tankevækkende at dokumentationen for den menneskeskabte globale opvarmning hele tiden ser ud til at rykke et skridt længere væk. Især fordi det var netop tilhængere som Trenberth af teorien om den menneskeskabte opvarmning, der op gennem halvfemserne støttede sig til havenes stigende varmeindhold. Nu, hvor det går den anden vej kan man pludselig ikke stole på sine data.

Man har ikke særligt gode historiske målinger af havets temperatur, der før i tiden bl.a. blev foretaget af kommercielle ruteskibe, som kastede en lille spand med et lille termometer ud i vandet ved givne tidspunkter. Siden blev der etableret et net af bøjer, der var mere præcise og dækkede verdenshavene mere systematisk, men målingerne kunne kun foretages ved overfladen indtil man fra starten af det nye årtusinde begyndte et nyt net af bøjer (ARGO, komplet i 2007), der kunne måle temperaturen ned til 700 meter (hvor størstedelen af varmen i havet er koncentreret) og rapportere deres resultater tilbage via satelit.

Den manglende varme i verdenshavene stiller spørgsmålstegn ved klimamodellernes rigtighed. Som bekendt får man ud af en computer, som man beder den om og man beder den selvfølgelig regne ud, hvorledes verden tager sig, som man bedst forstår den. Og da man f.eks. ikke forstår Solens betydning for skydannelse og skydannelses betydning for klimaet indgår det slet ikke. Og således også med havets dynamik, som er så dårligt forstået at det tilsyneladende kan sluge beviserne for den menneskeskabte opvarmning. Det er lidt svært at tage de skråsikre forudsigelser om Jordens undergang alvorligt. Også for Roger Pielke Sr. der har beskæftiget sig indgående med netop det samme problem

Trenberth’s [and co-author, NCAR scientist John Fasullo], however, are grasping for an explanation other than the actual real world implication of the absence of this heat.  

  • First, if the heat was being sequestered deeper in the ocean (lower than about 700m), than we would have seen it transit through the upper ocean where the data coverage has been good since at least 2005. The other reservoirs where heat could be stored are closely monitored as well (e.g. continental ice) as well as being relatively small in comparison with the ocean.
  • Second, the melting of glaciers and continental ice can be only a very small component of the heat change (e.g. see Table 1 in Levitus et al 2001 “Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system”.  Science).

Thus, a large amount heat (measured as Joules) does not appear to be stored anywhere; it just is not there. 

There is no “heat in the pipeline” [or "unrealized heat"] as I have discussed most recently in my post

Pielkes blog kan med fordel læses for den videnskabeligt interesserede. Han er, som det fremgår af linket, i direkte debat med sine “modstandere” og skønt uenigheder om udlæggelsen af indsamlede data foregår det i en civil, saglig tone af gensidig respekt, som klimadebatten desværre er alt for fattig på generelt.

Og hvis man rigtig vil nørde derudaf har Dr Roy Spencer også nogle indvendinger på sin hjemmeside

1) THE MISSING ENERGY IS IN THE SOLAR, NOT THE INFRARED
Trenberth and Fasullo don’t highlight the fact that the “missing” energy is not in the infrared, which is where manmade global warming allegedly originates, but in the reflected solar component. The infrared component has essentially no trend between March 2000 and December 2007 (the last CERES Earth radiation budget data I have analyzed).

This suggests a small decrease in low or mid-level cloud cover, letting more sunlight in. The fact that the extra energy is not showing up as a temperature increase in the ocean makes me suspect the measurements themselves. If there is a problem with the Earth radiation budget measurements, then obviously there is no missing energy.

2) MAYBE THE DISCREPANCY WAS ACTUALLY BEFORE 2000
Trenberth and Fasullo correctly point out that the absolute accuracy of these radiation budget instruments is not good enough to measure very small radiation imbalances…just the CHANGE in that imbalance over time. Well then maybe it was the period BEFORE 2000 where there was an imbalance, with extra energy being lost by the Earth, but no cooling, and NOW the solar and infrared flows are once again in balance. Just a thought.

Og han citerer ironisk fra filmen The Hunt For Red October “What? You’ve lost another submarine?

Frikendt, men…

Diverse — Drokles on July 24, 2010 at 6:30 pm

I november sidste år blev en stor del af en mailkorrespondence fra East Anglia universitetets klimaenhed lækket på internettet og skabte det, som klimaskeptikere har kaldt Climategate. Korrespondencen afslørede tilsyneladende og ganske interessant for klimadiskussionen at centrale forskere indenfor den del af klimaforskningen, der udarbejdede data over klimaets udvikling og havde stor indflydelse på FNs klimapanels konklusioner, dels var mere splittede i forhold til klimaets udvikling og egentlige dynamik end man lod offentligheden forstå (hvilket underminerer påstanden om konsensus), dels at de manipulerede med den forskning de præsenterede for omverdenen og dels at de aktivt søgte at påvirke den peer review process, der afgør, hvilke videnskabelige artikler, der trykkes i de anerkendte tidsskrifter til fordel for deres egne teorier.

Men mere prækært og interessant for loven fremgik det tilsyneladende også at forskerne ikke blot tilbageholdt data fra offentligheden (dem der betaler gildet via deres sure skatter), der kunne bruges til at kontrolere deres resultater, men endda slettede en mængde emails, som måske kunne have inkrimineret dem. Som en konsekvens af denne mistanke afsatte det engelske meterologiske institut, MIT, straks 3 års arbejde til nidkært at gennemgå de gennem mange år opbyggede data for eventuelle fejl og lederen af klimaenheden Phil Jones blev ikke blot suspenderet, men både sat foran en parlamentshøring og en undersøgelse af sit eget universitet under ledelse af Muir Russel. Nu skulle der være rene linier. Men undersøgelserne handlede ikke om selve videnskaben, som her forklaret i Economist

An earlier report on climategate from the House of Commons assumed that a subsequent probe by a panel under Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and chairman of Shell, would deal with the science. The Oxburgh report, though, sought to show only that the science was not fraudulent or systematically flawed, not that it was actually reliable. And nor did Sir Muir, with this third report, think judging the science was his job.

Parlamentshøringen frikendte med en overraskende kort rapport i store træk Jones og hans enhed for graverende fejl og kriminelle hensigter sådan som man stillede anklagerne op. Og Muir Russels undersøgelse også umiddelbart også udlagt, som en frikendelse i de fleste nyhedsmedier. Men klimadebatten tro så diskuteres det også om frikendelsen nu helt så fri, hvad den egentlig siger og hvor godt dens arbejde egentlig er. Patrick Michaels slår f.eks. tvivl om rapportens uafhængighed i Wall Street Journal

Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.”

No links? One of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton’s school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia “adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.”

Muir Russels konklusion summeres her af Fred Pearce i Guardian

Generally honest but frequently secretive; rigorous in their dealings with fellow scientists but often “unhelpful and defensive”, and sometimes downright “misleading”, when explaining themselves to the wider world. That was the verdict of Sir Muir Russell and his fellow committee members in their inquiry into the role of scientists at the University of East Anglia in the “climategate” affair.

Pearce prøver at være afbalanceret i sin bedømmelse af undersøgelsens konklusioner og afviser at der er tale hvidvask, hvad mange skeptikere ellers ikke var sene om konkludere. Pearce mener nemlig at rapporten også indeholder hård kritik af Jones og hans forskerenheds metoder. Pearce udtrykker alligevel en del kritik overfor selve Muir Russel rapporten og især falder det ham for brystet at undersøgelsen ikke har beskæftiget sig med at forskerne tilsyneladende slettede en mængde e-mails, da de ikke længere kunne forhale myndighedernes krav om aktindsigt (FoI, Freedom of Information)

Most seriously, it finds “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]“. Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.

Dette er også faldet Patrick Michael for brystet, som han med henvisning til netop Pearce skriver i Wall Street Journal

It’s impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren’t looking. In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia’s CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line “IPCC & FOI,” “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . . . can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same . . . We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise.”

Mr. Jones emailed later that he had “deleted loads of emails” so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little.

Men skeptikere har, som sagt, kaldt det en hvidvask og ikke blot hæftet sig ved den nonchalante holdning til bevismateriale, men også personkredsen. Patrick J Michaels giver indirekte en fornemmelse for det stærke opgør mellem debattens aktører når han stiller skarpt på

Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.”

No links? One of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton’s school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia “adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.”

Og Clive Crook er endnu mere ude med krabasken i The Atlantic (min fremhævning)

I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.

Tim Ball er ikke ked af at overgå den vurdering i Canada Free Press

There were two British investigations into the behavior of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) exposed in leaked emails. Both reports provide no answers, no explanations and are only telling for what they did not ask or do and how they were manipulated. The blatant level of cover up is frightening. These are acts by people who believe they are unaccountable because they have carried out the greatest scam in history with impunity. The degree of cover up in both cases is an arrogant in-your-face statement that we are the power and are not answerable to anyone. Their cover up almost belittles the ones they are investigating.

Imens har sagen om opfinderen af den berømte og berygtede ishockeystok graf, grafen, der mere end nogen anden graf blev den folkelige rygende pistol på menneskeskabt global opvarmning ved sin nøje korrealation mellem stigning i CO2 udledning og temperatur, Michael Mann taget en bizar drejning. Michael Mann er nemlig under anklage fra Virginias statsanklager ofr med fortsæt at have spildt skatteborgernes penge ved at manipulere med sin forskning med det formål at rejse ekstra midler.

Konsensus smadret

Diverse — Drokles on June 3, 2010 at 5:40 am

Der er sket to små, men dog signifikante afgørelser i klimadebatten, den seneste tid. Eller rettere meta-klimadebatten, altså debatten om debatten. Et fremherskende konsensus i medierne og det politiske etablissement har været at der herskede en konsensus blandt forskere om klimaforandringer og årsagen hertil (mennesket) og også fremtidsperspektiverne. Dette hævdede konsensus har utvetydigt peget på CO2, som den drivende faktor for Klimaforandringer, det der indtil varmen begyndte at aftage hed Global Opvarmning, og at stigningen i atmosfærens indhold af CO2 var menneskets afbrænding af fossile brændstoffer. Tvivlere af hele eller dele af den udlægning blev følgeligt karakteriseret som kværulanter, uvidende eller direkte benægtere.

Men skeptikerne, som de oftest selv vil karakteriseres, har som sagt den seneste tid kunnet pege på en mangel af temperaturstigning, fejl i FN’s Klimapanels rapporter og en række pinlige interne mails, der dokumenterer manipuleret forskning og koordineret kamp for at påvirke peer-rewiev processen hos førende videnskabelig magasiner og derigennem har skeptiske synspunkter fået stigende oprejsning og opmærksomhed. Og da den centrale klimaforsker og konsensusrepræsentant Phil Jones i et interview med BBC accepterede at den globale opvarmning var aftaget og at man savnede videnskablige forklaringer på dette mystiske fænomen, der havde snydt samtlige klimamodeller lignede det en indrømmelse af mange års fordrejet debat. Og nu ser vi så to umiddelbart små resultater i debatten om debatten. Fra Watts Up With That

For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.

Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.

Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.

Fra Finacial Post

Britain’s Royal Society, the UK’s preeminent scientific body, has joined national science bodies in India and France in validating the views of global warming sceptics.

The Royal Society’s decision, which follows a revolt by 43 Fellows of the Royal Society, will see it rewrite its position on climate change in a tacit admission that it and in particular its previous president, Lord May, had been acting more as lobbyists for a cause than as agents for scientific reason. Without canvassing his membership, May had famously stated that “The debate on climate change is over” and that “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”

Following the revolt over the society’s recent history of alarmism and hyperbole, the current president, Lord Rees, by no means a sceptic, has nevertheless decided to take a more balanced view:  ”Climate change is a hugely important issue but the public debate has all too often been clouded by exaggeration and misleading information,” he said. “We aim to provide the public with a clear indication of what is known about the climate system, what we think we know about it and, just as importantly, the aspects we still do not understand very well.”

Det skal holdes sammen med at befolkningerne i stadigt flere lande begynder at tvivle på katastrofeudsigter medierne har refereret, som var det børnelærdom. Stafan Theil skriver i Newsweek

Blame economic worries, another freezing winter, or the cascade of scandals emerging from the world’s leading climate-research body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But concern over global warming has cooled down dramatically. In über-green Germany, only 42 percent of citizens worry about global warming now, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Britain, just 26 percent believe climate change is man-made, down from 41 percent as recently as November 2009. And Americans rank global warming dead last in a list of 21 problems that concern them, according to a January Pew poll.

Lidt er der da at varme sig ved.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress