Archive for augusti, 2009

The blatant hypocrisy from the UN pack and their jet set allies

29 augusti, 2009

I have written extensible about the UN pack, this travelling circus that fly around the globe in first class, or private jet, stay in hotel rooms at £400-500 per night in spa resorts, and gets wined and dined at expensive restaurants.

All of this of course paid by us, the normal people.

While they at the same time preach austerity, frugality and sacrifice from us, the taxpayers.

This blatant hypocrisy is so mind numbing that it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these people have the power to force us to obey them.

They are a truly parasitic class in the sense that Karl Marx wrote about it.

How ironic that today most of this class is leftists and so called “liberals”.

Below is an article by Lorrie Goldstein where he makes the same observations.

As I said in my posts:

The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!

”So if the Global Warming Hysterics want to succeed the formula is very simple:

Start civil wars, Support dictators, Oppress ALL political freedoms and rights, and keep the people in TOTAL poverty.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, will you succeed in reducing mankind to enough poverty and slavery to be able to succeed in this “worthy” goal to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

They, the Dictators, are great at reducing EVERYTHING, including CO2 emissions.

And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.

So we are talking about 0,03%.

Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.”

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!

”Environmentalism is an anti-human, anti-science-and-technology religion which has gripped the world. It worships a nebulous undefined indefinable entity called The Environment which has some of the characteristics of the Christian Heaven, is an ideal place, existing somewhere on the earth, but without humans. It is a jealous God, demanding ever increasing sacrifices to satisfy its demands.”

The essential dogma of Environmentalism is the belief that humans are destroying the earth, or, as they prefer it, the planet.. Evolution is invariably harmful, and is exclusively conducted by humans. It must be prevented at whatever cost.

”The environment” is envisaged as one or more ”ecosystems”, patterned on the Garden of Eden,  unchanging, static, ”balanced” associations of organisms which are ”fragile”, and ”threatened” by evolution, which is wielded exclusively by humans, whose every activity ”damages” this idyllic  paradise. Evolution has to be stopped, or even reversed.”

The necessary and universal mechanism of evolution, the extinction of organisms which can no longer survive, to be replaced by the newcomers, is seen as evil. ”Endangered species” have to be preserved at all costs, and the newly evolving ones exterminated as pests.

Sustainability is the reverse of evolution. It is a bedfellow with conservatism and conservation.  People dislike change, so we must stop it.

Humans, like other creatures, survive by modifying the world in our favour. There is therefore something to be said for maintainability, such as measures to keep fish stocks at a reasonable level, or to preserve the fertility of soil, but retainability, keeping things the same for its own sake, is futile. Evolution happens whatever you try to do to stop it. Sustainable development is an oxymoron, a contradiction.

The Precautionary Principle does the reverse. The greatest precautions and the greatest costs are to be taken when the risk is small or even zero. All risks are exaggerated and the highest cost and greatest inconvenience are always chosen.

Developments in technology are always harmful and dangerous, and must be prevented. This applies particularly to Genetic Modification and Nuclear Power..

Instead of choosing the cheapest alternative of an action, environmentalists insist on the most expensive, because the Environment requires it. This may take the form of protracted legal cost for permission, or the use of unnecessarily expensive technology.

Thus vehicles must burn biofuels which raise the price of food and increase poverty. An extreme example is the use of hydrogen in vehicles. This is expensive, inconvenient and dangerous, so we must do it.

Reverse economics is now being applied internationally. The disasters caused by environmentalism such as the high cost of energy and food, are being tackled by the least effective method, the printing of money. This is the policy which led to the downfall of the German Weimar Republic, and is the cause of the current disaster in Zimbabwe.

The advertising industry has softened up the public to accept the most outrageous swindles by endless repetition, the use of phony logic and the endorsement by celebrities. Science is in decline and is being taken over by the pseudoscience of the environment. It has thus become possible to put over on the public the most outrageous spin ever. They have selected, distorted and fabricated scientific results to justify the environmentalist creed with huge success. Everything can be ”linked” with  disaster  whatever the probability.

They get repeated free advertising in nearly all media and ”debate” no longer exists. Every event is referred to environmentalist priests for comment. Other comments are not welcome. Some people make a lot of money out of it.”

Al Gore, James Hansen – Carbon Communists

“From Fridays Pravda. Pravda, (Пра́вда) means truth. All this was a big joke during communist time when Pravda was the official mouthpiece of the party, together with Izvestia (Известия) which means ”delivered messages”.

Well, it now makes a good point about the blatant hypocrisy from the high Priests of the Global Warming religion, which I have been saying all the time:

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

And that the politicians love this Global Warming Hysteria because they can tax everyone to death, and introduce new fees etc with the ”motivation” that ”they” are ”saving” the planet from the Global Warming treat.

Of course they don’t sacrifice anything themselves- se the glaring example of Al Gore who preaches frugality to the masses while he himself gladly continues with his great and energy rich lifestyle – they ONLY LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN and BURDEN of this sacrifice.

The sad part about this Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, is the press and medias role in censoring and intimidating everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

And there willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria. Not to mention their part in covering up the Giant Difference between what these high priests says and what they actually do. A total and utter shame for what journalism should be about.”

Se also my posts:

Miljökonferensen på Balis stora miljökostnader

Miljökonferensen på Balis verkliga inre liv

Öppet brev till FN och konferensen på Bali

Realpolitik i klimat dimmorna

Hycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna råd

Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint – continuation!

Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!

Al Gores energislösande hem

Al Gores energislösande resande

Obamas Big Carbon Footprint

Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism

Scare the wits out of people with Global warming, then make money off their fear.

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!

The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!)

Local and global environmental policy is lead by a coterie of fanatics and their powerful opportunistic bedfellows

“Sustainability” and Carbon Taxes runs amok in my town

Climate of Fear – 5!

Svindeln och fusket med utsläppsrätter!

EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!

 

Article here:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/08/23/10569871-sun.html

Orgies of consumption

UN climate conferences pull together jet-setters in far flung exotic locales. What a load of hot air

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Last Updated: 23rd August 2009, 4:59am

One of the most reliable ways to determine whether people are behaving hypocritically is to examine what they do as opposed to what they say.

Using that standard, the thousands upon thousands of jet setters who, year in and year out, attend never-ending United Nations climate change conferences in some of the world’s most popular and exotic locales, define the word ”hypocrite.”

This includes everyone from UN officials, to politicians, bureaucrats, celebrities, high-flying global ”green” entrepreneurs and environmentalists.

If everyone in the world would or could generate the massive carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions this crowd does as they jet in and out of Bali, Copenhagen, Bonn, Barcelona, Bangkok, Paris, Vienna, Valencia, Sydney, Rio De Janeiro, Washington, New York, Montreal, Anchorage and on and on, the Hollywood disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow would have been a documentary.

That is, if you believe the hysteria these same people incessantly spout about how the world will rapidly come to an end in an Armageddon of weather extremes, unless everyone massively reduces their carbon footprint and leads simpler lives … except them.

The next orgy of UN-inspired carbon-emitting will come in Copenhagen from Dec. 7-18, ostensibly aimed at developing a successor agreement to the Kyoto accord, when an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 UN hangers-on will descend upon Denmark’s capital, once again making airline reservations, five-star hotel rooms and rented SUVs an endangered species.

The only good news for the planet is the Danish foreign ministry recently cancelled 20,000 overnight hotel reservations in advance of the conference because not as many people as initially thought may turn up. But don’t hold any tag days for the conference just yet — the Copenhagen Post reports the government remains confident the other 100,000 overnight stays it has pre-booked will be filled.

During a previous UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia in December, 2007, Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, estimated the 10,000 climate change revellers staying in one of the world’s most exotic — and hottest — tourist locales, emitted enough GHG during their 12-day stay to nearly match what the African nation of Chad (population 10 million) emits in a year.

The UN claimed the emissions were only half that, or, as The Associated Press reported, the equivalent to what a modern Western city of 1.5 million people, say Marseille, emits in a day.

The point is, you can’t fool the planet. Flying, air conditioning, caravans of SUVs shuttling around VIPs, exotic food and drink ordered up in five-star hotels (often on the public’s dime) all create GHG emissions, regardless of whether the person doing it is the CEO of an oil company, or a diplomat who’s ”concerned” about climate change.

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer has been asked about this huge disconnect between what these UN conferences preach and what they do, but sees no problem at all.

”Wherever you held it, people would still have to travel to get there,” he said in Bali. ”The question is perhaps: Do you need to do it at all? My answer to that is yes.”

Fine. My answer is ”no.”

No, the UN doesn’t need to stage these orgies of consumption in the name of moderation.

It isn’t necessary in the age of instant global communications and it’s obscene during a world-wide recession.

The last refuge of these scoundrels is that they buy ”carbon offsets” to reduce their carbon footprint to zero, a claim so absurd to anyone who understands the science of global warming, it’s beyond laughable.

Once you emit a greenhouse gas, there’s no way to put the genie back in the bottle. The only way not to emit it, is not to emit it.

That’s just the inconvenient truth.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

varning-2

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL COOLING – This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling

27 augusti, 2009

“This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling. The only time that there was a decrease in emissions was from 1979 to 1982 when the world was warming.

The only part of the Earth’s thermal radiative spectrum that is affected by CO2 is the 14.77micron band, but Arrhenius, unaware of this fact used measurements limited to only 9.7microns and therefore was not actually measuring the effect from CO2.

It is easily demonstrated that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Over the three years from 1979 to 1982 when CO2 emissions were decreasing due to the rapid increase in the price of oil that drastically reduced consumption, there was no change in the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 proving that humans were not the primary source for the increase in concentration.”

Comparing climate alarmist Hansen to Cassandra is WRONG. Cassandra’s (Greek mythology) dire prophecies were never believed but were always right. Hansen’s dire prophecies are usually believed but are always wrong (Prof. Laurence Gould, U of Hartford, CT)

The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken

Here are some revealing quotes from some environmentalists. They are SOOOO humane are they not:

The First Global Revolution” (1991, p. 104) published by the ”Club of Rome”: In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.

—David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.

—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS

—Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.

—Lamont Cole

Poverty For “Those People”

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.

—Carl Amery

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

http://www.pushback.com/environment/EcoFreakQuotes.html

Article here:

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/08/anthropogenic-global-cooling-email-from.html

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL COOLING?

An email from Norm Kalmanovitch [kalhnd@shaw.ca]

There is a very good case to be made for anthropogenic global cooling from CO2 emissions. The beginning of rapid increases in global CO2 emissions started in 1945 with the rapid increase in post war industrialization that has seen CO2 emissions rise from under 4gt/year in 1945, to over 31.5gt/year today. This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling. The only time that there was a decrease in emissions was from 1979 to 1982 when the world was warming.

This forms a positive correlation of sufficient statistical significance to make a reasonable case for this relationship to be valid. Although correlation is not causation, there is nothing in the current science literature database that demonstrates any contrary evidence so based solely on ”peer reviewed” science literature (as is the case for AGW), this hypothesis could be taken as valid.

The original paper on this topic by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 can be shown to be in error because at the time quantum physics had not yet revealed the physical process of interaction between the Earth’s radiative energy and atmospheric CO2.

The only part of the Earth’s thermal radiative spectrum that is affected by CO2 is the 14.77micron band, but Arrhenius, unaware of this fact used measurements limited to only 9.7microns and therefore was not actually measuring the effect from CO2. He also used an experimental source for thermal radiation that was at 100°C, and the radiative spectrum from this source includes the 4.2micron wavelength band of CO2 that is not part of the Earth’s radiative spectrum, so he was not measuring the actual effect from the thermal radiation from the Earth.

In 1970 the Nimbus 4 satellite measured the Earth’s radiative spectrum showing that the spectral band affected by CO2 had a deep notch in it centred on 14.77microns. This deep notch demonstrated that well over 90% of the possible effect had already been achieved from just the 325ppmv atmospheric concentration of CO2, so further changes in concentration would have only minor effects, and increases in CO2 concentration could neither be responsible for either global warming or global cooling of any significant degree.

While CO2 concentration increases can be demonstrated to have little further effect on global temperatures, this has no bearing on CO2 emissions because there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration, and CO2 emissions may alter the global temperature by processes other than changes to the greenhouse effect. It is easily demonstrated that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Over the three years from 1979 to 1982 when CO2 emissions were decreasing due to the rapid increase in the price of oil that drastically reduced consumption, there was no change in the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 proving that humans were not the primary source for the increase in concentration.

The science literature data base is filled with articles about global warming and CO2, but none of these articles actually relate CO2 emissions to global warming, and just falsely assume that emissions and concentration are interchangeable. All of the articles are based on projections from climate models, which also make this false assumption about emissions and concentration, and these models have yet to demonstrate a result that matches physical observation. This is because models use a contrived CO2 forcing parameter that was clearly not designed on any physical basis either experimental or empirical. In fact there is nothing in all the global warming literature, even the articles about polar bears and melting ice, that can refute the anthropogenic global cooling hypothesis.

Even though there is nothing in the literature data base that can refute the hypothesis of anthropogenic global cooling, the hypothesis can be clearly shown to be false by strict adherence to science protocol and the scientific method. There is clear observational evidence that the Earth warmed from 1975 to 1998 as emissions increased, so even though the world cooled for more years than it warmed with increasing CO2 emissions, these 23 years provide observations contrary to the hypothesis that can’t be explained by the hypothesis, and therefore the hypothesis must be abandoned.

Another hypothesis that explains the current global cooling is based on solar cycles and their effect on solar output and changes to the Earth’s albedo from cloud cover. The driving mechanism for this is not fully understood, but to date there is absolutely no contrary evidence to the overall hypothesis. There is in fact clear supportive evidence including observational evidence from a project called Earth Shine which measures the Earth’s albedo by its reflection on the moon. The albedo measurements show reducing albedo concurrent with global warming, changing to increasing albedo concurrent with global cooling in 1998. (Figure 2 page 21). See here (PDF).

This is the way science is supposed to work, and while it is a simple matter to falsify the Anthropogenic Global Cooling hypothesis, it should be far easier to falsify the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, because everything stated in the theory is contrary not only to observation, but contrary to established physical principles and physical laws as well. The fact that AGW still exists as a valid hypothesis seven years after the Earth started to cool in spite of the continued rapid increase in global CO2 emissions, is testament to how easy it is to misinform the public with well executed propaganda and media control.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

The Met Office building is one of the MOST POLLUTING public buildings in the UK

27 augusti, 2009

A £30 million supercomputer, designed to predict climate change, has been named as one of Britain’s worst polluters. Also notice that the Met Office plays an active roll in spreading the Global Warming Hysteria.

There’s an old saying that’s comes to mind: Sweep around your own front door before you try to sweep around others

Story here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6098859/The-Met-Office-super-computer-by-numbers.html

”The Met Office super computer by numbers

A £30 million supercomputer, designed to predict climate change, has been named as one of Britain’s worst polluters in the latest embarrassment for the Met Office.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

Published: 12:11PM BST 27 Aug 2009

Here is a rundown of the Met Office super computer by numbers:

:: The £30 million computer – more powerful than 100,000 standard PCs – was installed in the Met Office’s new £80 million headquarters in May.

:: It is capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second to feed data to 400 scientists.

:: The computer uses 1.2 megawatts of energy to run – enough to power a small town.

:: In terms of pollution the computer produces 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.

:: This makes the Met Office building one of the most polluting public buildings in the UK as 75 per cent of its carbon footprint is produced by the super computer.”

And here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6812355.ece

”Climate change supercomputer makes Met building one of Britain’s most polluted

Jenny Booth

The Met Office’s new supercomputer has scored it’s second own goal since it was unveiled with much fanfare in May.

After tempting the nation into holidaying in Britain by wrongly forecasting a ”barbecue Summer”, it has now earned the Met Office’s Exeter headquarters the shame of being named as one of the most polluting buildings in Britain.

By the time it reaches peak performance in 2011 the £30 million machine’s massive processing power – it can perform 125 trillion calculations per second – will require 1.2 megawatts of power to run, enough energy to power a small town.

As a result it will contribute 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the problem of global warming every year.

That places the Met Office HQ close to the top of the list of carbon emitters103rd out of 28,259 UK public buildings assessed for their carbon footprint by the Department of Communities and Local Government.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

They, the politicians, take away our freedom and privacy – And All for nothing

25 augusti, 2009

The politicians have always kept repeating the mantra when they put a new law or regulation in place that limits our freedom, or takes away another piece of our privacy; that they do this to fight terrorism, organised crime, trafficking, currency speculation etc. etc.

Bellow is some interesting statistics about what ALL these new laws and techniques ACTUALLY accomplish in the real world. It’s grotesque how little we, the ordinary people, get in “return” for what we had to sacrifice in loss of freedom and privacy.

And for this our politicians gladly sold out our freedom and privacy rights- all for nothing!

And like a drunken driver they continue on this road in an ever accelerating speed.

The politicians want literally to know EVERYTHING we do: Every cell call you make, where we are when we make these calls and to whom, every SMS you send, every internet website you visit, every card transaction you make, every airline ticket you buy, every book you buy, every bank transaction you make, etc. etc.

To mention JUST A FEW EXAMPLES.

And they want to keep and store this information for as long as they like. To be “used” when they feel like it. Yes there are laws and rules that are supposed to put limits to the time “they” can keep these data and information. But as we have seen time and again from examples all over the world – these rules and laws means nothing in real life. They keep these data as long as they want, and share it with whoever the like regardless of what the laws says.

And this data and information is also “leaked” and outright sold.

Doesn’t it sound like a nice, cosy democratic and free society we all like to live in?

Se more in my posts here:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/category/fri-och-rattigheter/

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/category/yttrandefrihet/

 

Stories here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm

”1,000 cameras ‘solve one crime’

Only one crime was solved by each 1,000 CCTV cameras in London last year, a report into the city’s surveillance network has claimed.

The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals. In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers.  David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: ”It should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent.

He added: ”CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness.

”It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security. ”The Metropolitan Police has been extraordinarily slow to act to deal with the ineffectiveness of CCTV.”

Nationwide, the government has spent £500m on CCTV cameras.

But Det Sup Michael Michael McNally, who commissioned the report, conceded more needed to be done to make the most of the investment.

He said: ”CCTV, we recognise, is a really important part of investigation and prevention of crime, so how we retrieve that from the individual CCTV pods is really quite important.  ”There are some concerns, and that’s why we have a number of projects on-going at the moment.”  Among those projects is a pilot scheme by the Met to improve the way CCTV images are used.

A spokesman for the Met said: ”We estimate more than 70% of murder investigations have been solved with the help of CCTV retrievals and most serious crime investigations have a CCTV investigation strategy.”

Officers from 11 boroughs have formed a new unit which collects and labels footage centrally before distributing them across the force and media.

It has led to more than 1,000 identifications out of 5,260 images processed so far.

A Home Office spokeswoman said CCTVs ”help communities feel safer”.

Published: 2009/08/24 18:27:26 GMT
© BBC MMIX

Se also: “The statistics of CCTV”:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm

“One of the most dramatic revelations is that both the Shetland Islands Council and Corby Borough Council – among the smallest local authorities in the UK – have more CCTV cameras than the San Francisco Police Department.”

For your information: Shetland Islands have 21,990 people (2001), San Francisco has 808,976 people (2008)

 “The City of London [borough] has 619 cameras, but a population of only 9,000. This represents 68.7 cameras per 1,000 people.

The borough of Wandsworth has the highest number of CCTV cameras in London, with just under four cameras per 1,000 people. Its total number of cameras – 1,113 – is more than the police departments of Boston [USA], Johannesburg and Dublin City Council combined.

Some more statistics:

The borough of Wandsworth has a population of 260,380 (2001)

Boston has a population of 609,023 (2008), Johannesburg has 3,225,812 (2001) in reality around 7 million and Dublin has 1,187,176 (2006).A combined total of – 5,022,011+.

 Some interesting statistics from Germany – (Vorratsdatenspeicherung):

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorratsdatenspeicherung

“Basierend auf den Zahlen des Bundeskriminalamts würde sich die Aufklärungsquote im besten Fall um 0,006 Prozentpunkte erhöhen[17], siehe Darstellung unter Eingeschränkter Nutzen.”

Yes, at “BEST” this would “increase” the Clearance Rate a whopping 0,006 %!

Se also:

http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=86

http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Informationen_%C3%BCber_die_Vorratsdatenspeicherung

http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Chronik_der_Vorratsdatenspeicherung

http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Chronik_des_%C3%9Cberwachungsstaates

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>,<a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fra” rel=”tag”>fra</a>

varning-2

NO correlation between the shifts in the net flow of heat in oceans and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration

18 augusti, 2009

A very interesting study by David Douglass, professor of physics and Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Rochester. They have studied the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans and its effects on the global climate.

 “These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth’s climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.

…,the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring ”warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed,”

Se also my posts:

The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic

If ALL human activities CEASED in Alaska TODAY the effect on global temperature in 2100 would be 0,001 C

CO2 monthly mean at Mauna Loa leveling off, dropping?

Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This

The Press release:

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3420

August 14, 2009

Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies

Physicists at the University of Rochester have combed through data from satellites and ocean buoys and found evidence that in the last 50 years, the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans has changed direction three times.

These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth’s climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.

The physicists also say these changes in ocean heat-flow direction should be taken into account when predicting global climate because the oceans represent 90 percent of the total heat in the earth’s climate system.

The study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Physics Letters A, differs from most previous studies in two ways, the researchers say. First, the physicists look at the overall heat content of the Earth’s climate system, measuring the net balance of radiation from both the sun and Earth. And second, it analyzes more completely the data sets the researchers believe are of the highest quality, and not those that are less robust.

These shifts happened relatively abruptly,” says David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. ”One, for example, happened between 1976 and 1977, right when a number of other climate-related phenomenona were happening, such as significant changes in U. S. precipitation.”

Douglass says the last oceanic shift occurred about 10 years ago, and that the oceans are currently emitting slightly more radiation than they are receiving.

The members of the team, which includes Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University, believe these heat-flux shifts had previously gone unnoticed because no one had analyzed the data as thoroughly as the Rochester team has.

The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat. In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring ”warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed,” says Knox. ”The heat content data we used, gathered by oceanographers, was gleaned from temperature measurements at various ocean depths up to 750 meters.” The team also found that the radiative imbalance was sufficiently small that it was necessary to consider the effect of geothermal heating. Knox believes this is the first time this additional source of heat has been accounted for in such a model.

The team notes that it’s impossible to predict when another shift might occur, but they suspect future shifts might be similar to the three observed. Both Douglass and Knox are continuing to analyze various climate-related data to find any new information or correlations that may have so far gone unnoticed.

 2009-08-18_182553See also

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

PDO INDEX Monthly data here 1900-2009:

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/evidence-that-ocean-net-heat-flow-is-connected-with-climate-shifts-co2-not-correlated/

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/the-oceans-as-a-calorimeter/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

Cap and trade scheme defeated – And It should have been because it’s insane

16 augusti, 2009

The Australian senate voted down the governments Cap and Trade scheme (42 to 30).

As said in many of my posts: The cap- and trade scheme is a giant swindle where BOTH buyer AND Seller benefits from cheating. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. At normal peoples expense.

And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.

So we are talking about 0,03%.

Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.

If you go through all my posts in this blog you are going to find eminent examples of all these different stages of the Global Warming Hysteria.

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

And that the politicians love this Global Warming Hysteria because they can tax everyone to death, and introduce new fees etc with the “motivation” that “they” are “saving” the planet from the Global Warming treat.

Of course they don’t sacrifice anything themselves- se the glaring example of Al Gore who preaches frugality to the masses while he himself gladly continues with his great and energy rich lifestyle – they ONLY LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN and BURDEN of this sacrifice.

The sad part about this Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, is the press and medias role in censoring and intimidating everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

And there willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria. Not to mention their part in covering up the Giant Difference between what these high priests says and what they actually do. A total and utter shame for what journalism should be about.

These people – Global Warming Alarmists – TOTALLY without any sense of proportions, priorities and what is important for the survival of the human race and the Earth - We have entrusted to rule our countries?

Below is the speech of Senator Nick Minchin, Leader of the Opposition

Se my posts:

Existing measurement methods are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions CO2 trends

Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet! We’re really in a CO2 famine now.

The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!

The Origin and Life Cycle of Junk Science – OR Global Warming Hysteria

Global Warming Hysteria – It’s all about the money, YOUR money

The environmentalists want to change us and our behaviour – Their ambition is to control and manipulate us

It’s not going to be cheap, easy or quick!

If ALL human activities CEASED in Alaska TODAY the effect on global temperature in 2100 would be 0,001 C

Want to wreck the environment? Have a baby!

Se also all my many posts on carbon trading:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/carbon-trading/

 

Australia: Senators dump emissions scheme

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10590689&ref=rss

It should have been defeated because it’s insane

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/

it_should_have_been_defeated_because_its_insane/

UPDATE

A terrific speech against Rudd’s scheme by Senator Nick Minchin, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who truly does think it’s insane:

“Not only is the timing of this legislative initiative to be condemned, so too should the very name given to this package of legislation be condemned by this parliament… For no more than base political purposes, the government has called its emissions trading scheme a ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’. This is of course the perpetuation of a cruel hoax on the Australian people, childishly simplistic and misleading. The scheme proposed does not deal with carbon. It purports to deal with something quite separate—carbon dioxide emissions—and the scheme does not deal with pollution.

Whatever the climatic role of human induced emissions of CO2, CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant. CO2 is, as we know, a clear, odourless, colourless gas vital to life on earth… Indeed the Rudd government knows it too. Its own environment department’s website has a link to the official Australian National Pollutant Inventory, which lists 93 pollutants. Surprise, surprise, carbon dioxide is not listed among them….

It is also typical of this deceitful and spin-driven government to so cynically misrepresent the nature of carbon dioxide. Of course this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming… The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century…

Australia contributes a little over one per cent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. If we were to completely shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, Australia’s  CO2 emissions would be fully replaced by China within nine months. It is indisputably the case that nothing Australia does on its own can have any impact whatsoever on the earth’s climate. The deceit perpetrated by climate change fanatics that an Australian ETS will save the Barrier Reef is utterly contemptible…

The cruel joke is that all those thousands of jobs to be destroyed by Labor’s CPRS will be in vain, because this scheme will make absolutely no difference to the global climate

At least a quarter of Rudd’s front bench will know every word of this to be true, and yet they do not speak. One day, when this insanity has finally blown itself out, they will have to account – to themselves as much as to the rest of us – for their failure to defend not just reason but the best interests of their country. “

Tuesday, 11 August 2009 THE SENATE 1 CHAMBER SPEECH

Date Tuesday, 11 August 2009 Source Senate

Page 70 Proof Yes

Questioner Responder

Speaker Minchin, Sen Nick Question No.

Senator MINCHIN (South Australia) (7.32 pm)—

The government this week are asking the Senate to support passage of a package of no less than 11 separate bills, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills, to give effect to their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as they call it. This scheme represents one of the most dramatic and far-reaching interventions into the Australian economy ever proposed by an Australian government. Its passage and entry into force would have enormous impacts on the Australian economy and the economic circumstances of millions of Australians.  The government knows there is no Senate majority for this legislation, yet it is determined on what is nothing more than a cynical political exercise.  This legislation should be withdrawn for a number of reasons. Firstly, it proposes a scheme which will not commence operation for another two years. There is absolutely no justification for the government’s insistence that the parliament deal with it now.  Secondly, the government is seeking to legislate an emissions trading scheme for Australia well in advance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen in December, which will determine the extent to which, if any, the world is prepared to act in concert on CO2 emissions.

It is utter folly for Australia to legislate a scheme prior to the Copenhagen conference. And, thirdly, the United States, currently the biggest emitter, is currently considering the issue of an ETS. It is, in our view, cynically irresponsible to propose that the Australian parliament lock in an Australian ETS prior to the US —as I said, the biggest emitter of CO2—before it determines whether or not it will commit to an ETS and, if so, the nature and design of such a scheme.  For these reasons, the opposition condemns the government for its naked political opportunism in forcing the parliament to consider its so-called CPRS at this time. Not only is the timing of this legislative initiative to be condemned, so too should the very name given to this package of legislation be condemned by this parliament. It is regrettably typical of this spindriven government to use such a grotesquely Orwellian approach to the description of this legislation. For no more than base political purposes, the government has called its emissions trading scheme a ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’.

This is of course the perpetuation of a cruel hoax on the Australian people, childishly simplistic and misleading. The scheme proposed does not deal with carbon. It purports to deal with something quite separate—carbon dioxide emissions—and the scheme does not deal with pollution.  Whatever the climatic role of human induced emissions of CO2, CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant. CO2 is, as we know, a clear, odourless, colourless gas vital to life on earth.  Indeed, CO2 is essential to a healthy environment.  One of the most cynical and deceptive manoeuvres of the climate change fanatics is to seek to convince people that CO2 emissions are pollution, to demonise CO2 per se. Anyone with any understanding of science knows this to be a complete falsehood.  Indeed the Rudd government knows it too. Its own environment department’s website has a link to the official Australian National Pollutant Inventory, which lists 93 pollutants. Surprise, surprise, carbon dioxide is not listed among them. Mind you, after this speech, I bet some poor public servant will be bullied into adding CO2 to the list. So even the government’s own official list of pollutants, all 93 of them, does not include carbon dioxide.

It is also typical of this deceitful and spin-driven government to so cynically misrepresent the nature of carbon dioxide. Of course this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming. I want to commend Senator Fielding for his questioning of the government over the causes of global warming. The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century.  No-one, of course, disputes the reality of climate change. Of course the climate is constantly changing —it always has; it always will—but the main drivers of the small degree of warming that occurred in the 20th-century and the extent to which we should be concerned about it are hotly disputed in scientific circles. One of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, Professor Richard Lindzen of Tuesday, 11 August 2009 THE SENATE 2 CHAMBER the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently observed:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.  The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.

That is Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, who I suspect knows a little bit more about this subject than Senator Penny Wong. On Tuesday, June 23, writing in the Australian, Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at Flinders University, in Adelaide, reinforced this:

Repeatedly in science we are reminded that happenings in nature can rarely be ascribed to a single phenomenon. For example, sea levels on our coasts are dependent on winds and astronomical forces as well as atmospheric pressure and, on a different time scale, the temperature profile of the ocean.  Now, with complete abandon, a vociferous body of claimants is insisting that CO2 alone is the root of climatic evil.  I fear that many supporters of this view have become carried away by the euphoria of mass or dominant group psyche.  Scientists are no more immune from being swayed by the pressure of collective enthusiasm than any other member of the human race.

To acknowledge the reality of continuing scientific debate is not to say that Australia should not act in concert with other nations to give the planet the benefit of the doubt and to seek a global agreement to contain CO2 emissions. To the extent that anthropogenic CO2 emissions may be a cause of the limited global warming that has occurred, and to the extent that that warming is considered to be damaging, internationally coordinated measures to contain emissions at the least possible cost may be warranted. Indeed, as someone trained in economics, I proclaim the virtue of an approach based on ensuring the most cost-efficient use of finite resources. The world has not measured up to that standard in relation to its use of energy. But, given the continuing scientific debate, it is especially important that a country like Australia only take steps in relation to CO2 emissions that are in concert with the rest of the world and clearly involve the least cost and most economically efficient means of CO2 containment.

The government’s CPRS clearly fails that test. The case against this scheme was convincingly made by my colleague the member for Goldstein, Mr Robb, in his speech on this bill in the House of Representatives.  I also commend the work of my coalition colleagues on the Economics Legislation Committee in their reports on these bills and of Senator Xenophon on his minority report, which is a well-argued condemnation of this CPRS. I should also make mention of the critical analysis of this CPRS undertaken by the Select Committee on Climate Policy, chaired by my colleague Senator Colbeck, which exposed the CPRS’s many, many flaws.

Not enough is made of the reality of Australia’s circumstances in the consideration of measures to contain anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Australia contributes a little over one per cent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. If we were to completely shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, Australia’s CO2 emissions would be fully replaced by China within nine months. It is indisputably the case that nothing Australia does on its own can have any impact whatsoever on the earth’s climate. The deceit perpetrated by climate change fanatics that an Australian ETS will save the Barrier Reef is utterly contemptible. The manic determination of the government to impose this scheme on Australia also ignores the reality of the Australian economy.  Australia’s economy and our higher standard of living have been built upon our access to relatively cheap and abundant supplies of energy generated by coal-fired power stations. This is regrettably not well understood in this parliament let alone in the wider community. It was my privilege to serve as Minister for Industry, Science and Resources for three years in the Howard government, an experience which reinforced this fundamental reality about Australia: all the great manufacturing and value-added industries of Australia, which this Labor government professes a commitment to, have been built on and are sustained by access to cheap, reliable energy derived from coal. That is why an ETS, essentially an energy tax, is such a threat to this country. As Terry McCrann so accurately said in the Australian of 20-21 June:

an ETS threatens to kill the Australian economy. It is a direct attack on our core comparative advantage: bluntly, the production of CO2.

Power generated from cheap and abundant coal is a, perhaps the, core building block of both our standard of living and our entire economy.

That is a reality which this government wilfully ignores. What we see here is a Labor government sacrificing workers in energy-intensive industries on the altar of green votes. The cruel joke is that all those thousands of jobs to be destroyed by Labor’s CPRS will be in vain, because this scheme will make absolutely no difference to the global climate.

 Tuesday, 11 August 2009 THE SENATE 3 CHAMBER Most Australians clearly do not understand what an emissions trading scheme is, how it would work and what its consequences would be. That is perfectly understandable. I suspect most of the Labor caucus has no idea, either. Essentially it will be a very substantial tax on energy, and that is why Labor’s flawed CPRS is such a threat to our economy, dependent as it is on relatively cheap supplies of energy. Hence the utter folly of Australia designing and implementing this scheme ahead of the rest of the world.  Labor’s CPRS is a serious threat to many regional economies and the jobs they support, and I commend Senator Fiona Nash for her eloquent espousal of their cause. In my own state of South Australia it is estimated that it will cost 2,000 jobs by 2020 in the minerals industry alone. As a senator for South Australia, I do not see how I can possibly vote for this legislation, nor do I see how any government senators representing South Australia can vote for it. While the financial capitals of Melbourne and Sydney may relish the creation of a new financial instrument to be traded by 20-something bankers, the people of a state like mine will pay the price in a higher cost of living, in industries and jobs destroyed and in a reduction in competitiveness—all for zero environmental gain.  

It is also reprehensible that Labor would seek to legislate this serious attack on the Australian economy at a time when, as Mr Rudd constantly reminds us, we face a very serious set of economic circumstances.  Mr Rudd loves to remind us of the seriousness of the so-called GFC and its threat to Australia. Indeed, it is his justification for the most massive explosion in government spending, government deficits and government debt seen since the 1930s. Yet, while talking endlessly about our serious economic situation, he seeks to fit Australia up with a set of concrete boots called his CPRS. As Geoff Carmody, one of Australia’s most eminent economists, wrote in the Financial Review on 23 June this year:

The CPRS is ‘the GST from hell’, delivering negative protection. Why should any country unilaterally tax its exports and effectively subsidise its imports, for no global emissions reduction?

At a time when policy should be wholly directed at maximising the efficiency, productivity and international competitiveness of the Australian economy, Mr Rudd seeks to impose a unilateral massive new tax on Australian industry and consumers which will damage our economy and do nothing to combat global warming. The government’s pursuit of this legislation at this time is nothing more than an act of vanity on the part of Mr Kevin Rudd. This most vain of prime ministers wants to strut the stage at Copenhagen in December with a legislated ETS in his back pocket. He and his government propose to sacrifice Australia’s national interest on the altar of his vain desire for international acclaim from the vast UN bureaucracy being built around climate change policy.  The Australian parliament should not even be considering legislation for an ETS until we know the outcome of the UN’s Copenhagen conference and the US Senate’s consideration of the Waxman- Markey bill. The Australian people agree with this view. An Australian Newspoll conducted on the weekend of 24 to 26 July showed that 53 per cent of Australians wanted their government to either delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme until after the Copenhagen conference or not introduce an emissions trading scheme at all. On that basis, and for the reasons I have outlined to the Senate tonight, I urge the Senate to reject this package of bills.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

Existing measurement methods are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions CO2 trends

10 augusti, 2009

Some interesting conclusions from the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate – National Academy of Sciences regarding monitoring CO2 emissions around the world.

“..current methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions have limitations for monitoring a climate treaty. National emission inventories, required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, are self-reported and are not required regularly for all countries. Verification requires checking these self-reported emissions estimates. However, independent data against which to verify the statistics used to estimate CO2 emissions, such as fossil fuel consumption, are not available. Existing instruments and methods for remote monitoring of atmospheric CO2 are not able, with useful accuracy, to distinguish fossil fuel emissions from natural fluxes or to verify trends in fossil fuel emissions, such as reductions against a baseline.”

“However, estimated changes in atmospheric CO2 abundance due to fossil fuel sources are confounded by errors in the reconstruction of atmospheric transport, by sparse CO2 observations, and by the much larger changes due to biological sources and sinks.4 Because of these complications, the tracer-transport inversion method is currently able to estimate emissions with a useful accuracy only for some large continents.”

“The existing atmospheric CO2 sampling network of ground stations, aircraft, and satellites is not well designed for estimation of emissions from large local sources distributed around the globe.”

“Monitoring urban and power plant emissions from space is challenging and has not been demonstrated.”

“The committee’s analysis suggests that existing measurement methods alone are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions trends.”

Which means that there would be no way to verify that countries around the world are complying with emissions limits that may be set by an international treaty.

You can read the letter here:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12723#toc

You can download the PDF here:

http://cart.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?record_id=12723

Major General Charles F. Bolden, Jr.

Administrator

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

300 E Street, SW

Washington, DC 20546

Dear General Bolden:

A National Research Council committee is conducting a study on how well greenhouse gas emissions can be measured for treaty monitoring and verification. The committee’s analysis suggests that NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), which failed on launch in February 2009, would have provided proof of concept for spaceborne technologies to monitor greenhouse gas emissions, as well as baseline emissions data. This letter focuses on the capabilities of an OCO and currently deployed satellites that measure atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and their potential role in monitoring and verifying a greenhouse gas treaty.1

 The committee’s study is focused on emission estimates of the greenhouse gases resulting from human activities (e.g., fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture) that have the greatest potential to warm the planet and in particular on CO2 (see Attachment B for the committee charge). The committee is currently in the analysis and writing phase, with the expectation that its report will be delivered in December 2009. We are writing you now because a decision on replacing OCO will be made in the coming months,2 before our final report is completed.

Current proposals for an OCO reflight focus on the original scientific objectives of studying natural CO2 sources and sinks.3 In addition, it is important to consider the potential contribution of an OCO-like instrument for treaty monitoring and verification. Such capabilities may be an important consideration in treaty discussions at the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

If a treaty is negotiated in the coming months, monitoring and verification will initially have to rely on current capabilities and on measurement enhancements that can be deployed quickly. As the committee’s final report will describe in more detail, current methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions have limitations for monitoring a climate treaty. National emission inventories, required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, are self-reported and are not required regularly for all countries. Verification requires checking these self-reported emissions estimates. However, independent data against which to verify the statistics used to estimate CO2 emissions, such as fossil fuel consumption, are not available. Existing instruments and methods for remote monitoring of atmospheric CO2 are not able, with useful accuracy, to distinguish fossil fuel emissions from natural fluxes or to verify trends in fossil fuel emissions, such as reductions against a baseline.

Atmospheric CO2 measurements by ground stations, aircraft, and satellites can be combined with atmospheric circulation models to infer emissions from the land surface, a method known as tracer-transport inversion. The principle is that an emission source located between two sites will cause the abundance of the gas to be higher at the downwind site than at the upwind site by an amount proportional to the source strength. However, estimated changes in atmospheric CO2 abundance due to fossil fuel sources are confounded by errors in the reconstruction of atmospheric transport, by sparse CO2 observations, and by the much larger changes due to biological sources and sinks.4 Because of these complications, the tracer-transport inversion method is currently able to estimate emissions with a useful accuracy only for some large continents. The method’s accuracy could be improved by expanding the CO2 sampling network on the ground and from space, and OCO was in fact designed to improve tracer-transport inversions.

 A complementary approach to tracer-transport inversion is to measure the increased atmospheric abundance on top of large local sources such as cities or power plants. The majority of fossil fuel emissions emanate from such sources and would likely be a target of mitigation measures. These large sources increase the local CO2 abundance in the atmosphere by 1-10 ppm, a signal large enough to overwhelm the signal from natural sources and sinks, reducing this source of uncertainty.5 Because the increased abundances are largest over the source of emissions and disperse within a few tens of kilometers, they can usually be attributed unambiguously to their country of origin. Statistical or systematic sampling of CO2 from large local sources would thus support treaty verification by providing independent data against which to compare trends in emissions reported by countries, at least for the fossil fuel emissions from cities and power plants.

 The existing atmospheric CO2 sampling network of ground stations, aircraft, and satellites is not well designed for estimation of emissions from large local sources distributed around the globe. Ground stations and aircraft were purposefully deployed away from large fossil fuel sources to better detect natural sources and sinks, but could be deployed to monitor CO2 emitted from selected cities and power plants. However, this would require international cooperation and such nationally operated stations would still have the verification challenges associated with selfreporting.

 Satellites obviate these problems. As shown in Attachment A, Japan’s GOSAT is the best available spaceborne measurement of CO2, although it is not optimal for monitoring emissions by large fossil fuel sources. It has lower uncertainty and higher spatial resolution than SCIAMACHY, AIRS, or IASI, and it senses near the surface where emission signals are largest, unlike AIRS and IASI. However, the CO2 signal produced by the emissions of a large power plant is typically too small to measure with GOSAT.6 In contrast, OCO would have enabled monitoring of CO2 emissions from such local sources.6 No other satellite has its critical combination of high precision, small footprint, readiness, density of cloud-free measurements, and ability to sense CO2 near the earth’s surface (Attachment A). In particular, its 1- to 2-ppm accuracy and 1.29 × 2.25-km sampling area would have been well matched to the size of a power plant.6

 OCO would have had limitations for monitoring CO2 emissions from large sources in the context of a climate treaty. It would have sampled only 7-12% of the land surface7 with a revisit period of 16 days, and its lifetime would be only 2 years (Attachment A). However, many metropolitan areas are large enough to be sampled by OCO, and OCO would have provided a sample of a few percent of the power plants. Monitoring urban and power plant emissions from space is challenging and has not been demonstrated. A replacement OCO could demonstrate these capabilities. Nevertheless, it would be valuable to explore changes in the orbit and other parameters so that a greater fraction of large sources is sampled. For example, consider a precessing orbit covering ~100% of the surface but with only two measurements per year of each location. With 100-500 large local sources in high-emitting countries, it might be possible to obtain a statistical sample of hundreds of measurements of plumes of CO2 being emitted by the large sources in each of these countries. The trade-offs in optimizing monitoring capabilities while meeting scientific objectives would have to be examined by a technical advisory group.

 Because of its two-year mission life, OCO would not by itself have been able to track emission trends. However, it would have provided the first few years of measurements (a baseline) necessary to verify a decadal trend for the large local sources within its footprint, and served as a pathfinder for successor satellites designed specifically to support treaty monitoring and verification. Even with the data and lessons learned from a replacement OCO, a successor mission is unlikely to be ready for almost a decade.8

Space-based monitoring of emissions to support a greenhouse gas reduction treaty has received little attention by U.S. scientists and the government. The committee’s analysis suggests that existing measurement methods alone are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions trends. Although OCO was not designed for treaty monitoring and verification, it would have provided baseline emission data from large fossil fuel sources as well as essential tests of the engineering designs and measurement concepts required to develop a robust capability for monitoring emissions from space.

The committee hopes this report helps to inform NASA’s upcoming decision on flying a replacement OCO.

Sincerely,

Stephen W. Pacala, Chair

Committee on Methods for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet! We’re really in a CO2 famine now.

7 augusti, 2009

Professor Frank J. Tipler:

  “Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere.

Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million.”

Se also my posts:

This is what the Global Warming Hysteria is all about – 0,03%!

The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature

50 Years of CO2 monitoring: Can you see the increase???

The wonderful benefits of CO2!

När CO2 var som störst var temperaturen som lägst!

A CO2 graph that says it all!

Article here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/humans-and-their-co2-save-the-planet/

Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet!

Why opposition to the cap-and-trade bill is not “treason against the planet.”

August 5, 2009 – by Frank J. Tipler

As the Senate considers the fate of the cap-and-trade bill, we should consider what it means for more carbon dioxide to be added to the atmosphere, something the bill intends to prevent.

Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere.

Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million. But the percentage had dropped to a mere 200 parts per million. Plants tried to adapt by evolving a new, more efficient way of using the little remaining CO2. The new mechanism, the C4 pathway, appeared in grasses, including corn and wheat, which enabled these plants to expand into the plains. If the carbon dioxide percentage had stayed low — or worse, had decreased further — the entire biosphere would have been endangered.

Fortunately for the plants and the rest of the biosphere depending on them, a wonderful thing happened about 150,000 years ago: a new animal species, Homo sapiens, evolved. This creature was endowed with a huge brain, enabling it to invent a way to help the plants with their CO2 problem. Gigantic amounts of carbon had been deposited deep underground in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. Not only were these reservoirs of carbon locked away in rock, but they were in forms of carbon that the plants could not use.

These wonderful humans, however, worked hard to help the plants. Not only did the humans dig the coal, oil, and natural gas, bringing it to the surface, but they converted these raw materials into the only form of carbon that plants could use: carbon dioxide. Due to the diligent plant-saving efforts of the humans, the CO2 atmospheric percentage is now at nearly 390 parts per million. Were humans to continue in their biosphere-rescuing efforts at the present rate, the CO2 level will be returned to normal in a mere few hundred years.

The cap-and-trade bill is designed to stop this effort to save the biosphere. This is a profoundly evil act. In the words of the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, anyone who supports the bill, or any measure aimed at reducing the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is “guilty of treason against the planet”!

Those who want to reduce the use of fossil fuels are the mortal enemies of the biosphere. They must be stopped at all costs! Write your senator at once!

The astute reader will have noted that Krugman actually accused those who opposed the cap-and-trade bill of “treason against the planet.” What I have done is use well-known science to show that, from the biosphere’s point of view, it is the cap-and-trade bill that is “treasonable.” Remarkably, Krugman assumes that the climatic conditions of a mere century or so ago are the “natural” ones that must not be changed. A very anthropomorphic point of view is being used to denounce humanity. An ultraconservative reactionary political position is being called “progressive.”

Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press) and the author of The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity both published by Doubleday.

 

Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee.

Prominent Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ 

‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’ 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=AF8F5B20-802A-23AD-49FB-8A2D53F00437

The statement from Happer here:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

The hijacking of American Chemical Society by a Global Warming Hysterical editor

7 augusti, 2009

A very good example of how the Global Warming Crowd is trying to “hijack” scientific organisations for there own end.

Noteworthy is the usual derision and hostility towards criticism from scientists. And the claim that there is nothing to discuss and that everything is settled.

An attitude that has nothing to do with what science is about and the methods used in pursuit of the scientific fact.

“Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul.”

“Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

“Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me…his use of ‘climate-change deniers’ to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

But all this is no surprise – The global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science or facts. It’s all about politics and a agenda which is not officially stated.

As I have said before:

“So if the Global Warming Hysterics want to succeed the formula is very simple:

Start civil wars, Support dictators, Oppress ALL political freedoms and rights, and keep the people in TOTAL poverty.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, will you succeed in reducing mankind to enough poverty and slavery to be able to succeed in this “worthy” goal to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

They, the Dictators, are great at reducing EVERYTHING, including CO2 emissions.

And the “best” way to stop the “worst” emitters per capita is to sink all these islands/coastal cities that are so good at spreading the CO2. So all Global Warming Hysterics should “welcome” the rise of sea levels (which is NOT happening).

Notice that all the “best” countries isn’t exactly the ‘Ten Best Places you Want to Live” either to put it middle.

And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.

So we are talking about 0,03%.

Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.”

The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!

 

“Below is a very good description of the cycle and the forces behind any mass hysteria and junk science.

If you go through all my posts in this blog you are going to find eminent examples of all these different stages of the Global Warming Hysteria.

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

And that the politicians love this Global Warming Hysteria because they can tax everyone to death, and introduce new fees etc with the “motivation” that “they” are “saving” the planet from the Global Warming treat.

Of course they don’t sacrifice anything themselves- se the glaring example of Al Gore who preaches frugality to the masses while he himself gladly continues with his great and energy rich lifestyle – they ONLY LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN and BURDEN of this sacrifice.

The sad part about this Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, is the press and medias role in censoring and intimidating everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

And there willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria. Not to mention their part in covering up the Giant Difference between what these high priests says and what they actually do. A total and utter shame for what journalism should be about.

These people – Global Warming Alarmists – TOTALLY without any sense of proportions, priorities and what is important for the survival of the human race and the Earth - We have entrusted to rule our countries?”

The Origin and Life Cycle of Junk Science – OR Global Warming Hysteria

Se also:

Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism

 

Baums editorial here:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/87/8725editor.html

Protest letters here:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html

Article here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2213/Climate-Revolt-Major-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed

And here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2248/Update-Scientist-Accuses-American-Chemical-Society-Editor-of-censoring-of-articles-and-letters-that-reject-manmade-global-warming-claims

 

Climate Revolt: World’s Largest Science Group ‘Startled’ By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed!  

 Scientists seek to remove climate fear promoting editor and ‘trade him to New York Times or Washington Post’

Wednesday, July 29, 2009By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

 Climate Depot Exclusive

[Update July 31, 2009: Scientist Accuses American Chemical Society Editor of 'censoring of articles and letters' that reject man-made global warming claims! Many of the members have not only expressed their disgust, they are contemplating leaving the group' ]

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the ”consensus” view was growing ”increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is ”startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the ”world’s largest scientific society.”

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”

Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum’s use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum’s editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”

One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: ”When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise.”

Baum ‘startled’ by scientists reaction

Baum wrote on July 27, that he was ”startled” and ”surprised” by the ”contempt” and ”vehemence” of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming ”consensus.”

”Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming,” Baum wrote.

 Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:

“I think it’s time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D’Ambra wrote.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?”

Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me…his use of ‘climate-change deniers’ to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: ”I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ‘free-market fanatics,’ and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.”

William Tolley: ”I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.”

William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”

ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board ‘cap’ Baum’s political pen and ‘trade’ him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.” [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum's editorial go here and see below.]

Physicists Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum’s editorial an ”alarmist screed.”

“Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views,” Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.

 Baum cites discredited Obama Administration Climate Report

To “prove” his assertion that the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama Administration’s U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor’s Note: Baum’s grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: ‘Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: ‘This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA’…’Misrepresents the science’ – July 8, 2009 )

Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor's Note: This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don't even exist - No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' June 20, 2009 ]

 The American Chemical Society’s scientific revolt is the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University’s Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!? – Global Warming could stop ‘for up to 30 years! Warming ‘On Hold?…’Could go into hiding for decades,’ peer-reviewed study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! ‘Nature not man responsible for recent global warming…little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans’ – July 23, 2009 )

A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed ”More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” 2009’s continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks! Global temperatures ‘have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth’ – July 5, 2009

In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

Selected Excerpted Highlights of American Chemical Society Scientist’s Reaction to Baum’s Editorial: (For full letters see here.)

Instead of debate, members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. I think ACS should make an effort to educate its membership about the science of climate change and let them draw their own conclusions. Although under your editorial leadership, I suspect we would be treated to a biased and skewed version of scientific debate. I think its time to find a new editor. [...] How about using your position as editor to promote a balanced scientific discussion of the theory behind the link of human activity to global warming? I am not happy that you continue to use the pulpit of your editorials to promote your left-wing opinions.

Thomas E. D’Ambra
Rexford, N.Y.

#

Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded?
Do you refer to ”climate change” instead of ”global warming” because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?


Howard Hayden
Pueblo West, Colo.

#

I was a geochemist doing research on paleoclimates early in my career. I have tried to follow the papers in the scientific literature. [...] I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.
The peer-reviewed literature is not unequivocal about causes and effects of global warming. We are still learning about properties of water, for goodness’ sake. There needs to be more true scientific research without politics on both sides and with all scientists being heard. To insult and denigrate those with whom you disagree is not becoming.


R. Everett Langford
The Woodlands,
Texas

#

Your editorial in the June 22 issue of C&EN was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!


Are you planning to write an editorial about the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent suppression of a global warming report that goes against the gospel according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen? Or do you only editorialize on matters in keeping with your biased views on global warming?


Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind’s contribution to climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and ultimately ineffective.


Dennis Malpass
Magnolia
, Texas

#

I can’t accept as facts the reports of federal agencies, because they have become political and are more likely to support the regime in power than not. Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me.


Edward H. Gleason
Ooltewah,
Tenn.

#

Having worked as an atmospheric chemist for many years, I have extensive experience with environmental issues, and I usually agree with Rudy Baum’s editorials. But his use of ”climate-change deniers” to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific. [...] Given the climate’s complexity and these and other uncertainties, are we justified in legislating major increases in our energy costs unilaterally guided only by a moral imperative to ”do our part” for Earth’s climate? I am among many environmentally responsible citizen-scientists who think this is stupid, both because our emissions reductions will be dwarfed by increases elsewhere (China and India, for example) and because the models have large uncertainties. [...] I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ”free-market fanatics,” and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.

Roger L. Tanner
Muscle Shoals, Ala.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

(more…)

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 15

7 augusti, 2009

Efter en skön semester så tänkte jag börja blogga igen med en säker ”klassiker”: – vindkraften.

Oavsett årstid så kan man ALLTID räkna med att vindkraften är sig lik – dvs. mycket stora svängningar i effekt (vi pratar om 60-80% minskning på en dag) och liten total effekt.

Så här kommer aktuell driftstatistik från de svenska vindkraftverken från de senaste 30 dagarna.

 2009-08-07_144100

De senaste dagarna så ha det varit ihållande vindar på 2-9 m/s i stort sett i hela landet.

Trotts dessa någorlunda IDEALA omständigheter så är den SAMLADE EFFEKTEN FRÅN DE SVENSKA VINDKRAFTVERKEN IDAG 3 %.

Jäpp, HELA 3%.

Och är det INTE FANTASTISKT MED DESSA OTROLIGA STORA VARIATIONER UPP OCH NER!

Den 21/7 så var produktionen DRYGT 9100 MWh per dygn. 1, jag säger 1 dag senare så var den drygt 2400 MWh per dygn!

EN MINSKNING AV PRODUKTIONEN PÅ DRYGT 73 %! PÅ 1DAG!

Och detta är ju på inget sätt unikt – Tvärtom!

Är det inte fantastiskt att det är detta MYCKET DYRA, OSÄKRA och MYCKET SUBVENTIONERADE energislag som skall “rädda” vår energiförsörjning.

Ni kan läsa mer om mina inlägg om vindkraft här:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/vindkraft/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2


Följ

Få meddelanden om nya inlägg via e-post.

Gör sällskap med 233 andra följare

%d bloggare gillar detta: