Upproret växer – Nya omoraliska vetenskapsmän!

Upproret mot Al Gores och Global Warming Hysterikernas åsiktsförtryck växer. Ni vet ”debatten är över, det finns inget att diskutera” och det är ”omoraliskt” att ens ifrågasätta Global Warming teorin (se mitt inlägg: Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!).

Som en uppdatering till mitt inlägg Över 400 omoraliska vetenskapsmän! så har det sedan denna lista publicerades (20/12) på drygt två veckor tillkommit ca 20 stycken nya vetenskapsmän som har anslutit sig.

Allt fler av de vetenskapsmän som hittills har varit skrämda till tystnad, hukat p.g.a. rädsla för indragna forskningsanslag etc. Börjar nu tröttna på Global Warming Tyranniet och kommer öppet ut mot detta ovärdiga och ovetenskapliga förtryck a la inkvisitionen.

Se även mitt inlägg: Öppet brev till FN och konferensen på Bali

Namnen finns här:




Här är några av de namn som anslutit sig till upproret mot Global Warming Hysterin:

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

1. Physics professor Dr. Frederick Wolf of Keene State College in New Hampshire has taught meteorology and climatology courses for the past 25 years and will be undertaking a sabbatical project on global warming. Wolf recently declared he was skeptical of man-made climate fears. ”Several things have contributed to my skepticism about global warming being due to human causes. We all know that the atmosphere is a very complicated system. Also, after studying climate, I am aware that there are cycles of warm and cold periods of varying lengths which are still not completely understood,” Wolf wrote EPW on January 10, 2008. ”Also, many, many of the supporters (or believers) of human induced warming have not read the IPCC report AND Al Gore is NOT a climate scientist!” Wolf added. He also rejected the claim that most scientists agree mankind is driving a ”climate crisis.” ”I am impressed by the number of scientific colleagues who are naturally skeptical about the conclusion of human induced warming,” Wolf added.

2. Biologist Dr. Matthew Cronin, a research professor at the School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, called predictions that future global warming would devastate polar bear populations ”one extreme case hypothesis.” ”We don’t know what the future ice conditions will be, as there is apparently considerable uncertainty in the sea ice models regarding the timing and extent of sea ice loss. Also, polar bear populations are generally healthy and have increased worldwide over the last few decades,” Cronin said in March 2007. ”Recent declines in sea ice and indications that polar bears in some areas may be negatively impacted are cause for concern, but in my opinion do not warrant designation of the species as threatened with extinction,” Cronin said. ”I believe that consideration of multiple hypotheses regarding the future of sea ice and polar bear populations would provide better science than reliance on one extreme case hypothesis of loss of sea ice and associated drastic declines in polar bear populations,” Cronin said.

3. Senior Meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang P. Thuene was a former analyst and forecaster for the German Weather Service in the field of synoptic meteorology and also worked for the German Environmental Protection Agency. Thuene currently works in the Ministry of Environment and Forests of Rheinland-Pfalz. In 2007, Thuene rejected the idea that mankind is driving global warming. ”All temperature and weather observations indicate that the earth isn’t like a greenhouse and that there is in reality no ‘natural greenhouse effect’ which could warm up the earth by its own emitted energy and cause by re-emission a ‘global warming effect’. With or without atmosphere every body looses heat, gets inevitably colder. This natural fact, formulated by Sir Isaac Newton in his ‘cooling law’, led Sir James Dewar to the construction of the ‘Dewar flask’ to minimize heat losses from a vessel. But the most perfect thermos flask can’t avoid that the hot coffee really gets cold. The hypothesis of a natural and a man-made ‘greenhouse effect’, like eugenics, belongs to the category ‘scientific errors,” Thuene wrote on February 24, 2007.

The infrared thermography is a smoking gun proof that the IPCC-hypothesis cannot be right. The atmosphere does not act like the glass of a greenhouse which primarily hinders the convection! The atmosphere has an open radiation window between 8 and 14 microns and is therefore transparent to infrared heat from the earth’s surface. This window cannot be closed by the distinctive absorption lines of CO2 at 4.3 and 15 microns. Because the atmosphere is not directly heated by the Sun but indirectly by the surface the earth loses warmth also by conduction with the air and much more effectively by vertical convection of the air to a very great part by evaporation and transpiration. Nearly thirty percent of the solar energy is used for evaporation and distributed as latent energy through the atmosphere,” Thuene wrote. ”Summarizing we can say: Earth’s surface gains heat from the Sun, is warmed up and loses heat by infrared radiation. While the input of heat by solar radiation is restricted to the daytime hours, the outgoing terrestrial radiation is a nonstop process during day and night and depends only on the body temperature and the emissivity. Therefore after sunset the earth continuous to radiate and therefore cools off. Because the air is in physical contact with the ground it also cools off, the vertical temperature profile changes, and we get a so called surface inversion which inhibits convection,” Thuene explained.

4. Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor in Ohio and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at its headquarters office near Washington, DC. DeFayette, who earned a masters degree in Physical Chemistry, also worked at the NRC’s Regional Office near Chicago where he was a Director of the Enforcement staff. He also served as a consultant to the Department of Energy. DeFayette wrote a critique of former Vice President Al Gore’s book, An Inconvenient Truth, in 2007. ”I freely admit I am a skeptic,” DeFayette told EPW on January 15, 2008. ”I take umbrage in so-called ‘experts’ using data without checking their sources. My scientific background taught me to question things that do not appear to be right (e.g.-if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is). That is one reason I went to such detail in critiquing Gore’s book. I also strongly object to the IPCC and its use of so-called ‘experts,'” DeFayette explained.

In his March 14, 2007 critique of Gore, DeFayette dismissed Gore’s claim that ”the survival of our civilization” is at stake. DeFayette wrote, ”Nonsense! Civilization may one day cease to exist but it won’t be from global warming caused by CO2. I can think of many more promising scenarios such as disease, nuclear war; volcanic eruptions; ice ages; meteor impacts; solar heating.” DeFayette asserted that Gore’s book was ”a political, not scientific, book. There is absolutely no discussion about the world’s climate history, effects of the sun, other planets, precession, eccentricity, etc.” DeFayette disputed Gore’s notion of a ”consensus.” ”Until a few months ago, scientists believed we had 9 planets, but now we have 8 because Pluto was demoted. In the 1600s scientists believed we lived in an earth-centered universe but Galileo disagreed and proved we lived in a sun-centered universe. At the time of Columbus, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat but obviously that was wrong. In the late 18th century, ‘Neptunists’ were convinced that all of the rocks of the Earth’s crust had been precipitated from water and Robert Jameson, a British geologist, characterized the supporting evidence as ‘incontrovertible,'” DeFayette wrote. ”In each of these cases there was ‘scientific consensus’ that eventually was rejected,” he added.

5. Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage, was in charge of South Africa’s Chamber of Mines’ Metallurgy Laboratory and was a former professor at University of Witwatersrand where he established a course in environmental chemical engineering. Lloyd has served as President of the South African Institution of Chemical Engineers, the Federation of Societies of Professional Engineers, and the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies of Southern Africa. Lloyd, who has authored over 150 refereed publications, currently serves as an honorary research fellow with the Energy Research Centre at the University of Cape Town.

Lloyd rejects man-made climate fears. ”I have grave difficulties in finding any but the most circumstantial evidence for any human impact on the climate,” Lloyd wrote to EPW on January 18, 2008. ”The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have tried numerous tests for radiative effects, and all have failed. I have tried to develop an isotopic method for identifying stable C12 (from fossil fuels) and merely ended up understanding the difference between the major plant chemistries and their differing ability to use the different isotopes. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven’t a clue about the forces driving our climate past,” Lloyd wrote. ”I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” he concluded.

6. Meteorologist Brad Sussman, a member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and Seal holder and past officer of the National Weather Association (NWA), is currently with WJW-TV in Cleveland, Ohio. Sussman, a meteorologist for over 21 years, proudly calls himself a ”denouncer of the very-flawed man-made global warming theory.” Sussman wrote to EPW on December 29, 2007 and explained that he ”debunks [global warming] theory by using logic and humor.” According to Sussman, ”global warming has been happening on and off for millions of years. Millions of years when mankind wasn’t driving around in SUVs and using coal for electric power!”

7. Hydrologist and geologist Mike McConnell of the U.S. Forest Service is a professional Earth scientist who has studied atmospheric pollution, post-wildfire mitigation planning, and groundwater surface water modeling. In 2007, McConnell dissented from the view that mankind has created a climate crisis. ”Climate change is a climate system that we have no real control over,” McConnell wrote on December 27, 2007. ”Our understanding on the complexities of our climate system, the Earth itself and even the sun are still quite limited. Scaring people into submission is not the answer to get people to change their environmental ways,” McConnell explained.

He also dismissed claims that the human race was ”the cause of our global warming.” McConnell wrote, ”There is no real basis for this. There is a growing body of scientific literatures outlining that this not to be the case.” He concluded, ”Now, if Earth was suffering under an accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced addition of CO2, the troposphere should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons do not support this fundamental presumption even though we are seeing higher CO2. We ought to see near lockstep temperature increments along with higher CO2 concentration over time, especially over the last several years. But we’re not.”

8. Physicist F. James Cripwell, a former scientist with UK’s Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge who worked under the leading expert in infra red spectroscopy — Sir Gordon Sutherland – and worked with the Operations Research for the Canadian Defense Research Board, recently dissented from man-made climate change fears. ”It seems fair to believe that this new model (from the UK’s Climate Research Unit) assumes that if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase, temperatures will go up. Since some of us know this is wrong, it seems quite likely that the 2008 forecast will be as badly wrong as the 2007 one was. What will the media do then? Maybe if the Northwest Passage does not open up this summer, as seems quite likely, people may start to realize that AGW (Anthropogenic Global warming) is a myth,” Cripwell wrote to CCNET on January 8, 2008. In a note to CCNET on April 7, 2006, Cripwell explained, ”I am reminded of a quite well-known commercial in North America from Wendy’s, ‘Where’s the beef?’ When it comes to the [UN] IPCC claim that the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming, where’s the science?” Cripwell continued, ”Throughout the discussion of doubling the concentration of CO2, there is absolutely no reference to the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere over which the increased amount of radiative forcing is supposed to increase linearly when the concentration of CO2 doubles.

Presumably if you halved the concentration of CO2, you would decrease the radiative forcing by some linear amount. If you go on halving the CO2 concentration, then as the concentration of CO2 approached zero, it would appear that the CO2 was rapidly cooling the earth!! Clearly any claim that the doubling of the CO2 concentration results in a linear increase in the level of radiative forcing can have no credibility unless the range of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, over which the relationship is claimed to exist, is clearly established from sound scientific principles.” Cripwell concluded, ”If there is no scientific basis for the claim that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the radiative forcing linearly, then any claim to put a numerical value on this increase has no basis in science. Such a number, e.g. 4 Wm-2, is irrelevant and meaningless.

I am reminded of a discussion I had many years ago on the differences between astronomy and astrology. Both use the same data of the relative positions and motions of the earth, sun, moon, planets and stars; both have long complex calculations; both result in numerical answers. In the case of astronomy, the numbers have a scientific meaning; in the case of astrology, they do not. It seems to me that this claim of doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting in a linear addition to the radiative forcing is more akin to astrology than it is to astronomy.” (LINK) In another interview in 2005, Cripwell said, ”Whatever is causing warming, it is not an increase in levels of carbon dioxide. A more plausible theory is that it is water put into high altitudes by aircraft; this would have roughly the same time line,” Cripwell said.

9. Chemist and Biochemist Dr. Michael F. Farona, an emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of Akron and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, critiqued the news media for inadequate reporting about global warming and expressed climate skepticism. ”Data, numbers, graphs, trends, etc., are generally missing in supposedly scientific reports on global warming. These articles are usually long on opinions and short on hard data. Phrases such as ‘scientists agree that …’ scientists doubt that …’ do not belong in a scientific article. There are more data in Michael Crichton’s novel ‘State of Fear’ than in all the global warming articles combined that I have read,” Farona wrote on January 3, 2008. ”There have been at least four interglacial periods, where the glaciers have advanced and retreated. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago and, in the case of North America, left the Great Lakes in the glacier’s retreat. The glaciers are still retreating, so there should not be any great surprise that the sea level is rising.

The industrial revolution is about 150 years old, compared to 10,000 years of warming. Can human activities have really made a significant contribution to rising temperatures in that amount of time?” Farona asked. ”We know that the east coast of the U.S. was flooded during the previous interglacial period, so sea level rising and coastal flooding are not unique to this interglacial period. Why now the draconian predictions of coastal flooding as if this has not happened before?” he continued. ”What is the relationship between an increased level of carbon dioxide and temperature? Can it be predicted that an increase of so many parts per billion of carbon dioxide will cause an increase of so many degrees? I have not seen any answers to the questions posed above, leading me to adopt a somewhat skeptical view of blaming global warming on human activities. What puzzles me is the reluctance of climatologists to provide scientific data supporting their dire predictions of the near future if we don’t change our ways,” Farona concluded.

