Archive for april, 2008

Four Global Warming Skeptics Speak Out:

29 april, 2008

Dr. Kesten Green, of the Business and Economics Forecasting Unit at Monash University

Se även mina inlägg: The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2! och The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!

Dr. Joseph D’Aleo, former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College and the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel

Dr. Jim O’Brien, State Climatologist of Florida, Emeritus Professor at Florida State Univ

Dr. Howard Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Univ. of Conn

Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation


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

Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything critically of Global Warming!

29 april, 2008

Historien om hur Global Warming Hysterikerna SYSTEMATISKT FÖRVANSKAR OCH FÖRÄNDRAR biografier från vetenskapsmän som inte stödjer Global Warming Hysterin.

Är det inte underbart med dessa sanna förkämpar för vetenskap och sanning som systematiskt raderar ALLT som inte stämmer överens med deras religion!

Några citat:

”While I don’t know the exact nature of today’s modifications, it is clear that the AGW folks have been at work there, judging by a number of elements which are uncomplimentary and prejudicial and totally unwarranted on a general ”biography”. This is becoming commonplace – when the science does not support AGW, then attack the messenger trying to expose the hoax. There may be a silver lining here ( at Dr. Singer’s expense ) – the AGW hysterics are now clearly in panic mode.”

”Fred Singer replies:

1. Unfortunately, Jim Peden is correct. Unnamed parties have been inserting bizarre items into my Wiki biography. Larry Solomon has just published an article about this in the National Post.

The latest Wiki version makes me out to be some kind of wacko who believes in the existence of Martians.”

There is a well-organized team under a computer nerd called Kim Dabelstein-Petersen who are responsible for dive-bombing the biographies of anyone known to question the alarmist viewpoint on the climate. They did it to me. When I said I would sue, they said legal action would be ineffective because they shelter behind a jurisdiction of convenience in Florida, where the publication of lies is permitted. So I told them that I’d obtain an interdict from the Scottish courts, forbidding the Internet trunk carriers from carrying any Wikipedia inaccuracies about me. That got their attention. My page has been cleaned up and locked against further tampering (for the time being, at any rate).”

”Honest accounts of Fred Singer and his accomplishments have been available on Wikipedia, and on hundreds of occasions. Those occasions don’t last long, however – often just minutes – before the honest accounts are discovered and reverted by Wikipedians who troll the site. Such trolls continually monitor Wikipedia’s 10 million pages to erase any hint that the science is not settled on climate change. Dissenters by the dozens have been likewise demeaned – to check for yourself, just look up Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter, or any of the other scientists or organizations that have questioned the orthodoxy on climate change.

In contrast to the high-handed treatment that greet global warming skeptics, those who support the orthodoxy are puffed up and protected from criticism, their errors erased and their controversies hushed. This is the case with Naomi Oreskes, a scientist with a PhD who had arrived at an absurd finding: That no studies in a major scientific database questioned the UN view of climate change.”

”For this reason, when visiting Oreskes’s page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes’s correctness.

Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have, corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. Had I neglected to save them after editing them?, I wondered. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again! I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Nonplused, I investigated. Wikipedia logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop’s. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wiki-etiquette, also explained why. ”Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!” Tabletop said.

I undid Tabletop’s undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: ”Tabletop’s changes claim to represent Peiser’s views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop’s version.”

Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.

Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop’s undid and protested: ”Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him.”

Tabletop parried: ”we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant.”

Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I — no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out. By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists.”

While I’ve been writing this column, the Naomi Oreskes page has changed 10 times. Since I first tried to correct the distortions on the page, it has changed 28 times. If you have read a climate change article on Wikipedia – or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen – beware. Wikipedia is in the hands of the zealots. ”

Artklarna finns här:

Wikipedia bias

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/04/wikipedia-bias-because-actual.html

Wikipedia’s zealots  

http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=18300

Hide your name on Wicked Pedia  

http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=18311

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>

(more…)

A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!

29 april, 2008

Energy must not be a barrier to our comfort. Our emerging middle class… demands lots of energy and it is our job to ensure comfortable supply,” he said.

We don’t plan to limit the use of fuel for our industries. We don’t think this would be right,” he said, referring to the current round of Kyoto.

Asked if Russia would resist capping the use of fossil fuels, which emit the planet-warming gas carbon dioxide when burned, under a new climate deal after 2012, he said:”In the foreseeable future, this will not be our model, no.”

Vsevolod Gavrilov, the official in charge of Russia’s Kyoto obligations.

Som jag sagt tidigare:

Det är alltså detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system som främjar fusk i stor skala som Global Warming Hysterikerna vill tvinga på världen. Och politikerna fullkomligt älskar detta system då de kan motivera i stort sett vilken skatte-/avgiftshöjning som helst med detta system. Det är ett gigantiskt skojeri!

”Det är enkelt att lova Guld och Gröna Skogar NÄR NÅGON ANNAN FÅR BETALA. Och att göra ”stolta” deklarationer på toppmöten. Nu har det  ekonomiska realiteterna gjort sig påminda och en del länder slåss nu för den egna tunga industrins fortlevnad.

Nu gäller inte längre vad man officiellt kom överens om för bara ett halvår sedan. Nu är det undantag för den egna industrin som gäller och inget annat. För det är GIGANTISKA SUMMOR som kommer att förslösas på dessa nonsensåtgärder.

Man blir så tröööttt på detta hyckleri. Och det här är ju inget nytt. Det här händer varenda gång som det har varit toppmöten och stolta deklarationer har antagits under stort jubel och fanfarer.

När ALLA VET att detta bara är ett spel för gallerierna och att det är hårda nationella och ekonomiska intressen som styr. Och ingenting annat!

Man undrar bara när svenska politiker skall ta av sig nattmössan och sluta prata om att Sverige skall vara ”ett föregångsland” och ”att vi skall ligga i täten” när det gäller åtgärder mot Global Warming (dvs. minska CO2).

Dvs. att Sverige skall gå i täten och vara världsledande på detta gigantiska skojeri. Arma svenska folk som kommer att få betala dessa gigantiska kostnader för dessa nonsensåtgärder.

Naturligtvis ivrigt påhejade av de andra EU medlemmarna EFTERSOM EU: S KLIMATMÅL (dvs. sänkningen av CO2) gäller för EU SOM HELHET och INTE enskilda länder.

Vilket innebär att om någon vill ”gå före” och ”ta täten” så slipper resten av EU:s medlemsländer billigare undan. Så naturligtvis så stödjer de helhjärtat dessa svenska åtaganden för det blir ju inte de som får betala det höga priset. Det får nämligen det svenska folket göra! Tack för det!”

När skall våra kära politiker börja FÖRSTÅ de ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin? Och de ofantliga summor som kommer att förslösas på nonsensåtgärder. Åtgärder som är ett direkt hot mot vår demokrati, vår frihet, vårt välstånd och vår ekonomi! Dessa orimliga kostnader utgör ett direkt hot för den industriella överlevnaden i den här delen av världen. Men det pratar man tyst om.

Som sagt, fler och fler börjar INSE de GIGANTISKA KOSTNADERNA för att genomföra dessa nonsensåtgärder. När skall de svenska politikerna vakna – När sista lampan har släckts och all industri är borta?

Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Ryssland bakom nej till mål för kvoterGlobal warming proposals would gut N.C. economyCarbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’”Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”,  Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayDon’t bother with emissions trading law, the Chambers of Commerce tells MPsEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!

Artiklarna finns här:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/04/28/nyet-russia-doesnt-want-a-tough-cap-on-carbon/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7489862

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

(more…)

Green Week and Earth Week probably should be disclosed as lobbying efforts!

28 april, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel som belyser hur företag och massmedia i sitt eget intresse och i samverkan driver Global Warming Hysterin. Och bedriver AKTIV lobbying för att främja sina egna affärsintressen och Global Warming Hysterin..

Visst är det en skön samling som vill frälsa oss från ondo? Al Gore et consortes!

Se även bl.a. mina inlägg: Global warming is probably the biggest scientific boondoggle since the days of GalileoWe have to offer up scary scenarios to get lots of media attention!Always follow the money trail and it tells a story – part 2Always follow the money trail and it tells a story!

Samt: Time Magazine: we are making it up as we go along!An Age of Warming Press Bias – selling its soul!How BBC sold out all of its declared values!How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics – part 2How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.examiner.com/a-1359376~Timothy_Carney

__NBC_s__Green_Week__and_GE_s_green.html

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

(more…)

Anchorage digs out after record snowfall – Where the heck is Spring???

28 april, 2008

Rekordsnö i Alaska. Snöstormar, rekord is och mycket kallt i Minnesota och norra USA. Rekordsnö i Maine. Frost i norra Kalifornien. Bara några ögonblicksbilder från de 2-3 senaste dagarna.

Som sagt Global Warming blir bara VÄRRE och VÄRRE!

Se även mina inlägg: New England winters have cooled in past decadeForget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age! Eller – If global warming gets any worse we’ll all freeze to death!Kallaste januari sedan år 2000 – Hela Global Warming utraderad!Mycket kallt i Norra Indien – Global Warmings fel naturligtvis

Artikeln frinns här:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/387743.html

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=509193

Anchorage digs out after record snowfall

The Associated Press

(04/26/08 12:37:07)

Anchorage continues to dig out from a snowfall that set a record for the day and the month. The National Weather Service says 17.2 inches fell at its office just south of Anchorage’s international airport and 22 inches fell in northeast Anchorage on Friday and Saturday.

The heaviest snow fell between 3 and 6 p.m. Friday at a rate of almost two inches per hour.

The monthly total at the weather service office is now 29.7 inches, breaking a record from 1963 when 27.6 inches fell during April.

The 15.5 inches that fell Friday is the third-most for any one day in Anchorage. The record is the 25.7 inches that fell six years ago on March 17, 2002.

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

Al Gore’s global warming debunked – by kids!

28 april, 2008

Här kommer en intressant historia hur folk tröttnade på den ensidiga Al Gore propagandan (”An Inconvenient Truth”) etc. och utlyste en tävling där frågan var: Are YOUR kids being victimized by global warming hysteria?

Nå, här kommer resultaten. Dels de två vinnande videorna och de tre första essäerna.

”Al Gore’s global warming philosophy has been debunked by many scientists and studies, and now it has met the same fate at the hands of children, in ”The Sky’s Not Falling” video/essay contest, sponsored by WND Books, formerly World Ahead Media.

The contest was launched early in 2008 and was designed to highlight the absurdities, untruths and downright lies that children are being taught daily about ”climate change” in public school.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62598

Tävlingen finns här:

http://www.worldahead.com/titles/sky_contest_2.php

Vinande video finns här (the DiMarias from South Carolina)

Videon på andra plats finns här (:Warren Meyer of Arizona)

Vinnande essäer kommer här:

The first-place essay is titled ”Al Gore Causes Global Warming in School Aged Brains” and is by Russell Young, of Minnesota:

If Al Gore’s film ”An Inconvenient Truth,” is suitable for teaching about climatology, then Alfred Hitchcock’s film the ”The Birds,” is a good candidate for teaching ornithology.

”Wait a moment,” you say. What does a horror film which has been characterized as ”extremely disturbing,” where hoards of normally skittish, but peaceable birds, inexplicably attack and terrorize humans, have to teach our children about science? The answer, of course is that it could be used to anesthetize them to the frightening scenarios presented in Gore’s ”An Inconvenient Truth.”

It’s hard to decide which would be worse: frightening young students with scripted terror from a horror master, or frightening students with scripted propaganda from an environmental hypocrite. But think of the box office draw potential by making a double header out of these two movies. Plus, each film is steeped with enough gut wrenching scenes to keep even the most jaded students interested, making them a perfect antidote to typically boring science fare.

In ”The Birds,” one scene shows children helplessly driven to terrified flight as birds relentlessly descend upon them. A particularly graphic moment depicts a bird tearing at the face of a screaming boy of about 8 or 9 years of age. Such viewing should make an indelible impression upon the minds of our youth as to the importance of not interfering with nature.

In Gore’s film we are treated to equally stomach turning cinematography as the director treats us to numerous close-ups of Gore, thus making it clear how serious minded he is about the environment. We know he is the man who can make a change because of the repeated shots showing adoring masses who seemingly follow him around the globe. Let’s just hope they don’t all do it on their own personal jets.

All of this, however, got me to thinking. Maybe schools could begin to utilize more Hollywood offerings. Think about it. For only the cost of a Blockbuster rental our students minds could be opened up to myriad realms.

Here are just a few other films schools might use for their teaching curriculums. ”The Polar Express” could be used for instruction on transportation systems. ”Borat” is a perfect teaching tool for understanding how the Democratic Party uses focus groups. ”Alien,” could be used to teach students about anatomy and homeland security, all at the same time.

”Far fetched,” you say. Maybe, but ”Moby Dick” taught me all I ever needed to know about whales, and I’m a marine biologist.

 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>

(more…)

The scariest photo I have seen – Where is Solar Cycle 24?

27 april, 2008

Så här ser solen ut i dag vid tretiden på e.m. Inte en solfläck i sikte. Den pyttelilla fläcken 992 som kom i måndags är nu borta. Dessförinnan så kom det ytterligare en  liten fläck den 4 januari som försvann på två dagar. För två veckor sedan kom en mycket liten fläck som försvann inom ett dygn.

Enligt beräkningarna så skulle sol cykel 24 ha börjat hösten 2006 men det gjord den inte. Då beräknade man att den skulle börja i mars 2007 men det gjorde den inte. Och den har fortfarande inte officiellt börjat.

Den officiella NOAA, NASA, and ISES ”Solar Cycle 24 prediction” har nu missat den sena starten för cykel 24 flera gånger.

Ni undrar säkert varför i hela friden skall man bry sig om solcykler och solfläckar av alla saker. Jo därför att de spelar en stor roll för klimat och väder på jorden.

Den senaste gången det var en så här stor fördröjning innan solfläckscykeln kom i gång var under ”the Dalton Minimum” (1790 till 1830) som medförde en mycket kall period med mycket svåra vintrar i Europa.

Låg solaktivitet har alltid medfört kallare klimat på jorden. Och de klimatmodeller som Global Warming Hysterikerna använder tar INTE hänsyn till de här variationerna.

Läs även den intressanta artikeln av Phil Chapman om dessa solfläcks cyklar och deras betydelse.

Solbild finns här:

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

Solfläcks grafen fins här:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers_png

NOAA, NASA, and ISES Solar Cycle 24 prediction finns här:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html

Philip Chapmans artikel finns här:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

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

(more…)

Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming “theories” are correct!

26 april, 2008

Här kommer en mycket intressant analys över att ”the tropical troposphere” har blivit kallare. Mars 2008 vare en av de fyra kallaste månaderna på 30 år.

Nå vad har nu detta för betydelse undrar ni säkert. Mycket enkelt: temperaturen i ”the tropical troposphere” är ett fingeravtryck på om teorin om att CO2 driver temperaturen stämmer eller inte.

Om Global Warming ”teorierna” stämmer så skulle temperaturen kontinuerligt stiga vilket de alltså inte gör utan tvärtom sjunker.

Global Warming anyone?

Se även mina inlägg: Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric TemperaturesOur Climate Numbers Are a Big Old MessRewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?New England winters have cooled in past decadeManipulation av temperatur grafer men bara när de pekar nedåt!The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!Basic Greenhouse Equations ”Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New York

Artikeln finns här

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3048

Tropical Troposphere

By Steve McIntyre 

Last year, Ross McKitrick proposed the ironic idea of a ”T3 Tax” in which carbon tax levels were related to observed temperature increases in the tropical troposphere. Temperature increases in the tropical troposphere are, as I understand it, a distinctive ”fingerprint” for carbon dioxide forcing. Apparent discrepancies between a lack of warming in satellite data and surface warming have been a battleground issue for many years. In one of the most recent surveys of the matter in 2006, the U.S. CCSP proclaimed that the issue had been put to rest:

”Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”

In this respect, the March 2008 satellite data for the tropics is pretty interesting. The graph below shows UAH (black) and RSS (red) for the tropics (both divided by 1.2 to synchronize to the surface variations – an adjustment factor that John Christy said to use in an email). I also collated the most recent CRU gridded data and calculated a tropical average for 20S to 20N, shown in green. All series have been centered on a common interval.

 

Figure 1. Tropic (20S-20N) temperatures in deg C. All data shown to March 2008.

There have only been a few months in the past 30 years which have been as cold in the tropical troposphere as March 2008 four months in the 1988-1989 La Nina. At present, there is no statistically significant trend for the MSU version. The data set has very high autocorrelation (but I note that autocorrelation doesn’t represent the spikes very well.)

Obviously each fluctuation is unique – I presume that we’ll see some sort of behavior in the next 18 months like after the 1988-1989 Nina – so that one can reasonably project that the long-term ”trend” as at the end of 2009 will be a titch lower than the trend as calculated today.

While RSS and UAH move together, there is a slight drift upwards in RSS relative to UAH and there’s still a slight trend in the RSS numbers. There’s a third data set (Vinnikov – Maryland) which is not kept up to date, which has trends higher than either. Even CRU is now reporting tropical temperatures at surface that are below average during this period.

I draw no conclusions from this other than some claims about the statistical significance of trends need to be examined. The autocorrelation of the data set is very high; although I’m not in a position to pronounce on the matter, the concerns expressed by Cohn and Lins about long-term persistence seem highly pertinent to the sort of patterns that one sees here. Some readers may note a graphic in summer 2005 .

 Här en annan intresant graf över samma fenomen:

The temperature of the tropical upper troposphere continues to show anomalously cool readings (see this Hovmoeller plot):

 

 

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

How will the political class manage the necessary climb-down?

26 april, 2008

Här kommer ytterligare en artikel om hur de ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin och de gigantiska kostnaderna för handeln med utsläppsrätter börjar sjunka in hos vissa ledare (dock ej naturligtvis de svenska).

Se även bl.a.mina inlägg: ”Global warming my a…”! says cardinalCarbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’,  ”Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”Europe finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than doneKallaste januari sedan år 2000 – Hela Global Warming utraderad!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23597729-7583,00.html

A cool idea to warm to

Christopher Pearson | April 26, 2008

ABOUT the beginning of 2007, maintaining a sceptical stance on human-induced global warming became a lonely, uphill battle in Australia.

The notion that the science was settled had gathered broad popular support and was making inroads in unexpected quarters.

Industrialists and financiers with no science qualifications to speak of began to pose as prophets. Otherwise quite rational people decided there were so many true believers that somehow they must be right. Even Paddy McGuinness conceded, in a Quadrant editorial, that on balance the anthropogenic greenhouse gas hypothesis seemed likelier than not.

What a difference the intervening 15 months has made. In recent weeks, articles by NASA’s Roy Spencer and Bjorn Lomborg and an interview with the Institute of Public Affairs’ Jennifer Marohasy have undermined that confident Anglosphere consensus. On Amazon.com’s bestseller list this week, the three top books on climate are by sceptics: Spencer, Lomborg and Fred Singer.

Archbishop of Sydney George Pell, a shrewd cleric who knows a dodgy millennial cult when he sees one, has persisted in his long-held critique despite the climate change alarmism of his brother bishops.

Even Don Aitkin, former vice-chancellor of the University of Canberra, whom I’d previously been tempted to write off as a slave to political correctness, outed himself the other day as a thoroughgoing sceptic.

The latest countercultural contribution came in The Australian on Wednesday. Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut. He makes the standard argument that the average temperature on earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, with a new twist.

As of last year, the global temperature is falling precipitously. All four of the agencies that track global temperatures (Hadley, NASA Goddard, the Christy group and Remote Sensing Systems) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007.

Chapman comments: ”This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.”

A little ice age would be ”much more harmful than anything warming may do”, but still benign by comparison with the severe glaciation that for the past several million years has almost always blighted theplanet.

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

(more…)

The Really Inconvenient Truths

26 april, 2008

Här kommer en intressant intervju med Iain Murray om hela fenomenet med Global Warming Hysterin.

 

Intervjun finns här:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/Glenn%20Beck-Murray.pdf

Glenn Beck: The Really Inconvenient Truths

GLENN: Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He has a new book out called The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You to Know About — Because They Helped Cause Them. What a surprise. Iain is on the phone with us now. Hi, Iain, how are you?

MURRAY: Hi, Glenn, I’m doing very well, thanks

GLENN: Congratulations on the book and we wish you the best with it. Stu is a big fan of yours. I’m sorry. He is our global warming expert on the show and he’s a big fan of yours and says that you nail it every single time. Let me start with the food prices that people are experiencing right now where we have milk and bread going up between 11 and 25% in the last year, global food prices up 83%. How’s this tied to ethanol?

MURRAY: Well, because as you said, burning off food as fuel. In a recent study from the World Bank of all places that showed that every extra grain of corn that has beenharvested in this country, planted and harvested in this country, the additional grain since 2005 has gone not to feed people but into our gas tanks. The World Bank also said that 50% of the fuel price — of the food price riots around the world has been due to biofuels policies. Those are staggering numbers. This is having a real effect on food, especially for the poorest of the world.

GLENN: When we first started talking about ethanol and I did my homework on ethanol and I realized this is the biggest scam in the world and I talked about biofuels. You cannot burn your fuel supply — or your food supply for fuel. This is a global catastrophe. I’ve talked about how, how are we going to starve and keep in the dark the places in Africa and the emerging world because we’re telling them they can’t have our lifestyle, how, Iain, does this kind of thinking not create, well, what the UN is now calling, what is it, crimes against humanity?

MURRAY: Yes, that’s the UN high commission on refugees. He’s saying that the biofuels laws around the world not just in America but in Europe as well are a crime against humanity and it’s interesting how a few — about a year ago the high commission on refugees and others was saying, oh, well, global warming is causing a real problem. Now they suddenly realize as we’re taking steps to try and deal with global warming that that’s creating a far, far greater calamity, one that’s here right now. Haitians are being reduced to eating cakes made with bleach and if you remember what happened in Haiti in the early Nineties, we’re looking as if we’re going to do that all over again and there’s going to be a failed state right on our doorstep and we are partly responsible for it this time.

GLENN: We have riots now, food riots in Mexico, at least that’s what I heard yesterday. I haven’t seen the story myself. Is that true? Can you verify that?

MURRAY: There have been food protests certainly. I don’t think they were quite riots in Mexico because as the price of grain causes increase here, the Mexicans have been exporting more grain. So that means fewer tortillas and tortillas are an essential part of the Mexican diet. At the same time they are clearing the agave fields to grow corn. So that means less tequila. So less tequila, less tortillas. This is a big problem. So for a country where those items are so culturally important.

GLENN: When I had dinner at a global warming conference here with a bunch of scientists, they were all really, really top notch scientists who are against not global warming. They are against the solutions that are being presented for global warming. And I asked, I said, all of your lives have been destroyed, every single one of you at this table, your lives have been destroyed because of this. You are not doing it to get rich, you are not doing it because it’s going to advance your career. You are doing it in spite of it destroying your career and you being poor. Why has anybody at this table flinched and said, ”I can’t do this anymore.” The answer was unanimous. All of them said never. And their reason was also unanimous. They said, because I cannot help but weep for the people that this is going to kill. This will kill — these global warming things will kill millions of people, and the number one example was malaria and what the World Health Organization did to try to stop malaria with DDT.

 MURRAY: That’s exactly it. That’s one of the reasons I wrote The Really Inconvenient Truths. We’re having — we’re only hearing one voice on all these environmental issues and at the same time people are covering up the fact that environmental policies, that perhaps the environmentalists did identify a small problems with, for instance, in DDT. Yes, there almost certainly was a problem with the thinning of eggs of large predatory birds in America. But the solutions that they imposed, which are basically Marxist solutions going back to command control, regulation, punishment of anybody who gets in the way of solving this one small problem, they have massive unintended consequences.

GLENN: You mean — go ahead

MURRAY: There are millions and millions of people who have died because they didn’t have access to the single most effective malaria control agent which is DDT.

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

(more…)

Scientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’

26 april, 2008

Forskare har efter långa studier upptäckt ett mönster av korsande strömmar som finns i våra stora oceaner. Ett mönster som man INTE visste fanns och som dessa klimatmodeller som Global Warming Hysterikerna så blint tror på INTE använder. I själva verket så använder dessa klimatmodeller bara en grovt förenklad bild av strömmarna längs ekvatorn och inget mer.

Är det inte fantastiskt hur sanslöst dåliga dessa klimatmodeller är på att representera verkligheten. Och med utgångspunkt från dessa modeller så vill våra politiker införa  detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system med handel med utsläppsrätter.

Och politikerna fullkomligt älskar detta system då de kan motivera i stort sett vilken skatte-/avgiftshöjning som helst med detta system. Och detta gigantiska skojeri som främjar fusk i stor skala vill alltså Global Warming Hysterikerna tvinga på resten av världen!Citat:

Och våra svenska politiker vill att Sverige skall gå i täten och vara världsledande på detta skojeri. Arma svenska folk som kommer att få betala dessa gigantiska kostnader för dessa nonsensåtgärder.

När skall våra kära politiker börja FÖRSTÅ de ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin? Och de ofantliga summor som kommer att förslösas på nonsensåtgärder. Åtgärder som är ett direkt hot mot vår demokrati, vår frihet, vårt välstånd och vår ekonomi! Dessa orimliga kostnader utgör ett direkt hot för den industriella överlevnaden i den här delen av världen. Men det pratar man tyst om.

Som sagt, fler och fler börjar INSE de GIGANTISKA KOSTNADERNA för att genomföra dessa nonsensåtgärder. När skall de svenska politikerna vakna – När sista lampan har släckts och all industri är borta?

Se även mina inlägg: Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economyCarbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’”Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”,  Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayDon’t bother with emissions trading law, the Chambers of Commerce tells MPsEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!

Citat:

”More than 20 years of continuous measurements and a dose of ”belief” yield discovery of subtle ocean currents that could dramatically improve forecasts of climate, ecosystem changes. An international collaborative of scientists led by Peter Niiler, a physical oceanographer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, and Nikolai Maximenko, a researcher at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii, has detected the presence of crisscrossing patterns of currents running throughout the world’s oceans. The new data could help scientists significantly improve high-resolution models that help them understand trends in climate and marine ecosystems.

The basic dimensions of these steady patterns called striations have slowly been revealed over the course of several research papers by Niiler, Maximenko and colleagues. An analysis by Maximenko, Niiler and colleagues appearing today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters has produced the clearest representation of these striated patterns in the eastern Pacific Ocean to date and revealed that these complex patterns of currents extend from the surface to at least depths of 700 meters (2,300 feet). The discovery of similarly detailed patterns around the world is expected to emerge from future research.”

”The new maps of ocean circulation produced by a combination of drifter and satellite measurements will eventually be the yardstick for judging the accuracy of the circulation patterns portrayed by climate and ocean ecosystem models -a major deficiency in current simulations-and to generate substantially more reliable forecast products in climate and ecosystem management. Niiler noted, for example, that there are a large number of computer models that can simulate equatorial currents, but fail in the attempt to accurately simulate the meandering flow of the California Current and the striations that exude from it.

”I think this research presents the next challenge in ocean modeling,” said Niiler. ”I’m looking forward to the day when we can correctly portray most ocean circulation systems with all climate and ecosystem models.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080425095207.htm

Bilden finns här:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/04/080425095207-large.jpg

A worldwide crisscrossing pattern of ocean current striations has been revealed through measurements made by drifting buoys over a period of more than 20 years and through satellite readings of ocean velocity. Blue bands represent westward-flowing currents and red bands indicate eastward-flowing currents that move at roughly 1 centimeter per second. (Credit: Image courtesy of Nikolai Maximenko, University of Hawaii.)

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

(more…)

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

25 april, 2008

Här kommer en mycket träffande beskrivning av ”environmentalism” och Global Warming hysterin. Om hur själva kärnan i denna religion och politik är att göra allting så OBEKVÄMT, DYRT och STATISKT som möjligt. Och hur man i grunden har en anti human inställning då man anser att människan är grunden till ALLA problem. Samt att man avskyr ALLT vad teknisk utveckling heter.

Visst är det ett trevligt gäng?

Citat:

”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.

Se även inlägget Women will be returned to the Dark Ages if the eco-fundamentalists end up having their way

Artikeln finns här:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=252&Itemid=1

 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>

  (more…)

Global warming is probably the biggest scientific boondoggle since the days of Galileo

25 april, 2008

En mycket intressant intervju med Professor Emeritus Dr. Don J. Easterbrook (Geology, Western Washington University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental and engineering geology). Som säger att Global Warming är den största vetenskapliga skandalen sedan Galileo ställdes inför inkvisitionen.

Citat:

”DJE: The strength of any assertion is only as strong as the foundation it’s built upon. This has no foundation. This assumes that CO2 drives the temperature increase. If it’s not, then this means absolutely nothing. You have to prove the basic tenet that CO2 drives temperature before this means anything at all.

You might as well be talking about the moon being made of green cheese. Until you go there and look at it and see what’s there, you can say whatever you want. If you look at the reality of what has happened in the past, which is what I do, and transfer that into the future, you don’t get this at all. It turns out that, again, time is on my side, because we’re getting closer and closer to my projection and farther and farther away from the IPCC’s. We’re diverging from this Lynas plot. They predict by 2050 we should be two degrees warmer than today. In three years they say we’ll be one degree warmer than today. Well, that’s not happening. This may be an unusually cold year, not necessarily typical of what we have to look forward to, for the simple reason this is a La Nina year, so it probably tacks on a little extra cooling, but the interesting thing is that we haven’t had this low a sunspot cycle since the Maunder Minimum. There are astrophysicists, Russian, Canadian, Willie Soon and other Americans who say ‘Look out’ because we haven’t seen this since the Little Ice Age, about 4 degrees colder than it is right now. That’s one scenario, a possibility.

Another possibility is that the coming cold period that I’ve projected will be more like the last one from 1945 to 1977, which was half a degree colder than now. Or, it might be more like the one from 1880 to 1910 which was deeper. We might be headed toward one of the deeper ones, like the turn of the last century, but there’s no evidence prove it, so we’ll have to wait until we get there to see. We have the possibility of another LIA, the last time we had so few sunspots. Or we have the possibility of a cooling spell like 1890, or one like we had between 1945 and 1977, which was mild. Or, we might have nothing at all. Or, we might have soaring temperatures. Of those options, I think we’ll have something deep like 1890. But, we don’t know and we’re not going to know until we get there.

The other thing, which is what the Manhattan and Bali Declarations are all about, is, when we get to 2050, the IPCC predicts two additional degrees of warmth, and the population will increased by up to three billion people. We’re projected to be nine billion by 2050. What are we going to do with three billion more people demanding resources? If there is a two degree temperature change, that will be a big problem. So, my view is that, the population explosion is a way bigger problem than a half a degree of temperature change. We need to get control of the population, and we’re not doing it.

By the time we get to 2050, we’ll have so many more demands for natural resources that, even if the two degree temperature change doesn’t happen, if we’re flat or cooler, we still have a really big problem. Instead of spending trillions of dollars on reducing carbon, which does nothing, we should prepare for the population that’s coming. My view has always been that we need to plan ahead. We may have a thirty year grace period when things cool off. If it’s only half a degree of cooling, we have breathing space to get ready for what’s coming. By my projection: we’ll be a half a degree warmer from about 2040 to 2070, but the population will be 50 percent bigger, so it’s going to be a way bigger problem than what we’re looking at today.

Forget about the CO2 trap. If you bet all of your resources, trillions of dollars, on stopping global warming by not putting carbon into the atmosphere, we lose when we get to 2050. In other words, it’s a consequential bet. You’ll hear the CO2 people saying ‘Well, just to be safe, we’ve got to do it this way’, but that’s not true because if you put all the money into curbing CO2 and you don’t do any of the other things necessary to get ready for increasing population, you have a bigger problem than global warming. That’s what the Manhattan Declaration is about. We need to get ready. We should reduce pollution-There are far more bad things going into the atmosphere via emissions than CO2-Sulfur compounds, all kinds of stuff. We ought to reduce those. On that, I’m on the same side of the coin as Al Gore.

Suppose that we totally stop CO2 emissions, take it not to the Kyoto limit but to zero. No heavy breathing. No cars. Would that stop global warming? Will that stop global warming? The answer is ‘No.‘ It takes five-hundred years or thereabouts for the atmosphere to equilibrate with the oceans. Even Hansen will admit that. There’s nothing we can do by stopping CO2 emissions that will affect climate in the next several hundred years. Nothing. We should bring emissions down, but not for that reason.”

”KLC: They’ll move the prediction around…

DJE: Every year they recalibrate their computer model and put in the observed temperature. So, as they go along, the curve that trails behind is perfect. It’s like predicting the morning’s weather at six-o’clock in the evening.

KLC: They call it hind-casting. It’s clever. Use the same model, but reset the starting point each year.

DJE: They published their projection, so I’ll hold them to it.

KLC: They’re slippery. I look at it from an engineering standpoint and so much of it seems absurd. I don’t understand how they get away with it. Mass psychology and herd instinct?

DJE: Do you know what drives them? Money.

KLC: You’re talking about research grant money?

DJE: I’m talking about money, period. Before he started all this, Al Gore was reported to be worth a few million dollars. Now he is reported to be worth 100 million dollars and is reported to have a slush fund of about five billion dollars. If you’re in the press and you want to attend one of his lectures, you can’t. Not only can you not ask questions, they won’t let you in. Because the debate is over, you see. You’d just be a troublemaker. You know about the Bali-100? [A letter disputing the findings of the IPCC sent to the UN Secretary-General and signed by 100 scientists]”

”Doom and gloom is easy to sell. Herman Goebbels said in World War II, and said it right, that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will eventually believe it.

KLC: With regard to Al Gore’s comments, what is your response?

DJE: It reminds me of what went on with the Pope and Galileo. The Pope didn’t like the idea that the earth was round or that it went around the sun and that the earth was not the center of the universe. At that point the Pope declared that the debate was over and anybody that disagreed would get burned at the stake. Today is like that, total hogwash. Gore made a statement that less than a half-dozen people in world don’t believe that CO2 causes AGW. That’s totally nuts.”

”DJE: I arranged a global warming symposium along with the national meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver and we invited a half-dozen eminent scientists, all world-class people, to give papers with data to show what’s going on. The idea was to get away from the hype and look at the data and see what’s going on. When it was all over, one guy stood up and said ‘How dare you contradict Al Gore, don’t you know the debate is over?’ And another guy stood up and said ‘Why are you pointing out all of this data to cast doubt? You’re just going to confuse our students.’ Guilty!

Anytime you deal with dogma, where people say ‘shut up, you can’t argue anymore because we’re right and there’s nothing you can say that will change anything, therefore, you’re wrong’, attacking the dogma will invariably get you in trouble.”

”DJE: Treenometers? I like that. Al Gore makes the statement that if we go back far enough in time we see ups and downs in temperature and the CO2 goes up and down too, which is absolutely true, but what he didn’t tell you is, that the temperature change precedes the CO2 change by about 800 years. He makes it sound like the CO2 causes temperature changes, which is totally bogus. No geologist, no scientist I know, believes that. But, he’s still says it and won’t back off on any off it.”

”DJE: If I were hard-pressed to give my overall assessment of the whole Gore-phenomenon, I would say two things, A, that it’s an out-and-out hoax, and B, it is probably the biggest scientific boondoggle since the days of Galileo. There is so much dogma and pressure put on scientists. Gore has so little proof, it’s disgraceful to the scientific world.

KLC: I think it’s more than that. There is self-loathing, they believe that man’s works are inevitably bad, so they contort to prove that result.

DJE: Follow the money. It’s big bucks. We’re talking about billions of dollars. If we’re headed toward catastrophic global warming, we have to do all these things they want. It will prove to be the biggest boondoggle since the religious dogmas of Galileo’s time.”

Intervjun finns här:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf

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

 

Floods and Droughts worse during Global Cooling!

25 april, 2008

En mycket intressant studie över klimat förändringar och översvämningar längs Sushui floden i centrala Kina under Holocene perioden i Quaternary Science Reviews, 26 (man måste betala för att läsa artikeln). Och vad kom de fram till?

Jo att under kalla perioder så var det katastrofala översvämningar, torka, sandstormar, värmeböljor, gräshoppinvasioner, svält och sjukdomar.

Och under varma perioder så inträffade mycket lite av dessa fenomen.

Intressant eller hur då vissa vill spendera gigantiska summor som kommer att försämra levnadsvillkoren för vanligt folk och kraftigt bromsa den ekonomiska och välståndsutvecklingen i de länder som inför handel med utsläppsrätter. Allt i syfte att ”stoppa Global Warming”.

Citat:

”They conducted a surprisingly complex set of analyses, and they found six periods over the past 12,000 years when large floods were frequent.”

OK – so what, right? As it turns out, all six episodes occurred during cool periods, not warm ones.

Our data show that the last three episodes of overbank flooding, including the catastrophic floods recorded in literature, coincide with the cold-dry stages during the late Holocene. During these three episodes there were not only catastrophic floods, but also extreme droughts over the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River drainage basin.”

”The persistence of geomorphic stability on the piedmont alluvial plain and the absence of overbank flooding during the mid-Holocene Climatic Optimum provide evidence that extreme floods were uncommon in the warm-humid period dominated by the southeastern maritime monsoon.”

Huang, C.C., J. Pang, X. Zha, H. Su, Y. Jia, and Y. Zhu. 2007. Impact of monsoonal climatic change on Holocene overbank flooding along Sushui River, middle reach of the Yellow River, China. Quaternary Science Reviews, 26, 2247-2264.

Abstract finns här:

doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.06.006  

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/04/24/floods-and-droughts-and-global-cooling/#more-321

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

(more…)

All You Need To Know about Denmark and Wind Power

24 april, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel om den gigantiska satsningen som sker i Danmark på vindkraft. Om de mycket stora kostnaderna och de gigantiska skattesubventionerna som krävs, de tekniska problemen med den storskaliga vindkraften – både med turbinerna och problemen med att fasa in den mycket varierande effekten på ledningsnätet, de stora ingreppen i naturen etc.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2102

All You Need To Know about Denmark and Wind Power

Iain Murray, CEI

April 23, 2008

Yesterday, a listener on the Michael Medved show challenged me that (I paraphrase), ”Denmark has adopted wind power at no cost.”

I said that I was no expert on Denmark but that there were significant subsidies involved. As this Economist article makes clear, it is certainly not correct to say that Denmark has adopted wind power at no cost:

Researchers in Denmark have gone a step further and put a value on this effect. They believe that wind power shaved 1 billion kroner ($167m) off Danish electricity bills in 2005. On the other hand, Danish consumers also paid 1.4 billion kroner in subsidies for wind power.

The Danish government cut wind power subsidies that year. The result: the building of wind turbines has virtually ground to a halt since subsidies were cut back.

Meanwhile, compared with others in the European Union, Danes remain above-average emitters of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. For all its wind turbines, a large proportion of the rest of Denmark‘s power is generated by plants that burn imported coal.

Moreover, because you cannot store any wind power that is generated when no-one wants to use it, Denmark has to sell excess wind-power to Sweden at a price of 0c per KWh. This has caused some trouble:

Much has been written about Denmark’s success as the world’s wind power pioneer. But the regularly repeated claim – that Denmark generates 20 percent of its electricity demand from wind sources – is highly misleading. That 20 percent of electricity is not supplied continuously from wind power. Denmark’s wind supply is so variable that it relies heavily on neighbors Norway and Sweden, taking their excess production.

In 2003 its export figure for wind power electricity production was as high as 84 percent, as Denmark found it could not absorb its own highly variable wind output capacity into its domestic system. The scale of Denmark‘s subsidies was such that in 2006-07 the government increasingly came under scrutiny from the Danish media, which claimed the subsidies were out of control.

Overall, Denmark, a small, flat, windy country of about 5.5 million souls cannot be a model for the US to follow, even if they had succeeded in making wind power work efficiently.

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

Who knew a “free” source of energy – Wind Power could be so expensive?

24 april, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel om den gigantiska satsningen som sker i Texas på vindkraft. Om de mycket stora kostnaderna och subventionerna som krävs, de tekniska problemen med den storskaliga vindkraften – både med turbinerna och problemen med att fasa in den mycket varierande effekten på ledningsnätet, de stora ingreppen i naturen etc.

Och allt detta sker naturligtvis med hänvisning till,  ja just det – Global Warming! Som sagt ALLT KAN NUMERA MOTIVERAS MED HÄNVISNING TILL GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIN. OCH DETTA OAVSETT KOSTNADERNA OCH EFFEKTERNA AV ÅTGÄRDERNA!

Se även mitt tidigare inlägg: Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power!

Artikeln finns här:

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzM5MzFhNmFjZmQ2Nzk5NGQzYmNkMjI5ZDc4N2YyYTU=

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Wind Power Whips Through Texas   [Drew Thornley]

Who knew a ”free” source of energy could be so expensive?

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) recently estimated that billions of dollars in investment will be needed to transmit wind-generated electricity from the areas of Texas most suitable for wind generation – West Texas and the Panhandle – to the areas of the state that need energy the most – the I-35 corridor and the upper Gulf Coast. These costs will be borne by Texas ratepayers. How did this happen?

Subsidies, incentives, and renewable energy mandates have paved the way for Texas’ wind-energy boom. Today, Texas leads the nation in installed wind-power capacity, adding 1,708 megawatts (MW) in 2007, bringing its total to 4,446 MW by the end the year. California is a distant second, with 63 MW added in 2007 and a total of 2,439 MW by year’s end.

According to the Energy Information Administration, wind’s percentage of total U.S. net generation was 0.44 percent in 2005, 0.65 percent in 2006, and 0.77 percent in 2007; from 1993 to 2007, wind’s average percentage of total net generation was 0.25 percent. In Texas, wind accounted for 2 percent of total generation in 2007.

Robust wind power expansion is expected, as Texas’ Senate Bill 20 (2005) mandated 5,880 MW of renewable energy by 2015 and set a 10,000-MW target for 2025. To this end, $700 million went into new wind Texas farms in January, thanks in part to government subsidies.

In addition to generous federal assistance – namely a 2 cents/kWh production tax credit and five-year, double-declining balance accelerated depreciation for wind-generating equipment – the state of Texas entices wind developers with a franchise tax exemption to manufacturers, sellers, or installers of wind devices; a corporate deduction from the state’s franchise tax for renewable energy sources; and a 100-percent property tax exemption on the appraised value of an on-site wind power generating device. But even with these federal and state subsidies, electricity from wind is more expensive per kilowatt-hour than that generated by fossil fuels.

ERCOT’s estimates for transmitting West Texas wind energy, under four different scenarios, range from $3.78 billion to $6.28 billion. ERCOT estimated costs by using as-the-crow-flies distances for transmission cables. Thus, transmission costs were estimated using a best-case-scenario approach and, as such, should be considered the absolute (and unlikely) minimums. Add to this ERCOT’s estimates of $410 million to $1.03 billion for connecting wind generation to the new collection substations.

Additionally, while ERCOT’s transmission-cost estimates include the costs of building transmission stations, they do not include right-of-way costs, which will be passed through to consumers, in the form of higher electric bills.

Wind energy proponents extol wind as free, safe, and clean, but these characterizations miss the point. Energy users expect reliability, and challenges dot the path from wind to electric grid to energy consumer.

For wind turbines to produce power, the wind must blow. Because the wind does not blow constantly, wind turbines produce a fraction of their potential generating capacities. Furthermore, winds blows the least during the summer months when electricity is needed the most. ERCOT relies on just 8.7 percent of wind power’s capacity when determining available power during peak summer hours. Also, due to wind’s intermittency, those relying on wind farms must rely on conventional power sources to back up their supply.

Wind’s variability and its lack of correlation with peak demand highlight a major challenge for wind energy: Presently, there is no adequate storage system for wind-generated electricity – though progress is being made on updating older technologies, and on refining newer ones. Until commercially viable storage is a reality, wind energy will remain unreliable.

Wind energy also comes with legitimate environmental concerns. Sterling Burnett, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, writes, ”Bringing a conventional power plant on line to supply power is not as simple as turning on a switch; thus most of the fossil fuel power stations required to supplement wind turbines are not ‘redundant,’ but must run continuously, even if at reduced levels. When combined with the CO2 emitted and pollutants released in the manufacture and maintenance of wind towers and their associated infrastructure, substituting wind power for fossil fuels does little to reduce air pollution.”

Wind farms also require vast tracts of land, disrupting farming acreage and animal habitats; and, as Sterling Burnett has pointed out, turbine blades kill thousands of birds each year, including protected species.

ERCOT estimates Texas’ electricity demand will rise 20 percent by 2015 and 43 percent by 2025. Wind alone cannot supply that. Rather, wind should be part of a diversified portfolio of energy resources, anchored by the traditional energy sources – like fossil fuels, which are burning cleaner than ever before – that have the best chance at meeting Texas’ burgeoning energy needs. Even in Texas, the nation’s leader in wind energy, wind tinkers at the edges of meeting our energy needs. Letting wind find and fulfill its reasonable supply potential – as opposed to subsidizing and overfilling the wind-energy egg basket – is the prudent strategy for finding the proper role for wind energy.

– Drew Thornley is a natural resources policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a Planet Gore contributor.   

04/22 09:00 AM

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

Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy

24 april, 2008

Ytterligare ett exempel på de gigantiska kostnaderna för att inför handel med utsläppsrätter och begränsningar i CO2. I det här fallet rör det sig om North Carolina som skulle förlora 33 000 jobb och kosta delstatens BNP 4,5 Miljarder dollar. Plus en halv miljard dollar i investeringar, sänka folkets disponibla inkomst med 2,2 miljarder dollar.

Bara för att nämna NÅGRA effekter.

Det är alltså detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system som Global Warming Hysterikerna vill tvinga på världen. Och politikerna fullkomligt älskar detta system då de kan motivera i stort sett vilken skatte-/avgiftshöjning som helst med detta system.

Och detta gigantiska skojeri som främjar fusk i stor skala vill alltså Global Warming Hysterikerna tvinga på resten av världen!

Och våra svenska politiker vill att Sverige skall gå i täten och vara världsledande på detta skojeri. Arma svenska folk som kommer att få betala dessa gigantiska kostnader för dessa nonsensåtgärder.

När skall våra kära politiker börja FÖRSTÅ de ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin? Och de ofantliga summor som kommer att förslösas på nonsensåtgärder. Åtgärder som är ett direkt hot mot vår demokrati, vår frihet, vårt välstånd och vår ekonomi! Dessa orimliga kostnader utgör ett direkt hot för den industriella överlevnaden i den här delen av världen. Men det pratar man tyst om.

Som sagt, fler och fler börjar INSE de GIGANTISKA KOSTNADERNA för att genomföra dessa nonsensåtgärder. När skall de svenska politikerna vakna – När sista lampan har släckts och all industri är borta?

Se bl.a. mina inlägg: Carbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’”Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”,  Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayDon’t bother with emissions trading law, the Chambers of Commerce tells MPsEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/display_story.html?id=360

Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy

Economist to report findings to climate change commission

Dr. Roy Cordato

April 21, 2008

RALEIGH – North Carolina would lose more than 33,000 jobs and face a $4.5 billion hit to its Gross State Product by 2011, if lawmakers adopt just a fraction of the policies under consideration now to address climate change. A Boston-based economist who has analyzed the policy proposals will deliver that message Tuesday to a legislative study group.

The policies studied also would cost the state more than $502 million in investment, lower real disposable income by $2.2 billion, and reduce state and local revenue by more than $184 million, said David Tuerck, chairman of the Suffolk University Department of Economics and executive director of the department’s research arm, the Beacon Hill Institute. Tuerck is scheduled to testify to the N.C. Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change during its meeting 11 a.m. Tuesday in Raleigh.

The climate commission is considering 56 policy proposals developed by the Climate Action Plan Advisory Group. The proposals aim to limit global warming by cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Supporters contend those policy proposals would help North Carolina’s economy. A report from the Appalachian State University Energy Center suggests the policies would generate more than 300,000 jobs by 2020 and boost Gross State Product by nearly $1.5 billion.

At the request of the John Locke Foundation, Beacon Hill Institute researchers tested nine of the proposed policies. Those tested include a cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions, a surcharge for high-emission vehicles, a California-style vehicle emission standard, and mandates for utility companies to spend money on energy-efficiency and demand-management programs.

Rigorous testing using standard economic analysis yielded far more pessimistic results than those used to support the policies, Tuerck said in an interview. ”There’s an attempt to put a happy face on this legislation that’s going forward,” he said. ”And the attempt is made by trying to show that implementing this legislation would create jobs and would expand economic activity in the state, rather than contract it. And the trouble with that particular representation is that it doesn’t make any sense.”

You can’t create jobs that are good jobs – that are adding to the state economy – by shifting workers from more productive to less productive activities,” he added. ”You can’t create good jobs, the kind of jobs you want to create, by increasing energy costs, by increasing the price of electricity, by imposing what amount to new taxes. This is not the way to create jobs.”

”All these claims about job creation and the like are bogus claims and unsupportable by even the most naïve sort of economic analysis,” Tuerck said.

The contrast between the Beacon Hill Institute’s numbers and the Appalachian State report should surprise no one, said Dr. Roy Cordato, JLF Vice President for Research and Resident Scholar. ”The Appalachian State ‘economic’ study had nothing to do with the university’s economics department,” said Cordato, a Ph.D. economist. ”ASU economics professor John Whitehead has raised serious questions about the report – writing on his Web site that he’s ‘very skeptical’ any positive benefits from climate change policies would ‘overtake’ the negative effects.”

New information from the Beacon Hill Institute should raise red flags for North Carolina policy makers, Cordato said. ”It’s clear that real economic analysis shows these proposed policies would have much more drastic negative impacts than North Carolinians have been led to believe,” he said. ”And remember that the Beacon Hill Institute has analyzed nine of the 56 proposals. The total negative impact is likely even greater than these numbers show.”

”Do we really want to hurt our economy and shed thousands of jobs for these policies?” Cordato asked. ”Can North Carolina legislators honestly say that taxpayers and citizens should bear these costs to support policies that have no chance of affecting the climate in any significant way?”

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

A “Nobel” Folly!

24 april, 2008

”Former Vice President Gore’s rabid propagandizing of global warming seems to have contributed to anything but peace. In the effort to stem the tide of global warming, massive amounts of unrest have been created.

Regardless of whether you agree with Gore’s views on global warming, it cannot be ignored that his policies have had an incredibly damaging effect throughout the world.”

Instämmer till fullo!

Se även mina inlägg: The master hypocrite Al Gore doesn’t want to criticise his Hollywood buddies!Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!Food shortages, questionable benefits downplayed as Dr. McGuinty hits the gas pedal on ethanol,  Biofuel Madness: Environmentalism exploited for political purposesBrazil’s experience testifies to the downside of this energy revolutionGermany Scraps Plan to Raise Ethanol Content for CarsThe Clean Energy Scam – Eller Etanolbluffen!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm?artId=23150

A ”Nobel” Folly

Author: Gregory Cooke
Published by: The Heartland Institute
Published in: Heartland Perspectives
Publication date: April 23 2008

Take away Al Gore’s Nobel peace prize. Give him another one — literature maybe, or art — but the peace prize has got to go.

This is not a question of his environmental policies. Agree or disagree, they are not the issue here. Their consequences, however, are. We have seen a reaction to the global warming scare that has people scrambling to produce alternate fuels. This seems like an excellent idea, regardless of climate issues; more energy sources are always better than less.

Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences was either forgotten, or ignored, in the process. Every positive development will have some negative repercussions as well. What are the negative repercussions of this alternate fuels bonanza? Food riots in some developing countries.

With staple crops being used to make ethanol, their prices have skyrocketed. Corn is an excellent example. With subsidies in place, it is more profitable to grow corn than anything else. Rather than a glut in the market lowering the price, the massive demand for corn has raised it. This has resulted in higher prices for feed, which is often mainly composed of corn. Many farmers have abandoned other crops to grow corn, raising their prices as well.

As the price of basic staples has gone up, so too has the price of all complex foods that require multiple ingredients, almost all of which start at the farm level. This chain reaction has unleashed a wave of rising food prices, causing panic, even war, in several countries.

The prices of soy, rice, and wheat have all risen in response to the ”food for fuel” initiatives, hurting most those in the poorest countries. We see the effects in mass panic in places like Haiti, Indonesia, the Philippines, and several African countries.

Former Vice President Gore’s rabid propagandizing of global warming seems to have contributed to anything but peace. In the effort to stem the tide of global warming, massive amounts of unrest have been created.

Regardless of whether you agree with Gore’s views on global warming, it cannot be ignored that his policies have had an incredibly damaging effect throughout the world.

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

Vi har en Försvarsmakt i fullständigt fritt fall – 2

24 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg om försvaret (”Vi har en Försvarsmakt i fullständigt fritt fall”) så kommer här DEN TOTALT FARSARTADE och osannolika beskrivningen av hur det går till när de stackars värnpliktiga kommer ut på förbanden och möter den verklighet som råder I DAG inom försvaret

”Men många får bittert erfara den knapra verkligheten på plats. Rådsordföranden berättar om P 4 i Skövde där elva stridsvagnsbesättningar mönstrades in, men där det bara fanns fem stridsvagnar.

– Så resterande sex besättningar fick bli skyttesoldater och gå runt med AK5:a i skogen. Det fick de veta först när de blev uppställda på kaserngården, säger Björn Dahlén.

Motivationen minskar när de värnpliktiga känner sig som en ekonomisk belastning snarare än en resurs. Nytt spargrepp för i år är att de får sluta en månad i förtid – efter tio i stället för elva. I flottan får rekryterna hålla sig på land, i armén ska skjutövningar genomföras med tomma magasin.

– De får inte den utlovade och förväntade utbildningen, det är där skon klämmer.”

Så nu räcker inte ens pengarna till lösplugg!

Kommentar överflödig – Försvarshögkvarterets och politikernas totala inkompetens har för länge sedan passerat Monte Phyton nivån! Ja menar deras ”Department of Silly Walks” är ju ett under av effektivitet och organisation i jämförelse med staben, högkvarteret och försvarsdepartementet.

Men vi har ju fortfarande vaktparaden (än så länge) som kan skrämma lede fi genom att spela någon käck marsch eller så.

Det är alltså detta vi får för 43 miljarder per år – TORRSIM och TOMMA MAGASIN!

Som jag sa i mitt förra inlägg:

Så jag upprepar: lägg ner skiten och börja om från början med helt ny uppsättning politiker och folk i försvarsledningen som begriper någonting ÖVERHUVUDTAGET. Där ALLA nuvarande och förutvarande politiker och försvarsfolk totalt RENSAS UT och får avsked på grått papper.

 Och det blir inte något SNACK om avgångsvederlag eller dylikt – Har man så totalt vansköt sin uppgift och försatt Sverige i denna kris så är man inte värd ett ruttet öre – bokstavligen!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=763927

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_1172213.svd

Carbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’

23 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg ”Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation” kommer här kompletterande uppgifter om de gigantiska kostnader det skulle med för den australiensiska industrin att införa en handel med utsläppsrätter. Kostnaderna beräknas till mellan 14 – 22 Miljarder $ PER ÅR. Vilket motsvarar över 40 % av de australiensiska företagens ” company tax revenue”.

Se även mina andra inlägg bl.a. Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23584525-2702,00.html

Carbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’

 David Uren, Economics correspondent | April 23, 2008

THE Rudd Government’s planned carbon trading system will cost business between $14billion and $22billion a year and will have to be considered in a review of the taxation system.

Taxation Institute director Michael Dirkis yesterday said that the money generated by the emissions trading system would be equivalent to more than 40 per cent of company tax revenue.

”You cannot design a system that impacts on business and brings in that level of government revenue without dealing with tax,” he said.

Dr Dirkis said the European price for carbon was equivalent to $37.70 a tonne. Based on the Government’s assessment of Australia’s progress towards meeting its Kyoto targets, that would cost the electricity industry $11.5billion, while transport costs would rise by a further $3.3billion. The agriculture sector’s carbon gas emissions would carry a price of $3.5billion while the emissions from industrial processing and waste would cost a further $3.7billion, based on European prices.

Dr Dirkis said that although some had suggested that Australia’s carbon price might be set below European levels, this would be hard to achieve in practice, because companies were already operating on the basis that carbon emissions were a global commodity. ”You already have Japanese industry coming in and picking up forestry interests in Australia through managed investment schemes so they can use them as carbon sinks.”

Dr Dirkis said the $22billion figure was an upper limit, because Ross Garnaut, who is examining the issue on behalf of the Rudd Government, was proposing that smaller businesses emitting less than 25,000 tonnes a year would not need a permit.

Any comparison of Australia’s current 30 per cent company tax rate with international practice would have to take account of the additional impost from carbon emissions, he said.

A spokeswoman for the Garnaut review said it would not be considering the interaction with the tax system, and was considering macro-economic impacts at only a ”high level”.

Although it has been reported that the Garnaut review would recommend cuts in company tax, this has not been suggested in its discussion papers to date, which suggest only compensation for low-income earners. It has generally opposed compensating business for the additional cost.

Dr Dirkis said the proposed carbon scheme raised more technical tax issues for business, ranging from how obsolete power plant should be treated, whether buying emissions permits would be tax deductible, and whether the permits themselves would carry GST. If the emissions permits include GST, the cost to business would be 10 per cent higher.

Australian School of Taxation director Neil Warren said carbon tax issues should be resolved separately from the tax review. He said the Government must first consider the cost to the economy of ”going-it-alone” with an emissions trading system.

”If we act unilaterally on carbon tax, we will make ourselves uncompetitive,” he said.

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

”Vi har en Försvarsmakt i fullständigt fritt fall”

23 april, 2008

Det TOTALA byråkratiska vansinnet och inkompetensen fortsätter oförtrutet inom försvaret och har nått nya höjder – hur nu det är möjligt! Det borde vara värt ett pris i sig!

Vi hat nu ett försvar som FORTFARANDE kostar omkring 42-43 Miljarder kr/år, som INTE klarar av NÅGONTING EGENTLIGEN – INTE att försvara Sverige, med stor möda så lyckas man sätta upp ett utlandsförband genom att brandskatta andra förband på material (bl.a. NBG), man skickar en amfibietrupp som måste specialutbildas (3 månader) på fordon som de aldrig har använt och på grund av detta så kan man inte hålla den insatts tid som man lovat EU osv. osv. i all oändlighet.

Och som jag sagt tidigare: om man jämför med vårt kära broderland i öster (Finland alltså) så är det bara att gråta blod i jämförelse hur mycket REALT försvar Finland lyckas klämma fram med HALVA kostnaden jämfört med Sverige. Och där KAN MAN försvara sitt land.

Och nu skall alltså allt luftvärn skrotas för våra insatsförband – vi är i praktiken tillbaks på 1800 talet vad det gäller luftskyddet för fotsoldaterna. Gotland är totalt utan försvar (Ryssland och gasledning någon?) etc.

Och nu har det blivit ÄNNU värre vilket i sig är en prestation!

ALLT ÄR TOTAL KAOS OCH ”INGET ÄR HELIGT”! Jo en sak, det skall sparas och läggas ner överallt UTOM I SJÄLVA HÖGBORGEN FÖR DENNA TOTALA INKOMPETENS NÄMLIGEN FÖRSVARSHÖGKVARTERET” Som det så träffande sägs ”Ingen bantning av Högkvarteret har diskuterats.”

Så går det till i dagens Sverige! Och SOM VANLIGT så är det INGEN SOM TAR NÅGOT SOM HELST ANSVAR FÖR NÅGONTING! Inte politikerna i försvarsutskottet eller alla de politiker som deltagit i ”försvarsuppgörelserna”, inte staben eller högkvarteret eller ÖB.

Nä, och som vanligt i Sverige, så ÄR NU de personer som medverkade till och beslutade om detta totala vansinne och sönderfall, ”bekymrade” över att verkligheten ser ut som den gör och att de byråkartiska planerna/mallarna och modellerna har blivit störda. Och SAMMA personer skall NU ansvara för att det hela ”rättas till”.  Fan trot!

Avgå någon???????

För att citera vad jag skrev tidigare i mina inlägg:

”Det finns en gräns för hur länge man kan ha tålamod med inkompetens och vanskötsel. Och den gränsen har nu med råge passerats!

Lägg ner ”skiten”!

Varför skall vi betala 42-43 000 000 000 kr/år för något som för det första inte klarar av sina uppgifter (att försvara Sverige) och som så TOTALT missköts av de som är satta att styra och leda verksamheten. OCH DÄR INGEN FÖRBÄTTRING SKER! Utan tvärtom så blir eländet bara värre och värre och dyrare för varje år.Man kan inte leka med, och begära att människor skall offra liv och lem för en verksamhet som leds av sådana inkompetenta ”intelligens befriade” personer.

Det är dags att säga ifrån! Det får vara slut på lekstugan nu!

Men det blir nog svårt – i Sverige är det vanliga ju att INGEN TAR NÅGOT SOM HELST ANSVAR FÖR NÅGONTING. Utom att höja sina egna löner och förmåner.

Vi har sedan länge passerat banana republic stadiet. Där finns det åtminstone vissa gränser för inkompetensen och korruptionen. Och man låtsas inte som om att det skulle vara på något annat sätt än det är.

 Och jag tycker fruktansvärt synd om alla de kunniga och kompetenta personer som trotts allt finns på ”lägre” nivå inom försvaret och som måste stå ut med all denna totala inkompetens på högre nivå.”

Och detta har naturligts bara förstärkts av den senaste utvecklingen som tyvärr är helt förutsägbar med det ledargarnityr vi har idag.

Så jag upprepar: lägg ner skiten och börja om från början med helt ny uppsättning politiker och folk i försvarsledningen som begriper någonting ÖVERHUVUDTAGET. Där ALLA nuvarande och förutvarande politiker och försvarsfolk totalt RENSAS UT och får avsked på grått papper.

 Och det blir inte något SNACK om avgångsvederlag eller dylikt – Har man så totalt vansköt sin uppgift och försatt Sverige i denna kris så är man inte värd ett ruttet öre – bokstavligen!

 Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Försvaret – vilken total INKOMPETENS!,  Vårt dyra lilla kastrerade försvar!, Vårt dyra lilla försvar – 2 och  Vårt dyra lilla försvar

Artiklarna finns här:

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_1167347.svd

 

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=763761

Over 500 scientists behind the Manhattan declaration!

22 april, 2008

Manhattan deklarationen (”Global warming” is not a global crisis”) släpptes den 4 mars i år i New York under the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. Nu har man kommit med en uppdaterad lista på alla vetenskapsmän (över 500 st) som undertecknat och stöder deklarationen.

De måste INTE ha lyssnat på Al Gore, IPCC et consortes som ju hävdar att det råder ”konsensus” och ”att debatten är över” och ”att det inte finns något att diskutera” samt att de är ”omoraliskt att ens ifrågasätta det hela”

Listan med alla namn finns efter deklarationen nedan.

Se även dessa inlägg från konferensen: The 2008 International Conference on Climate ChangeBasic Greenhouse Equations ”Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New YorkFrom Climate Alarmism to Climate Realism – Václav Klaus anförande på konferensen den 4 mars

News release finns här:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=1

Hundreds Sign Climate Realist Declaration ‘Global Warming’ is not a Global Crisis

International Climate Science Coalition releases signatories to the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

(Ottawa, Canada – April 22, 2008) The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) today released the names of over 500 endorsers of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change that calls on world leaders to ”reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as popular, but misguided works such as ‘An Inconvenient Truth.'” All taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) should ”be abandoned forthwith,” conclude declaration signatories.

Included in the endorser lists are world leading climate scientists, economists, policymakers, engineers, business leaders, medical doctors, as well as other professionals and concerned citizens from two dozen countries. The complete declaration text, endorser lists and international media contacts for expert commentary, may be viewed at http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/media1.php.

 Perhaps most significant among the declaration’s assertions:

”[T]here is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”

”[A]ttempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering.”

 ”Just as the Manhattan Project was key to finally ending the World War II, the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change may one day be regarded as a critical catalyst that helped end today’s climate hysteria,” said ICSC Science Advisory Board member Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia. ”Protecting the natural world is crucially important, and so environmental policy must be based on our best understanding of science and technology coupled with a realistic appreciation of the relevant economics and policy options. This is not happening in the climate debate.”

ICSC Chair, Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada concludes, ”Instead of wasting billions restricting emissions of CO2, a vitally important gas on which all life depends, governments must concentrate on solving known environmental problems over which we have influence – air, land and water pollution being obvious examples.”

 The ICSC is an association of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts working to promote better public understanding of climate change. ICSC provides an analysis of climate science and policy issues which, being independent of lobby groups and vested political interests, is an alternative to advice from the IPCC. ICSC thereby fosters rational, evidence-based, open discussion about all climate, and climate-related, issues.

Manhattan declaration finns här:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

 Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

 ”Global warming” is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

 Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

 Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change.  Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

 Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

 Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

 Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as ”An Inconvenient Truth”.

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

 Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.

 De tre listorna med forskare och vetenskapsmän som undertecknat deklaration fins här och alla namnen finns nedan:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62

Det finns även en fjärde lista med ”CITIZEN ENDORSERS OF THE DECLARATION NOT AT THE NEW YORK CONFERENCE” här:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=1

  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>

(more…)

“Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”

22 april, 2008

Här kommer ytterligare en utmärkt genomgång om varför handeln med utsläppsrätter är totalt ekonomiskt vansinne. I det här fallet är det en genomgång (inför the Garnaut Climate Change Review) varför Australien INTE skall inför detta system som den nuvarande regeringen vill införa (även om man har fått lite ”kalla fötter”).

”If warming is either less pronounced than some current forecasts predict or if emissions reductions have limited effect in moderating future temperature rise . . . a severe global emissions-reduction policy through emissions trading could turn out to be the costliest public policy mistake in human history, with the costs vastly exceeding the benefits.”

 Kenneth Green, Steven Hayward and Kevin Hasset:

”Climate Change: Caps vs Taxes”, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Environmental, Policy Outlook, 2007, Issue 2.

 Ett citat:

”There are some ideas that are so wrong that only a very intelligent

person could believe them.”

 

George Orwell.

 

Se även mina tidigare inlägg I frågan bl.a.:

Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!Clearing out the environmental fogA CO2 graph that says it all!,  A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  We were forced to swallow disadvantageous conditions for diplomatic reasons!,   EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!,

Analysen finns här:

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/emissions-trading-a-weapon-of-mass-taxation1.pdf

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

(more…)

Little Increase in Americans’ Global Warming Worries

22 april, 2008

Här kommer en intressant undersökning av Gallup som visar att det är SAMMA ANDEL AV BEFOLKNINGEN som för 19 år sedan som ”worry about it a great deal” -37%. Och detta trotts denna gigantiska och totalt ensidiga massmediala och politiska propaganda som översköljt dem de senaste 5-6 åren.

Var indoktrinerigen har lyckats är på frågan om ” the effects of global warming had already begun to happen” där ja svaren har ökat från 48 till 61% på 19 år. Sammtidigt så har svaret ”Will never happen” ökat från 9 till 11%.

Se även mitt inlägg: Global warming gets 0% from the American people about what’s important in the presidential election! och Time Magazine: we are making it up as we go along!

Undersökningen finns här:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106660/Little-Increase-Americans-Global-Warming-Worries.aspx?version=print

April 21, 2008

Little Increase in Americans’ Global Warming Worries

Public just can’t seem to get worked up about it

Northern America

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ — While 61% of Americans say the effects of global warming have already begun, just a little more than a third say they worry about it a great deal, a percentage that is roughly the same as the one Gallup measured 19 years ago.

Despite the enormous attention paid to global warming over the past several years, the average American is in some ways no more worried about it than in years past. Americans do appear to have become more likely to believe global warming’s effects are already taking place and that it could represent a threat to their way of life during their lifetimes. But the American public is more worried about a series of other environmental concerns than about global warming, and there has been no consistent upward trend on worry about global warming going back for two decades. Additionally, only a little more than a third of Americans say that immediate, drastic action is needed in order to maintain life as we know it on the planet.

These results are from Gallup’s annual Environment poll, conducted March 6-9, 2008.

Understanding Global Warming

Eighty percent of Americans say they understand the issue of global warming, a percentage that is up significantly from 16 years ago, when only 53% said they understood the issue.

Self-reported understanding of global warming has increased slightly throughout this decade, as measured in Gallup’s annual Environment study, from 69% who said they understood global warming very or fairly well in March 2001 to today’s 80%. The percentage of Americans who understand global warming ”very well” has been steady at a relatively low 21% to 22% for the last three years.

Effects of Global Warming Already Beginning?

Slightly less than half of Americans in 1997 said the effects of global warming had already begun to happen. That number has risen, particularly in the past two years, to the point where today 61% say the effects have already begun to happen at this point in time. About one out of four Americans, however, continue to say the effects of global warming will not happen in their lifetimes, if ever.

Threat?

There has also been an uptick in the percentage of Americans who say global warming will pose a serious threat to them in their lifetimes, from 25% in 1997 to 40% today.

Even with this increase over the last 11 years, the fact remains that still less than a majority of Americans, at this point, believe global warming will pose a serious threat to them in their lifetimes.

 Worry?

The fact that a majority of Americans don’t believe global warming will pose a threat to them in their lifetimes makes it perhaps less surprising to find that significantly less than a majority of Americans say they worry a great deal about it. In fact, worry about global warming is low on a list of 12 environmental problems that Gallup asks about in the Environment surveys.

There is, in fact, little more evidence of worry about global warming now than there was when this question was first asked in 1989.

Since that time, there has been change, with the worry a ”great deal” percentage rising to 40% in 2000, before dropping back from 2002 to 2004, and now increasing some over the last three years. This year’s ”great deal” worry number is slightly lower than last year’s high to date of 41%.

This is not to say that Americans totally dismiss global warming. About two-thirds say they worry a great deal or a fair amount about it, and only 17% say they don’t worry at all about it.

Still, the trend data suggest that despite the growing attention to and emphasis on global warming in recent years, there has been no consistent increase in worry about it since Gallup began asking the question way back in 1989.

Drastic Action Needed for Environment?

A Gallup Poll question asks Americans whether ”additional, immediate, and drastic action” is necessary concerning the environment, and in this year’s update, about a third answer ”yes.”

That number is down slightly from last year and, stretching back in time, is roughly the same as was measured in a 1995 poll. The only other three years in which Gallup has measured this variable were from 2001 to 2003, when a slightly lower percentage of Americans advocated drastic action.

Implications

From a broad perspective, Gallup’s data tracking Americans’ perceptions of the environment are somewhat mixed. On some dimensions, Americans clearly demonstrate a reaction to the growing discussion and emphasis on global warming in the media and indeed as part of the popular culture. Americans now are more likely than they have been in the past to claim understanding of global warming, to recognize that global warming could be a threat in their lifetimes, and to say the effects of global warming have already begun.

At the same time, however, Gallup’s broad measure of worry about environmental issues does not show a concomitant increase in concern. Although there have been fluctuations on this measure of worry over the years, the percentage of Americans who worry a great deal about global warming is no higher now than it was 19 years ago. And the percentage who do worry a great deal — 37% — is still well less than a majority, and in fact lower than the percentage who worry a great deal about such environmental issues as pollution of drinking water, pollution of lakes and reservoirs, and toxic waste in the soil.

Copyright © 2008 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Time Magazine: we are making it up as we go along!

22 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till bl.a. mina inlägg om hur BBC sålde ut sin journalistiska heder och trovärdighet och gick Global Warming Hysterikernas ärenden. Kommer här en liknande historia om Time Magazine och deras reportage ”How to win the war on Global Warming”. Och framförallt deras första sida där man förändrat den klasiska bilden när flaggan hissades på Iwo Jima och ersatt flaggan med ett träd.

Nå, jag skrev inget om detta för så många andra tog upp ämnet. Men många i USA blev upprörda, bland dem pressfotografer och alla krigsveteraner (det dog över 7000 man). Nu har Time Magazines Managing Editor Richard Stengel gått i svaromål och försvarat det hela i en mycket avslöjande föreläsning i går vid the University of Mississippi i Oxford.

Det är sorgligt att se hur många massmedia säljer ut hela sin journalistiska trovärdigt för en grynvälling och så TOTALT går Global Warming hysterins ärenden. Återigen ett mycket lysande exempel på hur hela Global Warming Hysterin understöds, sprids och byggs upp av massmedia!

Det finns bara en sak att göra som biter på dessa totalt ensidiga massmedia giganter. Sluta köp och presumera på dessa tidningar/tidskrifter eftersom de inte längre bedriver en seriös journalistik utan ägnar sig åt politisk manipulation. Pengar är en sak som ägarna förstår.

Se även mina tidigare inlägg:  How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics!How BBC sold out all of its declared values!How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics – part 2 och   An Age of Warming Press Bias – selling its soul!

Citat:

”Stengel defied the traditional notion that journalists should be unbiased. ”I didn’t go to journalism school,” Stengel said. ”But this notion that journalism is objective, or must be objective is something that has always bothered me – because the notion about objectivity is in some ways a fantasy. I don’t know that there is as such a thing as objectivity.”

Stengel supported his claim by stating the role of journalists is not to ask questions, but answer them.

”[F]rom the time I came back, I have felt that we have to actually say, ‘We have a point of view about something and we feel strongly about it, we just have to be assertive about it and say it positively,’” Stengel said. ”I don’t think people are looking for us to ask questions, I think they’re looking for us to answer questions.”

He told the Ole Miss audience it was an attention ploy.

”My feeling is you have to grab people by the lapels and say, ‘Hey, pay attention’ and that was the idea of doing this,” Stengel said. ”[I] just think you can’t be squeamish about trying to get people’s attention.”

He also equated the cause of climate change with the cause that the Marines who fought on Iwo Jima nearing the end of World War II and admitted he understood the image might be offensive.”

”As for journalistic standards, Stengel told the audience they are ”making it up as we go along.”

I don’t even know what rules there have been all along in journalism,” Stengel said. ”There are rules we kind of observed by tradition, but it’s not like you know the legal code or the being a doctor with the way you treat people. We sort of make it up as we go along and I think that is what will continue to happen.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080421174645.aspx

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

(more…)

The master hypocrite Al Gore doesn’t want to criticise his Hollywood buddies!

21 april, 2008

Som jag sagt tidigare:

Hyckleriet kring Al Gore verkar aldrig ta slut. Al Gore är ju mannen som lever gott på att åka jorden runt och predika ”gloom and doom”. Och om hur vi måste drastiskt lägga om vår livsstil och dra ner på energianvändningen etc. I hans film ställer han på slutet frågan ”Are you ready to change the way you live”?

Själv lever han som sagt inte som han lär, tvärtom. Se mina tidigare inlägg:  Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!Al Gores energislösande hem och  Al Gores energislösande resande. Och även  Hycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna råd

Denne hycklare i kubik (om man räknar i hans energislösande ”hem”, hans modesta resvanor med privata jetplan och limousiner), fick alltså Nobels fredspris för SINA insatser. Som jag sagt tidigare i mina inlägg om Al Gore: Hur långt får hyckleriet gå innan någon reagerar och säger ifrån?

Nå, en som tröttnade på detta hyckleri var senatorn James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee. I en kommite utfrågning i EPW den 21 mars 2007 ställde han frågan till Al Gore om han ville ta sin egen ed (The Gore ”Personal Energy Ethics Pledge”) och leva som han lär.

Al Gore vägrade att svara och idag är det 397 dagar sedan han fick frågan. Och han vägrar fortfarande att svara och att avge något löfte.

Och hans bidrag till CO2 utsläpp och hans ”carbon footprint” är ENORMA! Men som sagt, vad gör man inte för att bekämpa Global Warming och CO2 utsläppen som ”driver temperaturen”!

Och hyckleriet fortsätter! I denna ”intervju” I gårdagens The Sun får han frågan om sina Hollywood kompisar och deras extravaganta vanor (dvs. de samma som Al Gores)

Citat från intervjun:

”The man who is now as much part of the Hollywood Establishment as he was a political player with the Democratic Party is very careful not to upset any of his celebrity friends.

He wouldn’t dream of suggesting that their lavish jet-setting and gas-guzzling lifestyles could be reined in for the good of the environment.

When we point out that David Beckham has recently been given the dubious title of having the worst carbon footprint in history – clocking up enough air miles to fly to the moon and owning 15 gas-guzzling cars, Mr Gore shifts uncomfortably in his seat.

He knows what is coming next.

When asked what he would say to the football icon – a hero to millions – about his impact on the environment, Mr Gore refuses to be drawn.

He gives a huge belly-laugh at the notion that Posh and Becks could invest in an environmentally-friendly hybrid car such as a Toyota Prius.

He careful considers his answer before saying: ”I don’t think that’s my place. I don’t want to get into personally criticising anyone.”

För att citera Noel Sheppards utmärkta respons som jag till FULLO delar:

”It’s not his place? He doesn’t want to personally criticise anyone?

How about your regular references to everyone that disagrees with you as being ”deniers” and ”flat-earthers?”

And why is it okay for you to travel the world telling governments how they need to alter their energy policies and tax codes, which will end up costing regular people billions nay trillions of dollars, but you don’t think it’s your place to tell the wealthiest members of society to change their lifestyles?

At the same time, Gore’s VERY interested in telling regular people what THEY should do:

”Long-life lightbulbs, recycling, window treatments, extra insulation – these things can all help.

”I appreciate they cost money to begin with but they will save money in the long run.

”But the main benefit of people going green is that they will join a movement to pressure their governments.”

So, let’s add this all up: He doesn’t want to tell the wealthiest people in the world that they need to make sacrifices in order to save the planet, but he’s more than happy telling the common man to spend more money in order to pressure governments to raise taxes and energy prices.

Meet the new Robin Hood, ladies and gentlemen: he steals from the poor so the rich can continue their lavish lifestyles without feeling guilty about imminent planetary doom.

Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up. ”

Intervjun finns här:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/special_events/green_week/article1065876.ece

Noel Sheppards kommentar här:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/20/gore-wont-ask-wealthy-hollywoodans-alter-lifestyle-save-planet

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

“Global warming my a…”! says cardinal

21 april, 2008

Här kommer ett intressant inlägg av ingen mindre än kardinalen och ärkebiskopen av Sydney George Pell. Som jag skrev redan i mitt inlägg Påven varnar för miljöhysterin så är det inte ofta som jag håller med påven eller katolska kyrkan. Men även en kardinal kan säga kloka saker. Tänk om våra politiker kunde göra samma sak. Men då måste de förstås tänka självständigt!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/Archbishop/STC/2008/2008420_382.shtml

Global Warming

By + Cardinal George Pell

Archbishop of Sydney

20/4/2008

Canada has just experienced the coldest winter and the heaviest snowfalls since 1970-1, which was called a once in a thousand years event.  Another 18 centimetres of snow would set an all time record.

A Kingston newspaper had a marvellous cartoon of a tough old Canadian, rugged up against the cold and hacking the ice off the windscreen of his car.  The caption read ”Global warming my a…”!

In China the Chinese New Year coincided with a fierce cold snap and snow storms which prevented many city workers returning to their villages for the celebrations.  Police had to deal with the ensuing riots.  London has just experienced snow at Easter.

The world is much bigger than both China and Canada combined, which might be the exceptions to the new rule of man-made global warming, but they are inconvenient facts for the climate change bandwagon.

And it is an intolerant bandwagon with loud exaggerated claims that the issue is settled and that an unchallenged consensus among scientists confirms the hypothesis of dangerous humanly caused global warming.  In fact the issue is far from settled.

Politicians sceptical of these claims would need unusual courage to resist the strong tides of public opinion.  However the rest of us are not so constrained and we should consider all the available information.

Three points are of some significance.

Last December more than 100 prominent international scientists, some of them members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned the U.N. that attempting to control the earth’s climate was ”ultimately futile”.  So did 500 experts in Manhattan in March.  Fighting climate change was distracting governments from helping the most vulnerable citizens adapt to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever they might prove to be.  Futile attempts to prevent global climate change would be a tragic misallocation of resources, they claimed.

Secondly none of the natural changes observed with glaciers, sea-levels and species migration is outside the bounds of known variability, including the warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade in the late twentieth century.  But the 1930s decade was warmer than the 1990s.

Most importantly the global temperature has not increased since 2001.   Global warming has ceased (New Statesman 19/12/2007).

This finding invalidates the global warming hypotheses because the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to increase and the temperature should be increasing too.  It isn’t.

The last point to be acknowledged is that today’s computer models cannot predict climate over long periods because there are too many unknowns and variables.

We should never forget that while computers are miracles of human ingenuity, able to assimilate extraordinary amounts of information in the briefest time, they are also limited, cannot think for themselves and are totally obedient to their last human master.

More than this is needed to predict the future

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

Food shortages, questionable benefits downplayed as Dr. McGuinty hits the gas pedal on ethanol

21 april, 2008

Ett utmärkt artikel av Lorrie Goldstein om etanolvansinnet och alla de problem som denna satsning medför. I det här fallet så handlar det om politikern Dalton McGuinty (Premier of Ontario sedan 23/10-03).

Han påminner INTE SÅ LITE om våra inhemska varianter som med full fart fortsätter med dessa gigantiska satsningar på etanol oavsett ALLA larmrapporter och problem som finns med etanolen (se bl.a. mitt tidigare inlägg: Avgasutsläppen från etanol är STÖRRE och VÄRRE än från bensinbilar!)

Som det enkla faktum att om man tar med hela produktionskedjan vid tillverkning av etanol så är CO2 utsläppen större än för bensin. Det går åt 35-40% mer etanol än med bensin för att köra samma sträcka, Den TOTALA energimängden som går åt för att framställa 1 l etanol är MYCKET större än för 1 l bensin. Etc. Etc.

Men som sagt inget a detta bekymrar vår käcka och intälägänta politiker  som tutar och kör för fullt som vanligt i enkelspår!

Artikln finns här:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/

2008/04/20/5337211-sun.php

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

(more…)

Women will be returned to the Dark Ages if the eco-fundamentalists end up having their way

21 april, 2008

En intressant kolumn av Melanie Reid om hur fruktansvärt trist och tråkigt samhället blir om Global Warming Hysterikerna får som dom vill. Och som är en utmärkt uppgörelse med den dolda fudamentalistiska politiska agenda som ligger bakom mycket av denna Global Warming Hysteri.

Citat:

Long before we are extinguished by global food shortages or raised sea levels, I predict, we are fated to die of boredom, struck down in our prime by the devastating virus 0157eco-smugness. Doctors will be powerless to stop as the bug invades our minds, causing nervous paralysis leading to eventual seizure. We are doomed, for sure, to terminal ennui brought on by environmental righteousness.

”This is the terrible paradox of the environmental movement. The paradox that, if society proceeds down the true path of eco-purity, we may well save the planet; but will simultaneously discover that life is too dull to be worth living on it any more. Women in particular, I fear, will find themselves returned to the Dark Ages.

How can it be otherwise? No skiing, no cars, no travel, no exotic foods, no extravagance, no Hollywood, no wasteful labour-saving devices, no clothes made of anything but recycled plastics and hemp. No more Luxx magazine filled with beautifully engineered, sleek, accessory porn. In their place we will chant a litany of carbon offset, recycling and composting, the buttresses of a new religion that makes radical Islam resemble Methodism.

What is becoming so fascinating about the new puritanism is not just that we are all being brainwashed to accept the inevitability of hair shirts, but also their unquestioned moral worth. That somehow or other, this life of sackcloth and bicycles is going to benefit our souls and make us all better people.”

”My real problem with the eco-alarmists is the pleasure they take in austerity; their evident desire to strip away pleasure. Deep down, they disapprove of skiing, even on a Scottish scale. They dislike colour, excess and fun. They really do want to see us imprisoned in a narrow, grey, scratchy world of recycled car tyres and hemp lingerie (and no, I didn’t make that up).

Hence their gleefulness in the economic downturn, because it will mean that people are poorer, and will be forced to do things their way. Slowly but surely, the roundheads will take over the Earth. In their ideal world we will not travel, except by bus; we will read gloomy books like A Short History of the Future (on recycled paper); and luxury will consist of a wind-up MP3 player.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/melanie_reid/

article3784683.ece

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

(more…)

Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your Way

21 april, 2008

Här kommer en utmärkt artikel av Paul Driessen om de gigantiska ekonomiska kostnaderna för vanligt folk om USA skulle inför en handel med utsläppsrätter och begränsningar i CO2

Se även mina inlägg: Europe finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!Clearing out the environmental fogA CO2 graph that says it all!,  A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  We were forced to swallow disadvantageous conditions for diplomatic reasons!,   EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK -2!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK!,  $ 2,9 Biljoner i sänkt BNP för en sänkning av CO2 på 25 ppm!,  De ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin,  Realpolitik i klimat dimmornaSnabb helomvändning i Australien!

Citat:

”Our planet has experienced numerous climate shifts, they point out, including prolonged ice ages, a 400-year Medieval Warm Period and a 500-year Little Ice Age. Climate scientists still don’t understand what caused these events – or the temperature roller coaster of the last century, as carbon dioxide levels rose steadily: temperatures climbed from 1910 to 1945, fell between 1945 and 1975, and increased again from 1975 to 1998, notes Syun-Ichi Akasofu, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center.”

”Climate models do help scientists evaluate possible consequences of changing economic growth, emission, cloud cover and other variables. But they can’t reproduce the actual climate of the past century. They cannot make accurate predictions, even one year in the future, much less fifty. They do not represent reality, and should not be relied on to guide public policy.

Models reflect the assumptions and hypotheses that go into them – and our still limited understanding of complex, turbulent climate processes that involve the sun, oceans, land masses and atmosphere. They do a poor job of dealing with the effects of water vapor, precipitation and high cirrus clouds on temperatures and climate, because the underlying physics aren’t well understood, notes MIT meteorology professor Richard Lindzen.

Like the UN’s politicized climate control panel, the IPCC, models also place too much emphasis on carbon dioxide. They pay insufficient attention to extraterrestrial factors like changes in the Earth’s irregular orbit around the sun, solar energy levels, and solar winds that appear to influence the level of cosmic rays reaching Earth, and thus the formation of cloud cover and penetration of infrared radiation from the sun. They likewise fail to incorporate the profound effects that periodic shifts in Pacific Ocean currents have on temperatures and sea ice in the Arctic.

When the US National Assessment compared the results of two top-tier computer models for various regions of the United States, the models frequently generated precisely opposite rainfall scenarios, University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy points out. Depending on which model was used, the Dakotas and Rio Grande valley would supposedly become complete deserts or huge swamps; the Southeastern US would become a jungle or semi-arid grassland.2″

”The ultimate goal of energy-killer activists is to slash US carbon dioxide emissions some 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, to stabilize global CO2 levels, even as China, India and other developing countries continue their economic and emissions boom. The last time the United States emitted such low amounts of CO2 was 1905! Where and how will your family and business achieve 80% emission reductions?

Welcome to the good old days – to Eco-Camelot, where ”the climate must be perfect all year.” Poor minority and blue-collar families will be in for some serious belt-tightening, millions of jobs will head overseas, and demand for unemployment benefits, mortgage bailouts and energy welfare will soar, as state and federal coffers run dry.”

So hold onto your wallets, and hope you can hold onto your homes, cars and jobs. You’re about to be put on a wild political roller coaster. And don’t expect much honesty, transparency or accountability from climate Armageddonites.

Artikeln finns här:

rhttp://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PaulDriessen/2008/04/19/

global_warming_tax_hikes_headed_your_way?page=full&comments=true

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

(more…)

Avgasutsläppen från etanol är STÖRRE och VÄRRE än från bensinbilar!

20 april, 2008

”Avgasutsläppen från etanolbilar är större än från bensinbilar när det gäller flera hälsofarliga och cancerframkallande ämnen.”

”Studien ger dock inga belägg för att det inte skulle vara bra att gå över till etanol, enligt Petter Åsman, utredare på Vägverket. ”

OK, låt mig se om jag har förstått det hela rätt:

Det går åt 35-40% mer etanol än med bensin för att köra samma sträcka

Den TOTALA energimängden som går åt för att framställa 1 l etanol är MYCKET större än för 1 l bensin.

Kostar gigantiska summor i olika subventioner

Satsningen på etanol har drivit upp matpriser och lett till skogs skövlingar, mat upplopp och förstörelse i 3 e världen m.m.

Etanolens utsläpp är STÖRRE och FARLIGARE än bensin

ÄNDÅ SÅ SÄGER VÄGVERKET Studien ger dock inga belägg för att det inte skulle vara bra att gå över till etanol”

Ehh…???????   Visst är det skönt med så PK och vetenskapligt korrekta myndigheter i det här landet. Som vill oss sååå väl och ser efter oss så bra och som lydigt följer alla Global Warming hysterikernas påfund!

Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Biofuel Madness: Environmentalism exploited for political purposesBrazil’s experience testifies to the downside of this energy revolutionGermany Scraps Plan to Raise Ethanol Content for CarsThe Clean Energy Scam – Eller Etanolbluffen!MiljöBils Snurret

Artikeln finns här

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=762740&rss=2216

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

1000 år av temperaturdata från Nya Zeeland

20 april, 2008

Hittade följande intressanta graf över 1000  år av temperaturdata från Nya Zeeland. Studera den noga.

Global Warming anyone?

Se även mina tidigare inlägg; 20 000 år av temperaturdata från Peru6 000 år av temperaturdata från Venezuela,  3500 år av temperaturdata från Kina,  Temperaturen för 130 000 år sedan,  422 700 år av temperaturdata från Antarktis3000 år av temperaturdata från Syd Afrika,  4000 år av temperaturdata från Grönland2000 år av temperaturdata från Österrike etc.

Reference

Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P.  1979.  Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium.  Nature 279: 315-317.

Description

Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) revealed the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.

2007-12-20_134850.jpg

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

Peer Review – What it actually means

20 april, 2008

Här kommer en utmärkt analys och beskrivning av hur peer review processen går till i verkligheten gjord av Robert Higgs som har en mycket lång erfarenhet av peer reviw i den vetenskapliga världen.

Läs denna utmärkta genomgång som ett komplement till min genomgång av den PERVERTERADE peer review process som IPCC använder sig av. (Se bl. a. mina inlägg: The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONSIPCC and its bias!)

Några citat:

”Reference to ”peer-reviewed research” and to an alleged ”scientific consensus” are regarded as veritable knock-out blows by many commentators. Yet many of those who make such references appear to me to be more or less ignorant of how science as a form of knowledge-seeking and scientists as individual professionals operate, especially nowadays, when national governments-most notably the U.S. government-play such an overwhelming role in financing scientific research and hence in determining which scientists rise to the top and which fall by the wayside.”

”It does not work as outsiders seem to think.

Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from being an important control, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to being a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to reject a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports.

”As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion, and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes. In no event can peer review ensure that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions. The history of every science is a chronicle of one mistake after another. In some sciences these mistakes are largely weeded out in the course of time; in others they persist for extended periods; and in some sciences, such as economics, actual scientific retrogression may continue for generations under the misguided (but self-serving) belief that it is really progress.

At any given time, consensus may exist about all sorts of matters in a particular science. In retrospect, however, that consensus is often seen to have been mistaken. As recently as the mid-1970s, for example, a scientific consensus existed among climatologists and scientists in related fields that the earth was about to enter a new ice age. Drastic proposals were made, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over the polar icecaps (to melt them) or damming the Bering Strait (to prevent cold Arctic water from entering the Pacific Ocean), to avert this impending disaster. Well-reputed scientists, not just uninformed wackos, made such proposals. How quickly we forget.

Researchers who employ unorthodox methods or theoretical frameworks have great difficulty under modern conditions in getting their findings published in the ”best” journals or, at times, in any scientific journal. Scientific innovators or creative eccentrics always strike the great mass of practitioners as nut cases-until their findings become impossible to deny, which often occurs only after one generation’s professional ring-masters have died off. Science is an odd undertaking: everybody strives to make the next breakthrough, yet when someone does, he is often greeted as if he were carrying the ebola virus. Too many people have too much invested in the reigning ideas; for those people an acknowledgment of their own idea’s bankruptcy is tantamount to an admission that they have wasted their lives. Often, perhaps to avoid cognitive dissonance, they never admit that their ideas were wrong. Most important, as a rule, in science as elsewhere, to get along, you must go along.

Research worlds, in their upper reaches, are pretty small. Leading researchers know all the major players and what everybody else is doing. They attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, send their grad students to be postdocs in the other people’s labs, review one another’s work for the NSF, NIH, or other government funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it will prove very, very difficult for you to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a ”top” journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific-conference panel discussion, or to place your grad students in decent positions. The whole setup is tremendously incestuous; the interconnections are numerous, tight, and close.”

”If your work, for whatever reason, does not appeal to the relevant funding agency’s bureaucrats and academic review committees, you can forget about getting any money to carry out your proposal. Recall the human frailties I mentioned previously; they apply just as much in the funding context as in the publication context. Indeed, these two contexts are themselves tightly linked: if you don’t get funding, you’ll never produce publishable work, and if you don’t land good publications, you won’t continue to receive funding.”

Climate scientists are the best qualified people to talk about climate science, but they have no qualifications to talk about public policy, law, or individual values, rates of time preference, and degrees of risk aversion. In talking about desirable government action, they give the impression that they are either fools or charlatans, but they keep talking-worst of all, talking to doomsday-seeking journalists-nevertheless.

In this connection, we might well bear in mind that the United Nations (and its committees and the bureaus it oversees) is no more a scientifc organization than the U.S. Congress (and its committees and the bureaus it oversees). When decisions and pronouncements come forth from these political organizations, it makes sense to treat them as essentially political in origin and purpose. Politicians aren’t dumb, either-vicious, yes, but not dumb. One thing they know above everything else is how to stampede masses of people into approving or accepting ill-advised government actions that cost the people dearly in both their standard of living and their liberties in the long run.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963

  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>

(more…)

Don’t bother with emissions trading law, the Chambers of Commerce tells MPs

19 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mina tidigare inlägg bl.a. Europe finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done. Kommer här en rapport om hur den nyzeeländska handelskammaren är totalt emot hur den nyzeeländska regeringen försöker inför en handel med utsläppsrätter och begränsningar av CO2 eftersom det är totalt ekonomiskt vansinne. Känns det politiska mönstret igen?

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/print.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10504541&pnum=0

Don’t bother with emissions trading law, business lobby  tells MPs

5:00AM Thursday April 17, 2008 By Brian Fallow

Climate Change

The Chambers of Commerce has some straightforward advice for MPs considering the emissions trading scheme legislation: Throw it out.

We are rushing to implement a world-leading scheme covering all sectors and all gases when we don’t know what the world regime [after 2012] will be,” Charles Finny, a former diplomat and trade negotiator, said yesterday, appearing before the finance select committee for the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce.

”We know a little about what Australia intends but Canada is backpedalling and who knows about the United States? It is most unlikely China, India and Brazil will adopt our kind of policies any time soon.”

Rather than risk putting in place a scheme which could end up, counter-productively, as a horrible example to the rest of the world of the costs of getting it wrong, New Zealand would do better to concentrate on trying to ensure the international regime was the best possible.

”Because it is a global problem we are talking about.”

The legislation did not deal adequately with leakage, Finny said. Leakage is jargon for what happens if costs imposed by climate change policies in one country cause emissions-intensive industries to migrate to other countries which do not impose those costs; the first country suffers an economic loss but the planet is no better off.

”World Trade Organisation rules as they stand stop us doing anything about it by way of a border tax adjustment,” Finny said.

A border tax adjustment would impose a tariff on imports from countries which imposed no carbon cost on their producers, and would give a subsidy to exporters facing competition in offshore markets from such countries.

”We need to take time out and negotiate a variance with the WTO. It won’t be easy,” he said.

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

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

19 april, 2008

Som jag skrev I mitt inlägg Miljökonferensen på Balis verkliga inre liv så finns det en tjusig medicinsk term för Global Warming hysterin – Mass Psychogenic illness!

Det verkar ju vara ett smart upplägg: först så skrämmer folk och ger dem skuldkänslor för Global Warming, sen tjänar man pengar på att ”bota” den ångest man har åstadkommit.  Etik a la Global Warming hysterikerna!

Här kommer en ledaren som tar upp det hela.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=293411325663721

Or Just Plain Nuts?

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, April 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Psychology: The alarms that environmental extremists have sounded have given rise to a market for therapists who treat eco-anxiety. What a concept! Scare the wits out of people, then make money off their fear.

It’s possible that none of the 100 or so ”eco-therapists” practicing in the U.S. have been part of the environmentalist shock campaign. Or it could be that, at more than $100 an hour, these practitioners are simply taking advantage of others’ weaknesses.

But given that the treatments they’re prescribing – taking shorter showers, turning off lights, making do with less – are scrawled on the stone tablet of environmentalist commandments, it’s no surprise.

”Fear, grief, anger, confusion and depression,” Sarah Edwards told Fox News in explaining the eco-anxiety that caused her neck and shoulder pain, fibromyalgia and fatigue.

Last month, the British Independent reported that eco-anxiety can be responsible for overeating, despondency, bulimia, depression and alcoholism.

Whatever happened to our sense of proportion and basic powers of observation? Is it possible that people suffering from eco-anxiety are, as the Independent asked, ”just plain nuts”?

What’s clear is that Western society has achieved such a level of prosperity that some of us have the time and energy to let ourselves be consumed with worry and guilt over a problem that may very well be imaginary.

Let no one say that this world of abundance has come at the expense of the environment. Despite the psychoses, our earth is a cleaner, more livable place than it was even 40 years ago.

Don’t think so? Then take a look at a government report (start with http://www.earthday.gov) that actually measures air and water quality, and wetlands gains.

Instead of driving ourselves up the proverbial wall over greenhouse gases, old-growth trees, pesticides, polar bears and plastic bags, maybe we should work toward becoming even more prosperous and spreading that prosperity around the world.

It seems that capitalism is the only economic system that can afford cleanliness.

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

Global warming gets 0% from the American people about what’s important in the presidential election!

19 april, 2008

Här kommer en intressant undersökning gjord av ABC och Washington Post om vad som är viktigast inför presidentvalet:

What is the single most important issue in your choice for president?

Economy/Jobs               41%

Iraq/War in Iraq             18%

Health care                    7% 

Other                             7%

Terrorism/National

Security                         5%

Etc.

Global warming            0%

Tänk om våra intälägänta svenska politiker kunde vara lika kloka som det amerikanska folket i sina prioriteringar.

Undersökningen finns här:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1063a4EconomyandIraq.pdf

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

Global Warming Hysteriker blir hedersdoktor vid mitt gamla Alma mater

19 april, 2008

Det här är nästan värre än när Göran Persson blev medicine hedersdoktor vid det ”universitet” som han upprättat och vars ordförande han utsett.

Nu har man utsett fru Gloom and Doom i Sverige till hedersdoktor vid Stockholms Universitet (DN:s Karin Bojs). Hon har ju på ett mycket förtjänstfullt sätt gjort allt för att sprida Global Warming Hysterin i Sverige. Och gett vanligt folk skuldkänslor för saker de inte kan påverka. Tack för det!

Motiveringen lyder:

”Karin Bojs har som vetenskapsredaktör och chef för Dagens Nyheters vetenskapsredaktion på ett spännande och kunnigt sätt gett naturvetenskapen en framträdande plats i DN.”

Att sprida hysteri genom ovetenskapliga fakta och att skuldbelägga vanligt folk för saker de inte kan påverka anses numera tydligen vara spännande och kunnigt på Stockholms Universitet.

Jag vet inte vad som är värst – att hon har blivit utnämnd eller förfallet vid Stockholms Universitet.

Storyn finns här:

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?a=762108

  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>

Europe finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.

18 april, 2008

En intressant artikel om hur fler och fler börjar INSE de GIGANTISKA KOSTNADERNA för att genomföra dessa nonsensåtgärder!

Som jag sagt så många gånger tidigare:

”Det är enkelt att lova Guld och Gröna Skogar NÄR NÅGON ANNAN FÅR BETALA. Och att göra ”stolta” deklarationer på toppmöten. Nu har det  ekonomiska realiteterna gjort sig påminda och Merkel slåss nu för den tunga tyska industrins fortlevnad.

Nu gäller inte längre vad man officiellt kom överens om för bara ett halvår sedan. Nu är det undantag för den egna industrin som gäller och inget annat. För det är GIGANTISKA SUMMOR som kommer att förslösas på dessa nonsensåtgärder.

Man blir så tröööttt på detta hyckleri. Och det här är ju inget nytt. Det här händer varenda gång som det har varit toppmöten och stolta deklarationer har antagits under stort jubel och fanfarer.

När ALLA VET att detta bara är ett spel för gallerierna och att det är hårda nationella och ekonomiska intressen som styr. Och ingenting annat!

Man undrar bara när svenska politiker skall ta av sig nattmössan och sluta prata om att Sverige skall vara ”ett föregångsland” och ”att vi skall ligga i täten” när det gäller åtgärder mot Global Warming (dvs. minska CO2).

Naturligtvis ivrigt påhejade av de andra EU medlemmarna EFTERSOM EU:S KLIMATMÅL (dvs. sänkningen av CO2) gäller för EU SOM HELHET och INTE enskilda länder.

Vilket innebär att om någon vill ”gå före” och ”ta täten” så slipper resten av EU:s medlemsländer billigare undan. Så naturligtvis så stödjer de helhjärtat dessa svenska åtaganden för det blir ju inte de som får betala det höga priset. Det får nämligen det svenska folket göra! Tack för det!”

När skall våra kära politiker börja FÖRSTÅ de ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin? Och de ofantliga summor som kommer att förslösas på nonsensåtgärder. Åtgärder som är ett direkt hot mot vår demokrati, vår frihet, vårt välstånd och vår ekonomi! Dessa orimliga kostnader utgör ett direkt hot för den industriella överlevnaden i den här delen av världen. Men det pratar man tyst om.

Som sagt, fler och fler börjar INSE de GIGANTISKA KOSTNADERNA för att genomföra dessa nonsensåtgärder. När skall de svenska politikerna vakna – När sista lampan har släckts och all industri är borta?

Se bl.a. mina tidigare inlägg:
An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!, Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!Clearing out the environmental fogA CO2 graph that says it all!,  A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  We were forced to swallow disadvantageous conditions for diplomatic reasons!, ,  EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!, The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK -2!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK!,  $ 2,9 Biljoner i sänkt BNP för en sänkning av CO2 på 25 ppm!,  De ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin,  Realpolitik i klimat dimmorna, Snabb helomvändning i Australien!
 

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=865

Posted on Apr. 18, 2008

By Peter Glover

E.U. Facing Business Backlash

Europe finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.

The E.U. bureaucracy is locking horns with European heavy industry over climate-related laws that could take effect as soon as next year. In particular, regulators and some of Europe‘s biggest companies are arguing about new legislation that aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions 20 percent by 2020. The bureaucrats intend to achieve this by rolling energy and other heavy industries into the European Trading Scheme (E.T.S.) and forcing them to buy greenhouse gas emission permits. But energy and other firms, anticipating giant cost increases, have decided to ”vote with their feet.” They have begun cancelling investment projects worth billions of dollars, and some firms reportedly are contemplating leaving Europe altogether.

Johannes Teyssen, C.E.O. of the German utility E.On, said in February that ”a lot of investment projects have been cancelled in the last couple of months.” On the occasion of presenting a new World Energy Council report, ”Europe’s Vulnerability to Energy Crises,” Teyssen added, ”You can’t count fast enough how many of them get cancelled now. Every week a project is cancelled.” Teyssen said he knew of at least four power station projects in Germany alone that have been cancelled since the beginning of 2008, with the potential cost of carbon dioxide permits cited as a major reason. And he warned the E.U. that ”full auctioning [of carbon dioxide permits] could lead to more vulnerability.” Under current E.U. proposals, energy companies will have to pay for their carbon dioxide permits beginning in 2013, with other heavy energy-using industries gradually phased into the program thereafter.

Germany’s Der Spiegel reported in February that while energy profits generally are up, Germany‘s energy sector is in turmoil.” Germany’s nuclear power plants are due to be taken offline entirely by 2020, with others being mothballed. To replace them, some two dozen new coal-fired plants are set to be built over the next decade. However, the imposition of binding carbon targets presents a serious threat to their financial viability. In January, Hans-Peter Villis, chief executive of the German utility EnBw, said that Germany risks power shortages unless it builds more power stations, and may be forced to re-think its nuclear exit plan. And the cloud forming over new plans for coal-fired power stations is being felt beyond Germany. The U.K., Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands are among countries where coal is re-emerging as the fuel of choice for power plants; it is the one fossil fuel that is fairly abundant in Europe. Ironically, the E.U.’s self-imposed target of achieving 20 percent of its power from renewables (also by 2020) will require many new power stations to be built as back-up facilities, because of the intermittent nature of wind and solar.

Meanwhile, in a bid to meet ambitious E.U. renewable targets, companies are already rolling out expensive carbon-cutting plans. Germany’s RWE has just announced a $44.5 billion renewable investment plan to cut its carbon emission by 60 million tons per year by 2015. Analysts at Citigroup believe this can only limit future shareholder returns by diverting money into green technology instead of dividends. And to add to industry woes, the E.U. is considering including carbon capture and storage (C.C.S., another expensive and as yet thoroughly unproven green ”technology”) into the trading scheme equation. Considered a crucial technology for the prevention of carbon dioxide emissions, it too will greatly add to electricity production costs. Yet E.U. Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs recently told a group of 14 major energy executives that, until 2013 at least, ”there is no money” in E.U. budgets to support C.C.S. projects. Given the potential expense of the technology, neither public nor private sector funding is likely to be forthcoming on a commercial scale either. According to figures presented at the European Business Summit in Brussels, Europe’s overall investments and venture-capital flow into clean energies have been in decline since the 1980s, amounting to just one-third of the U.S. investments in the sector.

France-based Alstom SA, Europe’s largest builder of coal-fired plants, has stated that the current carbon strategy lacks funding of $18 billion. In January the E.U. called on its 27 member states to subsidize the necessary C.C.S. projects. While ”clean coal” technology breakthroughs may increase the possibility of carbon dioxide capture, it seems that national governments and the energy companies themselves will bear the cost – which will inevitably be passed on to consumers.

As if all this were not enough, the E.U. continues to pursue the break-up of energy majors via its ”unbundling” policy, aimed at allowing new competition into the market. However, eight countries, headed by Germany and France, are aiming to sink the proposal. Yet another summit meeting at the end of February failed to resolve the impasse. Major E.U. member states are clearly determined to defend against the break-up of their national champions. Weakened energy majors would not only leave disparate elements open to foreign takeover, but reduce their capacity to amass the financial muscle necessary to meet E.U. climate obligations.

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

Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric Temperatures

18 april, 2008

Här kommer en mycket intressant analys av skillnaderna mellan norra och södra halvklotet vad det gäller ”lower tropospheric temperatures” och hur dessa varier dag för dag och skillnaden mot ”Global average”.

Artikeln finns här:

http://climatesci.org/2008/04/18/average-day-by-day-variations-of-the-global-and-hemispheric-average-lower-tropospheric-temperatures/

Datat finns här:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltdayac7998_5.2

Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric Temperatures

Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am

The University of Alabama at Huntsville has a valuable summary of day by day global, and northern and southern hemispheric, average values of the lower tropospheric temperatures.  Since the Earth is at different distances from the Sun during the year, and the two hemispheres have different amounts of land and ocean, this is an interesting analysis in its own, in addition to its use to compute the deviation from the averages at any time of the year.

The entire day by day set of values is at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.ed/data/msu/t2lt/tltdayac7998_5.2 . Here I present just the Julian Day 1 and Julian Day 183 to illustrate the large variations that occur. The data on their website are in units of 0.001K but I have rounded here.

 Julian Day 1

Global Average=  267.8K

Northern Hemisphere Average= 265.6 K

Southern Hemisphere Average = 270.0K

 

 Julian Day 183

Global Average= 270.1

Northern Hemisphere Average=  274.7

Southern Hemisphere Average = 265.6

This is quite an enlightening presentation of data as it shows that the Earth’s lower troposphere goes through a warming and cooling of over 2 K each year.  The variation in the Northern Hemisphere is also larger than the Southern Hemisphere due to the larger fraction of land (a large portion of which is covered with snow in the winter). Also, despite that the Earth is further from the Sun in July than in January, the global average lower tropospheric temperature is higher in July because of the greater fraction of land in the Northern Hemisphere. [also, see More Background Information On Diagnosing Global Warming and Cooling for more discussion on the variation of radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere during the year].

From the climate perspective, the variation of lower tropospheric temperatures during the year further illustrates why a global average trend in the annual value is not very informative. We need values for months (and seasons) as well for each hemisphere and globally. Then these values should be quantitatively compared with the predictions of the IPCC climate projections.

 

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

“Carbon dioxide gets all the headlines, but frankly, I think it is overemphasized.”

18 april, 2008

Här kommer en intressant intervju med George Taylor (director of the Oregon Climate Service, based at Oregon State University in Corvallis). Has skepticism mot Global Warming ledde bl.a. till att guvernören (Ted Kulongoski) tog ifrån honom titeln ”the state climatologist”.

Några citat:

”George Taylor: Sure. Yeah. Yeah. The temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere varies. But I also believe in global cooling. The Earth’s temperature changes on a variety of time scales. Over a period of months, years, decades, centuries or millennia. So to say it’s warmer or cooler depends on the starting and ending points.

SL: OK, is it warmer than it was in 1850?

Taylor: Yes. The planet has warmed in the last 150 years. And in the last 30 years. But not in the last 70 years. 1934 was the warmest year on record. So if you start from 1934, and end in 2007, you’ve got global cooling.

SL: Will it get hotter in the future?

Taylor: It depends on the time scale you’re talking about. In Oregon it will get warmer in the next four months, but it will almost certainly get cooler in the next 5,000 years. We are now enjoying an interglacial period – a period between two ice ages – and these are typically shorter than the cold periods.”

”Taylor: To answer that, you have to understand what causes climate change. I believe the climate changes as a result of several factors, some natural, some human.

Human factors include greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, but also a host of other effects – deforestation, urbanization, emission of aerosols. Carbon dioxide gets all the headlines, but frankly, I think it is overemphasized.

There are also natural factors. Changes in solar radiation, for example – there’s an 11-year cycle, a 20- to 27-year cycle, a 95-year cycle, a 210-year cycle, a 1,500-year cycle, and several more known as Milankovitch cycles, which last tens of thousands of years.

Another big influence is the ocean, especially the tropical Pacific. The tropical Pacific is the biggest source of heat for the atmosphere – it has a dominant effect on weather and climate. Volcanic eruptions generate huge amounts of dust that have a profound effect on global temperatures.

And then there are things whose role we don’t understand, like clouds – they are usually ignored by climate prediction models. They don’t know how to include them, so they ignore them. Same with El Niño and La Niña.”

”When I look at precipitation, temperature and snowfall in the Northwest, I see stronger correlation with natural factors than with greenhouse gases. So I have concluded that the influence of natural factors on climate is more significant than that of greenhouse gases.”

”This whole subject has become so polarized that the devil or angel attitude is perhaps inevitable. The problem is that science has a lot of uncertainty – a lot of shades of gray – but policy decisions tend to be yes or no, black or white. Those things are tough to reconcile.”

”People have the attitude that the current climate is the ideal one and that we should try to maintain it indefinitely. But you know, in reality it changes all the time.”

Intervjun finns här:

http://www.lakeoswegoreview.com/sustainable/print_story.php?story_id=120793658846134900

  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>

  (more…)

Contributing to Global Warming Hysteria

18 april, 2008

Som en utmärkt kommentar till mina tidigare inlägg om skojeriet med handeln med utsläppsrätter kommer här en talande teckning som visar vad det hela egentligen går ut på. Och som sagt det är det vanliga folket som får betala för ALLA dessa nonsensåtgärder.

När man börjar studera hur hela systemet och handeln är uppbyggd så blir man förfärad. Hela handeln med utsläppsrätter är en öppen inbjudan till manipulation och förfalskning.

Där som sagt BÅDA parter vinner på att fuska med uppgifterna! Ett rent dröm scenario för alla skojare – både köparen och säljaren vinner på att fuska!

Det är alltså detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system som Global Warming Hysterikerna vill tvinga på världen. Och politikerna fullkomligt älskar detta system då de kan motivera i stort sett vilken skatte-/avgiftshöjning som helst med detta system.

Och detta gigantiska skojeri som främjar fusk i stor skala vill alltså Global Warming Hysterikerna tvinga på resten av världen!

Och våra svenska politiker vill att Sverige skall gå i täten och vara världsledande på detta skojeri. Arma svenska folk som kommer att få betala dessa gigantiska kostnader för dessa nonsensåtgärder.
Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter! – UP IN SMOKE Two Carbon-Market Millionaires Take a Hit as U.N. Clamps DownGeschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter! – U.N. Effort To Curtail Emissions In TurmoilGeschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!

Teckningen finns här:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/cartoons/2008/JunkScience-0304.jpg

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

Our Climate Numbers Are a Big Old Mess

18 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mina tidigare inlägg kommer här en intressant artikel i dagens Wall Street Journal av Patrick Michaels. Om hur temperaturdata har ändrats, och alltid i samma riktning av någon outgrundlig anledning. Kan det finnas ett samband kanske?

Se bl.a. mina tidigare inlägg:
The Flawed science behind the Kyoto protocol!, IPCC and its bias!Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelledRewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008 – the second smallest since 1987!Outstanding Job That Anthony Watts Has Done On Documenting The Immediate Environment Of Suface Temperature Monitoring SitesHavsisen fortsätter att växa så det knakar!Manipulation av temperatur grafer men bara när de pekar nedåt!

Citat:

”For years, records from surface thermometers showed a global warming trend beginning in the late 1970s. But temperatures sensed by satellites and weather balloons displayed no concurrent warming.”

”The two revisions of the IPCC surface record each successively lowered temperatures in the 1950s and the 1960s. The result? Obviously more warming – from largely the same data.

The balloon temperatures got a similar treatment. While these originally showed no warming since the late 1970s, inclusion of all the data beginning in 1958 resulted in a slight warming trend. In 2003, some tropical balloon data, largely from poor countries, were removed because their records seemed to vary too much from year to year. This change also resulted in an increased warming trend. Another check for quality control in 2005 created further warming, doubling the initial overall rate.

Then it was discovered that our orbiting satellites have a few faults. The sensors don’t last very long and are continually being supplanted by replacement orbiters. The instruments are calibrated against each other, so if one is off, so is the whole record. Frank Wentz, a consulting atmospheric scientist from California, discovered that the satellites also drift a bit in their orbits, which induces additional bias in their readings. The net result? A warming trend appears where before there was none.

There have been six major revisions in the warming figures in recent years, all in the same direction. So it’s like flipping a coin six times and getting tails each time. The chance of that occurring is 0.016, or less than one in 50. That doesn’t mean that these revisions are all hooey, but the probability that they would all go in one direction on the merits is pretty darned small.”

”For example, weather stations are supposed to be a standard white color. If they darken from lack of maintenance, temperatures read higher than they actually are. After adjusting for such effects, as much as half of the warming in the U.N.’s land-based record vanishes. Because about 70% of earth’s surface is water, this could mean a reduction of as much as 15% in the global warming trend.

Another interesting thing happens to the U.N.’s data when it’s adjusted for the non-climatic factors. The frequency of very warm months is lowered, to the point at which it matches the satellite data, which show fewer very hot months. That’s a pretty good sign that there are fundamental problems with the surface temperature history. At any rate, our findings have not been incorporated into the IPCC’s history, and they probably never will be.”

”But every climatologist must know that Greenland’s last decade was no warmer than several decades in the early and mid-20th century. In fact, the period from 1970-1995 was the coldest one since the late 19th century, meaning that Greenland’s ice anomalously expanded right about the time climate change scientists decided to look at it.”

”Finally, no one seems to want to discuss that for millennia after the end of the last ice age, the Eurasian arctic was several degrees warmer in summer (when ice melts) than it is now. We know this because trees are buried in areas that are now too cold to support them. Back then, the forest extended all the way to the Arctic Ocean, which is now completely surrounded by tundra. If it was warmer for such a long period, why didn’t Greenland shed its ice?

This prompts the ultimate question: Why is the news on global warming always bad? Perhaps because there’s little incentive to look at things the other way. If you do, you’re liable to be pilloried by your colleagues. If global warming isn’t such a threat, who needs all that funding? Who needs the army of policy wonks crawling around the world with bold plans to stop climate change?

But as we face the threat of massive energy taxes – raised by perceptions of increasing rates of warming and the sudden loss of Greenland’s ice – we should be talking about reality.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120847988943824973.html

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

(more…)

The factors affecting climate change

17 april, 2008

Här kommer en intressant intervju med Nigel Lawson och Professor Philip Stott i the James Whale Show. Lyssna på den.

Se även mitt inlägg: The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change

Inetrvjun finns här:

http://www2.talksport.net/shows/show.asp?showId=100719&id=102415&c=100043&sCatType=shows

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

The shame that’s called The UN Human Rights Council – None so blind as a UN human rights expert!

17 april, 2008

Den mycket långvariga och fortlöpande skandalen som i sin nuvarande ”omstöpta” form kallas The UN Human Rights Council fortsätter. Nå här kommer ett nytt kapitel av deras eminenta utnämningar av personer som har varit rådgivare åt mass slaktare som Mengistu, upprättat ”Muammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize” tillsammans med diktatorn Khaddafi och detta kort efter Lockerbie attentat där Libyen sprängde 260 människor (inklusive den svenske diplomaten Bernt Carlsson) ombord på Pan Am flight 103.

En sammanhållande tema för alla dessa diktaturälskare är att de bokstavligen hatar USA, och Israel förståss. ALLA ANDRA regeringar och länder får slakta sina egna och andras folk hur mycket som helst – inte ett PIP hörs!

Ett bättre och mer passande namn vore ”Diktaturkramarnas och apologeternas klubb för inbördes beundran”. Till denna perverterade organisation bidrar Sverige med en hel del pengar. Och våra kära politiker och journalister fortsätter glatt att sjunga FN: s lov i alla väder.

Några citat:

”The gist of it was this: whereas Falk’s outgoing predecessor as investigator into Israeli conduct, on behalf of the UN Human Rights Council, had only compared Israel to apartheid South Africa, the new man had gone one better and compared it with Nazi Germany. Actually, he’d done this some time ago, before being appointed, but now, of course, his view mattered more. ”UN expert stands by Nazi comments” was the headline on the BBC News website.”

”For six years, Mr. Ziegler has systematically abused his mandate as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, neglecting many of the world’s food emergencies in order to pursue an extremist political agenda that includes support for repressive rulers like Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Libyan Colonel Muammar Khaddafi. Mr. Ziegler’s tenure, which is set to expire shortly, embodied everything that was discredited about the old Commission on Human Rights:  gross politicization, selectivity, lack of professionalism and lack of credibility.”

In 1989, shortly after the Libyan bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 260 innocent men, women and children, Jean Ziegler announced the establishment of the ”Muammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize,”  in cooperation with the Libyan dictator.  (”Le Nobel de Khadhafi-Les autorités libyennes créent un nouveau prix des droits de l’homme; Jean Ziegler met la main à la pate,” L’Hebdo, April 27, 1989.)

This award was then used to celebrate recipients such as Roger Garaudy, a notorious Holocaust denier.  Yet Mr. Ziegler never renounced his actions.  On the contrary: Mr. Ziegler himself won the prize in 2002. After a public outcry caused him to declare that he would not accept the award, Mr. Ziegler refused to acknowledge the obscenity of receiving a prize named after a human rights criminal”

”What is worse, however, is to nominate Mr. Ziegler now-after witnessing the gross abuse of his UN mandate.  As you know, this past July Mr. Ziegler became the only UN human rights expert in history to be denounced by his own organization’s highest officials.  (”Annan slams UN official,” JTA, July 8, 2005; ”Gaza comments by rights expert irresponsible – UN,” Reuters, July 7, 2005.)  Both Secretary-General Annan and High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour publicly denounced Mr. Ziegler    for having compared Israelis to Nazis, a classic manifestation of anti-Semitism as defined by the European Union.

Mr. Ziegler’s record of UN abuse is well known:”

”Jean Ziegler almost never criticizes any government other than the U.S. and Israel. When he does, he suddenly dons the gloves of ginger U.N. diplomacy. Hence the Sudanese atrocities in Darfur for Ziegler are merely a cause for ”concern,” the role of the Khartoum regime in atrocities only ”alleged.” By contrast, the United States is an ”imperialist dictatorship” responsible for all the world’s misery, the U.S. is committing ”genocide” in Cuba, and Israel commits ”state terror” and ”war crimes” with the U.S.’s blessing. Mr. Ziegler has never used such denunciations against the government of Sudan, or any other country.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23557033-7583,00.html

Protesterna mot utnämningen av Jean Ziegler finns här:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=2170399

 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>

(more…)

Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press -2?

17 april, 2008

Al Gore fortsätter i sedvanlig stil att stänga ute alla reportrar, massmedia och vägrar att svara på frågor. I det här fallet när han fick ett heders doktorat vid The Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne. I det här fallet så blev de schweiziska journalisterna förbannade. Bra att de reagerade! Vår svenska s.k. journalister är däremot fortfarande tysta.

Se även mitt tidigare inlägg: Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?

Pressens reaktioner finns här:

http://www.24heures.ch/pages/home/tribune_de_geneve/

english_corner/news/news_detail/(contenu)/217031

Journalists pan Gore secrecy

| 10h07 Reporters take exception to a media blackout of the ceremony in the Vaud capital that confers an honorary degree on the Nobel prize winner.

Al Gore received an honorary doctorate from the Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne Tuesday but, like the greenhouse gases he is famous for combating, he was invisible to the media. Reporters were shut out of the ceremony where the Nobel Peace Prize winner accepted his degree, which honors the former US vice-president’s efforts to publicize the climate change issue. A select few journalists were invited to attend the affair on the condition they did not report on what was said and did not film the event or take photographs – an edict that went down like a lead balloon with local news organizations.

Thierry Meyer, editor-in-chief of the Lausanne-based 24 Heures newspaper, wrote a commentary piece today decrying the secrecy. Meyer said readers should have the right to an account of the exchange between Gore and the students come to hear him speak – and not just carefully selected extracts selected for a press release. The irony of the situation is that Gore has become a media guru and communicator, famous for his role as narrator in the documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth. In this case, his message at EPFL got lost in the hub hub over the media blackout, apparently ordered by Gore’s staff. The 1,600 students, teachers and invited guests hear the former American presidential candidate give a speech for which he normally charges as much as SFr200,000 for half an hour – in this case there was no charge.

Gore’s arrival at the Lausanne university in a hybrid limousine drew contrasts in a report carried by Edipresse papers with the arrival of Swiss President Pascal Couchepin for the award-ceremony. Couchepin – known for his support of nuclear power rather than alternative energy – flew to the campus in an enormous government helicopter. Couchepin, who posted the speech he delivered to EPFl on his website, said the nuclear option was a ”necessary solution” because electricity needs are rising and alternative energy sources are not convincing. He said wind-powered generators use a lot of concrete and steel while solar power ”is not yet competitive.” Alternative energy sources must be ”supported, developed, practised,” but they will not be able to fill the energy gap expected in the next 50 years.

Gore later spoke to employees of the private bank Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch in Geneva at the Grand Casino de Genève. LODH is the European representative of an investment fund specializing in sustainable development that was co-founded by the Nobel prize winner. The bank earlier announced it was financing a EPFL research chair for sustainable development in the Lake Geneva area.

  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>

Biofuel Madness: Environmentalism exploited for political purposes

17 april, 2008

Ytterligare en intressant artikel om vansinnet med etanol satsningen och subventionerna skriven av professor Timothy Ball (a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, where he founded and directed the Rupertsland Research Centre. With a doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England).

Se även mina tidigare inlägg:

Brazil’s experience testifies to the downside of this energy revolutionGermany Scraps Plan to Raise Ethanol Content for Cars,  The Clean Energy Scam – Eller Etanolbluffen!,  MiljöBils Snurret

Citat:

”The biofuel madness is gathering steam, and it’s not good news for the world’s poor and hungry. Putting one man’s dinner into another man’s car hardly seems like a sensible or ethical way of solving any of the world’s problems.”

”How did we get to ”biofuel madness”? Environmentalism exploited for political purposes is the short answer. Sadly, biofuels are just the beginning. Other madness includes the carbon credit shell game that does nothing to reduce CO2; the myth that fossil fuel resources are running out; the myth of the viability of other alternative energies; the myth that pollution problems are getting worse in most of the world; the erroneous belief that CO2 is a pollutant; the failure to build adequate traditional power sources and the significant lead time to build these once the power shortages hit home, are just some of the existing problems of the exploitation. 

”We’ve reached that point with environmentalism. A lot of necessary changes have occurred to our awareness of the environment. Still more are required, but extremists are demanding a complete and unsustainable restructuring of world economies in the guise of environmentalism.

Foolishly we’ve developed global energy and economic policies based on completely incorrect science promulgated by extremists. Now it is serving to define the limits. As usual the red flags were everywhere, but a combination of deliberate misdirection by some politicians and scientists amplified by the mainstream media has fuelled the insanity. Those who dare to question are bullied into silence with accusations that they don’t care about the planet, the future, the children. 

Normal scientific method was hijacked by politics. Scientists create theories based on assumptions, which are then tested to determine validity before becoming accepted. Acceptance comes when accurate prediction is achieved. The hypothesis that global warming and climate change are due to human addition of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere became a fact before testing began. As Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT said several years ago, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. ”

”Everyone needs to know that reduction of levels has more serious implications. Current levels are 385 ppm. At 200 ppm plants begin to suffer and at 120 ppm they begin to die. Increasing the level has great benefits for all life. Research shows most plants function best between 1000 and 1200 ppm, Commercial greenhouses are pumping these amounts in and achieving four times better growth and yield with significantly less water use. This suggests plants evolved to that level and our now CO2 ‘starved’ with atmospheric levels of 385 ppm. By working to lower CO2 levels you are diminishing the growth potential of plants. At 200 ppm they begin to die. Plants grow more vigorously so all ecosystems expand and are healthier.”

Artikeln finns här

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2557

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

(more…)

Warming theories not carved in stone

17 april, 2008

En intressant artikel av Des Moore om hur den australiensiska regeringen mot alla ekonomiska och vetenskapliga fakta och bevis håller på att införa en handel med utsläppsrätter för att ”begränsa”  CO2 ”utsläppen”, Och om hur IPCC medvetet har ”struntat” i data som motsäger deras modeller.

Se även mina inlägg:

Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!,  The Flawed science behind the Kyoto protocol!IPCC and its bias!An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!, Clearing out the environmental fog,   They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything – ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.  Kyoto supporters have no idea what they signed! Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelledHas the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?

Citat:

* Since the last IPCC report, new authoritative research shows about half the temperature increase since 1980 reflects normal heating effects from urban areas. Also, the absence of any increase since 2001, and the fall of 0.6C between January 2007 and January 2008, raises further doubts about the claimed correlation between increases in temperatures and CO2 emissions.

* Indeed, scientific analysis acknowledged in successive IPCC reports shows that incremental warming effects from increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere diminish progressively with concentration. So, why did the IPCC fail also to acknowledge that this analysis suggests even a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the 21st century would increase temperatures during the rest of the century by only 0.3C?

* Scientific analysis of IPCC modelling used to project temperature increases is seriously deficient in taking proper account of the strong increase in surface evaporation occurring when surface temperatures rise. That surface evaporation includes an offsetting process that acts to limit such temperature rises. Why did the IPCC fail to recognise that larger CO2 concentrations will result in much smaller surface temperature rises than the models produce?

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23545661-5013479,00.html

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

(more…)

Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!

16 april, 2008

Som jag sagt tidigare:

Hyckleriet kring Al Gore verkar aldrig ta slut. Al Gore är ju mannen som lever gott på att åka jorden runt och predika ”gloom and doom”. Och om hur vi måste drastiskt lägga om vår livsstil och dra ner på energianvändningen etc. I hans film ställer han på slutet frågan ”Are you ready to change the way you live”?

Själv lever han som sagt inte som han lär, tvärtom. Se mina tidigare inlägg: Al Gores energislösande hem och  Al Gores energislösande resande. Och även Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?Hycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna råd

Denne hycklare i kubik (om man räknar i hans energislösande ”hem”, hans modesta resvanor med privata jetplan och limousiner), fick alltså Nobels fredspris för SINA insatser. Som jag sagt tidigare i mina inlägg om Al Gore: Hur långt får hyckleriet gå innan någon reagerar och säger ifrån?

Nå, en som tröttnade på detta hyckleri var senatorn James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee. I en kommite utfrågning i EPW den 21 mars 2007 ställde han frågan till Al Gore om han ville ta sin egen ed (The Gore ”Personal Energy Ethics Pledge”) och leva som han lär.

Al Gore vägrade att svara och idag är det 392 dagar sedan han fick frågan. Och han vägrar fortfarande att svara och att avge något löfte.

Här kommer en LITEN LISTA, SOM EJ ÄR KOMPLETT; över hans resande i privat jet eller första klass. Som sagt vad offrar man inte för miljön!

Och hans bidrag till CO2 utsläpp och hans ”carbon footprint” är ENORMA! Men som sagt, vad gör man inte för att bekämpa Global Warming och CO2 utsläppen som ”driver temperaturen”!

Inlägget finns här:

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/04/wheres-al-gore-now.html

Teckningen finns här:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002928.html

 Where’s Al Gore now?

Obviously, Al Gore’s personal ”carbon footprint” is massive. As I dug deeper into Gore’s own energy use, even I was surprised at the extent of the absolutely cartoonish gap between his words and his actions.Remember, Al doesn’t think that you should have the right to make your own hallway light bulb choice.
Some recent stops on Gore’s travel schedule:

May 4, 2008–Ohio
May 3, 2008–Philadelphia
April 15, 2008–Geneva
April 11, 2008–San Francisco
April 8, 2008–Iceland
April 5, 2008–Montreal
March 18, 2008–New York
March 15, 2008–India
March 12, 2008–Poland
March 11, 2008–Geneva
March 1, 2008–Monterey, California
February 14, 2008–New York City
January 31, 2008–Atlanta
January 24, 2008–Switzerland
January 19, 2008–Park City, Utah
Dec 13, 2007–Bali
Dec 7, 2007–Norway
November 30, 2007–London
November 20, 2007–The Turks and Caicos Islands
November 19, 2007–New York
November 6, 2007–New York
October 26, 2007–Spain
October 25, 2007–France
October 12, 2007–Palo Alto, California
October 5, 2007–Pacific Palisades, California
Sept. 25, 2007–New York
Sept. 19, 2007–Australia
Sept. 16, 2007–Los Angeles
August 26, 2007 San Francisco
August 26, 2007 Los Angeles
August 26, 2007 Nashville
August 9, 2007–Hong Kong
July 9, 2007–New Jersey
July 9, 2007–Washington, DC
July 3, 2007–London
June 20, 2007–South Africa
June 12, 2007–Istanbul
June 3, 2007–Denver
May 29, 2007–Washington, DC
May 24, 2007–New York City
May 23, 2007–San Francisco
May 22, 2007–Beverly Hills
May 11, 2007–Argentina
April 17, 2007–Nashville
April 13, 2007–New York
April 3, 20070–San Jose
March 29, 2007–Oslo
March 22, 2007–Montreal
March 12, 2007–London
March 7, 2007–Brussels
February 25, 2007–Hollywood
February 6, 2007–Madrid
January 28, 2007–New York City
January 20, 2007–Century City, California
January 18, 2007–London
January 15, 2007–Tokyo
 
Note that this is only a partial list.

For example:Gore is a businessman these days — sitting on the boards of Apple Computer Inc. and Current TV, the cable and satellite channel he started with investor Joel Hyatt — ”and those take him (to the Bay Area) pretty regularly for board meetings and the like,” said his spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider. 

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

 

 

 

Brazil’s experience testifies to the downside of this energy revolution

15 april, 2008

Här kommer ytterligare en intressant artikel i dagens The Independent om de enorma skadeverkningar som denna gigantiska etanolsatsning har medfört i Brasilien. Och som våra intälägänta svenska politiker älskar och subventioner till vansinne!

Se även mina tidigare inlägg:
Germany Scraps Plan to Raise Ethanol Content for Cars,  The Clean Energy Scam – Eller Etanolbluffen!,  MiljöBils Snurret

”The consequences of the modest reduction in transport emissions in Brazil‘s crowded cities can be traced in the gigantic geometrical scars of soy plantations that cut into the Amazon rainforest and the choking black clouds from burning cane fields that engulf the capital for weeks every year.

The net effect on climate-change emissions is negative. Despite modest levels of industrialisation across Latin America‘s largest nation, Brazil has risen through the ranks to become the world’s fourth leading producer of greenhouse gases. That explosion of carbon into the atmosphere has been driven by rampant deforestation, a phenomenon that now directly tracks the rising price of agricultural commodities.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/daniel-howden-brazils-experience-testifies-to-the-downside-of-this-energy-revolution-808958.html

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

(more…)

Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter! – UP IN SMOKE Two Carbon-Market Millionaires Take a Hit as U.N. Clamps Down

15 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg om handeln med utsläppsrätter kommer här en artikel om de problem som det London baserade företaget EcoSecurities har fått nu när FN har börjat titta på detaljerna.

 Citat från den person i FN som ansvara för översynen av handeln med utsläppsrätter (Kai-Uwe Barani Schmidt):

 ”Determining whether or not a project needs carbon-credit revenue is ”a value judgment,” he says. ”It is one of the biggest challenges” of the carbon trade.”

 ”U.N. officials acknowledge that calculating whether a project can be economically viable without carbon-credit revenue is subjective.”

Och detta gigantiska skojeri som främjar fusk i stor skala vill alltså Global Warming Hysterikerna tvinga på resten av världen!

Och våra svenska politiker vill att Sverige skall gå i täten och vara världsledande på detta skojeri. Arma svenska folk som kommer att få betala dessa gigantiska kostnader för dessa nonsensåtgärder. ”Med sådana ”ledare” behövs inga yttre hot för att destabilisera landet. Det fixar våra käcka ”ledare”!

Artikeln finns här:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120813542203111705.html

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

(more…)

Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter! – U.N. Effort To Curtail Emissions In Turmoil

15 april, 2008

Som jag sagt tidigare i alla mina inlägg om handeln med utsläppsrätter (Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!):

När man börjar studera hur hela systemet och handeln är uppbyggd så blir man förfärad. Hela handeln med utsläppsrätter är en öppen inbjudan till manipulation och förfalskning.

Där som sagt BÅDA parter vinner på att fuska med uppgifterna! Ett rent dröm scenario för alla skojare – både köparen och säljaren vinner på att fuska!

Det är alltså detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system som Global Warming Hysterikerna vill tvinga på världen. Och politikerna fullkomligt älskar detta system då de kan motivera i stort sett vilken skatte-/avgiftshöjning som helst med detta system.

Så min fråga blir återigen vilka som egentligen vinner på detta system som ÖPPET inbjuder till FUSK? Och där bägge parter tjänar på detta fusk?

Nå, nu har det gått SÅ LÅNGT att FN så smått börjar reagera (Halleluja!) mot på vilka lösa boliner projekten startas. Och man börjar sp smått bli medveten om collusion” between auditors and project developers to push through environmentally dubious projects.” Som en FN tjänsteman så diplomatiskt uttrycker det.

På vanligt språk betyder det korruption och fusk i stor skala!

Artikeln finns här (U.N. Effort To Curtail Emissions In Turmoil):

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120796372237309757.html

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

  (more…)

Drought and Flood Risk Exaggerated

15 april, 2008

The usual suspect’s har haft ett möte Budapest och kommit fram till de vanliga, ”helt vetenskapliga slutsatserna” att Global Warming kommer att bidra med ÄNNU mer elände på vår jord! Hur nu det är möjligt! (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-gen/ap/Europe/Climate_Change_Water.html?cxntlid=inform_sr)

Men det finns några fler som inte har fattat att debatten är över och att det inte finns något att diskutera.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm?artId=23097

EXPERT COMMENTS: Drought, Flood Risk Exaggerated

April 14, 2008 – Chicago, Illinois. Scientists meeting in Budapest, Hungary last week to discuss climate change warned that future global warming will cause floods and droughts, putting world water and food supplies at risk.

”We may see a decline in agriculture production,” said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Experts contacted by The Heartland Institute disagreed with that assessment. You may quote from this statement or contact the experts directly at the phone numbers and email addresses provided below.


The recent announcement by IPCC regarding more flooding in the Northern Hemisphere and droughts in some southern and arid zones in the coming decades due to ‘climate change’ is without any merit. Droughts and floods have occurred in the Earth’s climate in the past, without being forced by human activity.

”The best way to deal with future droughts and floods is to improve short-range (1-3 months and longer) climate prediction so that such droughts/floods can be predicted and monitored well ahead of time to minimize their impacts on human societies. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is no guarantee that such droughts and floods will NOT occur in future.”

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar
Expert Reviewer, IPCC 2007 Climate Change report
50 years in weather and climate science


”Alarmists say rising temperatures will produce droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events that hurt agriculture. This is a hypothesis that can be — and has been — tested with real-world data from the past. More often than not, researchers have found that a warmer climate seems to have positive impacts on agriculture.”

Dr. Craig Idso, Chairman
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

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

Global warming and Fairbanks’ power solution

15 april, 2008

Ytterligare en av dessa vetenskapsmän ( Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D.) som INTE förstått att ”Debatten är över” och ”det fins inget att diskutera”. Att de aldrig lär sig! Ja menar komma här med vetenskapliga fakta när det finns sådana intellektuella giganter som Al Gore som har fått Nobelpris och allt. Att de inte skäms. Det är ju omoraliskt att ens tänka tanken (Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!).

Artikeln finns här:

http://newsminer.com/news/2008/mar/30/global-warming-and-fairbanks-power-solution/

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

(more…)

Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!

14 april, 2008

Här kommer öppet brev till IPCC där 4 forskare ber IPCC att ge upp sin tro på Global Warming och acceptera de nya vetenskapliga bevisen som visar på motsatsen.

Brevet finns här:

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/ipcc_letter_14april08.pdf

14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.

If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.

We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Icecore data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.

More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.

The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted – Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.

These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade and may now even be falling.

A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food – maize as biofuel – has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia,Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, UK

Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist, UK

Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia

Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland

 

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

Climate change crisis

14 april, 2008

Här kommer en intressant intervju med Professor Gwyn Prins from the London School of Economics i BBC: s Radio 4 där han försvarar President Bushs beslut att inte underteckna Kyoto protokollet. Och att vi måste begrava Kyoto och göra något radikalt anorlunda.

Intervjun finns här:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/7345416.stm

Tipps tack till:

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politics/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog/01D36CA9-4E81-4400-9293-40A676096397.html

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

2 miljarder år av temperaturdata!

14 april, 2008

Följande intressanta graf är hämtad från The PALEOMAP Project ledd av C. R. Scotese och visar den globala temperaturen under de senaste 2 miljarder åren.

Tänk vad dessa dinosaurier ställde till med! För det vet vi ju alla hur dinosaurierna värmde sig med kolkraftvärk, körde omkring i stora bensinslukande bilar och flög i flygplan till internationella miljökonferenser och på så sätt drev upp CO2 och temperaturen!

Global Warming Anyone?

Se även mina andra inlägg om temperaturdata bl.a 20 000 år av temperaturdata från PeruTemperaturen för 130 000 år sedan422 700 år av temperaturdata från Antarktis.

 

                

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

Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?

13 april, 2008

Titta mycket noga på bilden nedan. Det är en typisk Al Gore ”in action”.  Han gästtalade på en konferens (RSA Conference 2008) som gick av stapeln förra veckan i San Francisco. Detta är alltså en publik konferens och utställning.

Men Al Gore, har som vanligt, som ABSOLUT Villkor för att deltaga att ALLA journalister är portförbjudna. Denne man som lever gott på att predika Gloom and Doom (han tar mellan $100 000 till $190 000 för ett framträdande), som aktivt försöker tysta alla kritiker ”Debatten är över”, ”Det finns inget att diskutera” etc.

Och som jag konstaterat så många gånger tidigare på denna blogg – där massmedia har sålt ut sin journalistiska heder och så totalt och ensidigt går Global Warming Hysterins ärenden (senast så blev ju BBC avslöjad med byxorna nere). Denna press vill alltså INTE Al Gore prata med. Intressant!

Men det är ju klart, det kan ju finnas en och annan journalist kvar som tar sitt jobb på allvar och faktiskt ställer några ”besvärliga” frågor. Och eftersom ”Debatten är över” så verkar ju detta helt överflödigt att behöva prata med massmedia.

Och det här är inga nya påfund. Han har en lång historia bakom sig där press och frågor är förbjudna. Den här historien är en höjdare. Bara Al Gore skulle kunna komma på tanken att FÖRBJUDA (I ALLA FORMER) referenser till, publicering etc. av FÖRELÄSNINGAR PÅ EN JOURNALISTHÖGSKOLA!:

 ”Gore did the same thing immediately after the 2000 election, when he came to teach at Columbia University‘s Graduate School of Journalism. His team cut a deal with the university that would make the class off the record, meaning no one could use the materials from Gore’s lectures. The irony was lost on no one and caused an uproar both in the media and in the school. Gore and the school changed their minds after the first class, but the damage to his and the school’s reputations had been done.

Här finns en intressant kopia av ett standard kontrakt som Al Gore kräver för att uppträda. Mycket intressant läsning och där finns klausulen om att journalister och media skall vara portförbjudna. Och naturligtvis så kräver han första klass hotell – är man miljövän så är man!

 

Se även mina inlägg: Al Gores energislösande hem och Al Gores energislösande resande

Kopia av standard kontraktet finns här:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717071gore1.html

Hela historien journalistskolan finns här:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0209/p10s3.html.

Bilden finns här.

http://flickr.com/photos/docwho76/2403839841/

Olika press reaktioner följer nedan i resten av inlägget:

  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>

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

(more…)

The Flawed science behind the Kyoto protocol!

13 april, 2008

Här kommer en mycket intressant presentation av A. Illarionov, adviser to the President of Russia, som gjordes på the National Press Club, Washington, DC den 30 januari, 2004.

Han avrådde starkt från att Ryssland skulle underteckna Kyoto protokollet p.g.a. dess bristande vetenskapliga bakgrund och de ENORMA kostnaderna för att genomföra det hela. Och att Ryssland skulle diskrimineras.

Samt att det skulle innebära ett stop för utvecklingsländer att utvecklas. Och att hela tanken bakom Kyoto protokollet år oförenlig med en generell tillväxt och utveckling i världen!

Illarionov undertecknade även det öppna brevet till FN, miljökonferensen på Bal och delegaterna där ” UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction.” Öppet brev till FN och konferensen på Bali

Se även mina tidigare inlägg om de gigantiska kostnaderna för vanligt folk om dessa nosens åtgärder genomförs:
An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!,  The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate changePour cold water on ‘global warming’,  Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations!,  They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything – ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical,  Kyoto supporters have no idea what they signed!, 

 The wonderful benefits of CO2!,   A CO2 graph that says it all!,  A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  We were forced to swallow disadvantageous conditions for diplomatic reasons!,   EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK -2!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK!,  $ 2,9 Biljoner i sänkt BNP för en sänkning av CO2 på 25 ppm!,  De ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin,  Realpolitik i klimat dimmorna, Snabb helomvändning i Australien!

Se även mina inlägg om temperatur data bl.a.:
Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!New England winters have cooled in past decade, Manipulation av temperatur grafer men bara när de pekar nedåt!När CO2 var som störst var temperaturen som lägst!20 000 år av temperaturdata från PeruTemperaturen för 130 000 år sedan422 700 år av temperaturdata från Antarktis

Nå, Putin skrev på Kyoto protokollet (mot sina rådgivares rekommendation) efter kohandel med EU. Där EU gav sitt stöd för att Ryssland skulle bli medlem i Världshandelsorganisationen (WTO) mot att Ryssland stödde Kyoto protokollet. Plus en del andra fagra löften till Ryssland.

Om inte Ryssland hade undertecknat så hade inte protokollet trätt i kraft. Kyoto protokollet trädde nu i kraft den 16 februari 2005 sedan Ryssland skrivit under.

Presentation finns här:

http://denisdutton.com/russia&kyoto.ppt

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

(more…)

IPCC and its bias!

13 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mina tidigare inlägg om IPCC kommer här ett mycket intressant tal (Climate Change Issues and the Role of the IMF) av Professor David Henderson, Westminster Business School and former Head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the OECD, inför IMF (Internationella Valuta Fonden) den 6 mars i år.

Där Henderson går igenom hela IPCC proceduren och vilka som ingår i denna process. Och hur hela denna process är partisk och att detta totalt genomsyrar deras resultat. Mycket av det han går igenom finns i mina tidigare inlägg.
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!
 

Talet finns här:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/

Talet i PDF fins här:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/images/imf-henderson.pdf

Citat:

”The official Panel members, as also the policy milieu which they report to, are almost without exception far from neutral: they are committed, inevitably and rightly, to the objective of curbing emissions, as a means to combating climate change, which their governments agreed on when they ratified the Framework Convention; and most of them are likewise committed to the kinds of policies that their governments have adopted in pursuit of that objective. As officials, they are bound by what their governments have decided. That is the context within which the three successive IPCC Assessment Reports prepared since 1992 have been put together by the network and reviewed by member governments. The clients and patrons of the expert network, with few exceptions, take it as given that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem which demands, and has rightly been accorded, both national and international action. Thus departments and agencies which are not-and cannot be-‘policy neutral’ are deeply involved, from start to finish, in the preparation of the Assessment Reports.

It is against this background, of a committed milieu, that some basic features of the reporting process have to be borne in mind. The choice of lead authors for the Assessment Reports largely rests with the already-committed member governments, since lists that they provide form the starting point for the selection process; complete draft texts of the Working Group reports go to these governments for review; and it is governments, as represented in the Panel, that sign off on the final versions of the Assessment Reports and amend the draft Summaries for Policymakers before they approve these also for publication. The fact is that departments and agencies which are not – and cannot be – uncommitted in relation to climate change issues are deeply involved, from start to finish, in the reporting process.” 

”I have come to believe that this picture is not accurate, and that the expert reporting process is flawed. Despite the numbers of persons involved, and the lengthy formal review procedures, the preparation of the IPCC Assessment Reports is far from being a model of rigour, inclusiveness and impartiality. In my view, the flaws in the process, can be largely accounted for by a pervasive bias on the part of the people and organisations that direct and control it. I shall comment first on some flaws and then on the forms and sources of bias. ”

”Despite the numbers involved, the expert process has not ensured appropriately broad professional involvement. A case in point is the treatment of statistical issues. A leading American statistician, Edward Wegman, has noted that:

‘The atmospheric science community, while heavily using statistical methods, is remarkably disconnected from the mainstream community of statisticians in a way, for example, that is not true of the medical and pharmaceutical communities’. ”

”A basic general weakness in the reporting process is the uncritical reliance on peer review as a qualifying criterion for published work to be taken into account. Peer review provides no safeguard against dubious assumptions, arguments and conclusions if the peers are largely drawn from the same restricted professional milieu. What is more, the peer review process as such may be insufficiently rigorous. In particular, in cases where research has involved the assemblage and processing of large data sets, peer review does not guarantee due disclosure of sources, methods and procedures so that results can be replicated by others.”

”Failures of disclosure, of a kind that some leading academic journals would not tolerate and which would not be permitted in business prospectuses, have characterised published work that the IPCC has drawn on. The most notable case is that of the temperature reconstructions which entered into what became known as the ‘hockey-stick’ study.  This piece of work, which was prominently featured and drawn on in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report and afterwards, formed the basis for a striking and much-publicised claim that in the Northern Hemisphere the 1990s had been the warmest decade of the millennium and 1998 the warmest single year. Probably no single piece of alleged evidence relating to climate change has been so frequently cited and influential. The authors concerned failed (and later declined, until strong pressures were eventually brought to bear) to make due disclosure, and neither the publishing journals nor the IPCC required them to do so. Resistance to disclosure was eventually overcome only through a US Congressional committee investigation.”

”A related issue which has recently come into prominence is the treatment by IPCC lead authors, during the review process, of critical comments and suggestions for changes in the draft AR4 texts. Here again, it has been necessary to use freedom of information laws to break down official resistance to publication of the relevant exchanges, and the objectivity of some authors and of the review process has been put in question.”

”The whole complex of issues covered in these last few paragraphs – of non-disclosure, non-response, selective coverage, and bias within the reporting process – is treated at length in a recently-published paper by David Holland (2007).  Admittedly, the argument chiefly focuses on just three key chapters of the WGI report alone. However, Holland’s critique puts in question the claims to authority of arguments which have been at the core of the IPCC’s treatment of the scientific evidence; and as has been noted above, it is ‘the science’ that has formed the accepted basis for the official policy consensus. 

In these various cases, from the ‘hockey-stick’ study onwards, exposure of the problem, and the pressures for due disclosure, have come largely from private individuals: so far as I know, not a single government department or international agency has faced up to the issues. Prominent among the individuals concerned have been two Canadian authors, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick: both separately and in joint writings, they have made an outstanding contribution to public debate.  Holland’s article draws on their work, as also on the key report from Edward Wegman and associates which was presented last year to a committee of the US House of Representatives. 

These latter sources are effectively disregarded in AR4, as also in the Stern Review and later papers by those involved with it. More broadly, the handling by the IPCC’s directing circle of disclosure failures and other lapses reflects no credit on those involved: they have failed to acknowledge the problem and take appropriate action. In the relevant sections of AR4 the issue is evaded, while a misleading picture is presented of the various writings on the subject of temperature reconstructions. Here as in other instances, the response of the IPCC milieu to informed criticism has been inadequate, evasive or dismissive.

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

(more…)

An Age of Warming Press Bias – selling its soul!

12 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till bl.a. mina inlägg om hur BBC sålde ut sin journalistiska heder och trovärdighet och gick Global Warming Hysterikernas ärenden. Kommer här en liknande historia om Melbourne tidningen ”The Age” tvingade sina journalister att BARA skriva positivt om The Earth Hour för att tillfredsställa ”kommersiella hänsyn”.
How BBC sold out all of its declared values!How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics! och How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics – part 2,  A Cool Look at Global Warming

Det är sorgligt att se hur många massmedia säljer ut hela sin journalistiska trovärdigt för en grynvälling och går Global Warming hysterins ärenden. Återigen ett mycket lysande exempel på hur hela Global Warming Hysterin understöds, sprids och byggs upp av massmedia!

Här hade dock journalisterna modet att protestera mot det hela:

 ”Some staff were openly hostile towards Jaspan (editor-in-chief), and at times interjected as he spoke. At a subsequent stop-work meeting, staff passed a resolution saying recent developments had undermined the separation between commercial considerations and editorial independence.

In a statement accompanying the resolution, staff said the Earth Hour partnership placed basic journalistic principles in jeopardy: ”Reporters were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.”

Men I själva verket var det mer alvarligt än så då det visade sig att organisatören I Melbourne bakom The Earth Hour (WWF) i praktiken styrde The Ages mediabevakning. Hela den skamliga historien finns dokumenterad här: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2210314.htm

Läs och begrunda hur Global Warming Hysterikerna kontrollerar och styr massmediebevakningen. Kanske inte så konstigt att det råder sån TOTAL ENSIDIGHET i massmedia, att ”debatten är över”, ”Det finns inget att diskutera” etc.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23520854-5006785,00.html

  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>

  (more…)

An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!

10 april, 2008

Titta mycket noga på grafen nedan. Det är en förenklad framställning av den administration som skulle behöva införas i USA OM USA inför en handel med utsläppsrätter (cap-and-trade) som i Europa.

Och det är detta TOTALA BYRÅKRATISKA VANSINNE som Global Warming Hysterikerna vill TVINGA PÅ RESTEN AV VÄRLDEN! Och allra helst så vill de att FN skall ta över och administrera det hela.

Detta FN som är så genomkorrumperat, fylld av nepotism och TOTALT handlingsförlamat NÄR DET VERKLIGEN GÄLLER.

Denna organisation som INTE KAN STAVA TILL snabb, smidig, rättssäker och effektiv skall alltså administrera ett system SOM INBJUDER TILL KORRUPTION.  Ehh.. finns det något samband här kanske?

När man studerar hur hela systemet och handeln är uppbyggd så blir man förfärad. Hela handeln med utsläppsrätter är en öppen inbjudan till manipulation och förfalskning.

Där som sagt BÅDA parter vinner på att fuska med uppgifterna! Ett rent dröm scenario för alla skojare – både köparen och säljaren vinner på att fuska!

Det är alltså detta sanslösa och MYCKET DYRA SYSTEM som Global Warming Hysterikerna vill tvinga på världen. Och politikerna fullkomligt älskar detta system då de kan motivera i stort sett vilken skatte-/avgiftshöjning som helst med detta system.

Så min fråga blir återigen vilka som egentligen vinner på detta system som ÖPPET inbjuder till FUSK? Och där bägge parter tjänar på detta fusk?

Se mina tidigare inlägg: Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!

Grafen finns här:

http://bond.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=aaeb210e-a2f1-9e57-1a0a-4fb26b5cc170

”today’s markup of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007. This chart here is a diagram of the bill’s requirements, new agencies and new programs. The first thing one notices is how extremely complicated and far-reaching this proposal is.”

 

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

How BBC sold out all of its declared values!

10 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mina tidigare inlägg om hur BBC TOTALT går Global Warming Hysterikernas ärenden och säljer ut sin journalistiska heder, (How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics! och How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics – part 2), kommer här några citat från deras officiella program policy:

 BBC Statements of Programme Policy 2007/2008

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/statements2007/purpose.shtml

 ”Our values

 – Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest.

– Audiences are at the heart of everything we do.

– We take pride in delivering quality and value for money.

– Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation.

– We respect each other and celebrate our diversity so that everyone can give their best.

– We are one BBC: great things happen when we work together.

The purpose of the BBC

The BBC is a unique institution, owned by the British people and independent of political and commercial interests.”

The BBC creates public value in six main ways:

 – Sustaining citizenship and civil society: the BBC supports civic life and national debate by providing trusted and impartial news and information that helps citizens make sense of the world and encourages them to engage with it.”

Här är alltså denna organisation som har blivit ertappad ”med byxorna nere” brytandes mot alla sina ”journalistiska principer”.

Ett tyvärr mycket lysand exempel på hur hela Global Warming Hysterin understöds, sprids och byggs upp av massmedia!

 Sorgligt att se hur set har gått utför för det en gång så anrika BBC.

 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>

Why multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!

10 april, 2008

Här kommer en mycket intressant analys gjord av professor Briggs (matematik/statistisk) om klimatmodellernas samverkan och hur man skall tolka dessa ibland samstämmiga resultat. Analysen är som sagt lite teknisk men väldigt intressant då den belyser problemen med denna ”samstämmighet” och vad det egentligen innebär.

SE även en del av mina tidigare inlägg om klimatmodeller: Basic Greenhouse Equations ”Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New YorkThe Great Global Warming HoaxMera om Klimat modellernas falsariumKlimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%!,

Det som är minst lika intressant med denna analys är alla kommentarer till analysen där bl.a. folk som är ansvariga för dessa modeller deltar.  Läs denna mycket intressanta diskussion som ett komplement till Briggs analys. Diskussion är väldigt upplysande om alla de problem och förenklingar som är behäftade med dessa modeller.

Citat från Gavin (som jobbar med en av dessa modeller och som försvarar deras betydelse):

”The models are based on similar underlying assumptions (conservation of energy, momentum, radiative transfer etc.) but which are implemented independently and with different approximations. If you ask the question, what are the consequences of the underlying assumptions that are independent of the implementation, you naturally look for metrics where the models agree. Those metrics can be taken as being reflective of the underlying physics that everyone agrees on. This is clearly not sufficient to prove it ‘true’ in any sense (there maybe shared erroneous assumptions), but it clearly must be necessary.”

”There are hundreds of interesting metrics, and no one model is the best at all of them. Instead most models are in the top 5 for some and in the bottom 5 for others.”

”i) does model argeement imply ‘truth’? Truth is in quotes because neither you nor I can ever define the true state of the climate (or any observed feature within it), and so every statement is about an approximation to the real state of the world. Specifically, take the situation of stratospheric chemistry in the early 1980s. Most of the chemistry involved in ozone depletion was known and all these models agreed that the decline in strat. ozone would be smooth but slow (in the absence of CFC mitigation). They were all wrong. The decline in strat ozone in the Antarctic polar vortex was fast and dramatic. The missing piece was the presence of specific reactions on the polar stratospheric clouds that enhanced by orders of magnitude the processing of the chlorine. Thus the model agreement did demonstrate the (correct) implications of the (known) underlying chemistry, but obviously did not get the outcome right because the key reactions didn’t turn out to be included by any model. Hence agreement, while necessary, is not sufficient.

iii) IPCC has hundreds of graphs showing different model metrics, and rightly so. Most of the important impacts are in some way tied to the global mean temperature change, and so that is used as a useful shorthand. But don’t confuse iconisation of specific graphs with a real statement about importance. Would you pick the one model that has the best annual mean temperature, or the best seasonal cycle or the best interannual variability, in Europe? in N. America? in Africa? I guarantee no one model is ‘best’ on all those metrics.

iv) It is not a priori obvious that the mean of multiple models should outperform the best of any individual one. This remains an unexplained but interesting result. The upshot is that you can treat the model ensemble like a random sample to reduce errors. Of course all of the models are biased (as is the mean, but less so) and if I suggested anything different, I apologise. ”

Citat från Andrew:

”This brings me to one of the major problems I have with the models. They have different input values of very basic variables, like climate sensitivity, yet they can all be made to fit the observed changes in surface temperature. How can this be? The reason is pretty obvious, actually, that the models all did so, not becuase they are all correct (which is impossible) but becuase they were ~made~ to. Every modeler knew the answer ahead of time. They use ”aerosols” and ”ocean delay” as highly ”adjustable” fudge factors. Natural forcings are also unknown, and can be ”adjusted”. The models can match history, not becuase they are good models (they aren’t) but becuase they have been ~made~ to do so. On the other hand, if you test the models with measurements other than those they were adjusted to fit, they almost invariably fail miserably, every one of them, to match what we see there.”

If every model agrees, it probably is becuase they are all doing the same thing wrong.

Citat från Mike D:

Gavin makes the excellent point, attributed to George Box, that ”all models are wrong, but some are useful.” The usefulness of models fall into two broad classes: theory and prediction. Theoretical models attempt to map known physical, chemical, and biological relationships. Predictive models (sometimes called ”black box”) attempt to make accurate predictions.

There is a strong tendency to confuse or combine these utilities, and that is true is any modeling (my specialty is forest growth and yield models). Proponents of theoretical models are often adamant that their models are best (a value judgement) and insist that they be used in predictive situations. Predictive modelers, in contrast, may use crude rules of thumb that are unattractive to theoreticians, but predictive modelers emphasize that their goal is accurate prediction.

Hence the assertion that models are wrong must also be bifurcated. Theoretical models are wrong if the theories behind them are invalid. Predictive models are wrong if they make poor predictions. It is easy (but not useful) to confuse these wrong-itudes.

The best weather prediction models are more empirical than theoretical. They look at current conditions (fronts, pressure gradients, jet streams, etc.) as they are cadastrally arrayed across the globe, and compare those to past dates when the same or very similar arrays occurred. Then the weather outcomes of the similar past conformations are examined, and use to predict the immediate future weather. Not much theory to that, more of a data mining of the past; hence the descriptor ”empirical.”

Climate models are much more theoretical because we basically lack empirical data about past climate. Some attempts are made to use proxies, sunspot data, Milankovitch cycles, etc. but the data are sparse and time frames vary widely. In general we can predict a decline in temperatures and a return to Ice Age conditions based on fairly good evidence at a long time scales, but when and how that slide will occur is imprecise at short time scales. When theoretical GHG ”forcings” are included in climate models, empiricism is almost completely absent.

So we are in a situation where theoretical climate models are being used to make short-term predictions. Further, those predictions have generated some fairly Draconian suggested measures that are extremely distasteful, at least to many people. More taxes, less freedom, ”sacrifices”, economic disruptions etc. are being recommended (imposed) based on the predictions of theoretical models. Political ”solutions” to fuzzy predictions from ”wrong” and improperly classed models are greatly feared, and I think properly so.

The discourse cannot help but become impolite in this situation. Neither ”side” is immune. How much better it would be if we realized that we cannot predict the climate (in the short term) and instead prepared to be adaptable to whatever happens, while preserving (enhancing) as much freedom, justice, and prosperity as we possibly can. ”

Analysen finns här:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/04/08/why-multiple-climate-model-agreement-is-not-that-exciting/

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

 

(more…)

Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled

9 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mina tidigare inlägg: Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?CO2 monthly mean at Mauna Loa leveling off, dropping?, The wonderful benefits of CO2!,   A CO2 graph that says it all!,  A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,   Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This etc.,  kommer här ytterligare en mycket intressant artikel (från måndagens The National Business Review) som belyser hur lite vetenskap som ligger bakom IPCC, deras modeller och hela Global Warming Hysterin.

Den berör bl.a. Monckton and Evans upptäckt om ”basic errors in the IPCC’s assessment of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. When they applied their revised factor to the effect of greenhouse gases, the temperature rise was about a third of that predicted by the IPCC.”

Och Roy Spencer upptäckt ”that there is a mechanism at work that ”washes out” the water vapour and returns it to the oceans along with the extra CO2 and thus turns the added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism.

The newly discovered mechanism is a combination of clouds and rain (Spencer’s mechanism adds to the mechanism earlier identified by Professor Richard Lindzen called the Iris effect)”.

”The IPCC models assumed water vapour formed clouds at high altitudes that lead to further warming. The Aqua satellite observations and Spencer’s analysis show water vapour actually forms clouds at low altitudes that lead to cooling.

Furthermore, Spencer shows the extra rain that falls from these clouds cools the underlying oceans, providing a second negative feedback to negate the CO2 warming.”

 Artikeln finns här: 

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR

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

(more…)

The Truth About Climate Change

9 april, 2008

Här kommer ett intressant anförande som Peter Taylor, (a former adviser on pollution and energy policy issues to various national governments, the EU and the UN as well as a lead advocate for Greenpeace), skall hålla den 22 april.

Det är alltid uppfriskande med folk som kan tänka självständigt!

Artikeln finns här.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.2180302.0.0.php

Blowing hot and cold over climate

Thick snow in April has reinvigorated the debate about climate change and what it might mean to us. Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases and we have to cut our carbon emissions to save the planet – right? Not so, says Peter Taylor, a former Government policy adviser who is bringing his alternative environmental manifesto to Sussex this month.

You may be forgiven for thinking there was consensus on climate change – but that is not so.

The past year marks a turning point in the scientific controversy.

Behind the scenes there is major disagreement over the power of the sun’s electric field to create the changes we have seen.

Parallel to carbon dioxide rising, this field has increased by over 200 per cent since 1900 and this is not factored in to computer models.

According to the carbon dioxide model, the climate will warm steadily and by the end of the century the planet could be several degrees warmer – from 2C to 7C.

If that happens, the Arctic will be ice-free and humanity will face severe problems of water and food supplies along with a huge loss of biodiversity.

This projection underlies the current policy of mitigation – through carbon taxes, carbon trading and a switch to renewable energy.

But global temperature is not rising as predicted. In fact it fell by a whopping 0.6 degrees over the last 12 months, as much as it had gained in the previous 50 years.

Last summer’s cool wet weather caused by a southward shift of the jet-stream was also not predicted, neither was the loss of Arctic ice cover which reduced by 50 per cent in three years.

In January 2007, the Met Office’s computerised climate centre expected the biggest El Nino and a global record high temperature as a consequence – when in actuality we have had La Nina and global cooling.

To the modellers, these are blips of random variability and normal warming will be resumed.

However, some scientists did predict the cooling in 2007 but were ignored.

They are solar scientists researching a link between the solar wind and earth’s climate system.

They have known for some time that many of the apparently random fluctuations of past temperature – like when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland – correlate to variations in the solar electric field.

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

(more…)

A Cool Look at Global Warming

9 april, 2008

Den sedelärande historien om vad som hände professor Don Aitkin, (a former vice-chancellor at the University of Canberra, foundation chairman of the Australian Research Council and a distinguished researcher at the Australian National University and Macquarie University).

Allt står i dagens The Australian, där han berättar hur han hotades (”he faced demonisation”) för att han ifrågasatte att Global Warming skulle vara en fara för mänskligheten. Tänk vilket fasansfullt brott!

Allt detta i sedvanlig Global Warming Hysterins ”vetenskapliga” anda där man försöker tysta alla kritiker – ”debatten är över”, ”det finns inget att diskutera”, ”det är omoraliskt att ens tänka tanken” etc.

Se även mina tidigare inlägg:

Det råder ”consensus” om Global Warming – IGEN! Eller hur kritiken mot Global Warming censureras,  Miljöhysterins tyranni – nu skall vi fängslas om vi inte tror på Global Warming!,  Miljöhysterin ett hot mot vår frihet, demokratin, ekonomin och vårt välstånd -2,  Miljöhysterin ett hot mot vår frihet, demokratin, ekonomin och vårt välstånd, Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!,  Al Gores Science Fiction and His Climate of Fear,  Climate of Fear – I am an intellectual blasphemer , Climate of Fear – 5!,  Climate of Fear – 4!,  Al Gore and his climate of fear!, Climate of Fear – 3!Climate of Fear – 2!, Climate of Fear!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?from=public_rss

________________________________________________

Academic cool on warming

Brad Norington | April 09, 2008

RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin has seen the ugly side of the climate change debate after being warned he faced demonisation if he challenged the accepted wisdom that global warming poses a danger to humanity.

Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was ”out of his mind” by some in the media after writing that the science of global warming ”doesn’t seem to stack up”.

Declaring global warming might not be such an important issue, Professor Aitkin argued in a speech to the Planning Insitute of Australia this month that counter measures such as carbon trading were likely to be unnecessary, expensive and futile without stronger evidence of a crisis.

The eminent historian and political scientist said in a speech called A Cool Look at Global Warming, which has received little public attention, that he was urged not to express his contrary views to orthodox thinking because he would be demonised.

He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly ignored or attacked because ”scientist activists” from a quasi-religious movement have spread a flawed message that ”the science is settled” and ”the debate is over”.

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>
 
 

 

(more…)

How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics – part 2

9 april, 2008

Fortsättning på historien om hur BBC TOTALT går Global Warming Hysterikernas ärenden och säljer ut sin journalistiska heder.

Här berättar Jo Abbess i sitt ”victory statement” om hur hon lyckads få BBC att ändra sig på -som sagt (nytt rekord???) 16 minuter! http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/2089

BBC har bekräftat det hela http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/bbc_blog_bully/

”BBC sources confirmed the authenticity of the correspondence.

The BBC provided us with this statement:

A minor change was made to the ‘Global temperatures ”to decrease”‘ piece on our website to better reflect the science. A few people including the report’s authors, the World Meteorlogical Organisation, pointed out to us that the earlier version had been ambiguous.”

Är det inte underbart med journalistisk heder – Man ändrar totalt inriktning på storyn så att den passar Global Warming Hysterikerna och så säger man att man gör det för att ”better reflect the science”!

Ett lysand exempel på hur hela Global Warming Hysterin understöds, sprids och byggs upp av massmedia!

 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>

How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics!

9 april, 2008

Historien om hur BBC TOTALT ÄNDRADE sin rapportering om världstemperaturen efter påtryckningar från en Global Warming Hysteriker. Det tog – håll i er nu – 16 minuter för BBC att TOTALT SÄLJA UT ALLT VAD JOURNALISTISK HEDER HETER!

Detta är i och för sig inget nytt. Skillnaden är att den här gången så finns det dokumenterat! (se http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html)

Här kommer ett nyhets inslag om det hela ”Glenn Beck and NewsBusters Expose Global Warming Bullies”.

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>

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!

8 april, 2008

Här kommer en mycket intressant studie over hur OFTA HISTORISKA TEMPERATURDATA ÄNDRAS av John Goetz (Se även föregångaren tll denna analys: How much Estimation is too much Estimation?)

Man skulle ju kunna tro att historiska temperatur data är oförändrade.

ICKE SA NICKE! Drygt 20 % av de historiska mätvärdena ändrades under de senaste 2 ½ åren.

Största förändringen var när augusti 2006 (anomaly mean) ändrades från +0,43 grader till + 0,70 grader. En förändring på drygt 65 %!

Analysen finns här:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964

Föregående analys finns här:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2703

__________________________________________________

Rewriting History, Time and Time Again!

By John Goetz

In February I wrote a post asking How much Estimation is too much Estimation? I pointed out that a large number of station records contained estimates for the annual average. Furthermore, the number of stations used to calculate the annual average had been dropping precipitously for the past 20 years. One was left to wonder just how accurate the reported global average really was and how meaningful rankings of the warmest years had become.

One question that popped into my mind back then was whether or not – with all of the estimation going on – the historical record was static. One could reasonably expect that the record is static. After all, once an estimate for a given year is calculated there is no reason to change it, correct? That would be true if your estimate did not rely on new data added to the record, in particular temperatures collected at a future date. But in the case of GISStemp, this is exactly what is done.

Last September I noted that an estimate of a seasonal or quarterly temperature when one month is missing from the record depends heavily on averages for all three months in that quarter. This can be expressed by the following equation, where are the months in the quarter (in no particular order) and one of the three months is missing:

 

In the above, T is temperature, q is the given quarter, n is the given year, and N is all years of the record.

One can readily see that as new temperatures are added to the record, the average monthly temperatures will change. Because those average monthly temperatures change, the estimated quarterly temperatures will change, as will the estimated annual averages.

Interestingly, application of the ”bias method” used to combine a station’s scribal records can have a ripple effect all the way back to the beginning of a station’s history. This is because the first annual average in every scribal record is estimated, and the bias method relies on the overlap between all years of record, estimated or not. Recall that annual averages are calculated from December of the prior year through November of the current year. However, all scribal records begin in January (well, I have not found one that does not begin in January), so that first winter average is estimated due to the missing December value. Thus, with the bias method, at least one of the two records contains estimated annual values.

Of course, it is fair to ask whether or not this ultimately has any effect on the global annual averages reported by GISS. One does not have to look very hard to find out that the answer is ”yes”.

On March 29 I downloaded the GLB.Ts.txt file from GISS and compared it to a copy I had from late August 2007. I was surprised to find several hundred differences in monthly temperature. Intrigued, I decided to take a trip back in time via the ”Way Back Machine”.

Here I found 32 versions of GLB.Ts.txt going back to September 24, 2005. I was a bit disappointed the record did not go back further, but was later surprised at how many historical changes can occur in a brief 2 1/2 years. The first thing I did was eliminate versions where no changes to the data were made. I then compared the number of monthly differences between the remaining sequential records and built the following table. Here I show the ”Prior” record compared to the next sequential record (referred to as ”Current”). The number of changes made to the monthly record between Prior and Current is shown in the ”Updates” column (this column does not count additions to the record – only changes to existing data are counted). The number of valid months contained in the Prior record is in the ”Months” column. ”Change” is simply the percent Updates made to Months.

 

 On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.

Wow.

The next question I had was ”how often are the months within specific years modified?” As can be seen in the next chart, a surprising number of the earliest monthly averages are modified time and again.

I was surprised at how much of the pre-Y2K temperature record changed! My personal favorite change was between the August 16, 2007 file and the March 29, 2008 file. Suddenly, in the later file, the J-D annual temperature for 1880 could now be calculated. In all previous versions the temperature could not be determined.

But some will want to know only how this process affects the rankings for the top 10 warmest years. Because the history goes back to the middle of 2005, I explored this question only for the years before 2005. While the overall ranking from top to bottom does change from one record to the other, the top 10 prior to 2005 does not change much. However, the top two do exchange position frequently, as can be seen from the following table:

 

I will note that the overall trend in changes between now and Sep. 24, 2005 is very close to zero. If one compares the latest file with the one from Sep 24, 2005, it can be seen that the earliest and latest years are adjusted lower today than in 2005, while the middle years are adjusted higher. However, this is purely coincidence. If one compares the file from Aug. 2007 with the latest file, it appears the earliest temperatures have been adjusted downward, leading to an overall upward trend. Surely other comparisons will yield a downward tend. It is by pure chance that we have selected two endpoint datasets that appear to have no effect on the tend.

 It is at this point I would like to ask, does anyone have a copy of the GISS monthly and annual temperatures – the equivalent to GLB.Ts.txt – from a date earlier than Sep. 24, 2005?

In the meantime, will the real historical record please stand up?

_____________________________________________________________________________

Här kommer några intressanta grafer från den föregående analysen:

 ”Thus, I decided to count the number of GHCN records on an annual basis, and the results tracked rather well with the GISS graphic. Note that my count is of records, whereas Hansen counts stations. Prior to 1992 multiple records might consolidate to a single station, which explains why my absolute numbers are higher than Hansen’s. The first chart shows the number of records on an annual basis since 1880:

The following image zooms in on the last 30 years (1978 to 2007):

:

The above graphic shows that, while GISS says 2007 was the hottest year on record and GHCN indicates it had the second highest level of temperature estimation, GHCN also indicates that the number of data points for 2007 were the fewest since before 1900.

To summarize what I am seeing from the GHCN data: (1) the number of stations / records has been dropping dramatically in recent years and (2) with that drop the quality of the record-keeping has also dropped dramatically because we are seeing a corresponding rise in estimated annual temperatures and/or insufficient data to calculate an annual temperature. Using this data, GISS is showing that the temperature anomaly in recent years is the highest recorded in the historical record.”

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

Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?

8 april, 2008
Här kommer en väldigt teknisk men oerhört intressant analys av IPCC:s sätt att använda sig av ” climate sensitivity ΔTλ to radiative forcing och hur man har manipulerat och justerat dessa värden (the magnitude of the radiative feedback) -ökat från1995 till 2001, ytterligare ökat till 2007. ALLT för att det bättre skall passa in på IPCC:s hypoteser! 

ÄR DET INTE VETENSKAPLIGT SÅ SÄG!

”In the IPCC’s methodology, climate sensitivity ΔTλ to radiative forcing is the product of three factors:

1. Tropopausal radiative forcing ΔF

ΔF  ≈  5.35 ln(C/C0)  ==>   ΔF2x   ≈  5.35 ln 2         W m-2,        (1)

where (C/C0) is a proportionate increase in CO2 concentration and, specifically, ΔF2x ≈ 3.708 W m-2 is the radiative forcing at CO2 doubling. For simplicity, no significant error will arise here if it is assumed that all other anthropogenic forcings are slightly net-negative, so that ΔF2x ≈ 5 ln 2 ≈ 3.466 W m-2.

2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ

κ  =  ΔTκ / ΔF  =  ΔTλ / (ΔF + bΔTλ)        °K W-1 m2,              (2)

where ΔTκ is the temperature response to forcings only, without feedbacks; ΔTλ is the temperature change in response to forcings plus feedbacks; and b is the sum in W m-2 °K-1 of all unamplified temperature feedbacks. The key parameter κ is not mentioned in IPCC (2007), and no error-bars are given. The value κ ≈ 0.313 °K W-1 m2 implicit in IPCC (2007) is the reciprocal of the ”radiative cooling response” –

”Under these simplifying assumptions the amplification [f] of the global warming from a feedback parameter [b] (in W m-2 °C-1) with no other feedbacks operating is 1 / (1 + [bκ -1]), where [κ -1] is the ‘uniform temperature’ radiative cooling response (of value approximately -3.2 W m-2 °C-1; Bony et al., 2006). If n independent feedbacks operate, [b] is replaced by (λ1 + λ 2+ … λ n).” (IPCC, 2007: ch.8, footnote)

3. The feedback multiplier f

f = (1 – bκ)-1.                             

This unitless variable is evaluated in IPCC (2007, ch.8) using the feedback-amplification function given in Bode (1945). First, we note the dependence of f not only upon b but also upon κ –

”The feedback factor reconsidered

 The feedback factor f accounts for at least two-thirds of all radiative forcing in IPCC (2007); yet it is not expressly quantified, and no ”Level Of Scientific Understanding” is assigned either to f or to the two variables b and κ upon which it is dependent.

Several difficulties are apparent.

Not the least of these difficulties is that, if the upper estimates of each of the climate-relevant feedbacks listed in IPCC (2007) are summed, an instability arises. The maxima are –

Water vapor 1.98, lapse rate -0.58, surface albedo 0.34, cloud albedo 1.07, CO2 0.57, total 3.38 W m-2 K-1.

The equation f = (1 – bκ)-1 becomes unstable as b → κ-1 = 3.2 W m-2 K-1. Yet, if each of the individual feedbacks imagined by the IPCC is increased to less than the IPCC’s maximum, an instability or ”runaway greenhouse effect” is reached.

Yet it is reliably inferred from palaeoclimatological data that no ”runaway greenhouse effect” has occurred in the half billion years since the Cambrian era, when atmospheric CO2 concentration peaked at almost 20 times today’s value, as Figure 2 shows:”

 ”It is not for a non-climatologist such as me to say which climate-sensitivity value is correct. On this brief analysis, however, it is evident that the models on which the IPCC relies are little better than expensive guesswork, and that no great reliance can be placed upon the IPCC’s central estimates, still less on its high-end estimates. As a policymaker, I should be profoundly reluctant, given the current state of the science, to recommend to Ministers that they should take the drastic actions advocated in some circles to mitigate ”global warming.”

Set aside the self-evident truth that adaptation as (and if) necessary would be orders of magnitude more cost-effective than mitigation, a conclusion that tends to be overlooked as a result of the IPCC’s bizarre decision to establish separate working groups to consider adaptation and mitigation. The simple calculations in this paper have demonstrated a strong likelihood that the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are prodigiously exaggerated; that there may be a good reason why, contrary to all the projections of the IPCC’s models, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001 (see Figure 4); and that there is no ”climate crisis” at all.”

Analysen finns här.

http://climatesci.org/2008/04/08/has-the-ipcc-inflated-the-feedback-factor-a-guest-weblog-by-christopher-monckton/

En tidigare analys på samma tema finns här:

http://climatesci.org/2007/11/30/climate-metric-reality-check-1-the-sum-of-climate-forcings-and-feedbacks-is-less-than-the-2007-ipcc-best-estimate-of-human-climate-forcings/

 

Upper left panel: a forcing dF is input (by multiplication) to the climate sensitivity parameter λ, yielding dT as the output. Lower left panel: the forcing dF is input to the no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ, successively amplified by temperature feedbacks summing to b. Right panel: the full diagram illustrates the impact of individual climate feedbacks, together with κ, so that λ = κf. Diagrams follow kind suggestions by Dr. David Evans
Timeline of climate stability: Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, global mean surface temperatures are thought not to have exceeded a plateau in the region of 22 °C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today’s near-record-low concentration. If the graph is correct, then the instability inherent in the IPCC’s error-bars for the principal temperature feedbacks has not occurred in reality, suggesting that the IPCC’s estimates may be substantial exaggerations.

Table 1 shows that, although the estimated forcing effect of CO2 has been reduced by more than one-fifth in 12 years, climate sensitivity has risen by a quarter. The sole reason for this increase is feedback

The growing role of feedbacks: In the IPCC’s 1995 report, the value of the feedback factor f appears to have been ~1.80, rising to 3.08 in 2007. In 1995, feedbacks accounted for less than half of all forcings; by 2007 they accounted for more than two-thirds.

  The trend that caught the IPCC by surprise: Since late 2001, the trend of global surface temperatures has been downward. ”Global warming” stopped in 1998; and, though it may resume in future years, the rate of warming is self-evidently less than that which the IPCC had expected, and is very likely to be harmless.

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

Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008 – the second smallest since 1987!

7 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt inlägg  Havsisen fortsätter att växa så det knakar!, kommer här en aktuell studie gjord av Marco Tedesco (”Updated 2008 Surface Snowmelt Trends in Antarctica”) publicerad i Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union den 25 mars i år. Och som bekräftar bilden av att havsisen växer och att snömängderna är ovanligt stora.

Citat:

Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008, as derived from spaceborne passive microwave observations at 19.35 gigahertz, was 40% below the average of the period 1987-2007. The melting index (MI, a measure of where melting occurred and for how long) in 2008 was the second-smallest value in the 1987-2008 period, with 3,465,625 square kilometers times days (km2 × days) against the average value of 8,407,531 km2 × days (Figure 1a). Melt extent (ME, the extent of the area subject to melting) in 2008 set a new minimum with 297,500 square kilometers, against an average value of approximately 861,812 square kilometers. The 2008 updated melting index and melt extent trends over the whole continent, as derived from a linear regression approach, are -164,487 km2 × days per year (MI) and -11,506 square kilometers per year (ME), respectively.

Negative trends for the period 1987-2008 of the number of melting days (Figure 1b) over the Antarctic Peninsula are observed at a rate down to -2 days per year for internal areas and about -0.7 days per year for coastal areas. Contrarily, positive trends (up to approximately +0.25 days per year) are observed on part of the Larsen Ice Shelf.

In East Antarctica, positive trends are observed over the Amery, West, Shackleton, and Voyeykov ice shelves, with values of up to +0.7 days per year for Shackleton and +0.8 days per year for Amery. Interestingly, the latter shows negative trends (down to -0.3 days per year) for internal areas but positive values for coastal areas.

Large-scale monitoring of ice shelves is an important task for many reasons: Though ice shelves do not contribute directly to sea level rise, they play an important role in keeping the warm marine air at a distance from glaciers; and recent observations also suggest the buttressing effect of ice shelves in preventing acceleration of ice sheets. An increasing surface snowmelt over ice shelves might lead to persisting melt ponds, which, in turn, might contribute to ice shelf disintegration as liquid water fills small surface cracks. Depending on the amount of water and the depth of a crack, the water can deepen the crack and eventually wedge through the ice shelf. Along with surface processes, it is imperative to focus on verifying hypotheses regarding those processes occurring at the ice-ocean boundaries, such as, for example, the thinning of ice shelves driven by ocean-induced melting.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://climatesci.org/2008/04/07/recent-data-on-surface-snowmelt-in-antarctica/

Graferna finns här:

http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/2008/Tedesco_89_13.html

 Fig. 1. (a) Snowmelt surface melting index (gray) and melt extent (black) over the whole of Antarctica between 1987 and 2008. (b) Trend of the number of melting days for the period 1987-2008

 

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

Clearing out the environmental fog

7 april, 2008

Här kommer en fortsättning på Goldsteins artiklar i gårdagens Toronto Sun.

Se mina tidigare inlägg::
The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change,  Pour cold water on ‘global warming’,  Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations!,  They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything – ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.  Kyoto supporters have no idea what they signed!,  A CO2 graph that says it all!,  Miljökonferensen på Balis stora miljökostnader

Några citat:

”In Bangkok, developing nations refused to accept greenhouse gas (GHG) emission cuts after Kyoto, which doesn’t require them to reduce emissions, unless the developed world gives them billions of dollars to adapt to global warming. China wants developed nations to contribute at least 0.5% of their Gross Domestic Product annually. For Canada, this would mean sending at least $7.5 billion per year to developing nations, in addition to foreign aid.

(2) Here’s a little-known fact. While Kyoto applies to 163 countries, Canada is one of only 37 required to cut emissions. Yes, you read that right.”

”….then PM Jean Chretien, ”with almost whimsical disregard” for what we could actually achieve, not only ignored Canada’s consensus position, but insisted our emission cut should be 6%, so he could upstage then U.S. vice-president Al Gore, who was lobbying for a 5% cut for the U.S.

However, unlike Canada, the Americans never ratified Kyoto, complaining it made no demands on the developing world. Chretien ratified Kyoto in 2002. By the time the Liberals lost power in early 2006, Canada‘s emissions were so far above our Kyoto target, there was no realistic way to achieve it.”

Late last year, the Paris-based International Energy Agency compiled a list, which it presented at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, outlining what’s required in order to meet (global GHG) emission reductions of 50% by 2050. The list … included: 30 new nuclear power plants, 17,000 wind turbines, 400 biomass power plants, two hydroelectric dams the size of China‘s massive Three Gorges project, and 42 coal or natural gas plants using carbon-capture technology to store CO2 emissions underground. But that’s not all. It concluded that all of that would have to be built and up and running by 2013 — and the process repeated every year until 2030.. It is an almost comical proposition. A new nuclear power plant hasn’t been built in the U.S. in 30 years.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/04/06/5208166-sun.php

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

(more…)

CO2 monthly mean at Mauna Loa leveling off, dropping?

7 april, 2008

En mycket intressant utveckling vad det gäller CO2 data nu när mars värdena är inne. Värdena från Mauna Loa (Hawaii) planar ut och sjunker medans Global Monthly mean fortsätter att stiga.

”May is normally the peak month. Here we see how Mauna Loa CO2 has lagged in its annual rise. The likely culprit: Pacific ocean cooling due to La Nina and increased solubility of CO2 in water.

 This graph certainly supports the notion of the ocean’s importance in CO2 trends, something Roy Spencer did a guest post on CO2 and oceans here on this blog and was roundly criticized for it in some circles.

Given that May is normally the peak month for CO2, and because we still see a strong La Nina, the result could be a lower CO2 max in 2008 than 2007 for Mauna Loa. This has happened before in the 60s and 70s in the last cool PDO phase (lasting til 1977).  Even if it stays even with last year’s level, this tells us a lot and sheds doubt on these ideas:

1. Anthropogenic accumulation (civilization is still producing CO2)
2. A CO2 residence time of several hundred years seems unlikely now
3. Giegengack’s thesis that if man stopped emitting CO2, the earth would emit more to compensate, the premise being that since man has for the first time ”upset the balance” and is pressing CO2 into the earth, then once the balance is restored the earth will resume emitting it instead.

The global data plot below doesn’t show the same trend as Mauna Loa, so it appears that this CO2 dropoff at Mauna Loa is a regional effect due to Hawaii’s proximity to cooler ocean temperatures.

It will be interesting to see in the coming months what happens globally, should we see a drop-off or leveling of global CO2 in response to our quiet sun and La Nina, it will be difficult for AGW proponents to explain. Nature will indeed be the final arbiter of this debate.”

Inlägget finns här:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/co2-monthly-mean-at-mauna-loa-leveling-off/

Data fins här:

 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

The black line is the seasonally adjusted value while the red is the monthly mean.

  

 

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

The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change

6 april, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel av Nigel Lawson i gårdagens Daily Mail (Finansminister mellan 1983 till 1989) som blir ett utmärkt komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg Pour cold water on ‘global warming’. Artikeln är med anledning av att han publicerar sin nya bok – An Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look At Global Warming.

Se även mina inlägg The wonderful benefits of CO2!,   A CO2 graph that says it all!,  A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  We were forced to swallow disadvantageous conditions for diplomatic reasons!, ,  EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!, The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK -2!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK!,  $ 2,9 Biljoner i sänkt BNP för en sänkning av CO2 på 25 ppm!,  De ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin,  Realpolitik i klimat dimmorna, Snabb helomvändning i Australien!

Några citat:

Over the past half-century, we have become used to planetary scares. In the late Sixties, we were told of a population explosion that would lead to global starvation.

Then, a little later, we were warned the world was running out of natural resources. By the Seventies, when global temperatures began to dip, many eminent scientists warned us that we faced a new Ice Age.

But the latest scare, global warming, has engaged the political and opinion-forming classes to a greater extent than any of these.

The readiness to embrace this fashionable belief has led the present Labour Government, enthusiastically supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, to commit itself to a policy of drastically cutting back carbon dioxide emissions – at huge cost to the British economy and to the living standards not merely of this generation, but of our children’s generation, too.

Now, I readily admit that I am not a scientist; but then neither are the vast majority of those who espouse the currently fashionable madness. Moreover, most of those scientists who speak with such certainty about global warming and climate change are not climate scientists, or Earth scientists of any kind, and thus have no special knowledge to contribute.

But science is only part of the story. Even if the climate scientists can tell us what is happening, and why they think it is happening, they cannot tell us what governments should be doing about it. For this, we also need an understanding of the economics: of what the economic consequences of any warming might be, and, if there is a problem, the best way of dealing with it.

First, then, what is happening? Given that nowadays pretty well every adverse development in the natural world is automatically attributed to global warming, perhaps the most surprising fact about it is that it is not, in fact, happening at all. The truth is that there has so far been no recorded global warming at all this century.

But the fact that the present lull was not predicted by any of the complex computer models upon which the global warming orthodoxy relies is clear evidence that the science of what determines the world’s temperature is distinctly uncertain and far from ”settled”.

Genuine climate scientists admit that Earth’s climate is determined by hugely complex systems, and reliable prediction is impossible.

The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, including water suspended in clouds. Rather a long way behind, the second most important is carbon dioxide.

The vast bulk of the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is natural – that is, nothing to do with man.

It is striking that during the 21st century, carbon dioxide emissions have been growing faster than ever – thanks in particular to the rapid growth of the Chinese economy – yet there has been no further global warming at all.

Carbon dioxide, like water vapour and oxygen, is not only completely harmless but is an essential element in our life support system.

Without carbon dioxide, there would be no plant life on the planet. And without plant life, there would be no human life either.

Let’s look at just two of the alleged ”catastrophic” consequences of global warming: the threat to food production, leading to mass starvation; and the threat to human health, leading to disease and death.

So far as food production is concerned, it is not clear why a warmer climate would be a problem at all. Even the IPCC concedes that for a warming of anything up to 3 per cent, ”globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase”. Yes: increase.

As to health, in its most recent report, the IPCC found only one outcome which they ranked as ”virtually certain” to happen – and that was ”reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure”.

The IPCC systematically exaggerates the likely adverse effects of any warming that might occur because estimates of the likely impact of the global warming it projects for the next 100 years are explicitly based on two assumptions, both of them absurd.

The first is that while the developed world can adapt to warming, the developing world cannot.

The second is that even in the developed world, the capacity to adapt is constrained by the limits of existing technology. In other words, there will be no technological development over the next 100 years.

All in all, given that global warming produces benefits as well as costs, it is far from clear that the currently projected warming, far from being ”catastrophic”, will do any net harm at all.

But the greatest curse of the developing world is mass poverty, and the malnutrition, disease and unnecessary death that poverty brings. To impede their escape from poverty by denying them the benefits of cheap carbon-based energy would damage them far more than global warming ever could.

That means that by the year 2100, people in the developing world, instead of being some 9.5 times better off than they are today, will be ‘only’ 8.5 times better off (which, incidentally, will still leave them better off than people in the developed world today). And, remember, all this is on the basis of the IPCC’s own grotesquely inflated estimate of the likely damage from further warming.

One thing is clear: the ”feelgood” measures so popular among some sections of the middle classes, from driving a hybrid car and having a wind turbine on one’s roof to not leaving the television set on standby, are trivial to the point of total irrelevance. What would be required is for all transport to be 100 per cent electric, and all electricity to be generated by nuclear power.

To cut back carbon dioxide emissions on the scale the present Labour Government (supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) is demanding would require a fundamental restructuring of the economy, involving a rise in the cost of energy dwarfing anything we have seen so far.

No doubt we could afford this hardship if it made sense. But does it? The UK accounts for only 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Even if the entire European Union adopted this policy, that accounts for only 15 per cent of global emissions.

By contrast, China – which has already overtaken the U.S. as the biggest single emitter – has said that there is no way it will agree to a cap on its carbon dioxide emissions for the foreseeable future. And India has said precisely the same.

So the chief consequence of decarbonising here, and making energy much more expensive, would simply be to accelerate the exodus of industry from the UK and Europe to China and elsewhere in the developing world – with, as a result, little or no reduction in overall global emissions.

And even if there were a global agreement to cut drastically carbon dioxide emissions, the economic cost of doing so would far exceed any benefit.

There may be a political explanation for this. With the collapse of Marxism and, to all intents and purposes, of other forms of socialism too, those who dislike capitalism and its foremost exemplar, the United States, with equal passion, have been obliged to find a new creed.

For many of them, green is the new red. And those who wish to order us how to run our lives, faced with the uncomfortable evidence that economic prosperity is more likely to be achieved by less government intervention rather than more, naturally welcome the emergence of a new licence to intrude, to interfere, to tax and to regulate: all in the great cause of saving the planet from the alleged horrors of global warming.

ut there is something much more fundamental at work. I suspect that it is no accident that it is in Europe that eco-fundamentalism in general and global warming absolutism in particular has found its most fertile soil. For it is Europe that has become the most secular society in the world, where the traditional religions have the weakest hold.

Yet people still feel the need for the comfort and higher values that religion can provide; and it is the quasi-religion of green alarmism, of which the global warming issue is the most striking example, which has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilege.

Nonetheless, the new and unattractively intolerant religion of eco-fundamentalism and global warming presents real dangers. The most obvious is that the governments of Europe may get so carried away by their own rhetoric as to impose measures that do serious harm to their economies. That is a particular danger at the present time in the UK.

Another danger is that even if the governments do not go too far and damage their own economies, they may still cause great damage to the developing world by engaging in what might be termed green protectionism. The movement to make us feel guilty about buying overseas produce because of the ”food miles” involved is just one example of this.

it is clear that the would-be saviours of the planet are, in practice, the enemies of poverty reduction in the developing world.

So the new religion of global warming, however convenient it may be to the politicians, is not as harmless as it may appear. Indeed, the more one examines it, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story, and a phenomenal bestseller. It contains a grain of truth – and a mountain of nonsense.

And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed.

We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557374&in_page_id=177

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>

(more…)

Pour cold water on ‘global warming’

6 april, 2008

Här kommer två utmärkta artiklar från dagens Detroit news och Daily Inter Lake skrivna av Thomas Sowell och Frank Miele. Tänk den dag bara EN säg EN sådan artikel skulle förekomma i svenska massmedia.

Nä, istället så har man blivit His Masters Voice och framför lydigt allt som IPCC och Al Gore BEHAGAR delge oss. Jag skäms bokstavligt talat över den svenska journalist kåren som så TOTALT HAR ÖVERGIVIT SITT JOURNALISTISKA ARBETE!

(Se bl.a. även mina inlägg Svenska journalistikens abdikation inför miljöhysterin,  Ännu en rysk vetenskapsman säger att det blir kallareEn rysk omoralisk vetenskapsman säger att det snart blir kallare!,  Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age! Eller – If global warming gets any worse we’ll all freeze to death!Beware the politician posing as a scientist!, Det råder ”consensus” om Global Warming – IGEN! Eller hur kritiken mot Global Warming censureras)

Några citat:

”It has almost become something of a joke when some ”global warming” conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.

But stampedes and hysteria are no joke — and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming ”crisis.”

They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all ”scientists” and then claim that ”all” the experts agree on a global warming crisis.

Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.

A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.

Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?”

”The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.

Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.

The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is.”

”You have to hand it to the global warming crowd. A little cold and snow doesn’t scare them one bit.

Here in Northwest Montana we recently received good news when it was announced that our local ski resorts are having record years for snowfall. The Whitefish Mountain Resort, for instance, had gotten 424 inches of snow at the summit as of April 4, a hefty improvement over the previous record of 406 inches, which was set in the 1996-97 season.

But considering that snow records have been kept at Whitefish for well over 50 years, it’s at least a pretty good indication that there’s no need to panic about ”local warming” just yet. In fact, it’s entirely possible that the generally warming temperatures of the past 20 years are part of a cyclical change that is not man-caused at all.”

”The analysis is generally (but not always) scientific and reputable and makes sense, but the problem is that ”known data” about climate is infinitesimally small compared to the billions-year-old dynamic systems known as Earth and the Solar System. That leaves room for error, even if hard-core global-warming proponents such as Al Gore say there is no room for doubt.

Similar scientific ”certainties” based on known data have littered the dust bins of history since man first started trying to understand the world around him.”

As long as people don’t become married to their theories and reject any new suitors from the realms of common sense, logic and observation, there is always the chance to refine and improve theories so that they more and more closely resemble the truth.”

”In the amusing category, consider that International Falls, Minn., the city which just won a federal trademark as ”The Icebox of the Nation,” set a record low temperature of 40 degrees below zero on Feb. 11 of this year. The previous record low in International Falls was minus 37. Not conclusive certainly that warming is not a huge danger, but intriguing nonetheless. (Unless you have your mind made up that everything is getting warmer. Then any evidence to the contrary can be neatly labeled as an anomaly and ignored.)”

”Regarding tragedy, we can look to South Asia, which suffered its lowest temperatures in 70 years this winter. More than 1,500 deaths were reported in Afghanistan alone, and many more occurred in Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and other Asian countries.

One thing that is clear is that, according to Reuters, the Chinese Meteorological Administration announced that ”the weather was the coldest in 100 years in central Hubei and Hunan provinces.” And ultimately, according to a story in the Sunday Telegraph of London, the cold weather and accompanying snow resulted in ”the northern hemisphere’s greatest snow cover since 1966.” It was also the coolest winter globally since 2001, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

But, of course, this kind of data doesn’t deter proponents of manmade global warming – who appear to be more interested in using people’s fears of catastrophe to accomplish sweeping and costly social reforms than in pursuing a calm and rational discussion of the science involved.”

”Nor does the evidence amassed by global warming proponents necessarily reach any higher standard of significance than the anecdotal evidence I have presented here, at least in many cases.”

”No news. No tragedy. Just another example of climate extremists trying to create a sense of terror in the general populace. (No better example of this could be found than Ted Turner’s goofy comments last week that within 30 to 40 years, ”Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals” as a result of global warming.)

As for polar bears, they are a strange choice to make the case for the harmful effects of global warming. After all, the polar bear population has been increasing in recent decades.”

”It’s also time to update the statistics on arctic ice loss. Last fall we were being told that arctic ice was itself on the endangered list, and that the ice had shrunk from 13 million square kilometers to just 3 million. All true, and very scary to the uninformed, but oddly enough by the end of winter this year, the ice cover had actually rebounded and then some to past 13 million.

What does it mean? It’s called a seasonal cycle, and it happens every year. Just look at the ice chart and you will see it for yourself. And the ice in Antarctica has actually expanded in recent years to the point where it has been setting records for the most ice ever seen.”

”Bottom line is we don’t know as much as some people claim about the weather.

To prove the point, consider that Khabibullo Abdusamatov, the supervisor of the Russian section of the International Space Station and a researcher at the laboratory of solar physics at Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg, is predicting that mankind’s next serious threat will not be global warming but a ”little ice age” similar to the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) when sunspots were exceedingly rare and the weather was exceedingly cold.”

Artikeln I Detroit News finns här:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/OPINION03/804060306

Artikeln i Daily Inter Lake finns här:

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2008/04/06/columns/columns01.prt

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

(more…)

Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!

6 april, 2008

Här kommer en sammanställning av alla mina inlägg och artiklar som handlar om geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter.

När man börjar studera hur hela systemet och handeln är uppbyggd så blir man förfärad. Hela handeln med utsläppsrätter är en öppen inbjudan till manipulation och förfalskning.

Där som sagt BÅDA parter vinner på att fuska med uppgifterna! Ett rent dröm scenario för alla skojare – både köparen och säljaren vinner på att fuska!

Det är alltså detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system som Global Warming Hysterikerna vill tvinga på världen. Och politikerna fullkomligt älskar detta system då de kan motivera i stort sett vilken skatte-/avgiftshöjning som helst med detta system.

Så min fråga blir återigen vilka som egentligen vinner på detta system som ÖPPET inbjuder till FUSK? Och där bägge parter tjänar på detta fusk?

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

(more…)

Germany Scraps Plan to Raise Ethanol Content for Cars

6 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mina tidigare inlägg om etanolbluffen (The Clean Energy Scam – Eller Etanolbluffen!MiljöBils Snurret) kommer här en artikel om hur Tyskland har stoppat planerna på att höja etanolinnehållet i bensinen.

Germany dropped a plan to reduce air pollution next year by doubling the ethanol content in gasoline, because it threatened to increase fuel prices for millions of car drivers.”

”We don’t want to take responsibility if several million people who drive old cars, only because they live on lower wages, have to use expensive” fuel, he said.

Jaha, och det har man upptäckt först nu?

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=germany&sid=aIxGLI12kg3k

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

(more…)

Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations!

6 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg (Kyoto supporters have no idea what they signed!) kommer här Stephen Harpers tankar om Kyoto när han var oppositionsledare i Kanada. Nu är han premiärminister och har blivit ”Kyoto vän”.

Som oppositionsledare (2002) var hans slutsats:

”I’m talking about the ‘battle of Kyoto‘ – our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord.”

”He writes that it’s based on ”tentative and contradictory scientific evidence” and it focuses on carbon dioxide, which is ”essential to life.”

”He says Kyoto requires that Canada make significant cuts in emissions, while countries like Russia, India and China face less of a burden.

Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations,” Harper’s letter reads.

”He said the accord would cripple the oil and gas industries, which are essential to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.”

Nu som premiärminister säger han:

Harper has spoken strongly about the environment, saying he will dramatically revamp his minority government’s much-criticized clean air act.

”Now, suddenly, because he has seen the polls and realized the political opportunism of going green, the prime minister has launched a new campaign – that of trying to convince Canadians that he actually cares about the environment,”

Samma hyckleri där som här! Politiker som tror att de kan tjäna politiska poäng på att ändra åsikt och vara PK och hoppa på Global Warming Hysterins bandwagon.

Artikeln finns här

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html

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

(more…)

EXPLORER’S NORTH POLE ATTEMPT HALTED BY ICE

5 april, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg om havsisen som växer så det knakar (Havsisen fortsätter att växa så det knakar! ) kommer här berättelsen om engelsmannen Ben Saunders som satte ut för att bli den snabbaste mannen till nordpolen till fots och utan hjälpmanskap. Som har fått ge upp på grund av de extrema isförhållandena.

Dvs. den is som Global Warming Hysterikerna säger har smält som aldrig förr och inte finns!

”The ice conditions I have encountered have been the worst I have ever seen, and worse than I could have imagined.”

Isen på nordpolen måste uppenbarligen inte ha följt IPCC och Al Gores uttalanden. Utan den har fräckheten att bara växa och växa som aldrig förr. Borde man inte kunna stifta en miljölag mot sånt! Ja menar hur skulle det gå om naturen INTE lyder Al Gore och IPCC?

Artikeln finns här

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/new/util/content.jsp?id=20323794

När han startade:

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/new/util/content.jsp?id=20220823

 

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

(more…)

Outstanding Job That Anthony Watts Has Done On Documenting The Immediate Environment Of Suface Temperature Monitoring Sites

5 april, 2008

Ber att få ansluta mig till ”kollegan” (i all blygsamhet) Climate Sciences inlägg där man hyllar Anthony Watts för hans banbrytande arbeta med att dokumentra ALLA mätstationer i USA.

Där han har dokumenterat mycket underliga och felaktiga placeringar för dessa mätstationer – som kan sitta bedvid utsläpp från airconditioners, mitt i asfalterade parkeringsplattser etc. etc.

Så det är inte så konstigt att många av dessa stationer vissar temperturökningar som mostvarande bättre placera stationer INTE gör. Man pratar också om den s.k.”urban effect” vilket innebär att stadsmiljö i sig gör att temperaturen är 1,5-2,5 grader varmare i städerna

Allt detta gör att dessa mätstationet visar för höga temperturvärden.

Och tänk på att det är mätdata från dessa stationer som Global Warming Hysterikerna har använt sig för att predika Gloom and Doom.

Det är en vetenskaplig skandal i sig hur en del av dessa mätstationer är placerade! Och då skall man ända ha klart för sig att USA har de BÄSTA och största nätverket med temperatur mätstationer i världen.

Hans websida finns här http://www.surfacestations.org/  där många stationer finns redovisade.

Här kommer Climate Sciences hyllning:

”Anthony Watts is performing a seminal service to the climate community in leading the effort to document the immediate environment around surface temperature monitoring sites that are used to construct multi-decadal surface temperature trends and anomalies.  His data and analyses for the sites can be found at Weather Stations.

The current Climate Science weblog is to recognize this essential contribution.

This analysis should be led by Tom Karl at the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), however, he has, unfortunately, ignored recommendations to do this (e.g, Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report ”Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. 88 pp). Thus while we hear several times a year from NCDC (e.g. see) how the temperatures rank relative to other years, the large obvious problems with the historical climate reference network, that Anthony and his outstanding volunteers have shown, should be a wake-up call to the media and to the public that they are being provided temperature information by NCDC that is not spatially representative of actual temperature anomalies over the USA, and likely has a significant warm bias.

Anthony – keep up the good work!”

Inlägget finns här:

http://climatesci.org/2008/04/04/outstanding-job-that-anthony-watts-has-done-on-documenting-the-immediate-environment-of-suface-temperature-monitoring-sites/

Här kommer några exempel på dessa stationer

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

New England winters have cooled in past decade

4 april, 2008

Här kommer lite intressanta temperatur och snö data från New Hampshire i nordöstra USA. Temperaturen och snön har inte betet sig som Global Warming Hysterikerna och deras modeller har förutspått. Temperaturen denna vintersäsong var 2,5 grader under vad modellen förutspått. Och snömängderna var de NÄST HÖGSTA någonsin.

Global Warming anyone?

The data are as follows:

New England winters 1969-70 to 1973-74: 22.9 degrees.

New England winters 1974-75 to 1978-79: 22.2 degrees.

New England winters 1979-80 to 1983-84: 24.3 degrees.

New England winters 1984-85 to 1988-89: 24.3 degrees.

New England winters 1989-90 to 1993-94: 23.9 degrees.

New England winters 1994-95 to 1998-99: 27.1 degrees.

New England winters 1999-00 to 2003-04: 24.6 degrees.

New England winters 2004-05 to 2007-08: 25.9 degrees.

 

Wake’s projection: 2004-05 to 2008-09: 28.4 degrees.

”Not only did the winter temperature not rise to 28.4 degrees, as Wake projected, it actually fell one to two degrees toward the levels we’ve been seeing all our lives.

 

This reversal from warming to cooling occurred despite continuing increases in man-made carbon-dioxide emissions. Wake’s pessimistic forecast of catastrophic increases in temperature have simply not comported with reality.

Wake also pointed out that there was a decrease in the winter snowfall in New England in recent times, implying a trend likely to continue. So where did all this snow come from?”

”These data are meant to show that this question is complicated and is not a subject for simplistic answers. Global alarmists like Wake should be wary of their predictions, especially in view of the sad history of such predictions made just a few decades ago — for an incipient Ice Age.”

Here is a list of the snow seasons with at least 100 inches of snow, as provided by the National Weather Service:

1. 122.0 inches: 1873-74

2. 115.2 inches: 2007-08

3. 115.0 inches: 1872-73

4. 112.4 inches: 1995-96

5. 111.0 inches: 1886-87 and 1887-88 (tie)

7. 103.2 inches: 1898-99

8. 103.0 inches: 1874-75

9. 100.0 inches: 1875-76 and 1971-72 (tie)

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Fred+Ward%3a+New+England+winters+have+cooled+in+past+decade&articleId=7e9416bf-55e0-4ecd-8e1b-31a77446700f

Artikeln om snö finns här:

http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Snowstorm+inches+us+closer+to+No.+1&articleId=3e1f3ca1-9255-4b6e-adb3-702b2ebb60d3

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

(more…)

They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything — ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.

3 april, 2008

Här kommer ytterligare en utmärkt artikel av Lorrie Goldstein från Toronto Sun om Global Warming Hysterikernas kamp för att tysta kritik och deras politiska agenda.

Jag har flera gånger påpekat att hela den här klimatfrågan och Global Warming Hysterin INTE handlar om fakta och vetenskap utan den drivs av en bestämd politisk och ekonomisk agenda.

Och att det här är väldigt svårt för ”gemene man” att förstå som tror att det hela handlar om ”vetenskap” och att ”rädda” planeten från ”omedelbar” undergång. Global Warming Hysterin är bara ett redskap som dessa politiker och andra använder för att det passar deras syften just nu. Och i detta cyniska syfte så skuldbelägger man vanliga människor och spenderar ofantliga summor på nonsensåtgärder.

Så frågan är NÄR skall massmedia och våra politiker vakna upp och protestera mot detta monumentala åsiktsförtryck som pågår i ”vetenskapens” namn?

Hittills så tiger ju massmedia och politiker och ställer sig beredvilligt i den medeltida inkvisitionens tjänst. Det är beklämmande att skåda!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/03/30/5143976-sun.php

Let’s clear the air here

Climate denier? Oil industry shill? Moi? Nah. Cutting through the bunk? You bet

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN, March 30, 2008

It’s amazing what gets you labelled as a climate denier and/or oil industry shill these days.

For more than a year now, having done a fair bit of research about the issue on my own, I’ve been writing critically about global warming. During that time, I have stated the following:

That I accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Earth is warming unnaturally and that it is ”very likely” human activity is the cause.

That, regardless of global warming, it’s important to conserve energy and to burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) as cleanly and efficiently as possible, not just for environmental reasons, but for geo-political ones. The less we have to rely on Mideast oil, the greater our security will be.

I’ve said Canada, as a resource-rich country, should be a leader in the responsible use of fossil fuels and government subsidies to the oil industry — unnecessary when oil costs more than $100 a barrel — should be re-invested into Canadian research and development of new sources of renewable energy and clean technologies.

I’ve said if Canada imposes a carbon tax, presuming a majority of Canadians favour this, it must be done in concert with the U.S. and our other major trading partners, so as not to damage our economy.

I’ve argued it must be truly revenue neutral, providing already overtaxed Canadians with realistic ways of moving toward a carbon economy.

These aren’t radical views. From the overwhelmingly positive response to my columns, I’d venture to say many Canadians share them.

However, in the bizarro world of the climate hysterics, I’m evil incarnate.

For one thing, I don’t support the Kyoto Accord, which really is, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper once described it, a socialist, money-sucking scheme.

Worse, it’s a scheme whose purpose is not to lower man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

China’s skyrocketing, coal-fuelled GHG emissions alone over the next few years — exempt from Kyoto because it’s a developing nation — will more than wipe out all GHG reductions prescribed by Kyoto, even if the few dozen developed nations to which they apply, including Canada, achieve theirs. Many, including us, won’t.

That’s just China. India and the rest of the developing world are also exempt.

The United States, either the world’s largest or second-largest GHG emitter, along with China, depending on whose figures you use, is unaffected by Kyoto because it has refused to ratify the treaty dating back to the Bill Clinton/Al Gore administration. Yes, you read that right.

Leaving aside the developing world, even if every Kyoto target in the developed world was hit over the next four years, it would represent about one-twelfth of what the science says needs to be done.

Kyoto isn’t an environmental plan. It’s a plan to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third and damage the American economy in particular.

Beyond that, the scientific ”consensus” on man-made global warming breaks down once you start looking at how long it will take, how severe it will be and what we should do about it, which is not a scientific decision but a political one.

Climate hysterics, led by environmental radicals and opportunistic politicians, who screech that every time there’s an extreme, or even unusual weather event it’s ”proof” of man-made global warming, don’t know what they’re talking about. They constantly confuse ”weather” and ”climate.”

They don’t understand the difference between man-made global warming and the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, which keeps us all from freezing.

Given their concerns about GHG emissions, they irrationally oppose nuclear power, which does not emit them.

EXTREME WEATHER KILLS

They act as if there were no hurricanes or glacier retreats before mankind started burning fossil fuels and that extreme weather never killed anyone before industrialization.

They confuse carbon monoxide, a poison, with carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth.

They insist we know far more about climate than we do.

They aren’t interested in saving the planet, they want to control human behaviour.

They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything — ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.

They can, however, write e-mails.

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>

Kyoto supporters have no idea what they signed!

3 april, 2008

Här kommer en frän uppgörlse över den förra och den nuvarande kanadesiska regerigen och deras godkännande av Kyoto protokollet av Lorrie Goldstein från Toronto Star.

Se även mina tidigare inlägg:
A CO2 graph that says it all!,  A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  We were forced to swallow disadvantageous conditions for diplomatic reasons!, ,  EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!, The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK -2!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK!,  $ 2,9 Biljoner i sänkt BNP för en sänkning av CO2 på 25 ppm!,  De ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin,  Realpolitik i klimat dimmorna, Snabb helomvändning i Australien!

Som jag sagt så många gånger tidigare:

”Det är enkelt att lova Guld och Gröna Skogar NÄR NÅGON ANNAN FÅR BETALA. Och att göra ”stolta” deklarationer på toppmöten. Nu har det  ekonomiska realiteterna gjort sig påminda och nu slåss man för den tunga industrins fortlevnad.

Nu gäller inte längre vad man officiellt kom överens om för bara ett halvår sedan. Nu är det undantag för den egna industrin som gäller och inget annat. För det är GIGANTISKA SUMMOR som kommer att förslösas på dessa nonsensåtgärder.

När skall våra kära politiker börja FÖRSTÅ de ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin? Och de ofantliga summor som kommer att förslösas på nonsensåtgärder. Åtgärder som är ett direkt hot mot vår demokrati, vår frihet, vårt välstånd och vår ekonomi! Dessa orimliga kostnader utgör ett direkt hot för den industriella överlevnaden i den här delen av världen. Men det pratar man tyst om.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/04/03/5180856-sun.php

Kyoto supporters have no idea

April 3, 2008

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

It’s time for an adult discussion about our continued participation in the Kyoto Accord and it’s not the one we’ve been having.

Our politicians have been talking to us as if we were children. It’s time we put a stop to it.

Kyoto isn’t about turning off the lights during Earth Hour.

It’s not about buying hybrid cars, or installing solar panels on your roof or replacing your incandescent lightbulbs with fluorescents.

Those are all environmentally worthy activities on their own merits.

But they are insignificant compared to what is required for Canada to comply with Kyoto.

This isn’t about David Suzuki making cutesy commercials with children, while calling for politicians he disagrees with to be jailed.

It’s not about Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s empty boast we can make megatonnes of money by cutting megatonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

It’s not about Prime Minister Stephen Harper paying lip service to Kyoto, while his actions suggest he doesn’t believe a word he’s saying.

It’s about this. Are you willing to dramatically lower your standard of living, and that of your children and grandchildren, to comply with Kyoto?

Are you willing to pay much more, directly in carbon taxes and indirectly for almost everything you do, use or consume, to effect a sudden, dramatic drop in Canada’s GHG emissions?

BILLIONS LATER

Are you willing to have Canada ship billions of dollars every year to the Third World for GHG mitigation projects, the success of which won’t be known until you’re dead?

Finally, if we do all that, do you trust every other country, from China to the United States, to do the same?

This isn’t about vilifying Alberta for developing the oilsands — just as every province wants to develop its natural resources.

It’s about realizing if we comply with Kyoto, our standard of living will fall.

It’s not going to be easy. People who suggest it is are making long-range predictions about our economy they cannot possibly know. What their studies actually suggest is that it’s easy to pretend to comply with Kyoto.

Finally, if you publicly nod your head in agreement when environmentalists preach we have no choice because the alternative is the Earth’s destruction — but privately don’t believe it, or don’t believe we should make enormous sacrifices now for something that may or may not happen decades or centuries from now — then get off the Kyoto train, because you won’t have the stomach for it once it really gets rolling.

My view is the previous Liberal government of Jean Chretien irresponsibly ratified Kyoto in 2002, at a time when even his top aide, Eddie Goldenberg, has since acknowledged the Liberals knew Canadians weren’t ready for the sacrifices it would require.

NORTHERN NATION

I’d go further. I’d argue Chretien and the Liberals had no idea what they were signing, no idea of its implications for a huge, cold, northern country like our own that relies on using fossil fuels for its standard of living.

For all their self-righteous rhetoric now, if implementing Kyoto was easy, why didn’t the Liberals do it when they had the chance?

As for Harper and the Conservatives, they should stop telling us they agree with Kyoto, while doing nothing to implement it.

The adult question is: Are we in, or are we out?

My vote’s out. What’s yours?

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

The Hijacking of the Endangered Species Act – Dessa isbjörnar igen!

3 april, 2008

Som en komplement till min tidigare inlägg om isbjörnar (Dessa Isbjörnar igen!, ”The report of our extinction was an exaggeration.”) kommer här en  kommentar från Senator John Barrasso, Wyoming (sitter bl.a. med i senatens ”the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources”) om hur Global Warming Hysterikerna utnyttjar isbjörnsfrågan för helt andra syften.

Genom kopplingen till Global Warming så kan man i praktiken stänga ner en delstat med hänvisning till att man vill ”skydda isbjörnarna”.

Det verkar väl helt rimligt att för att skydda en djurart som är STÖRRE än någonsin, där isen växer så det knakar etc. så kan man stänga ner en hel landsdel BARA för att det rör sig om ”Global Warming”.

Det är väl helt rimliga proportioner att man förstör ekonomin för 515 000 personer för att rädda 0 isbjörnar. Dessa Global Warming vänner ÄR SÅÅÅ människovänliga!

(Tänk om vi kunde stänga ner säg Skåne för att skydda säg järven i Norrland, då börjar det likna något!)

Uttalandet finns här:

http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=10c2da64-c109-1cfc-1e56-375c248bfc40

The Hijacking of the Endangered Species Act: Barrasso

April 2, 2008

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Barrasso , R-Wyo., took aim at attempts to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) during an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.

This is a hijacking of the Endangered Species Act for political purposes,” Barrasso said. ”It is not just about the polar bear.”

Some claim that global warming is leading to the demise of polar bears. If the polar bear is listed as threatened, anything thought to contribute to global warming could be shut down – even in Wyoming .

”We are all concerned about protecting the environment,” Barrasso said. ”If the polar bear is listed, the ESA will become a climate change law.”

The consequences of listing the polar bear as a threatened species, and linking it to climate change, would be utterly devastating. There would be no area of the economy left untouched.”

Virtually every human activity that involves the release of carbon into the atmosphere would be regulated by the federal government. Cities could be sued for not restricting vehicles within the city limits.

An environmental group, the Center for Biodiversity has stated that ”… the polar bear listing could mean that all U.S. industries emitting large quantities of greenhouse gasses – and requiring a federal permit to do so – will come under the purview of the Endangered Species Act.”

When I see special interest groups using the polar bear as an excuse to shut down traditional energy sources, I am more than skeptical about their real concern for the bear,” Barrasso concluded.

Bill Horn, former Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, agreed that under this proposal, Wyoming could be sued for allowing too many vehicles to travel to Jackson Hole or Yellowstone .

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

Havsisen fortsätter att växa så det knakar!

3 april, 2008

Ni vet de där havsisarna som enligt Global Warming Hysterikerna smälter så att det hotar att dränka en stor del av världen?

Nä, GLÖMT DET!  För i VERKLIGHETEN så växer de som aldrig förr och ligger på rekordnivåer.

På södra halvklotet så fortsätter havsisen att vara på rekordnivåer. Mars ligger 30% ÖVER DET NORMALA (januari låg 35% över, februari låg 30 % över). På norra halvklotet så har havsisen återhämtat sig.

In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere winter and 6 months ahead of the peak.”

Global Warming anyone?

2008-04-03_011225b.jpg

2008-04-03_014730.jpg

2008-03-29_215813.jpg

2008-04-03_011200b.jpg

2008-03-29_215900.jpg

2008-03-29_220016.jpg

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