Det viser sig, at muslimer hader zionisme endnu mere end jøder. Jøder kan man nemlig dhimmificere og så går alt sin skæve gang i det muslimske samfund, med en voldelig opstand i ny og næ. Zionismen derimod hævder en historisk ret, der strider direkte imod den muslimske fortælling. “Zionism was vilified long before Israel controlled any Muslim holy sites in Palestine” skriver Rafael Castro i Ynet News og forklarer videre

Contemporary anti-Zionism in the Muslim world reflects fears that recognition of Zionism discredits Islam. Zionism cites memories of exile to claim Jewish rights to self-determination in the Land of Israel. Jewish descent from the exiled Israelites and continuity between Israelite and Jewish religious traditions undergird this narrative.

According to Islamic tradition, the biblical Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon were Muslim prophets. The Israelites were also originally Muslim. The corollary is Islamic supersession, namely the belief that Muslims—and not Jews—are the legitimate heirs to the Israelite faith and homeland. Muslim denial that a Jewish temple existed in Jerusalem reflects Islamic beliefs that the Muslim king and prophet Suleyman built a mosque on the Temple Mount. Islamic supersession is based on the Islamic doctrine of tahrif, which teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures distort the Islamic message delivered by the prophets of antiquity.

As fanciful as tahrif and Islamic supersession may appear to non-Muslims, these teachings are fundamental in justifying the doctrinal superiority of Islam. These teachings also shed light on the fundamental reason most Muslim states refuse to recognize Jewish ties to Jerusalem and to accept Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Recognizing Israel as the Jewish homeland involves accepting the Zionist narrative. For Muslims, this means engaging with Jewish history and Jewish scriptures on historical terms—not Islamic terms. Doing so leads to recognition that Judaism predates Islam and that Islam appropriated prophetic traditions from Judaism.

For Israel, making peace with Muslim nations is a diplomatic achievement. For Muslim nations, accepting Zionism concedes the precedence of Judaism over Islam. Understanding the theological implications of Zionism for Islam is crucial to realizing why peace eludes Israel. Without these theological implications, Israel would probably be tolerated as a minor nuisance. Due to these theological implications, the Muslim world tends to attribute demonic ambitions to Zionism.

Det forklarer Londonbaserede imam Sheikh Khalid Yasins tirade for nogle år tilbage

Now if you’re talking about the issue of Banu Qurayza, you know when he took hostages, these was people who was plotting and planning, and jumping between, and cutting between, and breaking the treaties, and acting treacherously, and doing all kinds of things, smiling in his face, stabbing him in his back, giving the piece of information, making loyalty with him and breaking it, making loyalty to somebody else, they were doing it then and they doing it now. They’re the same people that we call today, Zionists. We don’t say ‘Jews.’ We say ‘Zionists.’ So there were some Zionists among Banu Qurayza. The Zionists, those enemies, those pigs, those kilab [dogs], those dogs. That’s what they are. We don’t say ‘Jews.’ Muslims, get it straight. We don’t have no beef with Jews.

Our beef is with Zionists. Those are the kilab. Those is the poisoned people. Those is the treacherous people. Those is the ones who want to expand and take the whole world. They don’t care white, black, Christian, nobody. They want the world for themselves, and they believe that everybody’s blood is different than theirs. They are the dogs of the earth. And they was the same people at that time. And Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala [the most glorified, the most high] inspired the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam about their plots and their plans and he checked them, so they are going to be put in check again. Soon. But don’t be mixing it up like, you know like the prophet was chopping off heads and rolling in and raping women and taking babies and all that kind of stuff. No, you talking about the Vikings. Y’all understand the Vikings, right? Yeah you talking about the Vikings, you not talking about the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. So don’t be believing the stuff that you be reading, because most of the paper that you’re reading it, it should be in the bathroom.

[...]

Well again let’s go back to this issue of Banu Qurayza, and see what kind of people they were. See how they was dealing with the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam before he fought them. See how they was dealing with him while he fought them. See what they was doing. See what they was doing behind his back. See what plotting they were doing. You see, they was cutting between. They was giving out messages. They was working with the enemy while smiling in his face. They had a treaty with him but they were violating the treaty and the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam was warned by Allah of what they were doing, even their plan was to kill the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. Their plan was to kill the Muslims. Their plan was always to undermine Islam.

We don’t say ‘the Jews.’ And this is what I want Muslims to understand. We do not curse the Jews, and we do not have hatred for Jews. No. Jews are part of the people Allah calls ahlal kitaab [people of the book], and Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala mentions that among the ahlal kitaab, the people that are nearest to us in love is the people who call themselves nasarah [Christians], and the ones who is the most hatred towards us is the people that say that ‘we are yahud [Jews]‘ but not all the yahuds is like that. And what we should do is we should not cover them with one blanket. When you meet a yahud you don’t say ‘oh they the enemies of Allah.’ No, no, brother, this is wrong. Because there are many yahudis who will become Muslims, if the behavior of Muslims are correct. But the people who call themselves Zionist. Zionists, these is the pigs of the earth.

Muslimer, de lever på en løgn og deres hysteri er derefter.

Marlo Lewis skriver i Global Warming.org om, hvad der er udråbt til klodens varmeste år i målingernes historie ifølge de data man har fra jordbaserede målestationer med traditionelle termometre. Men der er andre og bedre målemetoder

According to NOAA, the 2014 temperature in the troposphere was the third highest in the 1979-2014 record, as analyzed by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) satellite program, and the sixth highest on record, as analyzed by the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite program.

So why don’t the agencies’ press releases proclaim 2014 the third or sixth warmest year? Or just say that it was one of the warmest in the instrumental record? Perhaps because “warmest on record” feeds the sense of crisis, which helps feed agency budgets. Notice the self-promotional aspect of NASA’s press release: “The observed long-term warming trend and the ranking of 2014 as the warmest year on record reinforces the importance for NASA to study Earth as a complete system, and particularly to understand the role and impacts of human activity.”

Even based on surface station records alone, 2014 may not be a record breaker. James Hansen of Columbia University and colleagues who analyzed the data estimate that 2014 is only 0.02ºC warmer than 2010 and 0.03ºC warmer than 2005, making all three years a “statistical tie.”

According to the Climatic Research Unit of the UK Met Office, the margin of error in estimating global surface temperature is 0.1ºC. That is five times larger than the increment by which 2014 supposedly surpassed 2010.

So how certain are NOAA and NASA that 2014 was in fact the warmest year? NOAA assigns a probability of 48%; NASA, a probability of 38%.

Og som en god perspektivering vedlægger han denne graf, hvor målinger foretaget henholdsvis med ballon og og satellit holdes op imod de modeller, som FNs Klimapanel bruger til at afspejle deres teorier

Der er nogle åbenbare problemer med traditionelle målestationer fordi de kun er nogle få tusinde punkter spredt over hele jordens landmasse (nogle skal måle områder på størrelse med Ungarn). Derudover kan der være omskiftelige lokalforhold, som bebyggelse, der ændrer præmisserne for målingerne. Til at kompensere bruger man store og avancerede statistiske forarbejdninger, der i sig selv også er følsomme. Men ikke nok med det, så frister de mange komplicerede dataset også svage sjæle til at hjælpe fortællingen eller advarslen om man vil mere på vej i de obskure dele af de indsamlede data. Christopher Booker skriver i Telegraph om endnu en lurende skandale i den langstrakte klimadebat om, hvorfor de faste målestationer er mere alarmerende end de bedre ballon målinger og overlegne satellit målinger

Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.

Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world’s scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.

How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.

This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).

(…)

An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.

Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report (see “New Zealand NIWA temperature train wreck” on the Watts Up With That science blog, WUWT, which has played a leading role in exposing such fiddling of the figures).

(…)

One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.

James Delingpole skriver også om det i Spectator. Som en af tvivlens medløbere vil jeg præsentere en 5 år gammel film (som jeg ikke har kunnet finde gratis førend nu).

Not Evil Just Wrong is a 2009 documentary film by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer that challenges Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth by suggesting that the evidence of global warming is inconclusive and that the impact global warming legislation will have on industry is much more harmful to humans than beneficial.

“FN drukner i kriser” hedder en artikel bag en betalingsmur på JP Premium. “Islamisk Stat, klimaændringerne, den dødsensfarlige ebolavirus, Ukraine, Irans atomprogram og fattigdom er blot nogle af emnerne på FN’s generalforsamling i denne uge”. Så nu må man altså prioritere.

Er det en krise at russerne tager lidt mere land? Ikke mere alvorlig end, hvad vi gør den til. Den er uæstetisk, javist, men vi har i Vesten allerede banet vejen med Kosovo affæren.

Ebola? Njah, hvor godt kan vi lukke grænserne? I den proces er FN jo modspilleren. Og vi kan i hvert fald ikke problematisere overbefolkning samtidig! Husk, at når Gud lukker en dør, åbner han et vindue.

Irans Atomprogram er et reelt problem, men vi trøster os med at det er Israel der står først for skud og så forekommer truslen mere som en mulighed. Måske derfor at Israelfordømmelse ikke bliver nævnt i denne omgang, men så er det jo godt at man altid har de Radikale og deres heroiske kamp for boykot og sanktioner mod den snart eneste stat i Mellemøsten der ikke er hensunket i vold og kaos.

Så tilbage står alle tiders store pseudoproblem, klimaet. Det koster ingen ting at sige der er noget galt med vejret, og hvis nogen mener der skal gøres noget er det ikke sværere end at pålægge produktionen nogle afgifter så den rykker til Kina i stedet. Det gør ingen reel forskel andet end at der bliver lidt flere bureaukrater og lidt færre arbejdere. Information forklarer om baggrunden for “People’s Climate March”

Efter de mørke og deprimerende decemberdage i Bella Center vendte mange FN-processen ryggen. De etablerede miljøorganisationer slikkede sårene og fokuserede på mere konkrete sager og kampagner, centrale skikkelser søgte helt bort fra den opslidende kamp, og mange af dem, der bidrog som aktivister eller gik med i de store klimademonstrationer, sagde: ’Det her er for hårdt, for surt og for udsigtsløst. Politikerne tror vi ikke længere på, nu må vi selv prøve at realisere løsningerne, selv skabe det bedre, bæredygtige liv’.

Ikke mindst Dan vi-har fem-år-til-at-redde-verden Jørgensen der nu er hensunket til mismod over danskernes spisevaner foran TV’et. Men den kreative inertis triumf er et minde blot og nu mobiliserer den kreative idioti nok engang masserne

Ud af dette voksede dagens mangfoldige, grænseoverskridende netværk af konkrete initiativer. Alle de fremadrettede projekter med at gøre byerne grønnere og mere klimavenlige, de lokale, økologiske fødevareproduktioner, eksperimenterne med bytte-, dele- og genbrugsøkonomier, de nye bofællesskaber med egen vedvarende energiforsyning, bestræbelserne på at formulere rammerne for en ny cirkulær økonomi etc.

Parallelt med disse eksperimenter i en bred, ny omstillingsbevægelse, er stærke kampagner mod klimaødelæggelsen vokset frem. Kampagnerne fra USA til Vendsyssel mod skifergas og ’fracking’, protesterne mod Keystone XL-rørledningen fra de canadiske tjæresandsforekomster, presset på pensionskasser og andre internationale investorer for at droppe fossile investeringer, kampagner mod olieudvinding i Arktis og mod nye kulkraftværker.

Og ud af dette brogede katalog af både skabende og protesterende initiativer synes nu at vokse en erkendelse af såvel nyt momentum for klimabevægelsen i bred forstand som af behovet for at påvirke det politiske niveau, hvor de overordnede rammer for udviklingen defineres.

I søndags gik så 400.000 mennesker på gaden verden over i protest mod alt muligt mere eller mindre klimarelateret. 100.000 i New York, med deltagelse af selveste Ban Ki-moon. Det venstredrejede Think Progress har samlet en billedserie, der ikke er i ond tro.

Det er desværre netop i forarbejdning af blandt andet vores mad at vi bruger energi, der får vores planet til at koge. Måske skulle man i stedet have skrevet ‘Don’t cook and keep cool!’

Det giver en særlig videnskabelig aura med sådan en hvid kittel, som foregik klimavidenskab i sterile laboratorier. Men hey, når man taler til fordomme… Som man kan se erklæres debatten ovre med en graf der viser en eksplosion af CO2 indholdet i atmosfæren samtidig med at alle bemærker ingen forskel. Det kan jeg skrive under på.

En vred 10-årig  med et underfundigt smil er bare svær at stå for. Men det er ikke blot de 10 årige der er fyldt med vrede kan The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow supplere

Jamen dog, de bliver ikke mildere med alderen. Det lidt mere højredrejede Reason satte stemmer på billederne

Men det er ikke kun små piger og gamle damer, der er vrede og rasende, der er en nedgroet del af venstrefløjens sentiment, skriver Modkraft

I en fælles udtalelse, der blev offentliggjort den 16. september, protesterer den internationale bondebevægelse La Via Campesina, franske ATTAC, amerikanske Grassroots Global Justice Alliance og 330 andre græsrodsorganisationer rundt om i verden mod de store selskabers indtog i klimaforhandlingerne og de initiativer baseret på offentlig-private partnerskaber og markedsmekanismer, som er på dagsordenen i New York.

I en fælles udtalelse plæderer de for systemforandring og foreslår 10 konkrete indsatsområder for at undgå klimakaos, herunder bindende krav for at holde den globale opvarmning under 1,5 grader.

Ifølge Geneviève Azam, talsperson for ATTAC i Frankrig »er klimaforhandlingerne domineret af uansvarlige stater, forurenere og selskaber, der kun er optagede af deres egne interesser, hvad enten det er ny udvinding af fossile brændsler, nye CO₂-markeder eller andre falske løsninger såsom industrielle agrobrændstoffer, som ødelægger skove, jordbund, vådområder, floder, mangrover og have«.

»Klimatopmødet i New York er stort opreklameret, men byder ikke på noget reelt, sammenhængende alternativ,« siger Carlos Marentes fra La Via Campesina. »Tværtimod fremmer det en række falske løsninger under etiketten ‘grøn økonomi’, f.eks. farlige teknovidenskabelige indgreb eller markedsmekanismer, der gør større skade end gavn.

The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) brugte dagen på at håne demonstranterne ved at flyve et banner med ‘Ingen global opvarmning i 17 år‘ over byen.

Hard facts and science have been sadly missing from this week’s New York global warming extravaganza. CFACT flew a needed reminder over New York that attributing natural weather events to climate change is pure propaganda.  Temperature data assembled by NASA, NOAA, the Met Office and others shows no meaningful warming since the nineties and very little before that.

Global warming is mainly a construct of climate computer models and those models consistently call for warming which has not occurred. Take a look at this comparison between the temperatures computer models project, and real world temperature data.  As Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville who works with NASA’s temperature satellite program, wrote, climate campaigners, “miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.”

Dagen efter indledte  Occupy Wall Street aktion “Flood Wall Street” i  et forsøg på at sikre lidt ’klima-retfærdighed’, skriver Modkraft

Op mod 3.000 mennesker demonstrerer mandag i finansdistriktet Wall Street i New York med et budsskab om at kapitalismen er den egentlige årsag til klimakrisen.

Demonstranterne ønskede, at skabe et ’menneskehav’ til at ’oversvømme’ området, har parolen #FloodWallStreet, og finder sted dagen inden FN-repræsentanter og politiske ledere fra hele verden mødes til topmøde i byen.

“I København deltog omkring 1.000 mennesker søndag i en støtte-demonstration på Nytorv indkaldt af Avaaz – mange klædt i grønt.”

Daily Mail skriver at det videnskabelig tidsskrift Environmental Research Letters har forkastet en videnskabelig artikel fordi den såede tvivl om der herskende konsensus om menneskets katastrofale indflydelse på klimaet

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.

‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.

Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.

The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.

He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.

Bengtson tiltrådte den uafhængige tænketank Global Warming Policy Foundation, stiftet af den tidligere Thatcher minister Nigel Lawson. Tænketanken er i opposition til FNs Klimapanels konsensus og det har givet voldsomme reaktioner fra andre klimaforskere - en tysk fysiker kaldte det ligefrem et medlemskab af Ku Klux Klan. Og den slags var for voldsomt for den gamle mand, der trak sit medlemskab af tilbage, kunne man ligeledes læse i Daily Mail

In his resignation letter, published on the think-tank’s website, he wrote: ‘If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety.

‘I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life.

‘Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

‘I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.

Lord Lawson, the former Tory Chancellor condemned the behaviour as ‘appalling’ and said the reference to ‘McCarthyism’ was ‘fully warranted’.

Judith Curry fandt det sørgeligt, med dette seneste eksempel på at klimakonsensus forsvarer position med en mobbekultur

I deeply regret that any scientist, particularly such a distinguished scientist as Bengsston, has had to put up with these attacks.  This past week, we have seen numerous important and enlightening statements made by Bengtsson about the state of climate science and policy, and science and society is richer for this.  We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails.

Rupert Darwall er ganske enig i McCathyisme sammenligning, men konkluderer anderledes Ghandisk i National Review at det er tegn på sammenbrud

Especially significant was a tweet from Gavin Schmidt, a leading climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute, who for many years worked alongside James Hansen. “Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community,” Schmidt tweeted. “Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.”

Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test. It is an extraordinarily revealing development. Fears about unbelievers’ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself.

Inadvertently Schmidt’s tweet demonstrates how far climate science has crossed the boundary deep into pseudo-science. Karl Popper observed of the trio of pseudo-sciences prevalent in 1920s Vienna that their followers could explain why non-believers rejected their manifest truths. For Marxists, it was because of their class interests. For subscribers to Freudian psychoanalysis and Alfred Adler’s psychology, non-belief was evidence of unanalyzed repressions crying out for treatment. So it is with climate science. Only the pure of heart should be allowed an opinion on it.

Science regresses if it becomes intolerant of criticism.

Jeg er enig med Darwall, men det har jeg været længe uden at noget er brudt sammen. Marc Morano har samlet et par af det mobberi der længe har været standard

NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

A 2008 report found that ‘climate blasphemy’ is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to ‘shut down’ climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing.

Below are many more examples of the threats, name calling and intimidation skeptics have faced in recent times.

November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” Yvo de Boer’s comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.

September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: ‘I was told that I could not speak in public’ Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,” Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. “It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.” (LINK)

Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.

Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?

October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility’ to combat global warming skepticism – Australian Herald Sun – Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google’s Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, “giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians” is, and I quote, “a bad idea.” Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog…

November 5, 2008: UK Scientist: ‘BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE’ – UK Daily Express

Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007)

Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”

Alligevel har jeg trods den langsomme udvikling, med sprække på sprække i klimapanelets panser en tiltro til at deres imperium braser sammen. Ja, det går meget langsommere end mine klimadebat modeller har forudset, men min tiltro til deres prognoser er kun stigende.

Nick Cohen har et herligt rablende indlæg i Guardian. Klimabenægterne, der beskrives som “cultish fanatics“, drevet af et af had til venstrefløjsere og sympati for markedskræfter har nemlig vundet kampen om klimaet stik mod al fornuft

The Royal Society, the Royal Institution, Nasa, the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Geological Survey, the IPCC and the national science bodies of 30 or so other countries have said that man-made climate change is on the march. A survey of 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in the last 20 years found that 97% said that humans were causing it.

Der er med andre ord, “no scientific debate” om den snarlige katastrofe: “Man-made global warming and the man-made mass extinction of species define this hot, bloody and (let us hope) brief epoch in the world’s history“, ”The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz.“

Faktisk er der en debat helt inde i kernen af FNs konsensus, som man forleden kunne læse om i ellers så klima alarmistiske Economist. De 15-17 års manglende opvarmning af atmosfæren, der, uanfægtet af usikkerhed, er døbt “the Pause”, bortforklares ved antagelser om ekstra partikler i atmosfæren især fra øget vulkanaktivitet, lavere sol-aktivitet og at oceanerne diskret har optaget den ekstra varme fra atmosfæren. Et enestående sammenfald af omstændigher der tegner et falsk billede af normalitet. Som Economist formulerer det, så er ‘pausen’ gået fra at være uforklarlig til at være overforklaret

Der er heller ikke, som Cohen eller er overbevist om, den store frygt hos klimapanelet for at lidt bedre vejr vil føre til “mass extinction” - dyr og planter er sejere end som så.

Den officielle ‘pause’ var altså uforudset, der hersker uenighed om dens årsager, hvilket vil sige at der ikke eksisterer et nagelfast konsensus om klimaet og konsekvenserne af en global opvarmning er alligevel ikke problematiske. Alligevel mener Cohen at det er skeptikerne der lider af ‘kognitiv dissonans’…

…a condition first defined by Leon Festinger and his colleagues in the 1950s . They examined a cult that had attached itself to a Chicago housewife called Dorothy Martin. She convinced her followers to resign from their jobs and sell their possessions because a great flood was to engulf the earth on 21 December 1954. They would be the only survivors. Aliens in a flying saucer would swoop down and save the chosen few.

When 21 December came and went, and the Earth carried on as before, the group did not despair. Martin announced that the aliens had sent her a message saying that they had decided at the last minute not to flood the planet after all. Her followers believed her. They had given up so much for their faith that they would believe anything rather than admit their sacrifices had been pointless.

Og hvis det skulle forholde sig så ironisk, at det er Cohen selv, der lider af kognitiv dissonans, så ville det jo også forklare, hvorfor han heller ikke kan se det ironiske i at lancere en konspirationsteori, som forklaring på andres konspirationsteorier

Rightwing billionaires in the United States and the oil companies have spent fortunes on blocking action on climate change. A part of the answer may therefore be that conservative politicians in London, Washington and Canberra are doing their richest supporters’ bidding. There’s truth in the bribery hypothesis. In my own little world of journalism, I have seen rightwing hacks realise the financial potential of denial and turn from reasonable men and women into beetle-browed conspiracy theorists.

I september 2009 udkom bogen Climate Cover Up forfattet af James Hoggan og Richard Littemore, kun to måneder før afsløringen af Climategate. Bogen søger at beskrive en industrielt financieret og orkestreret krig mod klimavidenskaben med splid og dårlige beslutninger for øje. Således blev den omtalt på Desmogblog

Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industry’s own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation.

The success of those plans is self-evident. A Yale/George Mason University poll taken late in 2008 showed that — 20 years after President George H.W. Bush promised to beat the greenhouse effect with the “White House effect” — a clear majority of Americans still say they either doubt the science of climate change or they just don’t know. Climate Cover-Up explains why they don’t know. Tracking the global warming denial movement from its inception, public relations advisor James Hoggan (working with journalist Richard Littlemore), reveals the details of those early plans and then tracks their execution, naming names and exposing tactics in what has become a full-blown attack on the integrity of the public conversation.

Leveraging four years of original research conducted through Hoggan’s website, DeSmogBlog.com, Hoggan and Littlemore documented the participation of lapsed scientists and ExxonMobil-funded think tanks. Then they analyzed and explained how mainstream media stood by — or in some cases colluded — while deniers turned a clear issue of science (and an issue for public safety) into a partisan argument that no one could win.

This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end the Climate Cover-up.

Hvordan er det så gået med denne misinformationskampagne? Ikke så godt ifølge denne overskrift i Wall Street Journalsom nok skulle sende Climate Cover Ups forfattere roligt i seng: “Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming All 92 Times”

Recent years’ slowdown in global warming completely ignored by networks 92 climate change stories in 2013.

Stories citing experts or the latest studies promoting alarmism get covered more than 8 times as often as critical experts and studies.

Although many scientists say no, ABC, CBS and NBC continue to link weather events like tornadoes, hurricanes, heat waves and more to climate change nearly one-fourth of the time.

President Barack Obama’s new climate change initiative will purportedly share “a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change and lead global efforts to fight it.” Although he intends to demand action, most Americans do not see climate change as a “major threat,” according to Pew Research.

The Washington Post reported Obama will include “a plan to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from existing power plants.” That’s an agenda item the media will love. It was just a month ago when CBS “This Morning” interviewed Time magazine senior writer Jeffrey Kluger on May 11 who said “we have to curb the use of fossil fuels.”

No doubt the broadcast networks will cheer the president’s efforts, since they’ve spent years warning of the threat of climate change, even in the face of science that challenges their view. This year they’ve worried about many things including “raging infernos, surging seas, howling winds,” reported alarmist claims that weren’t accurate and connected weather to climate when scientists disagree. The networks have also completely ignored the “lull” in warming in recent years, in all 92 stories about climate change they reported in 2013.

Skeptisk oplysning er indtil videre henvist til avisernes kommentatorer og blogs, men der vinder de også stadigt mere frem som FN’s Klimapanels spådomme tager sig stadigt mere pinlige ud.

Jeg har taget alle uddragne af anmeldelserne af Climate Cover Up med thi man ved jo ikke, hvor længe man vil vedstå sig dem. Og så er de også ganske morsomme.

“Climate Cover-Up documents one of the most disgusting stories ever hidden about corporate disinformation. What you’ll discover in this book amounts to proof of an intergenerational crime.”
DAVID SUZUKI, Author of The Sacred Balance and Good News for a Change.

“This book explains how the propaganda generated by self-interest groups has purposely created confusion about climate change. It’s an imperative read for a successful future.”
LEONARDO DICAPRIO, Actor and Producer

“To those of us who have been unknowingly made to turn a blind eye to the terrifying and true facts about global warming, there’s no time left for ignorance. Please read this shocking and incredible book, learn how we’ve been manipulated, get angry and take action.”
NEVE CAMPBELL, Actor and Producer

“A clear and courageous battle cry against those who, for profit’s sake, would lead us to environmental and, ultimately, economic ruin.”
LESTER BROWN, Author of Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization

“An exposé of planetary scale.”
JAMES E. HANSEN, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

“Forget about the crime of the century – this probably qualifies as the crime of the geological epoch.”
BILL MCKIBBEN, Author of Deep Economy and The End of Nature

“A compelling, sometimes chilling explanation of how public safety has been sacrificed on the altar of private interest.”
CHRIS MOONEY, Author of The Republican War on Science

“Absolutely superb – one of the best dissections of the climate misinformation I have ever seen. This is one terrific piece of work!”
ROSS GELBSPAN, Author of The Heat Is On

“Through impeccably document analysis, Climate Cover-Up exposes the well-oiled propaganda campaign designed to manufacture dissent and uncertainty about the science of global warming. It is essential reading for anyone who cares about the future of democracy.”
ANDREW WEAVER, Author of Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World

“An important and disturbing book about the lies and corrupt language that government and industry still employ to dismiss the facts on global warming.”
ANDREW NIKIFORUK, Author of Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent

“Climate Cover-Up reveals how strategic corporate public relations, an unwitting media, and feckless scientists have created a rhetoric-driven public conversation that defies logic and reason. If you are interested in positive social change on climate issues, this book is a must-read.”
FRANKLIN D. GILLIAM JR, Dean, School of Public Affairs and Professor of Public Policy and Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles

“Jim Hoggan in this essential book illuminates our folly, even as he points a way forward with hope.”
WADE DAVIS, Author of The Serpent and the Rainbow

“Climate Cover-Up clears the way for a new era of honesty and climate progress.”
TZEPORAH BERMAN, Campaign Director and Founder, Forest Ethics

“If you want the full, detailed story of the manufactured opposition to climate science and climate action, look no further than James Hoggan’s comprehensive and compelling Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (Greystone, 2009). It’s the real story on climate change and the media, with footnotes.”
ALEX STEFFEN, World Changing

“Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a remarkable deconstruction of what he argues is a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign whose goal is to set the agenda in climate policy by discrediting legitimate science and manipulating public perceptions of the scientific evidence…I have no doubt that Climate Cover-up is going to stir up controversy, particularly in the United States where many of these strategies were deployed and fine-tuned.”
STEPHEN HUME, Vancouver Sun

“Climate Cover-Up should be as big and influential as the Hidden Persuaders was; it exposes how truth gets twisted, how lies become opinions worthy of editorial pages, how Exxon greases the whole process.”
LLOYD ALTER, Tree Hugger

“Hoggan’s must-read book describes in disturbing detail the well-oiled campaign to confuse the public and confound the science, creating enough doubt to thwart meaningful action and protect a world economic order built around the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas.”
TYLER HAMILTON, Toronto Star

“This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end the Climate Cover-up.”
Smokersinfo.net

“Hoggan’s book is a thoughtful and sustained exposure of a movement which has done great harm. I read it with close interest and shared his dismay. I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand how denial has had such a charmed run. His presentation is painstaking and reasonable. There’s nothing shrill about it, and his justifiable anger is relatively muted.”
CELSIAS, Clean Techies

““The writing is a well-researched investigation into the continuing fabrication of the defence of Climate Change “scepticism”, which amounts to a long narrative of invention, first of outright denial of the science of Global Warming, then of foot-dragging delay being urged on all Governments.”
Jo Abbess

“Climate Cover-Up is an example of anger channeled into real, sharp, relevant and useful work.”
MO BEITIKS, Inhabit

“Climate Cover-Up is an indispensable guidebook to anyone concerned about our planet’s climate future; in fact, it should be required reading for all American citizens, journalists, public policy makers — and President Barack Obama.”
JEFF BIGGERS, Huffington Post

“James Hoggan’s new book Climate Cover-Up (Greystone Books) is a must-read for anyone concerned about the biggest, most pervasive effort ever at manipulating the media by some of the world’s largest and most powerful corporations.”
BILL TIELMAN, The Tyee

“Hoggan and Littlemore have produced a cracking book that, while it may not actually fix anything in itself, provides a valuable lesson about a noxious set of practices — practices that still persist, but which now can be better understood and suitably dealt with. Use this as an ideal primer in the world of Climate Change Denial, but choose your own actions: it’s your world.”
KEITH, Unsuitablog

“In brief, this is a must-read book. I’ve read a lot of climate/energy books over the past couple of years (trying to glean how to get the message across to the public); this is one of the two best books on the subject you will find, even if you aren’t involved in the issue at all. “
Consider it required reading for anyone remotely interested in a livable climate, or defending public interest from industry. Although, fair warning: You will probably be angry (or angrier) at the status quo after reading this. It certainly makes me want to take a stronger stand than before… maybe I can find a way to link studies of PR and denialism into my grad studies…”
BRIAN D, Left as an Excercise

“This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end the Climate Cover-up. This is a must-read book.”
Climate Progress

“This book isn’t some silly bit of finger-waving by activists, but a concise, well-researched (thanks in large part to my friend, Kevin Grandia) piece of journalism by people who have been immersed in the PR industry for decades.”
HARRY TOURNEMILLE, The Threshold

“James Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a valuable expose of the efforts that have been made by self-interested actors to prevent political action on climate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the science….Climate Cover-Up succeeds in its key purpose: revealing that not everyone is engaging in the climate debate in an honest or ethical manner.”
A Sibilant Intake of Breath

“His new book, Climate Cover-Up, examines the campaign from this perspective and…through meticulously documented analysis, lays out the deliberate, nefarious, and immoral campaign to manipulate the public discourse on climate change.”
BEN JERVEY, Tree Hugger

“Warning: reading their well-documented book may make you angry, when you realize how much you’ve been lied to, about one of the most important issues of our time.”
Little Green Footballs

“Climate Cover-Up is substantially easier to read than most books about climate change. The prose is witty and easy to follow. It doesn’t talk about science. It feels nothing like a textbook.  I’d like everyone in the world to read this book. But truthfully, I’d rather that it hadn’t needed to be written at all.”
Climatesight

“Climate Cover-Up, the fascinating, funny and beautifully-written new book by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore.”
GEORGE MONBIOT, Idiots in Power

“Their new book is a chilling description of greed, conflicts of interest and the oil and coal industries’ shenanigans; it picks up where other books, like Ross Gelbspan’s “The Heat Is On” (1997) and “Boiling Point” (2004), left off.”
Truth Out

“The book does a very thorough job of documenting the history of sometimes despicable attempts by various vested interests and contrarians to discredit climate science.”
Biodiversivist

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/news-media-networks-report-global-warming-92-times-versus-global-pause-zero-times/

Der er Earth Day, her på et eller andet tidspunkt. Washington Post skriver

The first Earth Day in 1970 is credited as launching the environmental movement and the idea of global warming. In 2012, the planet is in terrible trouble, and so is the environmental movement.

Global warming projections from thirty years ago have proved to have been remarkably accurate. Yet, there has been a steady decline in the number of Americans who say they see solid evidence of global warming.

A famous climate scientist like James Hansen, the lead author of the 1981 report, now feels he needs to get arrested in order to draw attention to what is happening to the planet and our legislative inaction about it. As much as that is an admirable, personal witness by a scientist, his reliance on charts and projections alone is not enough to counter the disinformation campaigns by so called “climate deniers.” Nor is the continued use of the term global warming.

“Global warming” is far too benign a term for the kind of violent and erratic climate change events that are now becoming commonplace in the U.S. as well as around the world. Global warming doesn’t sound like a condition that will result in the destruction of livelihood, home, perhaps even family or life. But these are effects of what is now happening to our planet.

Se, der er stadig mennesker, der er stærke i troen. Og en tro, det er det, som Alan Caruba skrev i 2011

Anyone who has been paying any attention to the environmental movement has got to have concluded it is insane.

• While the United States stands poised on defaulting on its ever-growing debt—the highest in the nation’s history;

• While wars and insurrections are waged in the Middle East, across northern Africa, and in the Ivory Coast;

• While Japan struggles to deal with a major earthquake and nuclear plant meltdown;

• While Islam wages terrorism worldwide, and

• While European nations attempt to deal with their own financial crisis, the environmentalists—Greens—engage in the most absurd frauds and nonsense since the Dark Ages.

(…)

We are only now recovering from the greatest fraud of the modern era, “global warming.” The United States wasted an estimated $50 billion on so-called scientific research, all of which existed for the purpose of advancing this hoax. It is rarely mentioned any more except for its fraudulent new name, “climate change.”

As we approach April 22nd, designated “Earth Day”, it would be well to recall that it is the birthday of Vladimir Illich Lenin, a devotee of Karl Marx and a man who plunged Russia into more than seventy years of Communism until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Environmentalism, worldwide and in the United States of America, is devoted to the collapse of every scientific and technological advance of the past century, along with the capitalist system that made them possible.

Ikke alene det, men det er udtryk for et grundlæggende had til andre mennesker. Newsbusters har samlet en top 25 over spektakulære Earth Dag udtalelser og jeg vil hæfte mig ved nr. 8

“Today, life on Earth is disappearing faster than the days when dinosaurs breathed their last, but for a very different reason….Us homo sapiens are turning out to be as destructive a force as any asteroid. Earth’s intricate web of ecosystems thrived for millions of years as natural paradises, until we came along, paved paradise, and put up a parking lot. Our assault on nature is killing off the very things we depend on for our own lives….The stark reality is that there are simply too many of us, and we consume way too much, especially here at home….It will take a massive global effort to make things right, but the solutions are not a secret: control population, recycle, reduce consumption, develop green technologies.”

— NBC’s Matt Lauer hosting Countdown to Doomsday, a two-hour June 14, 2006 Sci-Fi Channel special.

Alan Caruba giver en række citater fra de glade 70′ere

As Earth Day 2012 occurs on Sunday,  April 22, I offer a selection of quotes from leading figures in the environmental movement that are worth reading so that you can draw your own conclusions.

In 1970, the first Earth Day generated the following quotes:

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” - George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” - Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” - New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” - Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” - Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day in 1970.

Truth meant (and means) little to environmentalists.

“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-CO)

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

Earth Day er ikke Jorden tro.

De seneste par årtier har konsensus om klimaet været at vi har oplevet en global opvarmning uden fortilfælde (unprecedented). Beviserne har været ubetvivlelige (unequivocal) og uomtvistelige (incontrovertible). Men konsensus er et politisk ord der dækker over enighed ved kompromis og global opvarmning har derfor mest været en social konstruktion. Og den globale  opvarmning som social konstruktion er nu er ændret til en ny normal, et nyt konsensus om at klimaet måske nok ikke opvarmes i nævneværdig grad på grund af noget som vi driftige mennesker foretager os. Spiegel skriver

Blumen blühen früher, die Meerespegel steigen - kein Zweifel, das Klima hat sich verändert. Das letzte Jahr, so berichtet die Nasa, war das neuntwärmste seit Beginn der Messungen vor 132 Jahren. Das vergangene Jahrzehnt war sogar das wärmste in dieser Zeitspanne; der langfristige Trend zeigt also nach oben.

Doch längst hat sich herumgesprochen, dass sich das Klima zuletzt anders entwickelt hat als vorhergesagt: Seit 15 Jahren stockt die Erwärmung, der Aufwärtstrend der globalen Durchschnittstemperatur hat sich seit 1998 nicht fortgesetzt. “Der Stillstand hat zu der Annahme geführt, die globale Erwärmung habe aufgehört”, räumt die Nasa ein.

Das britische Met Office prognostiziert sogar neuerdings, dass sich die Temperaturpause auf hohem Niveau bis Ende 2017 fortsetzen könnte - trotz des rapide zunehmenden Ausstoßes von Treibhausgasen. Dann hätte die globale Erwärmung 20 Jahre pausiert. Wie viele Jahre, so lautet eine mittlerweile häufig gestellte Frage, müsste die Temperatur denn noch stocken, bis Klimaforscher ihre Prognosen einer künftigen Erwärmung überdenken?

Ja, det er tysk, men der står noget i retning af at temperaturen ikke er steget i 15 år. Spiegel delagtigør også deres undrende læsere i grunden til den udbredte men fejlagtige opfattelse af at klimaet forandrer sig, nemlig de mange klimamodeller, der i overdreven tiltro til egne evner regner af sporet på basis af en fejlagtig teori.

Das Stocken der Erwärmung in den vergangenen Jahren bleibt zwar rätselhaft. Über zwei Jahrzehnte gesehen jedoch habe die Temperatur ziemlich exakt jenen Sprung gemacht, den Simulationen im Jahr 1999 vorhergesehen hätten, schreiben Myles Allen von der Oxford University und seine Kollegen. Die globale Durchschnittstemperatur der vergangenen zehn Jahre liege ein Viertelgrad über der durchschnittlichen Temperatur zwischen 1986 bis 1996. Solch ein Anstieg war in einer Prognose 1999 erwartet worden, berichten die Forscher. Die Erwärmung stockt nun zwar - aber eben auf vergleichsweise hohem Niveau.

Die Studie scheint geeignet, das Vertrauen in Klimamodelle zu stärken, meinen die Klimatologen. Auch wenn kurzfristiges Auf-und-Ab nicht vorhergesagt werden könnte, scheinen längerfristige Trends gut dargestellt zu werden.

Allerdings bleibt die Frage, für welche Klimamodelle der Erfolg zutrifft: Allens Prognose von 1999 zeigte einen moderaten Temperaturanstieg, drastischere Szenarien hingegen sind bislang nicht eingetroffen. Deshalb hegen manche Forscher nun die Hoffnung, allzu pessimistische Klimaprognosen könnten falsch sein.

Lennart Bengtsson gilt als zurückhaltender Klimaforscher. Nun aber wendet sich der ehemalige Direktor des Max-Planck-Instituts für Meteorologie mit einem aufrüttelnden Aufsatz an die Öffentlichkeit, in dem er auf erhebliche Wissenslücken und unerklärliche Klimaentwicklungen hinweist.

Im Blog Die Klimazwiebel diagnostiziert er angesichts der Zunahme des CO2-Treibhauseffektes um 80 Prozent seit dem Ende des 19. Jahrhundert “einen sehr gemäßigten Anstieg” der globalen Temperatur. Ebenso verblüffend sei, dass sich ausgerechnet die tropische Luft seit Beginn der Satellitenmessungen 1979 kaum erwärmt habe. Dabei sagen Klimaprognosen für die Region den stärksten Temperaturanstieg vorher - gewaltige Mengen Wasserdampf sollten den Treibhauseffekt dort eigentlich verstärken. “Es gibt keine einfache Erklärung dafür, außer dass der Planet sich der Hitze effektiver entledigen kann, als von den Modellen erwartet wird”, schreibt Bengtsson.

Möglich sei, dass Wolkenbildung die Erwärmung stärker bremse als erwartet. Es könnte auch sein, dass der verstärkte Treibhauseffekt überbewertet werde, weil nicht so viel Wasserdampf in die Luft gelange, wie angenommen wurde. Womöglich lande ein Gutteil der Wärmeenergie aber auch in der Tiefsee. “Wie auch immer”, resümiert der emeritierte Klimaforscher, “die globale Erwärmung schreitet deutlich langsamer voran als erwartet.” Es gebe folglich Hoffnung, dass der Klimawandel weniger dramatisch verlaufe als vermutet.

The Economist, som ellers har dyrket den globale opvarmning nidkært demonstrerer ligeledes en gryende nuancering

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.

For Power Line’s Steven Hayward er der tale om et slutspil

The problem for the climateers is increasingly dire.  As The Economist shows in its first chart (Figure 1 here), the recent temperature record is now falling distinctly to the very low end of its predicted range and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, that there’s something going on that supposedly “settled” science hasn’t been able to settle.  Equally problematic for the theory, one place where the warmth might be hiding—the oceans—is not cooperating with the story line.  Recent data show that ocean warming has noticeably slowed, too, as shown in Figure 2 here.

While climateers continue to beat the drum that each year is among the hottest since Satan opened his first furnace at Hades Hostel for Hapless Heathens, there has been an embarrassed silence, if not outright denial (heh), that temperatures have flattened out over the last 15 years.  Now even the leading climateers can’t maintain a straight face over this any more, as The Economist notes in its lede:

Ed Rodgers har også læst The Economist og aner det nye lys på vegne af Washington Post’s læsere i sin konstatering af at

…the globe is not getting warmer — or at least, it hasn’t in the last 15 years. As the March 30 print edition of The Economist reported, “Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.”

Fakta er fakta og nu er fakta ikke længere et uartigt ord. Faktum er, at den globale temperatur ikke er steget i 15 år (17, hvis man spørger jernbaneentusiasten og lummergøjen Rajendra Panchauri, formand for FN’s klimapanel), stik mod, hvad vi ellers har fået at vide. Det ene faktum vil trække det andet med sig og gamle stridigheder vil blive set i et nyt lys. Climategate f.eks. Hvad var det egentlig klimapanelets mest centrale forskere talte om internt? Hvilken viden sad de inde med, hvilke data ville de ikke dele med offentligheden, ja så endda hellere slette dem! Hvorledes lagde de pres på genstridige redaktører, forskere og debatørere? Og hvorledes kunne de blive hvidvasket i de efterfølgende høringer? Og hvorfor består 1/3 af klimapanelets digre rapporter af grå litteratur (ikke peer-reviewed). Og hvor meget har klimacirkusset kostet? Hvorledes kunne det ske, hvem er ansvarlige - og skal der være et juridisk efterspil? Det får vente lidt endnu, men ikke så længe.

Indtil videre er erkendelsen af at FN’s klimapanel blot har taget spekltakulært fejl ved at indfinde sig og det også hos Telegraphs ellers klimapeltro Geoffrey Lean der  stille har forladt det gamle konsensus og tilsluttet sig det nye.

All right, I accept that this Arctic April may seem an incongruous time to address global warming. But there are important, and possibly hopeful, developments in the complex, contentious world of climate science that might finally give us all a sense of spring. For some recent research suggests that climate change might not be as catastrophic as the gloomiest predictions suggest.

The research, moreover, comes at a time when many experts are beginning to despair that warming can be prevented from running out of control. Six weeks ago, for example, Prof Sir Robert Watson – the deeply respected former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – said he believed the world had now missed its chance to keep the average rise in global temperature to less than 2C – the level at which dangerous effects are thought inevitable. But if the new research is right, it might be held below this ominous threshold after all, if determined worldwide action is taken.

Prediction, as they say, is tough, especially when it’s about the future – and that’s especially true when it comes to the climate, whose complexity we only partially understand. It is, as we all know, naturally immensely variable. And the effect of human intervention is subject to long timelags: it will be decades, even centuries, before the full consequences of today’s emissions of carbon dioxide become clear.

Skoen er virkeligt i den anden hånd, hvor bukserne ligger begravet. Rich Lowry vil have sproget brugt rigtigt i New York Post

There are few things sadder than the “climate denier.” He ignores the data and neglects the latest science. His rhetoric and policy proposals are dangerously disconnected from reality. He can’t recalibrate to take account of the latest evidence because, well, he’s a denier.

The new climate deniers are the liberals who, despite their obsession with climate change, have managed to miss the biggest story in climate science, which is that there hasn’t been any global warming for about a decade and a half.

“Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar,” The Economist magazine writes. “The world added roughly 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, no more warming.

Forbes‘ Harry Biswanger havde set frem til global opvarmning så han slap for vintrene i sit elskede New York, som han er for doven til at forlade for lidt godt vejr

So where’s the warming? Where are the gondolas pulling up to the Capitol? Where are the encroaching seas in Florida? Or anywhere? Where is the climate change which, for 33 years, has been just around the corner?

A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you can’t point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I don’t know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.

Ja, hvor er den globale opvarmning? Kevin Trentberth forsøger at give et svar ved at redefinere global opvarmning til at betyde alt andet end temperatur, som han forklarer WKZO

“Global warming is continuing but it’s being manifested in somewhat different ways,” said Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. Warming can go, for instance, to the air, water, land or to melting ice and snow.

Warmth is spreading to ever deeper ocean levels, he said, adding that pauses in surface warming could last 15-20 years.

Trentberth’s desperate forsøg på at redde æren lidt i land via lidt videnskabsbavl er en dødssejler. Hvis ikke vi kan erfare den globale temperaturstigning er den hensat til et rent akademisk studie for hele debatten har kun, ene og alene, eksklusivt og solitært handlet om katastrofale konsekvenser. Det har aldrig været en debat som en akademisk fornøjelse. Som Biswanger skriver

…I’ve grown old waiting for the promised global warming. I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering. Now I’m 68, and there’s still no sign of warmer weather. It’s enough to make one doubt the “settled science” of the government-funded doom-sayers.

Det er slutspillet, der er startet (sælg jeres Vestas aktier!).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erkendelsen af at den globale temperatur ikke er steget de seneste 15 års tid spreder sig for tiden. Det største tyskspogede nyhedsmagasin Der Spiegel havde i ugens løb en større artikel om ‘pausen’ i opvarmingen. Spiegels artikel giver mulighed for den etablerede videnskab at komme med sine bud på, hvorfor temperaturen er stoppet med at stige, men den slår fast at det nu er gængs viden. Man kalder det forsigtigt en pause for at holde liv i drømmen om katastrofen, der kan stoppe kapitalismen. Morfar er ikke død, han sover bare. Her er et uddrag fra Global Warming Policy Foundations oversættelse af Spiegels artikel, Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung.

Flowers are blooming earlier, sea level is rising – no doubt the climate is changing. The last year, as reported by NASA, was the ninth warmest since measurements began 132 years ago. The past decade was the warmest in this period.

But it has become common knowledge for some time that the climate has recently developed differently than predicted. The warming has stalled for 15 years; the upward trend in the average global temperature has not continued since 1998 (sic). “The standstill has led to the suggestion that global warming has stopped,” NASA admit.

The British Met Office has recently forecast that the warming standstill could continue until the end of 2017 – despite the rapid increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Then global warming would have stalled for 20 years. How many years – goes a now common question – has the temperature standstill to last until climate scientists start to reconsider their forecasts of future warming?

IPCC meeting

Scientists previously thought 14 years without further warming could be brought into line with their forecasts – but not “15 years or more,” as NASA scientists stated four years ago in the journal “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society”. In an email to colleagues a renowned scientist wrote on 7 May 2009, at a time when the warming standstill had already lasted for eleven years: “the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”

Now, 15 years without warming has happened. The warming standstill of the global surface temperature shows that the uncertainties of climate predictions are surprisingly large. The interested public anxiously awaits whether the IPCC’s new Assessment Report, which is due in September, will address the warming pause – the discussions are ongoing in Australia’s Hobart. The researchers are discussing several cogent reasons that might have slowed the upward trend of temperatures.

Den store diskussion om årsagerne til den manglende opvarmning afslører først og fremmest at diskussionen ikke er død, som det ellers var blevet så populært at hævde. Det er væsentligt for klimapanelets rapporter gjorde to ord uhyre populære blandt deres tilhængere i medier, det politiske univers, forskere, virksomheder og organisationer, nemlig unequivocal og unprecedented, ubetvivleligt og uden fortilfælde. Begge dele er altså forkert og de der har troet og sagt sådan har taget fejl, ikke deres kritikere. Autoriteten er udhulet. Nu engagerer de sig så modvilligt i den svære balancegang at placere skylden for den manglende opvarmning på den natur de hvædede at vide mere end rigeligt om uden også at tillæge den æren for den opvarmning som har været i gang siden lille istid. for jo mere Naturen kan have hæmmet varmen jo mere tiltror man den også selv at stå bag.

Tilbagetoget sker på flere fronter blandt eksperterne. Et norsk forskerhold har med statens velsignelse (den der betaler orkestret bestemmer jo også musikken) cumputersimuleret sig frem til at klimaets undergang sker væsentligt mere behersket end FN’s klimapanel ellers har simuleret sig frem til. Express skriver

GLOBAL warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the 3.5C predicted by the Intergovern­mental Panel on Climate Change.

The Norwegian study says earlier predictions were based on rapid warming in the Nineties. But Oslo University’s department of geosciences included data since 2000 when temperature rises “levelled off nearly completely”.

Professor Terje Berntsen said: “The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the ­Nineties. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity. We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming.” He insisted, though, that his study did not justify “complacency” about human-induced global warming.

Den store konklusion er igen at diskussionen er vidt åben, at forskerne ikke er sikre i deres sag, ensige enige. Imens i England vejrer den næste generation af politikere da også morgenluft. London’s borgmester Boris Johnson kaster menigmands godtkøbsbetragtninger i spil i Telegraph og positionernerer sig til fremtidens opgør med de, der er mest syltet ind i fortidens dogmatik

…I am sitting here staring through the window at the flowerpot and the bashed-up barbecue, and I am starting to think this series of winters is not a coincidence. The snow on the flowerpot, since I have been staring, has got about an inch thicker. The barbecue is all but invisible. By my calculations, this is now the fifth year in a row that we have had an unusual amount of snow; and by unusual I mean snow of a kind that I don’t remember from my childhood: snow that comes one day, and then sticks around for a couple of days, followed by more.

I remember snow that used to come and settle for just long enough for a single decent snowball fight before turning to slush; I don’t remember winters like this. Two days ago I was cycling through Trafalgar Square and saw icicles on the traffic lights; and though I am sure plenty of readers will say I am just unobservant, I don’t think I have seen that before. I am all for theories about climate change, and would not for a moment dispute the wisdom or good intentions of the vast majority of scientists.

But I am also an empiricist; and I observe that something appears to be up with our winter weather, and to call it “warming” is obviously to strain the language. I see from the BBC website that there are scientists who say that “global warming” is indeed the cause of the cold and snowy winters we seem to be having.

(…)

I am speaking only as a layman who observes that there is plenty of snow in our winters these days, and who wonders whether it might be time for government to start taking seriously the possibility — however remote — that Corbyn is right. If he is, that will have big implications for agriculture, tourism, transport, aviation policy and the economy as a whole. Of course it still seems a bit nuts to talk of the encroachment of a mini ice age.

But it doesn’t seem as nuts as it did five years ago. I look at the snowy waste outside, and I have an open mind.

Og nu er det altså også legitimt at sætte ord på sit åbne sind.

Forrige uge bød på endnu et slag i klimadebatten og endnu et nederlag til det man kunne kalde FN-sporet, nemlig ideen om at klimaet bliver ulideligt varmt på grund at noget vi her i Vesten foretager os. I 2009 skrev klimaforskeren Phil Jones i en intern e-mail til sine kollegaer

“Bottom line - the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. We’re really counting this from about 2004/5 and not 1998. 1998 was warm due to the El Nino.”

Phil Jones var manden der udarbejdede PN’s klimapanels temperaturkurver, den øverste autoritet på klodens tilstand. At Jones vælger 2004/5 at regne ud fra for at udskyde det truende (han vil bekymre sig, hvis der ikke er en “klimakrise”!) nederlag til CO2 postulatet er underordnet den pointe at 15 år er en trend, altså en tidsperiode der er lang nok til at den definerer en virkelighed. Med andre er 15 år uden opvarmning nok til at begrave tesen om en CO2 genereret global opvarmning ude af kontrol. Og det er bekymrende når man nu lige gik og håbede…

Det citat blev lystigt citeret på ‘klimaskeptiske’ blogs sidste år da den engelske avis Daily Mail oplyste at der ikke havde været nogen opvarmning af atmosfæren i de seneste 15 år. Yderligere legede de med tanken om en nært forestående lille istid eller i det mindste et mindre fald i den globale temperatur i det kommende årtier

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

Om det falder så trist ud afhænger selvfølgelig af om forudsigelserne for Solens opførsel holder og om teorien overhovedet har noget på sig. Erfaringerne med skråsikre prognoser er jo ikke for gode. I forrige uge gentog Daily Mail så kunststykket og oplyste at vi nu er på 16′ende år uden opvarmning. “Global warming stopped 16 years ago” skrev Mail stolt “…and here is the chart to prove it”.

Mail skrev overivrigt at det var konklusionen på en rapport offentliggjort af MET, det engelske meteorologiske institut. Det var det ikke helt, for den slags kedelige nyheder om at verden alligevel ikke går under betler MET ikke til medierne af frygt for at det kan give folk et forkert opfattelse af virkeligheden. Grafen havde Mail selv lavet, men på baggrund af data diskret offentliggjort af MET. Og så var fanden løs. Og fanden skrev i vrede i Guardian “Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped”

The British newspaper the Mail on Sunday and its writer David Rose are notorious for publishing misleading (at best) climate-related articles, as we have discussed previously here, for example.  They have recently struck again, claiming that according to a “quietly released” Met Office report, global warming stopped 16 years ago (a myth which Skeptical Science debunks here and here).  This assertion is entirely fabricated, as the Met Office explained by publishing David Rose’s inquiry and the Met Office’s responses.

Og citerede MET’s benægtelse af at de overhovedet kunne finde på at offentliggøre en rapport der kunne sætte klimahysteriet i forlegenhed for at fortsætte

Rose’s factually challenged article was predictably reproduced uncritically by the usual climate denial blogs and referenced by Fox News, perhaps in an attempt to distract from this year’s record-breaking Arctic sea ice minimum.  However, virtually every point made in the article was factually incorrect, as Rose would have known if he were a Skeptical Science reader, because we recently pre-bunked his piece.

Denne skeptiske blog hoppede dog ikke med på Mail-vognen, men det var kun fordi jeg har været stærkt beruset hele efterårsferien. Guardians vrede blev affærdiget af atmosfærefysikeren Judith Curry. “Nothing in the Met Office’s statement or in Nuticelli’s argument effectively refutes Rose’s argument” konstaterede hun tørt og kom med en besk opfordring til hysterikerne: “Raise the level of your game“! På sin blog gennemgik hun argumenterne fra de stridende parter og konkluderede bl.a

Given that we are in the cool phase of the PDO and a strong El Nino is unlikely for the next decade, the plateau may continue for at least another decade. Latif has made this argument, whereas most other ‘establishment’ scientists seem either puzzled by the pause or don’t expect it to continue beyond the expected 15-17 year period.

And if the PDO and solar factors are sufficient in strength to counter the anthropogenic warming, then we need to ask the question as to how much of the warming in the 1980?s and 1990?s were ‘juiced’ by the warm PDO and transition from cool to warm AMO, plus a solar max.

With the IPCC focus on anthropogenic forcing, these other issues have received insufficient scrutiny.

Således videnskabeligt opmuntret fulgte Daily Mail forleden op med endnu en artikel, der måske vil holde debatten i live lidt endnu. Phil Jones kan altså godt være bekymret nu hans 15 års pause viser at “klimatruslen” ser ud til at være ubegrundet. Og deraf også den vrede reaktion på at simple fakta entrerer debatten og fortrænger anekdotiske fortællinger om isbjørne, ishav, gletsjere og vand i kælderen (det samme som man ser i indvandrerdebatten) Det er en debat ikke kan vinde for i kampen om det globale klima er det den globale temperatur, der er vinderargumentet. Uden stigninghar CO2 ingen større betydning og uden stigning forandrer klimaet sig ikke. Efter i ti år at have erklæret debatten for ovre ser de nederlaget tegne sig i horisonten.

I forrige måned kunne man i bl.a. University of Arizona News læse noget mildt sagt kontra-intuitivt: Computer-simuleringer bliver mere præcise jo længere ud i fremtiden de skal spå!

Climate-prediction models show skills in forecasting climate trends over time spans of greater than 30 years and at the geographical scale of continents, but they deteriorate when applied to shorter time frames and smaller geographical regions, a new study has found.

Published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, the study is one of the first to systematically address a longstanding, fundamental question asked not only by climate scientists and weather forecasters, but the public as well: How good are Earth system models at predicting the surface air temperature trend at different geographical and time scales?

Xubin Zeng, a professor in the University of Arizona department of atmospheric sciences who leads a research group evaluating and developing climate models, said the goal of the study was to bridge the communities of climate scientists and weather forecasters, who sometimes disagree with respect to climate change.

According to Zeng, who directs the UA Climate Dynamics and Hydrometeorology Center, the weather forecasting community has demonstrated skill and progress in predicting the weather up to about two weeks into the future, whereas the track record has remained less clear in the climate science community tasked with identifying long-term trends for the global climate.

Når ”the goal of the study was to bridge the communities of climate scientists” er der selvfølgelig ikke tale om videnskab, men om et politisk stykke arbejde med et bestilt resultat, der skal give kritikere af klimamodeller en indrømmelse mod at få fred. Kritikerne har nemlig peget på den stadigt tydeligere diskrepans mellem modellernes projektioner og virkelighedens udvikling og modelbyggerne tvinges derfor til at indrømme at ”when it comes to predicting the climate for a certain area over the next 10 or 20 years, our models can’t do it” og kritikernes argumenter derfor er ”valid to a certain degree“. Klimaangste personer kan altså ånde lettet op, nu et kompromis mellem virkeligheden og teorien er klappet af i porten, katastrofen står stadig sikkert men uklart i horisonten - 360 måneder længere ude i horisonten for at være mere præcis. Eller er det 50 måneder? For andre angste spåmænd har nemlig ingen problemer med at spå sikkert om fremtiden på den korte bane under de 30 år fortæller Guardian

Monday 1 October marks the halfway point in a 100-month countdown to a game of climate roulette.

On a very conservative estimate, 50 months from now, the dice become loaded against us in terms of keeping under a 2C temperature rise. This level matters because beyond it an environmental “domino effect” is likely to operate. In a volatile and unpredictable dynamic, things like melting ice, and the release of carbon from the planet’s surface are set to feed off each other, accelerating and reinforcing the warming effect.

The time frame follows an estimate of risk of rising greenhouse gas concentrations from the world’s leading authority on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that passed a certain point, it will no longer be “likely” that we stay the right side of the line. Some consider even a 2C rise too much, but...[Yadi, yadi, yada]

Øvkæææy. Åbenbart er der konsensus om at det både er muligt med måneders nøjagtighed og umuligt med års nøjagtighed at forudsige klimaet på mellemkort sigt. Så lad os da dvæle lidt med den projektion, som klima alarmismens grand old man, NASA’s James Hansen, fabrikerede i 1988, da han overbeviste kongressen om klimasituationens graverende alvor. Som man kan se af projektionen fra 1988 her i 2012 på sit 24′ende år er virkelighedens varmestigning håbløst bagefter. Men dette er kun fordi projektioner er helt ude i skoven indtil de fylder 30, hvor de så sidder lige i skabet

Tegnet ind med lilla og barnlig hånd er udviklingen de næste 4 år, de stille 50 måneder før det stensikre  tipping point of no return, efterfulgt af en hård spurt, hvor virkeligheden i 2018 vil indhente de mål som Hansen og klimapanelet har sat for klimaet - præcis 30 år på spådagen. Now’s the time to act!

W A Beatty beskriver klimabevægelsen som en religion i American Thinker

It is no coincidence that man-made global warming, or climate change, or whatever it’s called this week, got very popular as an issue just as the Soviet Union fell. It is the top-down centralized government’s last best hope of controlling the masses. And like other forms of socialist totalitarian worldviews, it is a religion as well.

Man-made global warming is an earth-worshiping religion. The essential feature of any religion is that its pronouncements are to be accepted on faith, as opposed to hard evidence. And as with most religions, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance, and deceit.

Global warmists have an unshakable faith that man-made carbon emissions will produce a hotter climate, causing natural disasters. Their insistence that we can be absolutely certain that this will come to pass is based not on science, but on faith.

All the trappings of religion are here:

- Original sin: Mankind is responsible for the prophesied disasters, especially those of us who live in suburbs and drive our SUVs to strip malls and chain restaurants.

- The need for atonement and repentance: We must impose a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, which will raise the cost of everything and stunt economic growth.

- Rituals: We must observe Earth Day, and we must recycle.

- Indulgences: Private jet-fliers like Al Gore and sitcom heiress Laurie David can buy carbon offsets to compensate for their carbon-emitting sins.

- Prophecy and faith in things unseen: Advocates say we must act now before it is too late.

Og den franske filosof Pascal Bruckner tilføjer at den økologiske religion er en hedens religion uden en trancendent gud. Al vores teknologi udgør en trussel mod vores liv og helbred, fra traffikken henover mobiltelefoni til det vi spiser og er således beboet af onde onder.

News Busters har i anledning af Earth Day samlet en top 25 over underholdende udsagn om klimaet og skriver i deres indledning

This Sunday marks the 42nd anniversary of Earth Day and for 25 of those years the MRC has documented the liberal media’s role in advancing the left’s green agenda. From fretting about overpopulation to scaring viewers about global warming, for over 25 years the media have championed the capitalism-killing agenda of the modern environmentalist movement.

So sacrosanct the liberal media believes its mission to be, that they haven’t even bothered to hide their bias. CNN’s environmental editor Barbara Pyle, as quoted in the July 1990 issue of American Spectator, actually bragged: “I do have an axe to grind…I want to be the little subversive person in television.” Time magazine’s science editor Charles Alexander, at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference, confessed: “I would freely admit on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

That advocacy has been on full display as reporters and anchors have gone overboard in scaring their audience about the perils of our effect on the Earth, from overpopulation to global warming. In its January 2, 1989 “Planet of the Year” Time magazine’s editors warned: “Unless the growth in the world population is slowed, it will be impossible to make serious progression on any environmental issue.” Two years later, in an ad for its “Lost Tribes, Lost Knowledge” issue that appeared in the April 27, 1992 Sports Illustrated, Time magazine again warned: “Nature has a cure for everything, except the spread of Western civilization.”

Og et par eksempler

25. Billions of Lives At Risk

“Will Billions Die from Global Warming?”
— ABC’s on-screen graphic from the January 31, 2007 Good Morning America.

24. Who Needs Tanks, When You’ve Got the EPA?

“And yet, Congresswoman Schneider, in 1989, fiscal 1989 as we say in America, the Environmental Protection Agency got $5.1 billion dollars and the Defense Department got $290 billion dollars. What’s that tell us about our priorities?”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings on the September 12, 1989 Capital to Capital special “The Environment: Crisis In the Global Village.”

21. Someone Get the Statue of Liberty a Life Preserver Before She Floats Away!

Tom Brokaw: “About 10 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by ice, most of that in the polar regions. But if enough of that ice melts, the seas will rise dramatically and the results will be calamitous….If this worst-case scenario should occur, in the coming centuries New York could be abandoned, its famous landmarks lost to the sea.”
Dr. James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies: “Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami — they would all be under water.”
— From Brokaw’s two-hour Discovery Channel special, Global Warming: What You Need to Know, excerpt shown on the July 15, 2006 NBC Nightly News.

14. Earth Would Be Okay It Weren’t for Us Pesky Humans

“Ultimately, no problem may be more threatening to the Earth’s environment than the proliferation of the human species.”
— Anastasia Toufexis, “Overpopulation: Too Many Mouths,” article in Time’s special “Planet of the Year” edition, January 2, 1989.

Det er svært at forestille sig, men deres nr. 1 er faktisk velfortjent. Jeg vil supplere med et par eksempler fra den seneste tid uden rangorden. For eksempel skrev den tidligere brandmand fra Tennessee i Forbes at ha ikke kunne forstå at der i dagens verden endnu var skeptikere der gik og løj med alle interesse som indsats. Nogen burde stå til regnskab

Let’s take a page from those Tennessee firemen we heard about a few times last year – the ones who stood idly by as houses burned to the ground because their owners had refused to pay a measly $75 fee.

We can apply this same logic to climate change.

We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies.  Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay.  Let’s let their houses burn.  Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands.  Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.

They broke the climate.  Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?

Og vi venter så i spændning på at vi får vores klimaafgifter tilbage om godt ti år når vi sidder og ser tilbage på et kvart århundrede uden varme, men tværtimod med et lille fald i temperaturen. Indtil der går så lang tid skal vi høre lignende udfald i ABC News

One of the world’s most widely respected climatologists, James Hansen, director of NASA-GISS, which focuses on the study of earth’s climate for the space agency, testified to Congress in 2008 that the CEOs of fossil fuel companies (who, according to various professional reporting have been promoting this and other misleading messages about global warming in conjunction with ideological groups trying to prevent government regulation) “knew what they were doing” and, as stated in his written testimony to Congress in 2008, were guilty of “high crimes against humanity and nature.”

Hansen tells ABC News — in a phone call from the U.K. where he’s been traveling — that he used that highly charged phrase, crime against humanity, “not only for dramatic effect, but also because it is accurate, given the enormous scale of the consequences to humanity” if manmade global warming is not somehow stopped and reversed.

“It wasn’t only aimed at the fossil fuel CEOs,” Hansen added on the phone. “This also applies to politicians who pretend the global warming is not manmade.”

(…)

Hansen is not the first to have carefully decided to call the climate disinformation campaign “a crime against humanity.”

Journalist Ross Gelbspan, whose professional accomplishments include directing a Pulitzer-winning investigation at the Boston Globe before he turned his attention to global warming in  the 1990s, entitled a chapter in “Boiling Point,” his second book on the climate crisis, “Criminals Against Humanity.”

The “criminals” he was referring to were fossil fuel and other executives who he reported to be intentionally promoting confusion and disinformation campaigns about solid findings of climate scientists around the world.

Fra Quark Soup

“By adopting a ‘one-child’ policy since 1979, Chinese demographers estimate that about 300 million births have been avoided, equivalent to the present population of the United States. Even at the relatively low level of Chinese per capita carbon dioxode emissions, the effect of this population policy can be measured as an avoidance of about 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide being emitted annually to the global atmosphere. This represents a nominal reduction of about 5 per cent in global carbon emissions, a much greater reduction than has been achieved by all the measures of the Kyoto Protocol.”

– Mike Hulme, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Chapter 8

Og så skal Manu Sareen på banen for ifølge feminister i EU er klimaforandringerne kvindeundertrykkende, som Daily Mail rapporterer

A bizarre row has broken out among EU politicians over whether climate change is a feminist issue.

Members of the European Parliament will vote today on a report by a French Green party MEP who claims global warming ‘is not gender neutral’.

Women, claims Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, ‘consume more sustainably than men and show greater willingness to act to preserve the environment’ as they tend to organise household consumption and childcare.

She said that discrimination against women could be made worse in the developing world if climate policies do not take gender discrimination into account.

She was yesterday subjected to a withering attack from Marina Yannakoudakis, a Tory MEP for London, who called her motion ‘bonkers, baseless and bad for women’.

The report – Women and Climate Change – calls for a 40 per cent female quota on all EU delegations in climate negotiations and on the committees that allocate climate aid from member states. Funding is set to reach £62billion a year by 2020.

God weekend.

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.

I 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.

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.

Fra TV2 News

2011 blev endnu et varmt år, som globalt set gik hen og blev det 11. varmeste siden målingerne begyndte for 132 år siden.

Med en middeltemperatur for både oceanerne og landområderne på hele Kloden, der blev 0,51 varmere end normalt, så har 2011 ifølge Det Nationale Klima Center under den amerikanske vejrtjeneste, NOAA været ligeså varmt som 1997 - og dermed det 11. varmeste år vi har oplevet siden 1880.

Jeg vidste at jeg blot skulle vente nogle dage til køligere hoveder ville korrigere denne årligt tilbagevendende historie (ligesom det altid stigende antal hjemløse og fattige til Jul). Joseph D’Aleo er som sædvanlig frisk på at konfrontere forskellige datasæt.

NASA annpounced this week that 2011 was the ninth warmest year since 1880 (132 years) despite a quiet sun (not really the case) and La Nina.

UAH had 2011 as the 18th warmest (thus 15th coldest) in their 33 years of record keeping. That alone should raise your eyebrows. Obviously the 15th coldest year in the last 33 years could not also be the ninth warmest in 132 years.

Here is a plot of the UAH and NASA GISS temperatures versus the CO2 in the last 10 years

Temperatures are flat even as CO2 has risen almost 8%. It looks like the third coldest year of the ten in NASA and UAH data sets. The anomalies are supposed to be greater (1.2 times) for the lower troposphere as measured by UAH than the surface as measured by GISS because the atmosphere is where the CO2 is supposed to do its trapping work according to the theory. Instead the surface anomalies are three time higher suggesting surface contamination and a failed/incomplete theory.

UAH er sattelitmålinger og jeg skal skam ikke være dommer over om denne rumalderens teknologi har noget at sige overfor gamle kvicksølvtermometres statisktisk bearbejdede resultater.

Klimaforsker ved NASA James Hansen har ifølge Watts Up With That tilsyneladende modtaget ganske generøse pengegaver fra forskellige interesseorganisationer for sit oplysningsarbejde i klimadebatten

For example, consider these failures to report often elegant air and hotel/resort accommodations received on his SF278 as required by law (the amount of direct cash income received from the party providing him travel, as well, is in parentheses):

• Blue Planet Prize ($500,000), travel for Hansen and his wife to Tokyo, Japan, 2010
• Dan David Prize ($500,000), travel to Paris, 2007
• Sophie Prize ($100,000), Oslo Norway, travel for Hansen and his wife, 2010
• WWF Duke of Edinburgh Award, Travel for Hansen and his wife, London, 2006
• Alpbach, Austria (alpine resort)(“business class”, with wife), 2007
• Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009
• FORO Cluster de Energia, travel for Hansen and wife (“business class”), Bilbao, Spain, 2008
• ACT Coalition, travel for Hansen and wife to London, 2007
• Progressive Forum ($10,000)(“first class”), to Houston, 2006
• Progressive Forum ($10,000), to Houston, 2009
• UCSB ($10,000), to Santa Barbara, CA
• Nierenberg Prize ($25,000), to San Diego, 2008
• Nevada Medal ($20,000), to Las Vegas, Reno, 2008
• EarthWorks Expos, to Denver, 2006
• California Academy of Science ($1,500), to San Francisco, 2009
• CalTech ($2,000), travel to Pasadena, CA for Hansen and his wife, 2007

James Hansen løftede klimabekymringen op til nye højder da han i 1988 vidnede foran en kongreskomite om at klimaet ville løbe løbsk inden udgange af det tyvende århundrede, hvis ikke man fik stoppet udledningen af CO2 helt inden da. Det gik som bekendt anderledes da man istedet satte mere skub på CO2 udledningen mens den globale temperatur stoppede sin stigning.

Hansen har altså været og er stadig en markant figur, som på det seneste har gjort sig bemærket ved sin tale om at indføre straffe for klimakriminalitet, som dels var udledning af CO2 og dels var udledning af misinformation, hvilket ville sige alt, der stred mod FN’s konsensus.

Vi har alle vores højtider og som vi andre pynter op til Jul, fremkommer klimamafiaen traditionen tro med deres værste advarsler op til klimatopmøder. Derfor var det også seasons greetings da det internationale energiargentur IEA advarede om at vi kun har fem år endnu førend klimaet løber løbsk, som Jyllands-Postens artikel formulerede det.

Baggrunden er stigende CO2-udslip og øget afbrænding af kul og olie.

- Bekymring over økonomien har fjernet opmærksomheden fra energipolitik. CO2-udslippet nåede rekordhøjde i 2010, og udgifterne til olieimport er også tæt på rekordniveau. Den billige olies æra er ovre, siger Birol.

Frem mod 2035 vil energibehovet vokse med en tredjedel, vurderer IEA. Kina og Indien efterspørger masser af kul, og der er samtidig usikkerhed om leverancerne fra de olierige lande i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika.

Det var noget som Dan Jørgensens kunne bruge da han under den uironiske overskrift udmåler “Fem år til at redde verden“.

Det International Energiagentur (IEA) har netop offentliggjort sin årlige rapport, World Energy Outlook. Og det er skræmmende læsning. Konklusionen er at vi har travlt, hvis vi skal redde verden fra katastrofale klimaforandringer.

IEA skriver, at verden allerede har lukket 80 % af de drivhusgasser ud i atmosfæren der er plads til, hvis vi skal holde temperaturstigningen i verden under 2 grader (sammenlignet med før industrialiseringen).

Dvs. at vi inden for de næste 5-6 år skal igangsætte en omfattende revolution i den måde vi forbruger og producerer energi på.

Jørgensen der påstår at have “hørt en gletcher smelte” er selvfølgelig en idiot. IEA refererer til “videnskabsmænd”, som ikke er dem selv, nemlig FNs klimapanel. De tilføjer så deres vurderinger af udviklingen i energibehov af hvilket udledningen af drivhusgasser let beregnes og voila, Jorden går under i morgen. Det er der selvfølgelig ikke noget i vejen med andet end at disse videnskabsmænd selvfølgelig tager fejl, hvilket er såre menneskeligt. Men rapporten fra IEA som dumme Dan mener bekræfter hans påstande om en snarlig katastrofal uafvendelighed (klimaet er pr. definition uafvendeligt) er ikke en bekræftelse på noget som helst, men en reference til FN’s Klimapanel. Rapporten tager altså afsæt i den samme løgnefabrik, hvor Dan Jørgensen også parkerede sin hjerne for en del år tilbage og at andre gentager den samme påstand gør den ikke mere sand, men os andre mindre lydhøre. Og så til gentagelserne. Real Science minder os

A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect…

Ja, det var dengang i 1989, at man troede at nu var enden nær. År 2000 blev nu ikke undergangen, men det omtrentlige tidspunkt, hvor temperaturen stoppede med at stige. Grafen herunder viser limahysteriets egen godfather, James Hansen’s oprindelige skrækscenarie, som alle andre skrækscenarier hviler på. Fra Real Science

Den grønne graf er den faktiske måling af klodens temperatur tegnet ind på NASA’s projektioner fra 1989. Som man kan se er virkeligheden koldere end det koldeste scenarie og det koldeste scenarie var under forudsætning af at man i 2000 helt var stoppet med at udlede CO2. I stedet accelerede man udledningen bl.a. ved kinesernes og indernes gryende bilisme og det er denne biludvikling og medfølgende stigende levestandard for de gule og brune mennesker i Asien, som der nu advares imod. Da jeg var ung gik rygtet at alle jordens skove ville forsvinde hvis kineserne begyndte at bruge wc-papir. Tjah det var dengang.

Men limhjernen Dan Jørgensen fik en række modsvar på sit selvretfærdige og hysteriske indlæg og det fik ham til tasterne med den endnu mere fjollede overskrift “Fem år til at redde verden II”, der er sammenligneligt med “Ulven kommer - igen” med endnu et vægtigt bevis, nemlig et interview med en af Danmarks førende klimaforskere Eigil Kaas. Med spørgsmål som “Klimaskeptikere påpeger, at vi lige har haft en meget kold vinter, og at temperaturen ikke stiger år fra år. Hvad siger du?” svarer Kaas bekræftende på Jørgensens påstande, hvilket Jørgesen bruger til at afvise at “Kaas lyver” - det er niveauet for Dan Jørgensen der med udtryk som “uvidende” og “nægter at se” karakteriserer skeptiske observatører af FN-’s Klimapanels arbejde og derfor selv gør sig fortjent til mine lidet flatterende adjektiver. Kaas er en forstandig mand med stor viden og indsigt, men alligevel tilføres der intet nyt i debatten

Det internationale klimapanel, IPCC, vurderer derfor i sin seneste rapport, at det er meget sandsynligt, at mennesket er hovedansvarligt for den opvarmning, der har fundet sted siden midten af 1970?erne.

Det hører med til historien, at der også er gennemført simuleringer, hvor der udelukkende er medtaget naturlige klimapåvirkninger, dvs. sol og vulkaner, og at der ifølge disse ikke skulle have været nogen opvarmning - faktisk snarere et lille fald i temperaturen - siden 1960. Konklusionen er, at menneskets klimapåvirkninger næsten helt sikkert har været hovedårsagen til den begyndende globale opvarmning, vi har været vidne til i de seneste årtier. Specielt har der i de seneste 10 år været ekstreme hedebølger - fx Europa 2003 og Rusland 2010 - og voldsom nedbør, fx Pakistan 2010, som i hvert fald delvist kan relateres til menneskeskabt global opvarmning”.

Kaas holder sig til det omstridte Klimapanel komplet med de føromtalte fejlsimuleringer. Og uagtet at man tillægger det værdi er det igen den samme vin med nyt sendebud.

For et par måneder siden referede jeg henkastet til professor Murray Salsby’s seneste forskning om atmosfærens CO2 cyklus, som man uagtet de mange skråsikre udsagn og de derpå detaljerede opbyggede modeller med deres skræmmende forudsigelser ved meget lidt om

Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.

Hos Joanna Nova kunne man i sidste uge læse om et japansk forskerhold, som gennem avancerede satellitmålinger (brug af ord som “avancerede” giver virkeligt pondus til påstandende har jeg lært), der viser hvorfra CO2 udledes og hvor det absorberes.

In January 2009, a Japanese group launched a satellite “IBUKI” to monitor CO2 and methane spectral bands around the world to establish exactly where the world’s biggest sources and sinks of greenhouse gases were. With climate change being the perilous threat to millions, this data would seem so essential you might wonder why didn’t someone do it before. As it happens, NASA tried — it launched the Orbiting Carbon Observatory in Feb 2009, which was designed to do exactly the same thing, but it crashed on launch. Oddly, NASA don’t seem to be prioritizing the deadly climate threat, as it will take NASA four years to figure out why the Taurus XL rocket failed and relaunch it.

The results from from Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)  show that Industrialized nations appear to be absorbing the carbon dioxide emissions from the Third World. (Can we get carbon credits for that?) The satellite shows that levels of CO2 are typically lower in developed countries than in air over developing countries.

Så vi i den civiliserede verden skal måske til at kræve penge fra den 3. verden, som erstatning for den forventede klimakatastrofe? Tim Ball gav forleden sinelidt mere seriøse tanker

According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers, humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year. This is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources. Estimates of CO2 from natural sources are very crude as evidenced by the large error factors. Reports with headlines like, “Forests soak up more CO2 than thought” and “Old-growth forests absorb CO2 too: study” keep appearing. In 2010 humans produced 9 gigatons, but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according to Dr Dietrich Koelle. Spread the human annual production across the planet and it doesn’t even show on the world map. The pattern confirms this because it reflects natural sources.

Det er med andre ord historien om elefanten og musen, der gik over en bro og musen siger “Ih, hvor vi to dog gungrer!”. Men det er ifølge Ball værre end som så

The major assumption of the hypothesis says a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. After publication in 1999 of Petit et al., Antarctic ice core records were presented as evidence. Just four years later proof that the major assumption of the hypothesis was wrong appeared. Somehow it was shuffled aside, probably because of the diversionary claim that the lag was between 80 and 800 years. It doesn’t matter, it still contradicts the basic assumption. Temperature change before CO2 change is the case in every record for any period or duration is studiously ignored by proponent and skeptic.

Jeg gjorde lidt grin med ordet “avancerede målinger”, men efterhånden, som de stiger i antal falder FNs hypoteser lidt mere fra hinanden.

Det videnskabelige konsensus om menneskets skadelige indflydelse på klimaet gennem udledning af drivhusgassen CO2 er under stigende pres efter at have nået sin absolutte storhedstid for blot få år siden. FNs Klimapanel har været ramt af en serie videnskabelig skandaler og dårligt og tendentiøst arbejde og en lang række målinger af virkeligheden har talt Romas teorier midt imod. Og som en pave ikke kan tage fejl, en gud ikke kan bløde, kan et konsensus ikke have sprækker uden at tabe sin magt. Og FNs klimapanels ide om et videnskabeligt konsensus slår sprækker i disse tider.

Professor Murry Salsby hævder på baggrund af reel dataindsamling (og ikke en af de i klimaforskningen så populære computermodeller) at stigningen i atmosfærens indhold af CO2 slet ikke er menneskeskabt. Det har flere mistænkt længe siden man ser tydelige sæsonudsving i atmosfærens CO2 indhold, som ikke svarer godt til den støt stigende menneskelige udledning. CO2 omsætningen er gigantisk og det er ikke sikkert at mennesket kan sætte et afgørende aftryk, selv om vi ofte tror meget om vores betydning i universet. Som da musen sagde til elefanten, mens de gik over en bro: “Ih, hvor vi to dog gungrer!“ Atmosfærefysikeren Judith Curry reagerede med et “Wow.” da hun hørte Salsby’s forelæsning og perspektiverede videre “If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science.”

Et andet pres på det videnskabelige konsensus om CO2 afgørende indflydelse på den globale opvarmning kommer fra den eminente Dr Roy Spencer. Hans satellitmålinger viser en balance mellem Jordens ind- og udstrålingen og ikke, som klimapanelets computermodeller viser en ubalance resulterende i stigende energiophobning på Jorden, som resulterer i stigende temperaturer i Atmosfæren til skade for modstandere af godt vejr. Hvis Spencers resultater er rigtige ligger der ikke ekstra varme og venter med at bryde ud i atmosfæren og kompensere for den “manglende varme” de seneste snart 15 år.

Sidst men ikke mindst har det store CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) projekt endelig givet lyd fra sig efter på forhånd kryptisk at have annonceret at man ikke skulle drage forhastede konklusioner qua det politiske klima. CLOUD arbejder med den danske astrofysiker Henrik Svensmarks tese, men uden ham(?), der siger at kosmisk stråling er en forudsætning for skydannelse og at den kosmiske stråling der når Jorden afgøres af Solens magnetfelt. Da skyer afgør ind- og udstrålingen af lys og varme vil det sige at også Solens magnetiske variationer i en eller anden grad styrer det globale klima.

Disse forskere, der her er trukket frem på baggrund af deres seneste opsigtsvækkende resultater er ganske anerkendte. Deres forskning er baseret på fysiske observationer, enten i virkeligheden eller i et laboratorium. For Svensmarks tese er der det at tilføje at det er hård videnskab (ikke noget med linealopmåling af træringe eller ekstrapoleringer af døde isbjørne), som testes i dyre domme i CERN. Det er seriøst, men det er ikke nødvendigvis sandheden. Men de bruges til et og kun et på denne post - at aflive en løgn om en videnskabelig enighed. Eller som CLOUD’s talsmand Jaspar Kirkby formulerer det “Science has a way of humbling those who are too certain about things, especially when they are complex and poorly understood…..like clouds“.