10. Award winning meteorologist Brian Sussman, a member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), former member of the AMS Education Advisory Committee, and formerly of KPIX-TV CBS in San Francisco, is the author of the forthcoming book ”Global Whining: A Denier’s Handbook.” ”Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is allegedly warming the planet. This hypothesis couldn’t stand the test of an eighth grade science fair. And if you dare poke holes in the hypothesis you’re branded a ‘denier,'” Sussman told EPW on January 3, 2008. ”Well fine. I’d rather be called a ‘denier’ than try to push a scheme that would make Karl Marx green with envy,” Sussman added.

11. Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. Briggs, a visiting mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased number or intensity in the North Atlantic. Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and climatological journals, has also authored another study looking on tropical cyclones around the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. ”There is a lot of uncertainly among scientists about what’s going on with the climate,” Briggs wrote to EPW on December 28, 2007. ”Most scientists just don’t want the publicity one way or another. Generally, publicity is not good for one’s academic career.

Only, after reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet,” Briggs explained. ”It is well known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no skill,” Briggs wrote. ”The skill of climate forecasts—global climate models—upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models,” he concluded.

13. Dr. Klaus P. Heiss formerly of Princeton University and Mathematica, and a space engineer who has worked with NASA, the US Atomic Energy Commission and the Office of Naval Research.

Heiss received the NASA Public Service award for unique contributions to the US Space Program and is a member of the International Astronautics Academy. Heiss dissented from what he termed the ”alleged climate catastrophe” in 2007. ”The 20th Century increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continuously. Man-made CO 2 grew exponentially; however, global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975, during the time span as the global industrial production almost exploded. Then [temperatures] rose strongly to 1990 and they have since stagnated, with the exception of El-Nino 1998 – at roughly the same level, although CO 2 emissions are still rising,” Heiss wrote in a September 7, 2007 commentary titled ”No Reason For Hysteria.”

”The entire atmospheric carbon dioxide, of which man-made CO 2 is only a fraction of, is not to blame for global warming,” Klaus explained. ”Carbon dioxide is not responsible for the warming of the global climate over the last 150 years. But what then? For more than 90 percent are changes in the Earth-Sun relationship to the climate fluctuations. One is the sun’s activities themselves, such as the recently discovered 22-year-cycles occur and sunspots,” Heiss continued. ”Looking at the climate history of our planet, it is clear to see – and quite reassuring with regard to the possible consequences of global warming as predicted by the IPCC — that we are now (more precisely, in the last two to three million years ago) in a very cold climate period. Any warming would give us only the best long-term climate of the last 560 million years back,” he added. ”Moreover, despite all the proposed measures and their enormous costs, most professional economic studies indicate that warmer times are generally better,” he concluded.

14. Economist Dr. Arnold Kling, formerly of the Federal Reserve Board and Freddie Mac, expressed man-made climate skepticism in 2007. ”I am worried about climate change. In one respect, I may be more worried than other people. I am worried because I have very little confidence that we know what is causing it,” Kling wrote in a December 21, 2007 commentary. ”One of my fears is that we could reduce carbon emissions by some drastic amount, only to discover that–oops–it turns out that climate change is being caused by something else,” Kling explained. ”I am not a skeptic about the rise in average temperatures. Nor am I skeptical that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. However, I remain skeptical about the connection between the two,” he wrote.

15. Meteorologist Thomas B. Gray is the former head of the Space Services branch at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a researcher in NOAA’s Space Environment Laboratory and Environmental Research Laboratories. Gray also served as an aviation meteorologist for the United States Air Force. Gray asserted that ”climate change is a natural occurrence” and dissented from the view
that mankind faces a ”climate crisis” in 2007. ”I was awarded by MS in meteorology from Florida State University and I became interested in pale climatology,” Gray wrote to EPW on December 25, 2007. ”Nothing that is occurring in weather or in climate research at this time can be shown to be abnormal in the light of our knowledge of climate variations over geologic time,” Gray explained. ”I am sure that the concept of a ‘Global Temperature’ is nonsense,” he added. ”The claims of those convinced that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is real and dangerous are not supported by reliable data,” Gray concluded.

16. Physical chemist Dr. Peter Stilbs, who chairs the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm has authored more than 165 scientific publications in refereed journals since 1970. Stilbs coordinated a meeting of international scientists and declared his skepticism about man-made climate fears. Stilbs wrote on December 21, 2006, ”By the final panel discussion stage of the conference, there appeared to be wide agreement” about several key points regarding man-made climate fears. Stilbs announced that the scientists, concluded: ”There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Actual claims put forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation.

However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998.” Stilbs also noted, ”There is noreliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. Previous claims based on the ‘Mann hockey-stick curve’ are by now totally discredited.” Stilbs concluded by noting that the team of international scientists concluded: ”There is no doubt that the science behind ‘the climate issue’ is far from settled. As so many cosmic effects are omitted from climate models, there is no credibility for arguments such as ‘there is no other explanation’ [than anthropogenic generation of carbon dioxide]. This must be remembered when making future political decisions related to these matters.”

Stilbs also was one of the signatories of the December 13, 2007 letter critical of the UN IPCC’s climate view.
These [IPCC] Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the
preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts
,” the letter Stilbs signed explained.

17. Geography professor Dr. Randy Cerveny of Arizona State University oversees the university’s meteorology program and was named to a key post at the UN’s World Meteorological Organization in 2007. Cerveny, who has written nearly 100 scientific papers and magazine articles, is in charge of developing a global weather archive for the UN. He was also a contributing author to the skeptical climate change book Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, edited by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels. Cerveny rejected catastrophic fears of man-made climate change in 2007. ”I don’t think [global warming] is going to be catastrophic,” Cerveny said according to a October 7, 2007 article. ”Hopefully, our grandkids are going to have a
lot better weather information than we did, and they will be able to answer a lot of the questions we’re just in the process of asking,” Cerveny explained.

18. Paul C. Knappenberger, a senior researcher with New Hope Environmental Services, has published numerous peer-reviewed studies related to climate change, including a 2006 study questioning the linkage between global warming and severe hurricanes. Knappenberger also serves as administrator for the skeptical climate change website http://www.worldclimatereport.com/. The website’s stated goal is to ”point out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as ‘proof’ of disastrous warming.” The website also describes itself as the ”definitive and unimpeachable source for what [the journal] Nature now calls the ‘mainstream skeptic’ point of view, which is that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best expectation is modest change over the next 100 years.”

19. Climatologist Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University, the former head of the university’s Office of Climatology, has served as a climate consultant to the United Nations Environment Program, the World Climate Program, the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Balling, who has also served in the UN IPCC, would have preferred former Vice President Al Gore had won the presidency in 2000. He has authored several books on global warming, including ”The Heated Debate” and ”The Satanic Gases.”

 Balling expressed skepticism about man-made climate fears in 2007. ”In my lifetime, this global-warming issue might fade away,” Balling said in a November 11, 2007 interview with the Arizona Republic. Noting the pressure he feels as a skeptical scientist, Balling explained, ”Somehow I’ve been branded this horrible person who belongs in the depths of hell.” He added, ”There’s just no tolerance right now.” The article explained, ”Balling’s research over the years has explored sun activity, pollution from volcanoes, the urban-heat-island effect and errors in past temperature models as possible causes of rising temperatures.”

Etiketter: , , , , ,

4 svar to “Upproret växer – Nya omoraliska vetenskapsmän!”

  1. Fler och fler skeptiska forskare | The Climate Scam Says:

    […] Fler namn hittar ni på UD/RK Samhällsdebatt. […]

  2. Klimatansvar Says:

    Grattis Sophia Albertina!
    Du har påverkat andra och du har många vänner där ute i cyberspace.

    Miljöhysterin kan kanske snart komma att kritiskt debatteras också i svenska media och den svenska regeringen kan kanske sansa sig och komma ner på jorden och tala med vanligt folk som i sin vardag skulle drabbas hårt av de pågående fullständigt sanslösa svenska CO2-kraven och kostnaderna för dessa. EU:s krav och det svenska stödet för dem skall vi bara inte tala om. De är fullständigt orealistiska och som du skriver Sophia så är den tyska regeringschefen numera också medveten om dessa verklighetsfrånvarande utsläppskrav, efter många om och men. Sent skall syndaren vakna. Tysklands ledare har tagit av sig nattmössan medan Sverige fortfarande sover en djup Törnrosa sömn. Det blir ingen prins som kommer att väcka den svenska Törnrosa utan gemene man i form av en vredgad fattigare människa som ger miljöhysterin dödskyssen.

    Redan nu har det exempelvis visat sig att hela miljöbilssatsningen på etanol är ett fiasko. Etanolen förstör mer än den hjälper till att förbättra jordens klimat. Just nu är den tokiga debatten i Sverige fokuserad på att skall vi minska vårt köttätande eftersom korna fiser för mycket CO2 och dessutom har mage att släppa ut ”enormt klimatfarlig” metangas. Död åt korna eller död åt köttätarna. Vilket som kommer först spelar ingen roll. Miljöförrädarna måste elimineras. En påstådd global warming måste stoppas idag för den kommer annars att ske om 100-200 år men det är nu slaget avgörs enligt Al Gore och IPPC:s klimatpanel. Vore det inte så allvarligt skulle man skratta sig fördärvad åt denna ovetenskapliga rappakalja.

    Vidare skall vi, sade jordbruksministern i går i TV, nu inrikta oss på att gräva upp stubbar för att få flis att tillverka biobränsle av och plantera nya trädslag i vår natur för att slutresultatet av denna process sedan skall eldas upp som bränsle i våra fordon och på andra håll. Fullständigt vansinne när några nya verkligt miljövänliga kärnkraftverk skulle kunna skapa all den energi som behövs för att driva elbilar och värma upp våra hem. Det skulle också skapa ett fullständigt oberoende av till exempel rysk gas eller arabstaternas skyhöga oljepriser. Vi skulle få energi till vår basindustri som vi skall leva av och som håller uppe stora delar av vårt välstånd. Finns det snart inte någon förnuftig ledare kvar i Sverige, en person som vågar stå upp och säga som det är?

    Vad blir det för jippo nästa gång när dessa tokiga enbart röstfiskande miljardsatsningar visat sig vara fullständigt felaktiga ur miljö- och hälsosynpunkt? För att inte tala om att alla ekonomiska fiaskon ju ytterst drabbar alla och slår hårdast mot dem som har minst tillgångar och inkomster.

    Alliansens och oppositionens röstfisken i miljöfrågorna är därför ansvarslösa när fakta ligger på bordet. Var finns det sunda förnuftet? Vad händer när gemene man upptäcker att de har blivit lurade? Av 1000 kronors löneguld blev det om miljöhysterin fortsätter till slut när alla utsläppsrätter är betalda kvar endast bidragssand?

    Global warminghysterin och koldioxidutsläppen förorsakade av människor och boskap och därmed deras påverkan på en påstådd global uppvärmning med åtföljande naturkatastrofer är hittills bara byggd på ovetenskapligt redovisade snedvridna inkorrektheter, tyvärr.

    Sophia Albertina, keep up the good work med denna fina blogg. Som synes läser man exempelvis nu också i Nepal din blogg. Grattis också till detta. Frågorna är i allra högsta grad internationella. Det framgår ju också tack vare alla de förnämliga hänvisningar som du presenterar.

    theclimatescam.se är också en bra kompletterande svensk blogg för oss som vill veta mer och få en möjlighet att kritiskt granska miljöfrågorna och de yttersta konsekvenserna av en felaktig förd politik på detta område.

    Om man inte seriöst följer utvecklingen av miljöfrågorna tar man inte något riktigt klimat- och miljöansvar. Då blir det lätt bara ett ensidigt ”religiöst” eller ”cyniskt utstuderat” tyckande i egenintressets namn, oavsett vilken sida man står på.

  3. Olle Johansson Says:

    Miljöaspekter, som inte ofta kommer fram i den debatt som våra politiker för och går till val på.
    Ibland kan man tro, att det är bara ett dåligt argument och skrämsel propaganda för att kunna beskatta folket, vilket tyvärr även får som en konsekvens en avfolkad landsbygd.

    Förra valet gick alla allianspartierna ut och lovade en sänkt bränsleskatt. Efter valet blev det istället höjda bränsleskatter!

    Nu vill Miljöpartiet höja bränsleskatten med 2 kronor per liter vid nästa val.

    Alla bor inte vid en tunnelbanestation eller en busshålplats och partier pratar om och vill ha en levande landsbygd.

    Det är svårt att få ett förtroende!

  4. The IPCC must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Candidates on Global Warming,  Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!,  Upproret växer – Nya omoraliska vetenskapsmän!,  Över 400 omoraliska vetenskapsmän!,  Öppet brev till FN och konferensen […]


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: