Archive for maj, 2008

Climate Catastrophe for The state of Washington

31 maj, 2008

Här kommer den första artikeln i en serie som jag kommer att publicera inför senatens diskussion nu på måndag av the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act – S. 2191. Som vill införa en handel med utsläppsrätter a la Kyoto i USA.

Som jag sagt tidigare:

Fler och fler börjar få upp ögonen för detta gigantiska skojeri och bondfångeri som kallas handel med utsläppsrätter.

Som sagt, fler och fler börjar INSE de GIGANTISKA KOSTNADERNA för att genomföra dessa nonsensåtgärder. Det är alltså detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system med handel på utsläppsrätter som främjar fusk i stor skala, och som är en öppen inbjudan till manipulation och förfalskning, 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! Ett rent dröm scenario för alla skojare – både köparen och säljaren vinner på att fuska! Och politikerna får in massor med skatter och avgifter!

Undra på ATT SÅ MÅNGA ÄLSKAR detta århundradets största bondfångeri ALLA KATEGORIER! Och som icing on the cake: systemet göt inte ett smack för miljön heller!

Några citat:

”We have had antinuclear forces opposing nuclear energy, others opposing the hydro systems and the electricity it produces, and now opposing fossil fuel energy through restricting CO2 emissions. Collectively, these represent nearly 98% of the nation’s total suppliers of electricity. Try to imagine your home, business, and family if 98% of the electricity were shutdown. And no, ethanol won’t cure this staggering problem, nor will unreliable, intermittent, heavily subsidized windmills and solar facilities fill the energy gap. This bill is a recipe for catastrophe.”

”A recent test of 22 climate models also demonstrated the inability of the models to replicate actual temperatures observed at low latitudes. All of these models made estimates which were too high; all of them overstated the observed temperatures. This is the very definition of an upward temperature bias. State environmental policies made on the basis of such computer climate models are similarly flawed. Other upward biases have also been determined. Notably, there have been no downward biases found. These errors thus appear to be systematic, and not random. This is very telling.”

”The agenda behind this massive movement is part of the continued effort initiated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) nearly 2 decades ago. The agenda includes doing harm to the West in general and to the United States in particular. There at the famous 1992 Rio Conference, Maurice Strong, a major leader of the United Nations declared: ”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

”It is amazing that our elected officials seem to be unaware of this agenda, instead supporting this horrific agenda through legislative actions. Another past Democratic governor of Washington State wrote extensively about this agenda, as she witnessed it unfold as a participant of the Rio Conference.

Dixy Lee Ray noted in her book, ”Environmental Overkill” that about 5% of the agenda discussed environmental issues while the remaining 95% of the effort discussed wealth transfer methods from the developed nations. As Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, told us about in March 2008, at an international conference on global warming in New York City,”It’s not about the climate.” Washington State leaders would do well to read Ray’s book, or Klaus’s warnings.

This horrific agenda has been pushed, promoted, and embraced by many nations of the world. It has also been promoted and embraced by a large fraction of the main stream media, not to mention Hollywood. Thoughts of even more Western billions being transferred to Third World despots seem irresistible, especially when Western governors are promoting it, including the State of Washington.”

The temperature station at the Amundson-Scott base at the South Pole has shown a cooling trend since it started in 1957. Yet the CO2 levels rose more than 10% during that time. Is CO2 warming, cooling, or none of the above? A number of surface temperature stations in the State of Washington also have shown cooling for decades as well. Ritzville shows a decline since 1918 and the Spokane station shows a decline since 1880, or 128 years

Recently, as reported in Science Magazine, global temperatures have not risen for the past 10 years, while CO2 rose. All of the above examples of surface stations showing cooling trends, are contrary to and do not support the hypothesis of CO2 causing warming. It most certainly does not support the theory that man-made CO2 (a small fraction of the total atmospheric CO2) causes warming.The rules of logic tell us that one cause cannot produce two opposite effects.”

Even worse, the Washington State governor has put an administrative muzzle on the public by forbidding any discussion of the science. The prevailing paradigm is ”the science has spoken” or ”The science debate is over”. In fact there has been too little debate, and way too much onerous, one-sided assertions, dominated with the belief that computer models actually produce evidence. They don’t.

Se även mina inlägg: Billions wasted on UN climate carbon offsetting programmeGREEN CORRUPTION: UNITED NATIONS CARBON CREDIT SCHEME ACCUSED OF FRAUDRussia will not sell it’s emission rightsWhy the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjustGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy,  An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!,  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!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  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,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?bfdf2938-0f3d-4c06-949c-b1837a5cced9

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

(more…)

“It’s a total mess” – The story of carbon capture and storage

31 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel från gårdagens Ney York Times som belyser hur outvecklad, otestad och vilka problem som fortfarande finns bakom tekniken för ”carbon storage and capture”. Som är en av Global Warming Hysterikernas favoritåtgärder

Några citat:

”Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming.

”It’s a total mess,” said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.”

”Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable.

Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back to the surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as who would be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant.”

”But in January, the government pulled out after projected costs nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion. The government feared the costs would go even higher. A bipartisan effort is afoot on Capitol Hill to save FutureGen, but the project is on life support.

The government had to change its approach, said Clarence Albright Jr., the undersecretary of the Energy Department, to ”limit taxpayer exposure to the escalating cost.”

Se även mitt inlägg: A consequence of Global Warming Hysteria – Nations Revive Coal Mining!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

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

(more…)

Advice on the matter of climate change is poisoned by fear among many scientists!

31 maj, 2008

Advice is poisoned by fear May 30, 2008

I HEAR on the scientific grapevine that CSIRO’s biggest problem when providing formal advice to the federal Government on the matter of climate change is to say nothing that can be interpreted as giving aid and comfort to the army of irresponsible sceptics out there who are doubtful about the dreadful consequences of global warming.

One can only feel sorry for the Government. Where can it go these days to get unbiased advice on the issue of global warming? Its official sources are poisoned by the fear among many scientists that they may be labelled by their colleagues and by their institutions as climate-change sceptics.

Basically, the problem is that the research community has gone so far along the path of frightening the life out of the man in the street that to recant publicly even part of the story would massively damage the reputation and political clout of science in general. And so, like corpuscles in the blood, researchers all over the world now rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by any idea that threatens the carefully cultivated belief in climatic disaster.

Garth Paltridge

Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow, Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania

Artikeln finns här

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/

advice_is_poisoned_by_fear/

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>

Does the IPCC’s Main Conclusion Need to be Revisited?

29 maj, 2008

Här kommer flera mycket intressanta artiklar och kommentarer om en artikel i Nature 453, 646-649 (29 May 2008 ) ”A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature” av David W. J. Thompson1, John J. Kennedy2, John M. Wallace3 & Phil D. Jones4.

Vad det hela handlar om är hur man mätte temperaturen på 1940 talet och hur det hela påverkar IPCC:s klimatmodeller. Och att nu har Global Warminhg Hysterikerna ”upptäckt” det hela för att försöka förklara bort ”dippen” i temperaturen.  Dvs. att enligt dessa ”nya” rön (bl.a. Steve McIntyre påpekade detta redan för 3 år sedan) så blir det globala ökningen av temperaturen INTE ALLS så stor som IPCC säger i sina modeller.

Abstract:

”Data sets used to monitor the Earth’s climate indicate that the surface of the Earth warmed from approx 1910 to 1940, cooled slightly from approx 1940 to 1970, and then warmed markedly from approx 1970 onward. The weak cooling apparent in the middle part of the century has been interpreted in the context of a variety of physical factors, such as atmosphere-ocean interactions and anthropogenic emissions of sulphate aerosols. Here we call attention to a previously overlooked discontinuity in the record at 1945, which is a prominent feature of the cooling trend in the mid-twentieth century. The discontinuity is evident in published versions of the global-mean temperature time series, but stands out more clearly after the data are filtered for the effects of internal climate variability. We argue that the abrupt temperature drop of approx 0.3 °C in 1945 is the apparent result of uncorrected instrumental biases in the sea surface temperature record. Corrections for the discontinuity are expected to alter the character of mid-twentieth century temperature variability but not estimates of the century-long trend in global-mean temperatures.”

Som Jennifer Marohasy sager:

”Amusement number one is the fact that AGW supporters have tried to explain the 1940s to 1970s ‘cooling’ using emissions of sulphate aerosols as an excuse – an explanation that I have previously challenged

Amusement number two is the unverifiable data used by Phil Jones et al 1990, which was relied upon by the IPCC to diminish the effect of urbanisation on the surface temperature record.

Amusement number three is that Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit first noted the discontinuity in the sea surface temperature record in June 2005.”

Artikel finns här:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/

001445does_the_ipccs_main.html

Och här:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3116

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3114

 Och här:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003121.html

Artikeln i Nature finns här:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html

May 29, 2008

Does the IPCC’s Main Conclusion Need to be Revisited?

Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | Science + Politics | Scientific Assessments

Yesterday Nature published a paper by Thompson et al. which argues that a change in the observational techniques for taking the temperatures of the oceans led to a cold bias in temperatures beginning in the 1940s. The need for the adjustment raises an interesting, and certainly sensitive, question related to the sociology and politics of science: Does the IPCC’s main conclusion need to be revisited?

The Nature paper states of the effects of the bias on temperature measurements:

The adjustments immediately after 1945 are expected to be as large as those made to the pre-war data (.0.3 C; Fig. 4), and smaller adjustments are likely to be required in SSTs through at least the mid-1960s.

Thompson et al. do not provide a time series estimate on the effects of the bias on the global temperature record, but Steve McIntyre, who is building an impressive track record of analyses outside the peer-review system, discussed this topic on his weblog long before the paper appeared in Nature, and has proposed an adjustment to the temperature record (based on discussions with participants on his blog). Steve’s adjustment is based on assuming:

that 75% of all measurements from 1942-1945 were done by engine inlets, falling back to business as usual 10% in 1946 where it remained until 1970 when we have a measurement point – 90% of measurements in 1970 were still being made by buckets as indicated by the information in Kent et al 2007- and that the 90% phased down to 0 in 2000 linearly.

The effects of McIntyre’s proposed adjustments (on the UKMET global temperature record) are shown in the following figure.

Other adjustments are certainly plausible, and will certainly be proposed and debated in the literature and on blogs (McIntyre discusses possible implications of the adjustments in this post.). But given how much research has been based on the existing global temperature record, it seems likely that many studies will be revisited in light of the Nature paper. In a comment in Nature that accompanies Thompson et al., Forest and Reynolds suggest:

The SST adjustment around 1945 is likely to have far-reaching implications for modelling in this period.

In the figure above, the trend in the unadjusted data (1950-present) is 0.11 Deg C per decade (slightly lower than reported by IPCC AR4, due to the recent downturn), and after the adjustments are applied the trend drops by just about half, to 0.06 Deg C per decade.

And this brings us to the IPCC. In 2007 the IPCC (PDF) concluded that:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations

I interpret ”mid-20th century” to be 1950, and ”most” to be >50%. This means that the 2007 IPCC attributed more than 0.06 Deg per decade of the temperature increase since 1950 to increasing greenhouse gases. But we know now that the trend since 1950 included a spurious factor due to observational discontinuities, which reduces the entire trend to 0.06. So logically, if the proposed adjustment is in the ballpark, it would mean that one of the following statements must be true in order for the IPCC statement to still hold:

A. The entire trend of 0.06 per decade since 1950 should now be attributed to greenhouse gases (the balance of 0.06 per decade)

B. Only >0.03 per decade can be attributed to greenhouse gases (the ”most” from the original statement)

C. The proposed adjustment is wildly off (I’d welcome other suggestions for an adjustment)

D. The IPCC statement needs to be fundamentally recast

So which is it?

PS. To ensure that this blog post is not misinterpreted, note that none of the mitigation or adaptation policies that I have advocated are called into question based on the answer that one gives to the question posed in the title.

Posted on May 29, 2008 08:10 AM

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

(more…)

A consequence of Global Warming Hysteria – Nations Revive Coal Mining!

29 maj, 2008

Är det inte fantastiskt vad Global Warming Hysterikerna lyckas åstadkomma när det gäller miljö förbättringar. Här kommer en intressant artikel ur New York Times som belyser de absurda miljökonsekvenserna av Global Warming Hysterins effekter.

Först så lyckas dessa herrar genom bl.a. handeln med utsläppsrätter driva upp priset på alla råvaror och förnödenheter etc. Och nu när man har ”lyckats” och priserna är på rekordnivåer, så innebär det att det återigen har blivit lönsamt att öppna tidigare nedlagda gamla kolgruvor som inte var konkurrenskraftiga.

Och det leder nu i slutänden till att flera nationer börja bryta kol IGEN! HÄPP!

Så nu har landet som gav oss Kyoto protokollet börjat bryta kol igen! Den du Al Gore och IPCC! Snacka om ”An inconvenient truth”.

Citat:

BIBAI, Japan – These rugged green mountains, once home to one of Asia’s most productive coal regions, are littered with abandoned mines and decaying towns – backwaters of an economy of bullet trains and hybrid cars.

But after decades of seemingly terminal decline, Japan‘s coal country is stirring again. With energy prices reaching record highs – oil settled above $135 a barrel on Thursday – Japan’s high-cost mines are suddenly competitive again, and demand for their coal is booming. Production has jumped to its highest in nearly four decades, creating a sensation rarely felt in these mining communities: hope.

”We are seeing a flicker of light after long darkness,” said Michio Sakurai, the mayor of Bibai, on Japan‘s northernmost island of Hokkaido. ”We never imagined coal would actually make a comeback.”

Soaring commodity prices have had distorting effects across the global economy, driving up food prices and prompting fears of future energy shortages. But they have been an unanticipated boon to the coal producing regions of countries like Japan that had written off coal mining as a relic of the Industrial Revolution.

”For decades, Japanese coal, at $100 or more a ton, was simply too expensive because of high wages and extraction costs. But with global prices now reaching the same heights, Japanese coal is looking more attractive.

The price of power-station coal shipped from Newcastle, Australia, settled at $134 a metric ton for the week ending May 16, from a high of $142 for the week ending Feb. 15. In May 2003, the price was $23.25 a metric ton.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/business/worldbusiness/22mines.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1211451556-fa65WzXWlcEENgANp05%20VQ&oref=slogin

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

(more…)

“Blue Planet in Green Shackles”

29 maj, 2008

Här kommer ett som vanligt mycket intressant tal av Tjeckiens president Václav Klaus. Där han beskriver hotet mot vår demokrati och välstånd från Global Warming Hysterikerna och deras politiska agenda. Talet hölls i samband med att hans bok ”Blue Planet in Green Shackles” nu publicerats i engelsk översättning.

Se även mina inlägg:

From Climate Alarmism to Climate Realism – Václav Klaus anförande på konferensen den 4 mars, Miljöhysterin ett hot mot vår frihet, demokratin, ekonomin och vårt välstånd -2

Några citat:

”My today’s thinking is substantially influenced by the fact that I spent most of my life under the communist regime which ignored and brutally violated human freedom and wanted to command not only the people but also the nature. To command ”wind and rain” is one of the famous slogans I remember since my childhood. This experience taught me that freedom and rational dealing with the environment are indivisible. It formed my relatively very sharp views on the fragility and vulnerability of free society and gave me a special sensitivity to all kinds of factors which may endanger it.

I do not, however, live in the past and do not see the future threats to free society coming from the old and old-fashioned communist ideology. The name of the new danger will undoubtedly be different, but its substance will be very similar. There will be the same attractive, to a great extent pathetic and at first sight quasi-noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of something above him, (of something greater than his poor self), supplemented by enormous self-confidence on the side of those who stand behind it. Like their predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past it was in the name of the masses (or of the Proletariat), this time in the name of the Planet. Structurally, it is very similar.

I see the current danger in environmentalism and especially in its strongest version, climate alarmism.”

”Climate Change Debate in a wider and the only relevant sense should be neither about several tenths of a degree of Fahrenheit or Celsius, about the up or down movements of sea level, about the depths of ice at North and Southern Pole, nor about the variations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The real debate should be about costs and benefits of alternative human actions, about how to rationally deal with the unknown future, about what kind and size of solidarity with much wealthier future generations is justified, about the size of externalities and their eventual appropriate ”internalization”, about how much to trust the impersonal functioning of the markets in solving any human problem, including global warming and how much to distrust the very visible hand of very human politicians and their bureaucrats.”

”My deep frustration has been exponentially growing in recent years by witnessing the fact that almost everything has already been said, that all rational arguments have been used and that global warming alarmism is still marching on. It could be even true that ”We are now at the stage where mere facts, reason, and truth are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda” (R. McKittrick, private correspondence).

 We are regretfully behind it. The whole process is already in the hands of those who are not interested in rational ideas and arguments. It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only because a large number of academic careers has evolved around the idea of man-made global warming. It is, further, in the hands of politicians who maximize the number of votes they seek to get from the electorate. It is also – as a consequence of political decisions – in the hands of bureaucrats of national and more often of international institutions who try to maximize their budgets and years of careers as well regardless the costs, truth and rationality. It is in the hands of rent-seeking businesspeople who are – given the existing policies – interested in the amount of subsidies they are receiving and look for all possible ways to escape the for them often merciless, but for the rest of us very positive, general welfare enhancing functioning of free markets. An entire industry has developed around the funds the firms are getting from the government.”

 Talet finns här:

http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=IS0gccWYLKQK

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…)

Emperor’s green clothes : UN’s IPCC preying on people’s ignorance

28 maj, 2008

Här kommer en uppföljare i Tim Balls intressanta artikelserie om Global Warming Hysterin från dagens Canada Free Press (den förra artikeln: The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming)

Som jag har konstaterat så många gånger tidigare i mina inlägg: hela Global Warming Hysterin handlar INTE om vetenskap och fakta UTAN STYRS av en politisk agenda.

Och det här är väldigt svårt för gemene man att förstå tyvärr. Som tror att det hela handlar om arr rädda vår planet när det i själva verket handlar om att reducera vår levnadsstandard till den nivå som vi hade på 1800 talet.

Först då kommer Global Warming Hysterikerna att vara NÅGORLUNDA nöjda!

Och ta hela skojeriet med dessa avgudade klimatmodellerna! Där de INTE ENS KLARAR AV ATT FÖRUTSE ALLA viktiga och stora klimatpåverkande fenomen. OCH DET ÄR SAMMA MODELLER SOM MAN VILL FÅ OSS ATT TRO KAN FÖRUTSÄGA TEMPERATUREN OM 100 år PÅ EN TIONDELSGRAD NÄR!

Det är alltså resultatet av dess av modeller som IPCC, Al Gore et consortes avgudar och som hela Global Warming Hysterin bygger på.  Och där man vill ”offra” större delen av värt ekonomiska välståd på dess altare för att blidka CO2 guden.

Återigen: Global Warming Hysterin är den största vetenskapliga och politiska skandalen ALLA kategorier detta århundrade!

Tim Ball går I den här artikeln igenom den politiska agendan från IPCC et consortes. Hur IPCC styr och manipulerar för att få ”önskat” resultat” Och hur de medvetet utnyttjar vanligt folks okunskap i vetenskapliga frågor:

Se även bl.a. mina tidigare inlägg om IPCC: IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!,  But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!, ‘Grantsmanship’ – The Iron triangle between researchers, government and media That Distorts Global Warming ScienceThe church of green – You have to repent or be forever dammed!The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteriaAssessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time seriesIPCC Review Editors – ”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence” are kept!The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?IPCC and its bias!Peer Review – What it actually means

Och

The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global WarmingGlobal Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalismThey are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything – ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!,  The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate changeClearing out the environmental fogThe Flawed science behind the Kyoto protocol!Scare the wits out of people with Global warming, then make money off their fear.Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayWomen will be returned to the Dark Ages if the eco-fundamentalists end up having their wayA ”Nobel” Folly!Global warming is probably the biggest scientific boondoggle since the days of GalileoGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion?Don’t Freak Out! Climate sense instead of nonsense.

Och

Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate ForecastsTropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate ModelsBasic Greenhouse Equations ”Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New YorkHey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This, The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONSHas the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelledWhy multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric TemperaturesScientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming ”theories” are correct!Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time seriesMera om Klimat modellernas falsariumKlimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%!

Artikeln finns här:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3247

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…)

Mt Kilimanjaro – the snow cover is increasing says Tanzanian minister

27 maj, 2008

Här kommer ett intressant uttalande av Ms Shamsa Mwangunga,The minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, i Tanzania i gårdagens The Citizen (Dar es Salaam).

 

”…says contrary to reports that the ice caps were decreasing owing to effects of global warming, indications were that the snow cover on Africa’s highest mountain were now increasing.

Among the signs of more snow is the decrease in temperatures in areas surrounding the mountain, heavy rainfall this year and increased precipitation and spring water flow on the slopes of the mountain,” she pointed out.”

She said reports that the ice caps at the 5,895 metres high mountain would disappear in the next 20 years were overblown because there were signs that the snow cover had increased in recent years.”

                Mt Kilimanjaro januari 2008

Det här var ju ett av paradnumren (tillsammans med isbjörnarna) i Al Gores Doom and Gloom show ”An inconvenient truth”. Och användes som ett ”avgörande” bevis för Global Warming Hysterikernas tes att CO2 driver temperaturen.

I en undersökning ”The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?” som presenterades i American Scientist, Volume 95, Number 4 (2007) gjord av Philip W. Mote, Georg Kaser (glaciologist, the University of Innsbruck) konstateras följande:

”But the commonly heard-and generally correct-statement that glaciers are disappearing because of warming glosses over the physical processes responsible for their disappearance. Indeed, warming fails spectacularly to explain the behavior of the glaciers and plateau ice on Africa’s Kilimanjaro massif, just 3 degrees south of the equator, and to a lesser extent other tropical glaciers. The disappearing ice cap of the ”shining mountain,” which gets a starring role in the movie, is not an appropriate poster child for global climate change. Rather, extensive field work on tropical glaciers over the past 20 years by one of us (Kaser) reveals a more nuanced and interesting story. Kilimanjaro, a trio of volcanic cones that penetrate high into the cold upper troposphere, has gained and lost ice through processes that bear only indirect connections, if any, to recent trends in global climate.

The fact that glaciers exist in the tropics at all takes some explaining. Atmospheric temperatures drop about 6.5 degrees Celsius per kilometer of altitude, so the air atop a 5,000-meter mountain can be 32.5 degrees colder than the air at sea level; thus, even in the tropics, high-mountain temperatures are generally below freezing. The climber ascending such a mountain passes first through lush tropical vegetation that gradually gives way to low shrubs, then grasses and finally a zone that is nearly devoid of vegetation because water is not available in liquid form. Tropical mountaintop temperatures vary only a little from season to season, since the sun is high in the sky at midday throughout the year. With temperatures this low, snow accumulates in ice layers and glaciers on Kilimanjaro, Mount Kenya and the Rwenzori range in East Africa, on Irian Jaya in Indonesia and especially in the Andean cordillera in South America, where 99.7 percent of the ice in tropical glaciers is found.”

”But Mote and Kaser say that the Kilimanjaro glaciers are not melting but sublimating-turning straight to vapor-under the direct action of solar radiation at temperatures that remain below freezing. Whatever is happening elsewhere, Kilimanjaro’s ice seems not to be succumbing to climate change.”

Figure 3. Kilimanjaro’s location in a dry and cold tropical climate zone changes its mass- balance equation. In the tropics glaciers do not move between winter and summer, snowfall and melting; temperatures vary more from morning to afternoon than from season to season. The ice cap on Kilimanjaro consists of ice on the 5,700-meter-high flat summit, some with vertical edges, and several slope glaciers, mostly at altitudes where temperatures stay well below freezing and the major source of energy is solar radiation. Considerable infrared radiation is emitted from the glacier surface into the surrounding air, and the glaciers lose the most mass through sublimation-the direct conversion of ice to water vapor. Observers have seen only a trickle of meltwater.

Och så här sa den engelske domaren om Al Gores film:

”A controversial documentary on climate change which has been sent to thousands of schools has been criticised by a High Court judge for being ‘alarmist’ and ‘exaggerated’.

Mr Justice Burton said former US vice-president Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, was ‘one-sided’ and would breach education rules unless accompanied by a warning.

Despite winning lavish praise from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry, Mr Gore’s documentary was found to contain ‘nine scientific errors’ by the judge.

The judge then set out nine errors in the film which went against current mainstream scientific consensus:

Error 5: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro due to global warming. Judge: It cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributed to human-induced climate change.”

Och så här sa reportern i New York Times i ett reportage där de besteg Kilimanjaro från den 21 januari 2008:

”I had wanted to climb to the roof of Africa before climate change erased its ice fields and the romance of its iconic ”Snows of Kilimanjaro” image. But as we trudged across the 12,000-foot Shira plateau on Day 2 of our weeklong climb and gazed at the whiteness of the vast, humpbacked summit, I thought maybe I needn’t have worried.

An up-and-down-and-up traverse of the south face of Kibo, the tallest of the mountain’s three volcanic peaks, showed us a panorama of the summit ice cap and fractured tentacles of glacial ice that dangled down gullies dividing the vertical rock faces. And four days later, when we reached 19,340-foot Uhuru, the highest point on Kibo, we beheld snow and ice fields so enormous as to resemble the Arctic.

It looked nothing like the photographs of Kibo nearly denuded of ice and snow in the Al Gore documentary ”An Inconvenient Truth.” Nor did it seem to jibe with the film’s narrative: ”Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.”

”Patchy snow covered the upper slopes above approximately 18,500 feet. At dawn, as we reached Stella Point at the lower lip of Kibo’s summit crater, the fluted walls of the flat-topped Rebmann Glacier stretched out to our left.

Snow blanketed the summit area, a mile and a half wide and hemmed by glaciers. Uhuru, the highest point in all Africa, was a 45-minute slog ahead.”

Se även mina inlägg: You have to be the” right” sort of native if Global Warming Hysterics will care about you and your habitat!, The Bush administration caved in – Polar Bear Is Declared a Threatened Species!, Kanada nedgraderar ”hotet” mot isbjörnarna! Or More Polar Bear Baloney, Mera isbjörnar! Och fler och fler blir dom., ”The report of our extinction was an exaggeration.”, Dessa Isbjörnar igen!,

Artikeln finns här:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200805260817.html

Studien finns här

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55553

Foton finns här:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008133.html

Artikel och foto finns här

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/21/travel/explorer.php

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

(more…)

Billions wasted on UN climate carbon offsetting programme

26 maj, 2008

Här kommer ytterligare en av den långa raden av avslöjanden om vilket gigantiskt skojeri hela handeln med utsläppsrätter är. Och som jag har skrivit om många gånger tidigare. Den här artikeln är från dagens The Guardian

Det är alltså detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system med handel på utsläppsrätter som främjar fusk i stor skala, och som är en öppen inbjudan till manipulation och förfalskning, som Global Warming Hysterikerna vill tvinga på världen.

Se även mina inlägg: GREEN CORRUPTION: UNITED NATIONS CARBON CREDIT SCHEME ACCUSED OF FRAUD,  Russia will not sell it’s emission rightsWhy the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjustGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!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!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  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,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/26/climatechange.greenpolitics

Billions wasted on UN climate programme

Energy firms routinely abusing carbon offset fund, US studies claim

John Vidal, environment editor The Guardian, Monday May 26 2008

Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN’s carbon offsetting programme.

Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN’s main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.

The criticism centres on the UN’s clean development mechanism (CDM), an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations.

Credits from the project are being bought by European companies and governments who are unable to meet their carbon reduction targets.

The market for CDM credits is growing fast. At present it is worth nearly $20bn a year, but this is expected to grow to over $100bn within four years. More than 1,000 projects have so far been approved, and 2,000 more are making their way through the process.

A working paper from two senior Stanford University academics examined more than 3,000 projects applying for or already granted up to $10bn of credits from the UN’s CDM funds over the next four years, and concluded that the majority should not be considered for assistance. ”They would be built anyway,” says David Victor, law professor at the Californian university. ”It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts.”

Governments consider that CDM is vital to reducing global emissions under the terms of the Kyoto treaty. To earn credits under the mechanism, emission reductions must be in addition to those that would have taken place without the project. But critics argue this ”additionality” is impossible to prove and open to abuse. The Stanford paper, by Victor and his colleague Michael Wara, found that nearly every new hydro, wind and natural gas-fired plant expected to be built in China in the next four years is applying for CDM credits, even though it is Chinese policy to encourage these industries.

”Traders are finding ways of gaining credits that they would never have had before. You will never know accurately, but rich countries are clearly overpaying by a massive amount,” said Victor.

A separate study published this week by US watchdog group International Rivers argues that nearly three quarters of all registered CDM projects were complete at the time of approval, suggesting that CDM money was not needed to finance them.

”It would seem clear that a project that is already built cannot need extra income in order to be built,” said Patrick McCully, director of the thinktank in California. ”Judging additionality has turned out to be unknowable and unworkable. It can never be proved definitively that if a developer or factory owner did not get offset income they would not build their project.”

Yesterday a spokesman for the CDM in Bonn said the fund was significantly cutting emissions and providing incentives for companies to employ clean technologies: ”There is a responsible level of scrutiny. The process is in continual reform. All the projects are vetted independently and are then certified by third parties. There are many checks and balances and we can show how all projects are vetted.”

The UK government last night defended the CDM. ”We completely reject any assertions that [it] is fundamentally flawed,” a spokeswoman said. ”We’ve worked consistently for and seen improvement in CDM processes over the past few years of its operation. We believe the CDM is essentially transparent and robust, though we will continue to press for the environmental integrity of projects.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

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

The dangers of adopting an apocalyptic mindset when addressing the issue of climate change

26 maj, 2008

Som ytterligare ett komplement till mina senaste inlägg: ”Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion”Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism,  They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything – ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!,  The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change, 

Kommer här en artikel i dagens (26/5) The Daily Star av Robert Skidelsky, (a member of the British House of Lords, is a professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University, the author of a prize-winning biography of the economist John Maynard Keynes, and a board member of the Moscow School of Political  Studies.)

Några citat:

”Misreporting of science is now so routine that we hardly notice it. Much more serious is when science itself becomes infected by the apocalyptic spirit. Faith-based science seems a contradiction in terms, because the scientific worldview emerged as a challenge to religious superstition. But important scientific beliefs can now be said to be held religiously, rather than scientifically.”

”This is the second doomsday scenario of recent decades, the first being the Club of Rome’s prediction in 1972 that the world would soon run out of natural resources. Both are ”scientific,” but their structure is the same as that of the biblical story of the Flood: human wickedness (in today’s case, unbridled materialism) triggers the disastrous sequence, which it may already be too late to avert. Like biblical prophecy, scientific doomsday stories seem impervious to refutation and are constantly repackaged to feed the hunger for catastrophe.

Scientists argue that the media and politicians are responsible for exaggerating their findings as promises of salvation or warnings of retribution. But scientists themselves are partly responsible, because they have hardened uncertainties into probabilities, treated disputable propositions as matters of fact, and attacked dissent as heresy.

Scientists are notoriously loath to jettison conclusions reached by approved scientific methods, however faulty. But their intolerance of dissent is hugely magnified when they see themselves as captains in the salvationist army, dedicated to purging the world of evil habits.”

”The danger is that we become so infected with the apocalyptic virus that we end up creating a real catastrophe – the meltdown of our economies and lifestyles – in order to avoid an imaginary one. In short, while a religious attitude of mind deserves the highest respect, we should resist the re-conquest by religion of matters that should be the concern of science.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=92407

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…)

“Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion” – 2

25 maj, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg ”Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion” kommer här ett mycket talande exempel på hur Global Warming Hysterikerna går till väga.

En av de böcker som Freeman Dyson recenserade var A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies, by William Nordhaus. Men i sedvanlig still i stället för att bemöta Nordhaus (en ledande ekonom) argument SÅ ATTACKERAR MAN Freeman Dyson för att han över huvudtaget nämner de och resonerar kring de argument som Nordhaus framför.

Visst är det en skön samling dessa Global Waming Talibaner!  Och är det inte skönt att ”debatten är över” och ” att det finns inget att diskutera” samt att ”det är omoraliskt att ens tänka tanken.

Ja menar hur skulle det gå om vetenskapsmän fick redovisa sina resultat UTAN att det har godkänts av överste prästen IPCC/Al Gore. Och hemska tanke att vanligt folk fick säga och skriva vad de ville.

För då skulle de ju kunna avslöja detta det största vetenskapliga och politiska skandalen i modern tid – ALLA KATEGORIER!

Historien finns här:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001442a_familiar_pattern_i.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>

“Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion”

25 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant bok recension om Global Warming i vänsterliberala The New York Review of Books 12 juni nummer. Där recensenten Freeman Dyson på slutet konstaterar följande:

”All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.

Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists-most of whom are not scientists-holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.”

Som jag har konstaterat så många gånger tidigare i mina inlägg: hela Global Warming Hysterin handlar INTE om vetenskap och fakta UTAN STYRS av en politisk agenda.

Och det här är väldigt svårt för gemene man att förstå tyvärr. Som tror att det hela handlar om arr rädda vår planet när det i själva verket handlar om att reducera vår levnadsstandard till den nivå som vi hade på 1800 talet.

Först då kommer Global Warming Hysterikerna att vara NÅGORLUNDA nöjda! Dvs. den nivå när nästan en fjärdedel av det svenska folket emigrerade till USA för att undkomma fattigdom, religiöst och politiskt förtryck samt godsherrarna.

Kort sagt så ville man BLI FRI från allt det elände som man dagligdags tvingads genomlida. Det är den nivån på ”levnadsstandard” som nu Global Warming Hysterikerna nu vill tvinga på resten av jorden.

Och lägg märke till att dessa personer couldn’t care less inför verkliga problem som vi har här och nu. Och där verkliga människor dör här och nu. Och som går att lösa HÄR och nu för en spottstyver av de gigantiska summor som förslösas på dessa nonsensåtgärder som handeln med utsläppsrätter.

Nix Pix. Helt ointressant för dessa Global Warming talibaner som är helt inriktade på att ”lösa” ett problem som klimat modellerna säger KANSKE inträffar om 100 år. Och på detta ”värdiga” mål så är man beredd att offra vårl välstånd och ekonomiska utveckling samt spendera biljontals och åter biljontals kr (1 000 000 000 000).

27 kr/l för bensin som föreslogs här i veckan är BARA BÖRJAN på ALLA skattehöjningar, avgifter etc. som kommer att införas i den heliga Global Warming Hysterins namn.

Som sagt, man kommer INTE att nöja sig förens vi är tillbaka på den eco friendly nivå som vi hade i början av 1800 talet.

Se även mina inlägg: The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global WarmingGlobal Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalismThey are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything – ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!,  The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate changeClearing out the environmental fogThe Flawed science behind the Kyoto protocol!Scare the wits out of people with Global warming, then make money off their fear.Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayWomen will be returned to the Dark Ages if the eco-fundamentalists end up having their wayA ”Nobel” Folly!Global warming is probably the biggest scientific boondoggle since the days of GalileoGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion?Don’t Freak Out! Climate sense instead of nonsense.

Recension finns här

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494

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>

 

The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming

23 maj, 2008

Här kommer en uppföljare i Tim Balls intressanta artikelserie om Global Warming Hysterin från igår. Och om hur den styrs av en politisk agenda (som jag har konstaterat flera gånger om i mina inlägg). Samt ”The Hockey Stick” skandalen.:

Artikeln finns här:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151

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

(more…)

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

23 maj, 2008

And when you are at it – the rest of the World too.

This is happening HERE AND NOW. People are being burnt alive and hacked to pieces. Gruesome? You bet! Horrible – yes. But desperate people do sometimes do desperate things.

        Picture from the South African newspapper Beeld

 

Do you think the Nobel Price winners IPCC, Al Gore and the rest of the Global Warming Hysterics pack care?   Nah…they are very busy spending trillions upon trillions of dollars of your tax money on something much, much more important than saving lives here and now.

Namely, they are ”fighting” something that MIGHT HAPPEN (IF the climate models are right – which they are not, se my previous posts) IN 100 years – a temperature rise of 2-4 F.

Wow! That’s a worthy goal isn’t. I mean how cares about people killing themselves, dying of starvation or some ”obscure” disease that take tens of thousand of lives a year here and now. And you don’t need computer models to figure that out either – you just have to go out on the streets.

There’s to much population anyway – they are actually saying that. When you instead can ”fight” the great enemy CO2 lurking in a distant future.

All of this is led by the holly church of IPCC and it’s chief priest (and saint) Al Gore. Who is constantly spreading the message of near Gloom and Doom if we do not obey him and his church. And if you question this superstition you are immediately excommunicated and shunned.

And ALL the politicians and news media are worshiping and prostrating before their altar of carbon trading. Obediently following every whim and decree from the high church.

The problem is that the priesthood of Global Warming Hysterics are not exactly living as they preach. On the contrary – they live a very luxurious life and DO ALL THE THINGS that they preach and say the common man should not do.

Seems like fair and righteous deal doesn’t it? We do ALL the hard work and ALL the sacrifices and they take ALL our money.

At the same time as they are spending enormous sums of your tax money on their VERY important (except for themselves) nonsense mission. They do not forget to tell you ALL the time what a great burden they have so we should understand how REALLY important these people are. And what an important function THEY play in saving the planet. And how grateful we the people should be for that.

And that they can not be disturbed fulfilling this important mission by such trivial matters as people dying of starvation or curable diseases and civil wars etc.

But this is not a problem (that they are not living as they preach ) since news papers and TV are very obedient and loyally preach the message and sings the Gospel. And has since long forgotten what it meant to be a journalist. Or a politician in service of the public.

This my friends is the sad state of the ”civilized” world today. If you didn’t know otherwise you would think this is some scene from medieval times with it’s pagan rituals and worship. And with the letters of indulgence (carbon credits) paying for our carbon sins and repenting to Kyoto.

And I hold all politicians and so called scientists and so called journalists accountable for this sorry state of affairs because they took ACTIVE part in it and promoted it. And they did ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO STOPP this madness for all these years.

 

This is the dream world according to IPCC, Al Gore and all Global Warming Hysterics:

      Girl on here way to school the carbon friendly way

            Mass transit a la IPCC and Al Gore

  Eco friendly housing in the IPCC/Al Gore future world

We in the industrialized world would be reduced to subservient living. And the developing world efforts to give it’s citizens a decent living standard would be stopped in it’s tracks and they would be reduced to mass poverty.

Lo and behold isn’t that a worthy goal!. You toil and work hard to reduce your own AND everybody else’s living standard. Yeah that’s a motivator all right!

See the picture before you – mom and dad is proudly telling their children that they are working VERY, VERY HARD to REDUCE their own living standard, their children’s and the grandchildren’s.

We would be the first generation IN HISTORY who on purpose and willingly reduce our economic, social and living standard. AND FORCE the rest of the world to do the same regardless of WHAT THEY WANT!

This global mass madness is led by politicians, newspapers/TV and so called scientists. Because they are blindly following some computer models that cannot predict even the weather two weeks from now! Or accurately simulate how the weather was two weeks ago!

All in the name of reducing the increase of global temperature 2-4 F in 100 years.

And this is the same Earth how have survived drastic shifts (often in very short time spans) in climate and weather through is long history.

On a DAILY basis the temperature can easily vary 80 F in the same location. And the difference between the warmest and coldest spot on earth THE SAME DAY can vary 220 F (Vostok and Death Valley averages). And this we have survived (and worse) without problems for centuries.

And the difference between the record coldest -129 F (the Vostok Station in Antarctica on July 21, 1983) and the record warmest 136 F (El Azizia, Libya on Sept. 13, 1922) is a whopping 265 F!

Or take the state of Montana where the difference between the record warmest and coldest is an impressive 187 F. And the people of Montana are still there and thriving.

And somehow the earth managed to survive that. But a minuscule predicted increase of 2-4 F in 100 years is supposed to mean total disaster for our civilization! And such a catastrophe that the politicians and scientist are going to sacrifice all of our wealth and living standards.

Isn’t it fantastic how suddenly the human race have become very, very fragile. We can somehow survive an 80 F variation in temperature during one day. But a predicted 2-4 F increase in 100 years we cannot handle according to the Global Warming Hysterics.

To give you just one example of how absurd this whole Global Warming Hysteria is:

Here in Stockholm the temperature recently DROPPED 38 F in a matter of 10-11 hours (Yeah that’s right! It dropped 10 -18 times more in 10 hours than the predicted rise in 100 years). But there was NO emergency meeting of the cabinet or extra session of the parliament or huge headlines in the news papers to ”deal” with this ”emergency”. Why?

Because nothing happened. Every one, including the cabinet, parliament and news media, went about their lives as normal as nothing had happened. It was colder of course but that’s about it.

Isn’t it strange that a drop in temperature 10 -18 times stronger in 10 hours than the predicted rise in temperature in 100 years, and no one reacts because it’s considered ”normal” weather and demands no action ? And yet the same governments get hysteric about the PREDICTED 2-4 F rise in 100 years by the computer models?

And they are willing to sacrifice our wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to ”fight” this predicted rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.

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

So in the words of  Professor Emeritus WJR Alexander, University of Pretoria, South Africa

               OUT OF AFRICA

The IPCC recommendations will destroy our continent.

Global warming fallacies:

Rainfall is NOT decreasing.

River flow is NOT decreasing.

Tropical cyclones (hurricanes) are NOT increasing.

Floods are NOT increasing.

Droughts are NOT increasing.

Desertification is NOT increasing.

Plant and animal species are NOT under threat.

The priority of African nations is the welfare of their citizens.

African nations are suspicious of the motives of the industrialised nations of

Europe.

Africa wants trade not aid.

Se also my posts to name but a few: They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything – ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!,  The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate changeClearing out the environmental fogThe Flawed science behind the Kyoto protocol!Scare the wits out of people with Global warming, then make money off their fear.Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayWomen will be returned to the Dark Ages if the eco-fundamentalists end up having their wayA ”Nobel” Folly!Global warming is probably the biggest scientific boondoggle since the days of GalileoGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion?Don’t Freak Out! Climate sense instead of nonsense.

His memo can be found here. http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/wjra.memo1608.pdf

Some more quotes from Professor Alexander:

”I have no idea what the impact will be on international recipients. How can I persuade you that these real-life situations should receive more recognition than papers published in Nature or in the peer-reviewed literature? Which should interest readers most – polar bears in the Arctic or people being set alight in the streets of our cities?

There is a connection. Pressure is being exerted on the developing nations to undertake costly measures that will not only be fruitless but will endanger the alleviation of poverty that is the root cause of the disturbances. Memo 16/08″

”The developed nations of the world are failing to put their money (i.e. their taxpayers’ money) where their mouth is. With the world slowly sinking into a recession (nobody has called it a depression — yet!) there is simply no way that the taxpayers of the developed countries will be persuaded to donate their hard earned cash for some suffering communities in Africa, on the scale required for poverty alleviation. Copenhagen will fail for the same reason that Kyoto failed.

The developing nations, including South Africa, should start looking after their own interests. In particular, we should ignore the small band of intellectually challenged malcontents in South Africa, who are trying to persuade us to ”save the environment” by reducing those pesky greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power stations, heavy industries, motor vehicles and air transport. Fortunately, their attempts have become more amusing than serious.

The local climate alarmists are struggling to produce something new that will result in newspaper headlines. They dare not mention that the world stopped warming in 1998. If they did, even the dumbest readers will ask how the alarmists can claim that climate change is already causing environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity, while the climate remained stable for the past ten years. The international earth science conference held in Cape Town last week on this subject was only mentioned in one of the Sunday papers.”

”We are all getting tired of those unverifiable computer-generated predictions based on suspect science. Are we really expected to believe this nonsense? Would these alarmists dare to address a meeting in Soweto or Mamelodi? Why not?”

All that I wish to say now is that this whole climate alarmism is a madness that we could all do well without. We can then get on with solving the real humanitarian issues of this country, and not be sidelined by all this environmentalist nonsense that is permeating our government departments and research institutions.”

”I have personal knowledge and experience of this in South Africa and neighbouring countries. I have produced commissioned reports. Most of them were confidential. Others had a requirement that I destroy all material used in the reports. What I can say with complete confidence is that the only way to prevent this drift to the cities is to keep the people on the land both directly for agriculture and indirectly by the establishment of rural mining and other industries. This in turn will require the abolishment of legislation that elevates environmental concerns above human welfare concerns. Read again the last paragraph of the Sunday Times article quoted above. The ONLY long-term solution is poverty reduction.”

”Finally, please refer to the attached copy of the circular that my colleagues and I distributed illegally at the UNFCCC conference in Bali last December. The third photograph is one that I took in Alexandra. The other two were taken by my son in northern Namibia. We were not welcome at the conference. Humanitarian concerns do not feature in the United Nations Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen agreement that is intended to replace it. The lives and livelihood of tens of millions of starving people on the African continent are at stake. Who cares? Certainly not the environmental extremists and the scientists who fail to express humanitarian concerns.”

Where are those vociferous scientists who churned out newspaper headlines pleading for our suffering biodiversity now? They should be hanging their heads in shame.

Is it wishful thinking to believe that South Africans in the natural sciences will abandon their lucrative positions on climate change and organise a conference that specifically addresses the huge humanitarian crisis that is more likely to grow than subside unless calm heads get together to seek urgent solutions?

What about the looming drought? During the past two months I pleaded that my research predictions be evaluated by an independent body. My request was met by total silence. Or was it indifference?

These events are sure to trigger another wave of emigration. Who can blame them when there are no attempts to rectify the situation, and our scientists have their heads in the clouds figuratively as well as literally? I know that I have a lot of support in South Africa and internationally. It is now up to others to start taking action.

 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>

GREEN CORRUPTION: UNITED NATIONS CARBON CREDIT SCHEME ACCUSED OF FRAUD

22 maj, 2008

Fler och fler börjar få upp ögonen för detta gigantiska skojeri och bondfångeri som kallas handel med utsläppsrätter. Här kommer en artikel i gårdagens The Guardian om korruption i det FN organ som skall sköta och övervaka denna handel.

Som jag sagt tidigare:

Det är alltså detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system med handel på utsläppsrätter som främjar fusk i stor skala, och som är en öppen inbjudan till manipulation och förfalskning, 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! Ett rent dröm scenario för alla skojare – både köparen och säljaren vinner på att fuska! Och politikerna får in massor med skatter och avgifter!

Undra på ATT SÅ MÅNGA ÄLSKAR detta århundradets största bondfångeri ALLA KATEGORIER! Och som icing on the cake: systemet göt inte ett smack för miljön heller!

”Det är enkelt att lova Guld och Gröna Skogar NÄR NÅGON ANNAN FÅR BETALA. Och att göra ”stolta” deklarationer på toppmöten. Nu har de 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 ett av dessa rituella 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!

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.

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!”

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?

Så kan Reinfeldt vara vänlig att släcka lampan när han går – det finns inga kvar!

Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Russia will not sell it’s emission rightsWhy the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjustGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!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!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  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,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/21/

environment.carbontrading/print

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

(more…)

IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!

21 maj, 2008

”Most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.”

Här kommer en utmärkt artikel av Melanie Phillips i gårdagens Spectator. Där hon går igenom varför hela Global Warming Hysterin nu har börjat rämna och hur folk börjar få upp ögonen för detta charlataneri

Som jag sa i mitt inlägg But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!:

Som drabbats av eftertankens kranka blekhet och insett att tåget har vänt – Global Warming Hysterikerna står ertappade med byxorna nere. Alla deras tjusiga modeller och förutsägelser faller platt till marken inför verkligheten.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/719126/brr-the-climate-cools-for-realitydeniers.thtml

Brr! The climate cools for reality-deniers

Tuesday, 20th May 2008

I have previously written about the work of Lawrence Solomon for Canada’s National Post. He has been regularly charting in his column the ever-increasing number of climate scientists around the world who have been either crying foul about the man-made global warming scam or, having initially signed up to it, have been having second thoughts about it. This was a journey of discovery for him, to put it mildly; he had previously been inclined to believe the claims that ‘deniers’ were oil industry stooges, since he himself had worked for an anti-nuclear energy group and so was duly cynical about the way that industry’s scientists could twist the truth to suit their paymasters. But then to his astonishment he discovered that, when it came to MMGW, the scientists who were corrupt weren’t pushing the boat out for big business but for its holier-than-thou green challengers.

Now he has written a book, provocatively entitled The Deniers, in which he shows that not only is the fabled climate change ‘consensus’ itself a sham but the so-called MMGW ‘deniers’ are by far the more accomplished and distinguished scientists than those pushing the theory as a settled and incontrovertible truth. A number of them indeed, are so eminent they were used as experts by the IPCC – but then came to realise that this was an innately corrupted process and that even some of their own work was being abused and distorted in order to promulgate the false doctrine of MMGW. 

Among those he cites are Dr Edward Wegman, chairman of the National Academy of Science’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and the granddaddy of statisticians, who administered the definitive coup de grace to the ‘hockey stick curve’ research that underpinned the whole IPCC doomsday prognosis by showing that its author Dr Michael Mann (an impressive authority in his own field of paleoclimatology) had made a catastrophic statistical error (and had thus managed to ‘lose’ several hundred years of climate history including the Little Ice Age) which vitiated his entire study; Dr Richard Tol, an author with all three IPCC working groups and who called the Stern review of the economics of climate change ‘preposterous’; Dr Christopher Landsea, a former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones and another IPCC author, who discovered that the IPCC was telling lies about the relationship between climate change and hurricanes; Dr Duncan Wingham, Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who revealed that Antarctic ice was expanding, not contracting; Dr Robert Carter, former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University Queensland, who says science was never about ‘consensus’ and that there are many sides to the climate change debate; Dr Richard Lindzen, a much garlanded professor of meteorology at MIT and another IPCC author, who says that the IPCC’s politicised summary of its defining 2001 report created the false impression that climate models were reliable when the report itself  indicated precisely the opposite, with numerous problems with the models including those arising from the effects of clouds and water vapour; Dr Vincent Gray, a participant in the IPCC science reviews who has described the IPCC process as a ‘swindle’; Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, founding director of the International Arctic Research Centre of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who says the world’s temperature has shown a linear progression since the 17th century and that 20th century warming was nothing to do with carbon dioxide but the planet’s emergence from the Little Ice Age; Zbigniew Jaworowski, former chairman of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, who says the IPCC’s ice-core research is wrong and that therefore it has

based its global warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false;

David Bromwich, head of the Polar Meteorology Group of the Byrd Polar Research Centre, who says :

It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now;

Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, who says climate change computer models are profoundly flawed and that

blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate ‘realistic’ simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate sceptic… There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies;

Dr Antonino Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, who says the IPCC models are

incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view;

and Dr Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and another IPCC reviewer, who says

most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible

and that climate change scientists have launched

a search for a mythical CO2  sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil-fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction’.

Ouch.

And now this nonsense is beginning to exact a political price as the public – who have a talent for sniffing out bogus assertions even when (or perhaps because) the entire nomenklatura is pumping out propaganda and smearing any dissidents – begin to exact their revenge on the politicians who have gone along with it. Philip Stott notes on his blog that Labour is about to be greenwhacked in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election:

In attempting to appear ‘Green’, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, and Mr. Brown are having to defend the indefensible, a retrogressive, retrospective tax change which will especially hit poorer members of society and less well-off families, with no environmental benefits.

While Richard Rahn in the Washington Times observes:

What do you think was the most costly intelligence failure of all time? No, was is not the world’s leading intelligence agencies’ failure to notice that Saddam had few, if any, weapons of mass destruction. It was the failure of many leading climate model builders to be modest enough about their predictions, and the politicians’ and media’s failure to ask the tough questions of these climate experts. As a consequence of what we now know was an overblown global-warming scare, everyone on the planet is paying substantially more for food and fuel than is necessary.

Meanwhile, the carbon really has hit the fan with the highly inconvenient truth that global temperatures are not only currently static but are predicted not to rise at all for the next decade. Andrew Bolt links to a debate on the Politics and Environment blog between climate change believers who are trying to reconcile the IPCC predictions with reality. Officially, the greens are claiming that the prediction that rising CO2 inevitably meant rising temperatures always allowed for, er, pauses. Of a decade. But in the P&E debate, there is the distant clang of a spade being called a spade:

The IPCC projections remain falsified.  

Where now is that fabled ‘consensus’ when it is urgently needed to defend all those reputations which depend upon it?

You’d have to have a heart of Antarctic ice not to laugh.

Copyright ©2007 by The Spectator (1828) Ltd. All Rights Reserved

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

The Real intelligence failures and the ”integrity” failure of Global Warming Hysterics

21 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel av Richard W. Rahn från dagens Washington Times.

Citat:

”What do you think was the most costly intelligence failure of all time? No, was is not the world’s leading intelligence agencies’ failure to notice that Saddam had few, if any, weapons of mass destruction. It was the failure of many leading climate model builders to be modest enough about their predictions, and the politicians’ and media’s failure to ask the tough questions of these climate experts.

As a consequence of what we now know was an overblown global-warming scare, everyone on the planet is paying substantially more for food and fuel than is necessary.

Despite the prediction of all the major climate models, the Earth has been getting cooler since 1998. At first, it was not considered a big deal because temperatures fluctuate from year to year. However, the drop has now been going for a decade, with another big drop last year.

The global warming zealots have just been handed another rude shock, when the peer-reviewed journal, Nature, reported on May 1 that according to a new (and hopefully improved) climate model, global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade.

Climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global-warming policy.”

”You may wonder – if the data from the last decade show the Earth is not getting warmer, and the climate models have been making incorrect predictions – why are so many in the political and media classes continuing to shout about the dangers of global warming and insisting the ”science” is settled when the opposite is true. (You may recall that Copernicus and Galileo had certain problems going against the conventional wisdom of their time.)

The reason people like Al Gore and many others are in denial is explained by cognitive dissonance. This occurs when evidence increasingly contradicts a strongly held belief. Rather than accept the new evidence and change their minds, some people will become even more insistent on the ”truth” of the discredited belief, and attack those who present the new evidence – again an ”intelligence” failure.

Finally, many people directly benefit from government funding global warming programs and care more about their own pocketbooks than the plight of the world’s poor who are paying more for food. This is not an ”intelligence” but an ”integrity” failure.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/COMMENTARY/673994116/

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

(more…)

‘Grantsmanship’ – The Iron triangle between researchers, government and media That Distorts Global Warming Science

21 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel av Jerome J. Schmitt i dagens American Thinker. Om hur Global Warming Hysterin sprids i en samverkan mellan journalister, politiker och forskare i en ”järn triangel” som stöder och göder varann i en förödande cirkelgång.

Citat:

”Almost every day another species of plant or animal is ”discovered” to be threatened by global warming. I read a new report concerning moose in Scandinavia that are unexpectedly ”threatened” despite what researchers admit is a growing population.  Penguins are in danger from loss of Antarctic ice even though the Antarctic ice-cap is known to be growing with colder temperatures recorded in the southern hemisphere in recent years according to NASA.

Fortunately for these species — which hitherto managed to survive and thrive on their own for hundreds of thousands or millions of years — intrepid 21st Century researchers have arrived on the scene with Al Gore just in time to ”rescue” them from climate change. How is it possible that such disparate species all around the globe are in such dire straights all at once? 

Perhaps it has less to do with actual species’ population trends and other such noisome facts and more to do with a novel nexus between the news-media and ”grantsmanship” among academic researchers who have hit upon a winning formula: if one ties one’s research project somehow — even via the most tenuous and flimsy grounds — to global warming, one’s grant proposal will have much greater chance to be selected for funding, one’s chances of appearing on 60 Minutes or NPR are greatly increased, and as a consequence of this positive PR for one’s project, university and funding agency, one’s grant is more likely to be renewed. 

In contrast, if one continues to toil on relatively obscure scholarship where actual scientific data is important, trend lines have meaning, and logical debate is allowed, the chances of winning funding for one’s work are greatly reduced.  Scientists have learned therefore that they will be rewarded handsomely by identifying any tangential connection between their favorite studies and ”global warming” alarmism. Like Pavlov’s dog with a PhD.

Scientists are people too and, like anyone, crave a moment in the limelight, with his or her work celebrated in the news-media as being ”relevant”.  Thus a moose expert who has toiled in anonymity for decades will find that if he or she mentions that the moose might be ”threatened” by global warming, he or she is suddenly lionized by the media as another ”expert” chiming in about the dangers of climate change (cf. first link above).  And being an ”expert”, it is difficult for the layman (i.e. your average person who has not toiled for decades studying moose) to refute the assertion no matter how spurious the moose-expert’s ”science”.  We should acknowledge that even moose experts can be taken in by the anthropogenic global-warming hoax.   A plant expert sees the moose expert win enormous attention and acclaim and thus inspired concludes ”suddenly” that his or her favorite plant is somehow also affected by climate change in the hope of drawing similar positive attention — and grant money.  

The media add fuel to the flame of global warming hysteria by dutifully reporting every new species (preferably cuddly photogenic ones) reported by ”experts” to now be threatened, thus allowing them to inexpensively recycle the same clips of glaciers calving icebergs into the ocean  (as glaciers have done for millions of years), and highlighting the alarming ”relevance” of the particular researchers’ conclusions. Meanwhile, the university, the funding agency and congress get to bask in reflected glory (the media covered it so it must be highly relevant!).

It is this newly formed iron triangle (reserachers/government/media) of grantsmanship, knee-jerk media coverage, federal research agency log-rolling and congress’s desire to seem ”relevant” by addressing a ”global crisis” that creates more and more ”discoveries” of species threatened by climate change.  This nexus creates a screeching, noisy feedback loop that is distorting science and corrupting the processes that insure research quality.

We may be doomed, not by global warming, but by this iron triangletriangle’s distortions and fear-mongering that attempt to stampede our fellow citizens into foolhardy policies intended to ”correct” an unfounded ”crisis”. 

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/grantsmanshipand_the_global_wa.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…)

WCCO meteorologist: Global warming ‘extremism’ uses ‘squishy science’

21 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intervju från gårdagens StarTribune med meteorologen Mike Fairbourne om vad han tycker om hela Global Warming Hysterin.

Citat:

”Fairbourne, who joined WCCO in 1977 and has been a meteorologist for 40 years, said that while there is no doubt that ”there has been some warming” of global temperatures in recent years … there is still a pretty big question mark” about how much of that warming is from human activity.

Fairbourne, a University of Utah graduate, said he has talked ”to a number of meteorologists who have similar opinions” as his, adding that he is concerned about ”the extremism that is attached to the global warming.”

He noted that in the 1970s ”we were screaming about global cooling. It makes me nervous when we pin a few warm years on squishy science.”

Asked why there has been so much momentum toward connecting human activity and global warming, Fairbourne said, ”They’re doing it for a lot of reasons; some may be scientific, but most of them are political. We need to be calm and look at scientific evidence and evaluate it.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/19095579.html?location_refer=Commentary

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

(more…)

But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!

21 maj, 2008

Så här utttalar sig Tim Palmer (head of the Predictability and Seasonal Forecast Division of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK). Som drabbats av eftertankens kranka blekhet och insett att tåget har vänt – Global Warming Hysterikerna står ertappade med byxorna nere. Alla deras tjusiga modeller och förutsägelser faller platt till marken inför verkligheten.

Så här säger han i artikeln i New Science (01 May 2008, Magazine issue 2654 )

”Poor forecasting undermines climate debate”

”POLITICIANS seem to think that the science is a done deal,” says Tim Palmer. ”I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.”

Palmer is a leading climate modeller at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK, and he does not doubt that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a good job alerting the world to the problem of global climate change. But he and his fellow climate scientists are acutely aware that the IPCC’s predictions of how the global change will affect local climates are little more than guesswork. They fear that if the IPCC’s predictions turn out to be wrong, it will provoke a crisis in confidence that undermines the whole climate change debate.

On top of this, some climate scientists believe that even the IPCC’s global forecasts leave much to be desired.

Så här lät det för 2 år sedan:

”But crucially, uncertainty is not a reason for inaction. If we pool together the forecasts from the best available climate models of today, these similarly indicate that there is a very high probability of a serious problem – a problem which has already begun to be manifest, and is very likely to become more and more significant as we progress through this century.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19826543.700?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19826543.700

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

There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

20 maj, 2008
Som ett komplement till mitt föregånde inlägg The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic kommer här ytterligare en intressant studie där man matade in verkliga data från havsströmmar och cirkulation i dessa klimatmodeller. And lo and behold! – Resultatet blev ett helt annat än vad vi fått oss itutat de senaste åren!
 
”Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany’s Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.’s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

Of course, Mr. Keenlyside– long a defender of the man-made global warming theory — was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.

Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth’s climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.

Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.

There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.

If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.”

”It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500 scientists who together embrace a ”consensus” that man-made global warming is a ”scientific fact;” and as recently as last year, they didn’t see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can’t weasel out of this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.

This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none of the UN’s computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past ocean current behaviour.”

Intressant eller hur. Nu är det ”plötsligt annat ljud I skällan” när dessa klimatmodeller matas med nya parametrar och data och de kommer ut med helt andra förutsägelser än vad vi nu hört i 8-10 år.

Som Al Gore, IPCC et consortes brukar säga med hög och bestämd röst ”Debatten är över” och ”Det finns inget att diskutera” samt ”Det är omoraliskt att ens tänka tanken”.

HELT PLÖTSLIGT SÅ HAR dessa s.k. vetenskapsmän kommit på att de egentligen menade något helt annat än vad de offentligt sagt i 5-10 år. Där man dessutom har gjort allt för att tysta och trycka ner ALLA kritiker.    Jomen, hum… vi menade faktiskt att de kunde bli uppehåll i temperaturökningen även om vi INTE sa det ELLER skrev det någonstans utan tvärtom istadigt hävdade motsatsen.

Så går det när det råder påtvingad ”consensus”. Alla sjunger med i halleluja kören och trycker ner kritiker så länge det gynnar ens egna positioner och anslag. Om civilkurage, fakta och vetenskap ”körde över” dem så skulle de inte ens veta vad dessa begrepp står för.

Detta är den största politiska och vetenskapliga skandalen ALLA kategorier i modern tid som jag har skrivit många gånger! Men nu börjar marken rämna för dessa charlataner.

Och fallet kommer att bli mycket långt och mycket hårt. Och det är välförtjänt!

Se även mina inlägg:
The church of green – You have to repent or be forever dammed!The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteriaAssessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time seriesIPCC Review Editors – ”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence” are kept!The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?IPCC and its bias!Peer Review – What it actually means

Och
Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views!Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything critically of Global Warming!, Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press -2?Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?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 välståndOmoraliskt 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.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=f6fa4aca-61b4-4824-adb4-78eb8fa9081a

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

20 maj, 2008

Här kommer ytterligare en intressant studie ” The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic” av M. Susan Lozier,1* Susan Leadbetter,2 Richard G. Williams,2* Vassil Roussenov,2 Mark S. C. Reed,1 Nathan J. Moore1 som publicerades i Science Express i januari i år.

Det som är det intressanta är deras konstaterande:

”However, although most climate models show a slight strengthening of the NAO index with anthropogenic forcing, the climate models also underestimate the strength of the recent decadal trend in the NAO, raising doubts as to the viability of the connection between the NAO and anthropogenic forcing in climate models”

Dvs. ytterligare ett bevis på vilken lösan sand dessa klimatmodeller är byggda. I det här fallet så klarar de inte av att simulera ”the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)” och dess verkningar på klimat (och vädret). Ej heller kan de simulera det motsvarende fenomenet i Stilla Havet ”The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)”.

För att inte tala om El Niño and La Niña som dessa modeller HELLER INTE KLARAR AV.

Både NAO och PDO har en mycket stor påverkan på klimatet i hela jorden. Då bägge  kan vara mycket långvariga till skillnad mot El Niño and La Niña som är mera ”kortvariga ” (6-18 månader).

Man mäter fasen och amplituden av NAO och PDO genom ett index Man pratar dessutom om ett positivt och negativt NAO index vilket har helt olika effekter på vädret.

ALLA dessa viktiga och stora klimatpåverkande fenomen klara dessa avgudade modeller INTE AV att förutse. OCH DET ÄR SAMMA MODELLER SOM MAN VILL FÅ OSS ATT TRO KAN FÖRUTSÄGA TEMPERATUREN OM 100 år PÅ EN TIONDELSGRAD NÄR!

Det är alltså resultatet av dess av modeller som IPCC, Al Gore et consortes avgudar och som hela Global Warming Hysterin bygger på.  Och där man vill ”offra” större delen av värt ekonomiska välståd på dess altare för att blidka CO2 guden.

Abstract finns här:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5864/800

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

M. Susan Lozier,1* Susan Leadbetter,2 Richard G. Williams,2* Vassil Roussenov,2 Mark S. C. Reed,1 Nathan J. Moore1 .

The total heat gained by the North Atlantic Ocean over the past 50 years is equivalent to a basinwide increase in the flux of heat across the ocean surface of 0.4 ± 0.05 watts per square meter. We show, however, that this basin has not warmed uniformly: Although the tropics and subtropics have warmed, the subpolar ocean has cooled. These regional differences require local surface heat flux changes (±4 watts per square meter) much larger than the basinwide average. Model investigations show that these regional differences can be explained by large-scale, decadal variability in wind and buoyancy forcing as measured by the North Atlantic Oscillation index. Whether the overall heat gain is due to anthropogenic warming is difficult to confirm because strong natural variability in this ocean basin is potentially masking such input at the present time.

1 Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
2 Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Liverpool University, Liverpool L69 3GP, UK.

Present address: Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA.

Conclusion

”Lastly, the positive trend in the winter NAO index in the 1990s has been attributed to anthropogenic forcing (Hurrell 1995), implying that the NAO could be the route by which anthropogenic warming is imprinted on the ocean. However, although most climate models show a slight strengthening of the NAO index with anthropogenic forcing, the climate models also underestimate the strength of the recent decadal trend in the NAO, raising doubts as to the viability of the connection between the NAO and anthropogenic forcing in climate models (Gillett et al., 2003; Stephenson et al. 2006). Hence, although the change in ocean heat content over the North Atlantic can be connected to the decadal trend in the NAO, it is premature to conclusively attribute these regional patterns of heat gain to greenhouse warming. Continued long-term monitoring of North Atlantic temperatures is needed to answer the question of whether the basin-average warming is reflecting anthropogenic forcing and/or natural variability.

Se även mina inlägg:

Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate ForecastsTropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate ModelsBasic Greenhouse Equations ”Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New YorkHey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This, The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONSHas the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelledWhy multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric TemperaturesScientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming ”theories” are correct!Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time seriesMera om Klimat modellernas falsariumKlimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%!

  

                          Positivt NAO Index

                             Negativt NAO Index

                                      NAO Index

Här är en mycket intressant graf över Met Offices försök att förutsäga NAO  och som vi ser så är felmarginalen emellanåt ganska stor med en standard error på ±1.0

                              PDO Index

                 Varm Fas                                      Kall Fas

 

                                   El Nino och La Nina

 

Grafer finns här:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/NAO/

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/nao_ts.shtml

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

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/nino_normal.html

 

Statistical prediction of the winter NAO (Met Office, UK):

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/seasonal/regional/nao/index.html

 

Artikeln finns här:

http://climatesci.org/2008/05/19/the-spatial-pattern-and-mechanisms-of-heat-content-change-in-the-north-atlantic-by-lozier-et-al/

 

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

 

The church of green – You have to repent or be forever dammed!

20 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel i dagens Los Angels Times av Jonah Goldberg där han tar upp Global Warming Hysterikernas ”religiösa syn” på omvärlden. En mycket träffande beskrivning av denna blandning av fanatism, krav på total lydnad och likgiltighet för vanliga människor.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg20-2008may20,0,5614504,print.column

From the Los Angeles Times

The church of green. A kind of irrational nature worship separates environmentalism from the more fair-minded approach of conservationism.

Jonah Goldberg

May 20, 2008

I admit it: I’m no environmentalist. But I like to think I’m something of a conservationist.

No doubt for millions of Americans this is a distinction without a difference, as the two words are usually used interchangeably. But they’re different things, and the country would be better off if we sharpened the distinctions between both word and concept.

At its core, environmentalism is a kind of nature worship. It’s a holistic ideology, shot through with religious sentiment. ”If you look carefully,” author Michael Crichton famously observed, ”you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.”

Environmentalism’s most renewable resources are fear, guilt and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past. John Muir, who laid the philosophical foundations of modern environmentalism, described humans as ”selfish, conceited creatures.” Salvation comes from shedding our sins, rejecting our addictions (to oil, consumerism, etc.) and demonstrating through deeds an all-encompassing love of Mother Earth. Quoth Al Gore: ”The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

I heard Gore on NPR the other day. He was asked what he made of evangelical pastor Joseph Hagee’s absurd comment that Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath for New Orleans‘ sexual depravity. Naturally, Gore chuckled at such backwardness. But then the Nobel laureate went on to blame Katrina on man’s energy sinfulness. It struck me that the two men were not so different. If only canoodling residents of the Big Easy had adhered to ”The Greenpeace Guide to Environmentally Friendly Sex.”

Environmentalists are keen to insist that their movement is a secular one. But using the word ”secular” no more makes you secular than using the word ”Christian” automatically means you behave like a Christian. Pioneering green lawyer Joseph Sax, for example, describes environmentalists as ”secular prophets, preaching a message of secular salvation.” Gore too has often been dubbed a ”prophet.” It’s no surprise that a green-themed California hotel provides Gore’s ”An Inconvenient Truth” right next to the Bible and a Buddhist tome.

Whether it’s adopted the trappings of religion or not, my biggest beef with environmentalism is how comfortably irrational it is. It touts ritual over reality, symbolism over substance, while claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts.

It often seems that displaying faith in the green cause is more important than advancing the green cause. The U.S. government just put polar bears on the threatened species list because climate change is shrinking the Arctic ice where they live. Never mind that polar bears are in fact thriving — their numbers have quadrupled in the last 50 years. Never mind that full implementation of the Kyoto protocols on greenhouse gases would save exactly one polar bear, according to Danish social scientist Bjorn Lomborg, author of the 2007 book ”Cool It!”

Yet about 300 to 500 polar bears could be saved every year, starting right now, Lomborg says, if there were a ban on hunting them in Canada. What’s cheaper, trillions to trim carbon emissions or paying off the Canadians to stop killing polar bears?

Plastic grocery bags are being banned all over the place, even though they require less energy to make or recycle than paper ones. The whole country is being forced to subscribe to a modern version of transubstantiation, whereby corn is miraculously transformed into sinless energy even as it does worse damage than oil.

Conservation, which shares roots and meaning with conservatism, stands athwart this mass hysteria. Yes, conservationism can have a religious element to it as well, but that element stems from the biblical injunction to be a good steward of the Earth, rather than a worshiper of it. But stewardship involves economics, not mysticism.

Economics is the study of choosing between competing goods. Environmentalists view economics as the enemy because cost-benefit analysis is thoroughly unromantic. Lomborg is a heretic because he treats natural-world challenges like economic ones, seeking to spend money where it will maximize good, not just good feelings among environmentalists.

Many self-described environmentalists are in fact conservationists. But the environmental movement wins battles by blurring this distinction, arguing that all lovers of nature must follow their lead. At the same time, many people open to conservationist arguments, like hunters, are turned off by even reasonable efforts because they do not want to give aid and comfort to ”wackos.”

In the broadest sense, the environmental movement has won. Americans are ”green” in that they are willing to spend a lot to keep their country ecologically healthy, which it is. But now it’s time to save the environment from the environmentalists.

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

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>

‘We Get It’ Green Movement

20 maj, 2008

En blandning av kristna, medborgarrättsrörelser och vetenskapsmän har lanserat en kampanj ”We get it” för att protestera mot Global Warming Hysterikerna. Detta eftersom de gigantiska summor som kommer att förslösas på dessa nonsensåtgärder, tillsammans med hela systemet med handeln med utsläpps rätter (som är ett gigantiskt skojeri), kommer att leda till att de fattiga kommer att bli ännu fattigare.

Och att dessa Global Warming Hysteriker couldn’t care less över de ekonomiska konsekvenserna för vanligt folk av deras åtgärder.

Så sant som det är sagt!

Se även mina inlägg:

Why the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjustGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!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!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  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,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200805/CUL20080516a.html

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

(more…)

Don’t Freak Out! Climate sense instead of nonsense.

20 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant intervju med Björn Lomborg i National Review.

Citat:

”Lomborg: To some, a cap-and-trade system might sound like a neat approach where the market sorts everything out. But in fact, in some ways it is worse than a tax. With a tax, the costs are obvious. With a cap-and-trade system, the costs are hidden and shifted around. For that reason, many politicians tend to like it. But that is dangerous.

It’s misleading not to recognize that the costs of cap-and-trade – financially and in terms of jobs, household consumption, and growth – will be significant. Some big businesses in privileged positions could make a fortune from exploiting this rather rigged market – but their gain is no reason to support the system.

Lopez: Is there anything worthwhile about Kyoto?

Lomborg: Kyoto burned a lot of political capital to create a response to climate change that costs a fortune but achieves very little.

The climate models show that the Kyoto protocol would have postponed the effects of global warming by seven days by the end of the century. Even if the U.S. and Australia had signed on and everyone stuck to Kyoto for this entire century, we would postpone the effects of global warming by only five years – at a cost of $180 billion each year.”

Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Russia will not sell it’s emission rightsWhy the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjustGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!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!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  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,

Intervjun finns här:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MWE1NmYxZTFmMDQxZjE1Mjk5MDgxYTZiYTZmYjg1YTY=

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

(more…)

An Open Letter to the Presidential Candidates on Global Warming

19 maj, 2008

Joe Bastardi, AccuWeathers ”senior meteorologist and long range and extreme weather expert” har sänt ett öppet brev till all president kandidater i USA.

Brevet finns här.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/05/an_open_letter_to_the_presiden_1.html

Dear _______

The nonsense that is the global warming debate can be likened to a Don King production, where the two main antagonists, well deserved ones at that, are still hours away from the main fight. Instead, we have under-cards that leave us simply wondering if we will ever get to the real deal.

I use the fight game because in boxing in past days, guys went right at it. Jake La Motta and Sugar Ray Robinson once fought each other within a few weeks of a fight. There was no dancing and ducking and big mouthing, just the fight against the guys that deserved to be in the ring.

This is exactly how this should be handled. Mr Obama, can the Al Gore as an advisor on the environment. Mr. McCain, quit succumbing to pressure because you want to look nice or moderate. Both of you, get the people that can give this debate its true merit in front of you. Hillary, if you are elected, the same thing (you got to admit, she is showing some Lady Thatcher or Golda Meir spunk these days). But stop with watching people that aren’t the main event.

Within the first 100 days of office, get the top five SCIENTISTS on both sides of the issue in front of you in the oval office and let them argue it out. No cameras, no press, just you, your closest advisors, and the people that are qualified to do this. Have trusted members of both sides of the aisles, but get the politics out of it.

The polar bear situation should push Americans over the edge. The long term population has increased. In addition, the cold this winter may simply be a preview of what is coming. That we are basically going to make it illegal to get oil, from an area that can perhaps help us get off foreign oil, because of yet another problem that may not exist, should be enough to clear the air and reveal that there are a lot of people supporting this position that are not driven by the science, but what may be an almost fanatical madness, and that should resonate with people. Sir or Mam, if you are absolutely convinced, after seeing people who don’t think polar bears are as important as the people you are elected to serve, that argue out the science, then commit the American people on a path that will basically spend their hard-earned money on a problem our chief rivals are probably simply paying lip service too, then I will support you. But if you have doubt, after clearing away the feelings and looking at the facts, then by proceeding you will put yourself in a rush to judgement before the facts are clear that has left many Americans disillusioned about our nation in other matters.

This is not a matter of politics, it is not a matter of feelings. It is a matter of science and facts and educated men squaring off and displaying their knowledge. A non-conclusive answer in this matter is no answer at all, and no mandate to perhaps send us on path that could affect the chance for the very people we should have the most compassion for, to improve their lot.

 Yours very truly,

Joe Bastardi

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

Study says global warming not worsening hurricanes!

18 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant studie  som publicerats idag i Nature Geoscience ” Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-century warming conditions” gjord av Thomas R. Knutson, Joseph J. Sirutis, Stephen T. Garner, Gabriel A. Vecchi & Isaac M. Held.

Där Knutson är en meteorolog vid amerikanska NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s) fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.

Lägg märke till att Knutson TIDIGARE har varit anhängare till teorin om att Global Warming skulle öka antalet orkaner men att nu har ändrat åsikt.

Intressant är också att dessa resultat är fram komna ur de klimatmodeller som IPCC et consortes använder för att skrämma liver ur oss med Global Warming Hysterin.

Se även mitt inlägg: Orkansäsongen är över – 2007 den 3 lägsta sedan 1958!

Några citat:

”Global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday.

In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic.

Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, hurricanes have often been seen as a symbol of global warming’s wrath. Many climate change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them.

Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.”

”Knutson acknowledges weaknesses in his computer model and said it primarily gives a coarse overview, not an accurate picture on individual storms and storm strength. He said the latest model doesn’t produce storms surpassing 112 mph.

But NOAA hurricane meteorologist Chris Landsea, who wasn’t part of this study, praised Knutson’s work as ”very consistent with what’s being said all along.”

I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny,” Landsea said.”

Abstract finns här<.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo202.html

Abstract:

Nature Geoscience

Published online: 18 May 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo202

Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-century warming conditions

Thomas R. Knutson, Joseph J. Sirutis, Stephen T. Garner, Gabriel A. Vecchi & Isaac M. Held

Top of pageIncreasing sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean and measures of Atlantic hurricane activity have been reported to be strongly correlated since at least 1950 (refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), raising concerns that future greenhouse-gas-induced warming6 could lead to pronounced increases in hurricane activity. Models that explicitly simulate hurricanes are needed to study the influence of warming ocean temperatures on Atlantic hurricane activity, complementing empirical approaches. Our regional climate model of the Atlantic basin reproduces the observed rise in hurricane counts between 1980 and 2006, along with much of the interannual variability, when forced with observed sea surface temperatures and atmospheric conditions7. Here we assess, in our model system7, the changes in large-scale climate that are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century by an ensemble of global climate models8, and find that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are reduced. At the same time, near-storm rainfall rates increase substantially. Our results do not support the notion of large increasing trends in either tropical storm or hurricane frequency driven by increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations.

Artikeln finns här:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GLOBAL_WARMING_HURRICANES?SITE=NCJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

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

(more…)

The scariest photo I have seen – Where is Solar Cycle 24 part 2?

16 maj, 2008

Som en uppföljning till mitt tidigare inlägg (The scariest photo I have seen – Where is Solar Cycle 24?) så är det bara att konstatera att så här 3 veckor senare så har vi FORTFARANDE inte sett en tillstymmelse till solcykel 24:s början.

I går kom tre mycket, mycket små fläckar som tillhör solcykel 23 och som nu är på väg att försvinna.

Så här ser solen ut i dag vid tolvtiden.

Solbilden finns här:

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

Graf finns här:

http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfmms.html

 

                                Sunspot index graphics

                       Klicka på grafen så bli den större

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

 

You have to be the” right” sort of native if Global Warming Hysterics will care about you and your habitat!

16 maj, 2008

Som en uppföljning till mitt tidigare inlägg om isbjörnar (The Bush administration caved in – Polar Bear Is Declared a Threatened Species! och Kanada nedgraderar ”hotet” mot isbjörnarna! Or More Polar Bear Baloney) kommer här några intressanta presskomentarer om det hela.

Till att börja med några kommentarer fån lokalbefolkningen som lever med isbjörnarna in på knuten dagligdags. Och som INTE är beroende av några klimat/dator modeller för sitt kunnande.

Så här sa deras representanter i februari i år:

The Nunavut and Northwest Territories governments have lobbied U.S. officials against the proposal.

”We ‘ll continue to work with our national government in trying to make sure that we impress upon the U.S government that, ‘Look, we’re trying to tackle climate change but this is a misguided effort to manage our environment,'” Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik said.

Nunavut is home to over half of the Earth’s polar bear population, Okalik said. Of the 11 polar bear populations in the territory, all but one have healthy numbers, he added.” (Finns här: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/02/11/cda-bears.html)

Och så här sa deras representant efter USA: s beslut:

”Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik lashed out at the closing of the U.S. market, saying it won’t affect the number of hunting permits issued each year, but will cause economic hardship in Inuit communities. He contended that bears aren’t really at risk because their numbers are rising. Wildlife biologists believe the population is double the 1960s levels because of reduced hunting pressure.

”Our scientists in the field as well as Inuit elders have observed an overall increase in the polar bear population,” Mr. Okalik said in a statement. ”The truth is that polar bear populations are at near record levels.”

(Finns här: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080514.wpolar15/

BNStory/International/home)

Är det också inte intressant hur Global Warming Hysterikerna som i vanligt fall brukar prata sig varma över hur man skall lyssna och ta hänsyn till lokalbefolkningen efter som de besitter en unik kännedom över dessa djur etc. Men INTE tydligen i det här fallet utan här går man helt på klimat/dator modeller som naturligtvis vet oändligt mycket bättre om isbjörnarnas förhållanden.

Dvs. Att när det passar de egna politiska syftena så ”lyssnar” man och tar hänsyn till ursprungsbefolkningens synpunkter. När det INTE passar den egna politiska agendan så struntar man fullständigt i lokalbefolkningens åsikter.

Så enkelt är det.

Som jag sa i mitt inlägg Kanada nedgraderar ”hotet” mot isbjörnarna! Or More Polar Bear Baloney:

”Vad det handlar om är att genomdriva en politisk agenda. För om man lyckas driva igenom att de förklaras som en ” threatened species” så får det mycket långtgående juridiska och ekonomiska konsekvenser. (Se mitt inlägg: The Hijacking of the Endangered Species Act – Dessa isbjörnar igen!)

Därför att i USA så betyder en lag någonting och staten/delstaten blir ansvarig och skadeståndsskyldig för alla överträdelser. Det är inte som i Sverige där regeringen kan strunta i lagar och paragrafer UTAN någon som helst egentlig påföljd eller konsekvenser.

Det är därför det får sådana konsekvenser OM det blir en lag och det är därför man till varje pris vill driva igenom detta förslag från Global Warming Hysterikerna. Då det skulle bli ett prejudicerande fall.”

Och nu har det tyvärr blivit ett sådant fall.

Men det är ju ett tveeggat svärd då det kan användas i båda riktningarna s.a.s. Dvs. man kan nu stämma hycklaren Al Gore för hans CO2 och energislösande leverne som ju NU enligt denna logik ”hotar” isbjörnarna. Liksom hans kändiskompisar som har samma luxuösa levnadsstil medans de predikar omedelbar sparsamhet för vanligt folk.

Se mina inlägg: The master hypocrite Al Gore doesn’t want to criticise his Hollywood buddies! Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!Al Gores energislösande hem,  Al Gores energislösande resandeHycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna råd

Om de  ekonomiska och energipolitiska konsekvenserna:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=515377

Mera artiklar här:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=be07de05-aca4-4cad-bb6a-d75ecbf019d4

Och här:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=2e964385-7848-4b4c-a237-1b4310255b2e

Och här:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=1f54c31d-c4d0-4d8f-ac6e-53716736044c

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

(more…)

The Bush administration caved in – Polar Bear Is Declared a Threatened Species!

15 maj, 2008

”Although the global population of polar bears has grown from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today, Mr. Kempthorne said government scientists had advised him that computer modeling projects ”a significant population decline” by the year 2050.”

Hur patetiskt och PK! FÖRST så konstaterar man att antalet har MER ÄN FÖRDUBBLATS de senaste 40 åren. SEDAN hänvisar man till en datormodell a la IPCC (och som vi vet är värdelösa på att göra riktiga långsiktiga prognoser, se bl.a. mitt inlägg: Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models) som motivering varför beslutet togs.

Och det blir ännu mer löjeväckande med tanke på att Kanada precis har NEDGRADERAT HOTET TILL DET NÄST LÄGSTA till ”a species of Special Concern” (se mitt inlägg: Kanada nedgraderar ”hotet” mot isbjörnarna! Or More Polar Bear Baloney!)

Och kanadensarna borde ju som sagt veta vad de pratat om. Merparten av världens isbjörnar finns på kanadensisk mark och där anses de som sagt INTE hotade. Med det är klart, dessa klimat/dator modeller vet naturligtvis bättre än eskimåerna som levt med isbjörnar i tusentals år.

Se även mina inlägg: Mera isbjörnar! Och fler och fler blir dom.,   ”The report of our extinction was an exaggeration.”Dessa Isbjörnar igen!,

Press release här:

http://www.doi.gov/issues/polar_bears.html

och här:

http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080514a.html

Atikeln finns här:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121078668964492405.html

Polar Bear Is Declared A Threatened Species

By IAN TALLEY and STEPHEN POWER

May 15, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration declared the polar bear a threatened species, acknowledging that the loss of sea ice caused by global warming was jeopardizing the animal’s long-term survival.

The decision, after months of delay and legal challenges, was greeted by environmental groups as a watershed moment, and sharply criticized by conservatives who fear its ramifications for the U.S economy. In its announcement, however, the administration took steps to limit the decision’s impact on drilling activities in Alaska, or on other business activities.

Opponents of listing the bear as threatened have long questioned the science behind such a move. They also predict it will trigger new restrictions on drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic, as well as limits on a range of activities that contribute to the emission of gases that cause global warming.

In announcing the decision Wednesday, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said he was compelled to act both by the requirements of the federal Endangered Special Act and by scientific evidence showing the bear’s habitat is melting. Although the global population of polar bears has grown from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today, Mr. Kempthorne said government scientists had advised him that computer modeling projects ”a significant population decline” by the year 2050. Last year, he added, Arctic sea ice fell to the lowest level ever recorded by satellite.

”This decision may not be a popular decision, but I believe it is the right decision,” Mr. Kempthorne said.

It is unclear how the Interior Department’s move will ultimately affect drilling activities in Alaska, or the broader debate over how to fight climate change. The head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale Hall, said his agency would begin work on a recovery plan for the bear, but he declined to speculate on what new regulations might result from that process.

In one step that could limit the decision’s impact on drilling, Mr. Kempthorne said the administration would promulgate a rule stating that if an activity is permissible under the Marine Mammal Protection Act — another federal law covering the bear and with which oil companies in Alaska must already comply — it is also permissible under the Endangered Species Act.

While acknowledging that global warming is ”a factor” in the loss of sea ice, and that the loss of sea ice is ”the dominant factor” threatening the bear, Mr. Kempthorne also said the administration would also instruct Fish and Wildlife staff that ”the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to” the bear or its habitat ”and greenhouse-gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project, or government action.”

Environmentalists expressed alarm at that part of the announcement. ”The administration’s decision is riddled with loopholes, caveats, and backhanded language that could actually undermine protections for the polar bear and other species,” Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said in a statement.

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

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power!

14 maj, 2008

De är stora skattekostnader för att subventionera s.k. ”grön energi”. I USA har U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) tagit fram siffror på hur mycket det hela kostar 0ch per energislag.

Totalt så får energi produktionen $16.6 billion i subventioner, skattelättnader etc. under år 2007.

Så här mycket subventioneras följande energislag per megawatt timme av skattepengar:

Solkraft                         $24.34

Vindkraft                       $23.37

”Ren” kolkraft                 $29.81

Kolkraft                           $0.44

Naturgas                         $0.25

Vattenkraft                      $0.67

Kärnkraft                         $1.59

Man tittade även på subventioner för icke elektrisk energi produktion (t.ex. för bränsle) per BTU

Etanol/biobränslen             $5.72

Solkraft                               $2.82

”Rent” kol                            $1.35

Naturgas/ petroleum liquids  $0.03

 Citat:

”All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That’s a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of ”green jobs.” Those jobs won’t come cheap, and you’ll be paying for them.”

Se även mina inlägg: All You Need To Know about Denmark and Wind PowerWho knew a ”free” source of energy – Wind Power could be so expensive?Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power!

Artikeln finns här:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)

May 12, 2008;

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new ”Manhattan Project” for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at ”renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and ”clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don’t get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.

By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other ”alternatives.”

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That’s a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of ”green jobs.” Those jobs won’t come cheap, and you’ll be paying for them.

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

Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate Forecasts

14 maj, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt föregående inlägg (Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models) kommer här en artikel av Roger Pielke om förmågan hos meteorologiska institut att förutsäga vädret de närmaste 3 månaderna (seasonal forcast). Och jämför detta med IPCC:s tvärsäkra påstående att de kan förutsäga klimatet om 100 år.

Där Met Office säger att ”Seasonal forecasting: Seasonal forecasting is a developing area of meteorology and, although these forecasts are not as accurate as our short-term forecasts, they do demonstrate some skill in predicting what may happen for a season (a three-month period) ahead.

The forecasts provide an estimation of broad trends in temperature and rainfall and will normally be expressed in probabilistic terms, with the more likely outcome highlighted. Information contained in these forecasts can allow business to plan ahead for weather that is forecast to be different from normal.”

Så säger IPCC som sagt att de och deras klimatmodeller kan förutsäga hur temperaturen kommer att var på en tiondels grad när om hundra år. Yeah -Sure!

Artikeln finns här:

http://climatesci.org/2008/05/14/honest-statement-of-current-capability-in-climate-forecasts/

The Met Office under seasonal:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/uk_forecast_weather.html

Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate Forecasts

Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am

The 2007 IPCC report presents ”projections” of climate in the coming decades. Policymakers and politicians are using the IPCC models to plan policy for regions and globally. However, what is the actual skill at forecasting the weather (even averaged over decades) in the coming years? The IPCC uses the term ”projection” but it is being interpreted by almost everyone as  a prediction if certain CO2 emission scenarios actually occur.

The actual skill at making long-term climate predictions, however, is illustrated by a statement on the website of the United Kingdom Meterological Office with respect to seasonal prediction.  It states

 ”Seasonal forecasting is a developing area of meteorology and, although these forecasts are not as accurate as our short-term forecasts, they do demonstrate some skill in predicting what may happen for a season (a three-month period) ahead.”

The obvious message from this, which is being almost completely ignored by policymakers, and was certainly ignored by the IPCC, is that seasonal forecasting is ”a developing area of meteorology”.

However, how can longer term predictions be more skillful when the climate forcings and feedbacks become more complex the longer into the future we seek to forecast?

Of course, the multi-decadal climate forecasts must be less skillful. This was discussed in Pielke, R.A., 1998: Climate prediction as an initial value problem. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 79, 2743-2746.

yet the IPCC community has chosen to ignore this issue. In my 1998 article I write

”One set of commonly used definitions of weather and climate distinguishes these terms in the context of predictions: weather is considered an initial value problem, while climate is assumed to be a boundary value problem. Another perspective holds that climate and weather prediction are both initial value problems (Palmer 1998). If climate prediction were a boundary value problem, then the simulations of future climate will ”forget” the initial values assumed in a model. The assumption that climate prediction is a boundary value problem is used, for example, to justify predicting future climate based on anthropogenic doubling of greenhouse gases. This correspondence proposes that weather prediction is a subset of climate predictions and that both are, therefore, initial value problems in the context of nonlinear geophysical flow……

An important practical conclusion results if climate prediction is an initial value problem. This means that there are necessarily limits on the time into the future that we can predict climate, since the feedbacks between the ocean, atmosphere, and land surface are large and nonlinear. These limits have not been determined, yet climate ”predictions” are routinely communicated to policy makers on timescales of decades and centuries. Second, in the context of predicting what the future climate would be in response to an anthropogenic forcing such as carbon dioxide input, there are, as of yet, undefined limits on what aspects of future climate we can forecast even if all the important ocean-atmosphere-land surface feedbacks were included and also accurately represented in the models. This leads to the conclusion that weather prediction is a subset of climate prediction. Societally useful (i.e., reliable, accurate, etc.) climate prediction requires that all of the feedbacks and other physical processes included in weather prediction be represented in the climate prediction model. In addition longer-term feedback and physical processes must be included. This makes climate prediction a much more difficult problem than weather prediction.”

The seasonal weather forecasters recognize that ”Seasonal forecasting is a developing area of meteorology” as reported on the UK Met Office website.  It is the IPCC community which has ignored the reality that multi-year and decadal climate forecasts is an even more daunting challenge.

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

Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models

14 maj, 2008

Här kommer en mycket intressant artikel och undersökning, (Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations by De-Zheng Sun, Yongqiang Yu, and Tao Zhang), som visar hur de klimatmodeller som IPCC och Al Gore dyrkar och på vars existens hela Global Warming Hysterin bygger, systematiskt underrepresenterar vissa faktorer (bl.a. the negative cloud albedo feedback) och systematiskt överrepresenterar the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor.

Dvs. på vanlig svenska – Klimatmodellerna förstärker systematiskt den globala uppvärmingseffekten.

Någon som är förvånad?? Ja menar ”debatten är ju över” och ”det finns inget att diskutera”! Ja undra på det!

Med sådana ”vetenskapliga bevis” så är det nog säkrast att undvika diskussioner för folk kan ju få klart för sig vilket skojeri och charlataneri dessa klimatmodeller är. Och på vars altare våra politiker är beredda att spendera biljontals (1 000 000 000 000) kr på nonsensåtgärder.

Citat:

”By comparing the response of clouds and water vapor to ENSO forcing in nature with that in AMIP simulations by some leading climate models, an earlier evaluation of tropical cloud and water vapor feedbacks has revealed two common biases in the models: (1) an underestimate of the strength of the negative cloud albedo feedback and (2) an overestimate of the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor. Extending the same analysis to the fully coupled simulations of these models as well as to other IPCC coupled models, we find that these two common biases persist:”

This study indicates that the IPCC models are overpredicting global warming in response to positive radiative forcing.

Se även bl.a. mina inlägg: Basic Greenhouse Equations ”Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New YorkHey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This, The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONSHas the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelledWhy multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric TemperaturesScientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming ”theories” are correct!Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time seriesMera om Klimat modellernas falsariumKlimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%!,

Artikeln finns här:

http://climatesci.org/2008/05/13/tropical-water-vapor-and-cloud-feedbacks-in-climate-models-a-further-assessment-using-coupled-simulations-by-de-zheng-sun-yongqiang-yu-and-tao-zhang/

Undersökningen finns här:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/dezheng.sun/dspapers/Sun-Yu-Zhang-JC-revised.pdf

                   Klicka på graferna så blir de större!

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

  (more…)

Myanmar’s deadly cyclone is global warming’s fault, Gore says. How the heck does he know?

14 maj, 2008

Här kommer ytterligare en intressant artikel av Lorrie Goldstein (Toronto Sun) om mäster hycklaren Al Gore och hans uttalande om cyklonen som drabbade Burma.

Som sagt, liken var fortfarande bokstavligen varma när Al Gore skyndsamt kom rusande med standard förklaring 1 A (Det finns bara en förklaring) – Det var naturligtvis Global Warmings fel (surprise! surprise!).

Och så tackfullt av denne VÄRDIGE vinnare av Nobels fredspris!

(Citat:

”We’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming,” he told National Public Radio in reference to the tragedy.

Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if he could have waited until after they’d finish digging out the bodies, before blaming it on his favourite (only?) subject?

And didn’t climate hysterics just finish telling us that the record and near-record cold and snow experienced in many parts of the world this past winter didn’t disprove man-made global warming?

Didn’t they just insist no single weather event — or one winter’s worth of data — disproves (or proves) global warming?

Actually, they’re right, although that would admittedly be more impressive if these weren’t the same folks who screeched throughout the mild winter of 2006/2007 that that was proof of global warming.

Then again, consistency has never been the strong suit of folks who are seriously into ”climate porn.”

Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Al Gore’s global warming debunked – by kids!A ”Nobel” Folly!,  The master hypocrite Al Gore doesn’t want to criticise his Hollywood buddies!Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!  Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!Al Gores energislösande hem,  Al Gores energislösande resande. och Hycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna råd

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/05/11/5532516-sun.php

Goreacle’s complicated truth

Myanmar’s deadly cyclone is global warming’s fault, Gore says. How the heck does he know?

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Well, here’s a surprise. Al Gore last week linked the deadly cyclone in Myanmar to global warming.

”We’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming,” he told National Public Radio in reference to the tragedy.

Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if he could have waited until after they’d finish digging out the bodies, before blaming it on his favourite (only?) subject?

And didn’t climate hysterics just finish telling us that the record and near-record cold and snow experienced in many parts of the world this past winter didn’t disprove man-made global warming?

Didn’t they just insist no single weather event — or one winter’s worth of data — disproves (or proves) global warming?

Actually, they’re right, although that would admittedly be more impressive if these weren’t the same folks who screeched throughout the mild winter of 2006/2007 that that was proof of global warming.

Then again, consistency has never been the strong suit of folks who are seriously into ”climate porn.”

Remember how thrilled they were when some climate scientists predicted 2007 would be the ”hottest year” ever — meaning the hottest year in the last 150 or so since we started keeping reliable records — not the hottest in the Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history?

Never mind that 2007 turned out to be the … uh … seventh, fifth or tied for second-hottest year on record, depending on which climate-monitoring agency you believe.

Never mind that many climate scientists say there hasn’t been any global warming since 1998 and a recent study suggests it may have stopped — offset by ocean currents — and won’t resume until after 2015.

The hilarious thing about media reporting of that study suggesting global warming is on hiatus, was all the frantic assurances by ”green” journalists emphasizing that this didn’t disprove man-made global warming, odd, since the scientists who did the research never claimed it did.

Nonetheless, we were patronizingly told, while it might surprise the great unwashed (us) to learn global temperatures aren’t actually rising steadily year after year in lockstep with rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere, it didn’t surprise climate scientists.

Actually, it didn’t surprise anyone who has done any research on the subject and thus already knows global warming (and cooling) don’t go up (or down) in steadily rising (or falling) lines year after year.

So where did the public get the nutty idea that global temperatures are rising relentlessly year after year in lockstep with rising GHG concentrations? Hmmm?

Gee, could it have been from the Goreacle, who said in his climate porn film An Inconvenient Truth ”there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this: When there is more carbon dixoide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside”?

Or this: ”In any given year it might look (my italics) like it’s going down, but the overall trend is extremely clear and in recent years it is uninterrupted and it is intensifying. In fact, if you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record, they’ve all occurred in the last 14 years and the hottest of all was 2005”?

Actually, that ”atmospheric record” only goes back to 1846 — the blink of an eye in terms of climate change — global temperatures aren’t rising in concert with increasing GHG concentrations at the moment, and, as previously noted, many scientists say 1998, not 2005 was the hottest year ”on record,” suggesting what a relatively new field taking the Earth’s temperature is.

I guess Gore figured he covered all that when he said in his film it was ”very complicated,” without explaining the complications.

From there, Gore used a couple of year’s worth of selective temperature data about summer heat waves and hurricane activity, especially 2005 (Hurricane Katrina) to suggest this was all evidence of man-made global warming.

Actually, while 2005 was the most active year on record for Atlantic hurricanes, 2006 was dramatically quieter, with not one hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

Perhaps Gore will explain all this ”very complicated” stuff in An Inconvenient Truth, Part II.

Then again, perhaps not.

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

En Global Warming Hysterikers bön!

13 maj, 2008

1961 års IPCC – och lika fel blev det! Hittade den här fantastiska godbiten från 1961 där dåtidens ”skarpaste hjärnor” försökte förutse hur det skulle se ut år 2000.

Det som är så fascinerande är denna blandning av totala felaktigheter/galenskap och lite ”rätt”. Och som sagt, tursamt nog så hade man INTE några klimatmodeller till sin hjälp att förutsäga framtiden

Känns mönstret igen? Vetenskapsmän gör tvärsäkra uttalanden om framtiden (IPCC/Al Gore etc. någon).

Och lägg märke till att dessa ”vetenskapsmän” BARA ”förutsåg” vad som skulle hända om 39 år. Och INTE som IPCC tvärsäkert uttalar sig om hur den globala temperaturen kommer att vara på en tiondels grad när OM 100 år: När man INTE ENS klarar av att säga hur temperaturen kommer att vara om en vecka!

Allt i den heliga klimatmodellens namn vars förutsägelse måste dyrkas oförbehållsamt!

Så för att parafrasera en känd bön så har jag gjort en egen variant:

”En Global Warming Hysterikers bön”:

Al Gore som är i himmelen.

Helgat varde modellen.

Tillkommer ditt Kyoto.

Ske din Al Gor(e)itm, såsom IPCC så ock på Jorden.

Vårt dagliga etanol giv oss idag, och förlåt oss våra CO2 skulder, såsom ock vi förlåta dem vars utsläpp oss skyldiga äro, och inled oss icke i temperaturen utan fräls oss från klimatförändringar.

Ty CO2 riket är ditt och makten över utsläppsrätter och härligheten i evighet. Amen

 

Kopian av artikeln från 1961 finns här:

http://www.pixelmatic.com.au/2000/

Will Life Be Worth Living in 2,000 AD?

July 22, 1961, Weekend Magazine

What sort of life will you be living 39 years from now? Scientists have looked into the future and they can tell you.

It looks as if everything will be so easy that people will probably die from sheer boredom.

You will be whisked around in monorail vehicles at 200 miles an hour and you will think nothing of taking a fortnight’s holiday in outer space.

Your house will probably have air walls, and a floating roof, adjustable to the angle of the sun.

Doors will open automatically, and clothing will be put away by remote control. The heating and cooling systems will be built into the furniture and rugs.

You’ll have a home control room – an electronics centre, where messages will be recorded when you’re away from home. This will play back when you return, and also give you up-to-the minute world news, and transcribe your latest mail.

You’ll have wall-to-wall global TV, an indoor swimming pool, TV-telephones and room-to-room TV. Press a button and you can change the décor of a room.

The status symbol of the year 2000 will be the home computer help, which will help mother tend the children, cook the meals and issue reminders of appointments.

Cooking will be in solar ovens with microwave controls. Garbage will be refrigerated, and pressed into fertiliser pellets.

Food won’t be very different from 1961, but there will be a few new dishes – instant bread, sugar made from sawdust, foodless foods (minus nutritional properties), juice powders and synthetic tea and cocoa. Energy will come in tablet form.

At work, Dad will operate on a 24 hour week. The office will be air-conditioned with stimulating scents and extra oxygen – to give a physical and psychological lift.

Mail and newspapers will be reproduced instantly anywhere in the world by facsimile.

There will be machines doing the work of clerks, shorthand writers and translators. Machines will ”talk” to each other.

It will be the age of press-button transportation. Rocket belts will increase a man’s stride to 30 feet, and bus-type helicopters will travel along crowded air skyways. There will be moving plastic-covered pavements, individual hoppicopters, and 200 m.p.h. monorail trains operating in all large cities.

The family car will be soundless, vibrationless and self-propelled thermostatically. The engine will be smaller than a typewriter. Cars will travel overland on an 18 inch air cushion.

Railways will have one central dispatcher, who will control a whole nation’s traffic. Jet trains will be guided by electronic brains.

In commercial transportation, there will be travel at 1000 m.p.h. at a penny a mile. Hypersonic passenger planes, using solid fuels, will reach any part of the world in an hour.

By the year 2020, five per cent of the world’s population will have emigrated into space. Many will have visited the moon and beyond.

Our children will learn from TV, recorders and teaching machines. They will get pills to make them learn faster. We shall be healthier, too. There will be no common colds, cancer, tooth decay or mental illness.

Medically induced growth of amputated limbs will be possible. Rejuvenation will be in the middle stages of research, and people will live, healthily, to 85 or 100.

There’s a lot more besides to make H.G. Wells and George Orwell sound like they’re getting left behind.

And this isn’t science fiction. It’s science fact – futuristic ideas, conceived by imaginative young men, whose crazy-sounding schemes have got the nod from the scientists.

It’s the way they think the world will live in the next century – if there’s any world left!

©1999 Pixelmatic

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

 

Russia will not sell it’s emission rights

13 maj, 2008

Perhaps what the Russians are saying is that if other major industrialized countries don’t take action to limit their emissions, then why should we?”, Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations’ climate change secretariat, told Reuters in an interview.

”There’s some sense in that.”

Som jag sagt tidigare:

Det är alltså detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system med handel på utsläppsrätter som främjar fusk i stor skala, och som är en öppen inbjudan till manipulation och förfalskning, 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! Ett rent dröm scenario för alla skojare – både köparen och säljaren vinner på att fuska! Och politikerna får in massor med skatter och avgifter!

Undra på ATT SÅ MÅNGA ÄLSKAR detta århundradets största bondfångeri ALLA KATEGORIER! Och som icing on the cake: systemet göt inte ett smack för miljön heller!

”Det är enkelt att lova Guld och Gröna Skogar NÄR NÅGON ANNAN FÅR BETALA. Och att göra ”stolta” deklarationer på toppmöten. Nu har de 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 ett av dessa rituella 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!

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.

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!”

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?

Så kan Reinfeldt vara vänlig att släcka lampan när han går – det finns inga kvar!

Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Why the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjustGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!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!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  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,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USL092988920080510

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

(more…)

Kanada nedgraderar ”hotet” mot isbjörnarna! Or More Polar Bear Baloney!

13 maj, 2008

Den kanadensiska regeringen har varit utsatt för samma tryck från Global Warming Hysterikerna  som USA för att förklara isbjörnarna som en ” threatened species”.

Nå, nu har COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) i ett meddelande den 25 april i år meddelat att man INTE tänker förklara isbjörnarna som en ” threatened species”.

TVÄRTOM SÅ SÄNKER MAN GRADEN TILLa species of Special Concern” vilket är den näst lägsta graden. Den lägsta är Not at Risk”.

Det är skönt att det finns regeringar och organisationer som inte faller undan för dessa Global Warming Hysteriker. För hela den här frågan har ingenting med isbjörnarna att göra (de har som sagt ökat med drygt 40% sedan 1974).

Vad det handlar om är att genomdriva en politisk agenda. För om man lyckas driva igenom att de förklaras som en ” threatened species” så får det mycket långtgående juridiska och ekonomiska konsekvenser. (Se mitt inlägg: The Hijacking of the Endangered Species Act – Dessa isbjörnar igen!)

Därför att i USA så betyder en lag någonting och staten/delstaten blir ansvarig och skadeståndsskyldig för alla överträdelser. Det är inte som i Sverige där regeringen kan strunta i lagar och paragrafer UTAN någon som helst egentlig påföljd eller konsekvenser.

Det är därför det får sådana konsekvenser OM det blir en lag och det är därför man till varje pris vill driva igenom detta förslag från Global Warming Hysterikerna. Då det skulle bli ett prejudicerande fall.

Se även mina inlägg: Mera isbjörnar! Och fler och fler blir dom.,   ”The report of our extinction was an exaggeration.”Dessa Isbjörnar igen!,

Pressmedelandet finns här:

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct7/sct7_3_11_e.cfm

”COSEWIC reassessed the Polar Bear as a species of Special Concern. ”The Polar Bear was one of the most challenging species ever assessed by COSEWIC” said Dr. Jeff Hutchings, Chair. Extensive inventory, research, a wealth of Aboriginal traditional and community knowledge and the emerging threats posed by climate change and northern development were considered. In some areas, the bear appears to be increasing; in others it is declining. The reduction of sea ice, a consequence of increasing temperatures, is a threat to the species, especially in the southern part of its range. Future stresses on the population mean that harvest will have to be managed particularly carefully in coming years.”

Definition of COSEWIC terms and risk categories:

Wildlife Species: A species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and is either native to Canada or has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.

Extinct (X): A wildlife species that no longer exists

Extirpated (XT): A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere

Endangered (E): A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction

Threatened (T): A wildlife species likely to become Endangered if limiting factors are not reversed

Special Concern (SC): A wildlife species that may become a Threatened or an Endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats

Not at Risk (NAR): A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances

Data Deficient (DD): A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a wildlife species’ eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species’ risk of extinction.

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

The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria

13 maj, 2008

Som ett komplement till mina tidigare inlägg om IPCC kommer här ytterligare en intressant artikel av Tim Ball som beskriver den ovetenskapliga bakgrunden till IPCC:s rapporter och det politiska spelet bakom det hela. 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 där jag beskriver på vilken lösan sand dessa rapporter kommer till: Där politiken bestäms FÖRST (Summary for Policymakers) och därefter så får de vetenskapliga kapitlen anpassa sig då de MÅSTE ÖVERENSSTÄMMA med Summary for Policymakers.

Är det inte fantastiskt hur ”vetenskapligt” det hela är!

Detta är som jag sagt tidigare – hela hanteringen av IPCC:s rapporter  är den största vetenskapliga och politiska skandalen i modern tid! Och detta taskspelri får fortsätta oförhindrat som om ingenting hat hänt.

Och med anledning av dessa skandalösa rapporter så vill alltså våra politiker och dessa s.k. vetenskapsmän spendera biljontals (1 000 000 000 000) kr på NÅGONTING SOM KANSKE inträffar om 100 år!

Och svenska massmedia tiger still som vanligt – his masters voice! Duktig vovve!

Hela den här klimatfrågan och Global Warming hysterin handlar tyvärr nämligen inte om fakta och vetenskap utan den drivs av en bestämd politisk agenda.

Och 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.

Pengar som jag gång på gång påpekar KUNDE ha använts HÄR OCH NU för att lösa verkliga (inklusive miljö) problem.

Citat:

”There were hundreds of research papers from a wide variety of sources confirming the existence of a period warmer than today just a thousand years ago known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Its existence is well documented in the work of Soon and Baliunas. (Soon, W., and S. Baliunas, 2003. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years. Climate Research, 23, 89-110.)

This period was clearly warmer than present temperatures and warmer than some computer model predictions for the future. Its existence was a serious problem because it negated the claims that the 20th century temperatures were unprecedented. What to do?

The answer is provided by Professor Deming in the following letter to Science .

”With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said ”We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” (My emphasis)

This was effectively done by what became known as the ”hockey stick”.  The name came from the shape of a graph which showed no temperature increase for 1000 years (the handle) with a sudden rise in the 20th century (the blade). It was ideal, two strikes with one event. The MWP was gone and the sudden rise in the 20th century was clearly unnatural. It had to be due to human activity.

Research that produced the hockey stick came from dendroclimatology, the reconstruction of past climates from tree ring data–but they tacked on modern temperature data for the blade. They incorrectly assumed tree rings are only a function of temperature and cherry-picked those trees that gave the desired result. When challenged on this, one dendroclimatologist justified this practice by telling a US Congressional committee, ”You have to pick cherries if your are going to make cherry pie.” Another wrote, ”However as we mentioned earlier on the subject of biological growth populations, this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.” These are deeply disturbing comments in any area of research.”

Se även mina inlägg: Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time seriesIPCC Review Editors – ”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence” are kept!The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?IPCC and its bias!Peer Review – What it actually means

Artikeln finns här:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3021

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…)

Mera isbjörnar! Och fler och fler blir dom.

12 maj, 2008

Apropå mina tidigare inlägg om dessa stackars isbjörnar som tvingas leva i en miljö där havsisen växer så det knakar. Och att det antagligen avgörs den här veckan av U.S. Department of the Interior och U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) om de skall sättas upp på ”a threatened species” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (januari 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

Kommer här en lämplig kommentar av karikatyr tecknaren Glenn Foden.

Se mina tidigare inlägg:  Havsisen fortsätter att växa så det knakar!,  ”The report of our extinction was an exaggeration.”Dessa Isbjörnar igen!The Hijacking of the Endangered Species Act – Dessa isbjörnar igen!

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

Ytvattentemperaturen i Atlanten utanför Central Amerika de senaste 32 000 åren.

12 maj, 2008

Hittade följande mycket intressanta graf över ytvattentemperaturen i Atlanten utanför Central Amerika de senaste 32 000 åren. Den ingår i en studie som har den föga upphetsande titeln: ”An 85-ka record of climate change in lowland Central America”. Där ett forskarlag har studerat klimatförändringarna de senaste 82 000 åren i Centralamerika och framförallt Guatemala.

Som framgår av grafen så har det varit drastiska förändringar på mycket kort tid: + 8C, -10C, +12C. Men, och de här är det intressanta – de senaste 10 000 åren så har temperaturen varit stabil och med en lätt nedåtgående trend.

Intressant eller hur?

Vi ser ju klart och tydligt hur våra kära förfäder lyckades öka temperaturen med + 8C för 32 000 sedan. Samt hur de lyckades sänka den med -10C för 18 000 år sedan. För att sedan öka den med + 12C för 15 000 år sedan.

Undrar just vad de hade för sig eftersom vi inte alls har ”lyckats” med annat än en lätt sänkning de senaste 10 000 åren?

Global Warming anyone?

Man har funnit en hel del andra intressanta resultat, bl.a.:

”The pattern of clay-gypsum (wet-dry) oscillations during MIS 3 closely resembles the temperature record from Greenland ice cores and North Atlantic marine sediment cores and precipitation proxies from the Cariaco Basin. Our results support a southward displacement of the Atlantic ITCZ during stadials and northward during interstadials, as suggested by other paleoproxy records and modeling results (Peterson et al., 2000; Chiang et al., 2003; Schmidt et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2004; Leduc et al., 2007).

Contrary to previous findings (Leyden et al., 1993, 1994), a prolonged period of cold, wet conditions prevailed from 23 to 18 ka. The catchment was dominated by temperate elements such as Quercus, Pinus and Myrica.”

Se även mina inlägg: Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!New England winters have cooled in past decadeManipulation av temperatur grafer men bara när de pekar nedåt!När CO2 var som störst var temperaturen som lägst!20 000 år av temperaturdata från Peru6 000 år av temperaturdata från Venezuela,  3500 år av temperaturdata från KinaTemperaturen för 130 000 år sedan422 700 år av temperaturdata från Antarktis3000 år av temperaturdata från Syd Afrika4000 år av temperaturdata från Grönland2000 år av temperaturdata från Österrike etc.

Undersökningen finns här:

http://www.climategeology.ethz.ch/publications/2008_Hodell_et_al.pdf

                       Klicka på grafen så blir den större!

 

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

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series

11 maj, 2008

Här kommer en mycket intressant undersökning gjord av de klimatmodeller som IPCC använder. Och som Global Warming Hysterikerna avgudar och dyrkar och på vars altare man är beredd att offra vårt välstånd och ekonomiska tillväxt de närmaste 100 åren eller så.

Den framfördes vid The European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2008 i Wien den 13 till18 April i år vid ”Session IS23: Climatic and hydrological perspectives on long‐term changes”

Undersökningen är gjord av D. Koutsoyiannis, N. Mamassis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, S. M. Papalexiou Department of Water Resources, Faculty of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Heroon Polytechneiou 5

Vad man har gjort är at jämfört kilmatmodellernas förutsägelser med verkliga data från minst 100 år från olika platser på jorden.

Och resultatet? Man sågar fullständigt dessa klimatmodeller längs fotknölarna:

”• The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average.

This makes future climate projections not credible.”

Se även mina inlägg: Four Global Warming Skeptics Speak Out:Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming ”theories” are correct!Scientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’Global warming is probably the biggest scientific boondoggle since the days of Galileo”Carbon dioxide gets all the headlines, but frankly, I think it is overemphasized.”The Flawed science behind the Kyoto protocol!Basic Greenhouse Equations ”Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New YorkThe Great Global Warming HoaxMera om Klimat modellernas falsarium, Klimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%!,

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

 Abstract:

As falsifiability is an essential element of science (Karl Popper), many have disputed the scientific basis of climatic predictions on the grounds that they are not falsifiable or verifiable at present. This critique arises from the argument that we need to wait several decades before we may know how reliable the predictions will be. However, elements of falsifiability already exist, given that many of the climatic model outputs contain time series for past periods. In particular, the models of the IPCC Third Assessment Report have projected future climate starting from 1990; thus, there is an 18-year period for which comparison of model outputs and reality is possible.

In practice, the climatic model outputs are downscaled to finer spatial scales, and conclusions are drawn for the evolution of regional climates and hydrological regimes; thus, it is essential to make such comparisons on regional scales and point basis rather than on global or hemispheric scales. In this study, we have retrieved temperature and precipitation records, at least 100-year long, from a number of stations worldwide. We have also retrieved a number of climatic model outputs, extracted the time series for the grid points closest to each examined station, and produced a time series for the station location based on best linear estimation. Finally, to assess the reliability of model predictions, we have compared the historical with the model time series using several statistical indicators including long-term variability, from monthly to over year (climatic) time scales. Based on these analyses, we discuss the usefulness of climatic model future projections (with emphasis on precipitation) from a hydrological perspective, in relationship to a long-term uncertainty framework.

 Klicka på bilderna i det här inlägget så blir de större

 Conclusions:

– All examined long records demonstrate large over year variability (long term fluctuations) with no systematic signatures across the different locations/climates.

– GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographical locations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale.

– However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30 year) scales are irrelevant with reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural over year fluctuation and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the models proves to be systematically better than the others.

– The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average.

– This makes future climate projections not credible.

– The GCM outputs of AR4, as compared to those of TAR, are a regression in terms of the elements of falsifiability they provide, because most of the AR4 scenarios refer only to the future, whereas TAR scenarios also included historical periods.

 Abstrakt finns här:

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/1/documents/2008EGUClimaticPred.pdf

Undersökningen finns här:

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/2/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPr.pdf

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

Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion?

10 maj, 2008

Fler och fler börjar få upp ögonen för de gigantiska summor som kommer att förslösas i Global Warming Hysterikernas namn på nonsensåtgärder som vanligt folk får betala. 

Nu senast så har de brittiska väljarna sagt ifrån med besked och röstat ut nästan alla Global Warming Hysteriker. Nått för våra intälägänta svenska lokala ”förmågor” att tänka på in för nästa val.

Se även mina tidigare inlägg bl.a.: Why the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjustGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!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!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  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,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/columnists/Bernard-Ingham-Why-on-earth.4056124.jp

Bernard Ingham: Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion?

MY text this week is taken from Corinthians I: ”Behold, I shew you a mystery.”

In the election for London’s Mayor, the Greens got just over three per cent of the vote. Leaving aside such misguided places as Norwich, where the Green Party gained three seats, they struggled elsewhere to poll anywhere near that.

In my native Calderdale, with its strong ”Green” lobby, they managed only just over one per cent – less than the BNP, English Democrats and Independents, the other small groups that fought the election there.

Yet Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Nationalists dance slavishly to the Green tune.

To hear him talk, the dear, departed Ken Livingstone was as Green as grass. Gordon Brown would carpet Britain, onshore and offshore, with wind ”farms”. David Cameron sails under the ”Vote Blue, Go Green” banner. The Liberal Democrats are mostly eco-nuts. And the European Union goes berserk at the very mention of carbon dioxide.

Which brings me to the mystery. What ails them? Have they lost their powers of reason?

I ask because their pre-occupation with combating something that may or may not exist – that is, man-made global warming – is responsible for part of the growing burden of costs with which every household is now saddled. How much this energy/environmental burden contributed to Gordon Brown’s Merrie May Day – otherwise known as Black Thursday – is far from clear, partly because consumers are unaware of what they are paying.

If they knew, all our politicians would belatedly bring some cost/benefit analysis to their environmentalism. It has been distressingly absent so far. Would the Prime Minister have had solar panels and Cameron a wind turbine installed on their houses had they known they would never get their money back on the ”investment”?

There are good and bad ”buys”, but they don’t come much worse than waiting for decades, even half a century, for any return on your capital. It doesn’t say much for their business acumen.

Belatedly, Labour MPs are pressing Gordon Brown to ditch some of his so-called green taxes since their environmentalism is only as strong as the economy or their political skins. So, how much is the Government forcing us to shell out to try to make them appear greenly virtuous?

There’s the rub. Governments are not in the habit of dishing out research grants to academics to show how stupidly they use our money, so all I can offer you are pointers.

Let’s forget the so-called climate change levy (CCL), which has as marginal an effect on domestic consumers’ bills as it does on CO2 reduction. Instead, the real damage is done by Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) designed to encourage the development of wind, wave, tidal, solar and other ”renewable” forms of electricity. These are as idiotically conceived as the CCL, since nuclear and large-scale hydro-electricity, which emit next to no greenhouse gases, are excluded from both.

ROCs latterly have provided a 100 per cent subsidy substantially to wind power – so far the only major renewable source of electricity – and earlier this year, the Business Department forecast they would cost £23bn by 2020, or, nearly £1,000 per household. And for that we would optimistically get only 14 per cent of our electricity – and then only when the wind was blowing.

Unfortunately, that figure was out of date when it was calculated because Tony Blair had signed up to a battily impractical EU requirement to produce 20 per cent of our energy – and not just electricity – by 2020 from renewables.

If we are to offset the massive use of oil and gas for transport and domestic heating with renewables, we shall, as things stand, have to generate up to 45 per cent of our power with wind. So that will treble the eventual cost to £3,000 per household – without providing a reliable power supply.

Ofgem, the energy regulator, says that eight per cent – or £80 – of the current average current gas and electricity bill can be attributed to environmental charges and this is only going to rise with the billions required to link remote and largely useless wind farms to the grid.

This is not to mention more generally the costs of the carbon trading and offsetting rackets, the Treasury’s punitive tax revenue from petrol and diesel, Gordon Brown’s new ”green levy” doubling car tax revenue to £4bn while, on the Treasury’s own admission, reducing carbon emissions by less than one per cent, and taxes on rubbish.

Why do we put up with this ”green” extortion to so little purpose? That’s the real mystery.

The Great Barrier Reef and the prophets of doom

9 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel där professor (in marine science including post graduate training and professional experience in fisheries biology ) Walter Starck bemöter biologen Charlie Veron’s artikel om hur Global Warming hotar Stora barriärrevet. Om hur dessa Gloom and Doom påstående saknar grund och hur dagens värden alla ligger inom naturliga variationer. Och på låga nivåer historiskt sett.

Citat:

”As the greenhouse effect from elevated carbon dioxide has increased, the oceans have absorbed more and more greenhouse heat.”

Over the past several years global oceanic temperatures have in fact decreased.

”We are seeing abnormally heated water pulsed onto the Great Barrier Reef during El Niño cycles. When this happens, the ocean is further heated, to levels that corals have not experienced for millions of years.”

Abundant uncontested evidence from numerous sediment studies indicates that the oceanic surface temperatures were higher than the present during the Medieval Warm Period about 1,000 years ago. There were even higher ones during the Holocene climate optimum 5,000-9,000 years ago and higher still during the last interglacial period about 125,000 years ago.

”Unfortunately, El Niño cycles appear to be becoming more frequent. This is because the oceans are reaching their upper temperature limit more and more frequently. In a couple of decades, every year will appear to be an El Niño year.”

Five hundred years of historical records and several millennia of sediment records indicate that the recent frequency and intensity of El Niño events is well within past limits and some the strongest events occurred during the cooler period of the Little Ice Age.

”The frequency and severity of bleaching events will continue to increase. That is certain.”

The severe global bleaching event of 1998 has not been repeated in a decade despite an ongoing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and oceanic surface temperatures have markedly decreased. Projections from highly dubious climate models are anything but certain.

”On present forecasts, the worst bleaching year we have had to date will be an average year by 2030. And it will be a good year by 2050.”

This is an assertion based solely on an unqualified faith in the projections derived from unverified climate models which differ widely among themselves. These projections are also constantly changing with new ”adjustments”, are highly dependant on numerous uncertain assumptions and estimates, incorporate greatly simplified treatments of complex poorly understood phenomena and can be readily adjusted to produce a broad range of equally plausible projections. Most such models, in fact, predict little warming in the tropics but much greater increase at high latitudes.

”If we keep increasing greenhouse carbon dioxide, by 2050 at the very latest, the only corals left alive will be those hiding in refuges such as deep outer reef slopes. The rest of the Great Barrier Reef will be unrecognisable. Bacterial slime, largely devoid of life will be everywhere.”

This isn’t even supported by any model but might better be described as emotive dramatisation. Even the more extreme model projections only depict tropical oceanic warming still well within the limits that thriving reefs now tolerate in the Red Sea. Warmer water could also be expected to expand the geographic extent of reefs to higher latitudes.”

”The emerging choice is becoming more and more apparent. Do we adhere to the dogma of the climate change cult and endure consequent mass economic hardship including global hunger or risk a dubious prophesy to take a clear path to the future? Do we take the direct route down Easy Street or a detour through Jonestown?

The absence of ongoing global warming over the past decade and pronounced global cooling of the past year cannot credibly be dismissed as simple local variability in weather. It is clearly global and contrary to all predictions of carbon dioxide governed global warming.

The media are beginning to find news value in anthropogenic global warming doubts and the costs of ill-conceived countermeasures. Skeptical scientific opinions are increasingly being heard and conflicting new evidence appearing.

The alarmists have gone too far out on a very long limb for any retreat. A cooling trend in climate would be disastrous for the whole anthropogenic global warming ideology and result in a catastrophic loss of credibility for a large sector of the scientific community. The escalating fears they express appear to be based not so much on any important new evidence as on their own increasingly desperate hopes.”

Tips tack till:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003031.html

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7322

Vernon’s artikel finns här:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7321

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

(more…)

Etanol – An Environmental Disaster

8 maj, 2008

Här kommer två forskningsrapporter plus två artiklar om vansinnet med att odla upp regnskogar, torvmossar, savanner och betesmark etc. för att odla grödor för etanoltillverkning. Vi pratar om ökning av CO2 utsläppen på 17 till 420 gånger mer än de ”besparingar” som sker när etanol ersätter bensin.

Eller att etanolen kostar $2.53 per gallon att producera i USA, vilket alltså är MYCKET HÖGRE än för bensin. Av marknadspriset så är HELA 42 till 55 % av etanolpriset RENA SUBVENTIONER!

Se det var en riktig ”miljövinst” i Global Warming Hysterikernas smak! Och våra kära intälägänta svenska politiker fortsätter istadigt på denna befängda och miljö förstörande och kostsamma väg.

Se även mina inlägg: Avgasutsläppen från etanol är STÖRRE och VÄRRE än från bensinbilar!The Really Inconvenient Truths,  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!

Abstract finns här:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152747

Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt

Joseph Fargione,1 Jason Hill,2,3 David Tilman,2* Stephen Polasky,2,3 Peter Hawthorne2

Increasing energy use, climate change, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels make switching to low-carbon fuels a high priority. Biofuels are a potential low-carbon energy source, but whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on how they are produced. Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food crop-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a ”biofuel carbon debt” by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels. In contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on degraded and abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and can offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.

1 The Nature Conservancy, 1101 West River Parkway, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55415, USA.
2 Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.
3 Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.

________________________________________________________________________

Abstract finns här:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861

Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change

Timothy Searchinger,1* Ralph Heimlich,2 R. A. Houghton,3 Fengxia Dong,4 Amani Elobeid,4 Jacinto Fabiosa,4 Simla Tokgoz,4 Dermot Hayes,4 Tun-Hsiang Yu4

Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.

1 Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. German Marshall Fund of the United States, Washington, DC 20009, USA. Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Washington, DC 20001, USA.
2 Agricultural Conservation Economics, Laurel, MD 20723, USA.
3 Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, MA 02540-1644, USA.
4 Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.

 _____________________________________________________________

The Ethanol Boondoggle

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute examine the politics, economics, and environmental impacts of ethanol. They document the disastrous consequences of subsidies and tax breaks

”If etanol lacks economic merit, however, no amount of subsidy is likely to provide it. And make no mistake – welfare directed now (and for many decades) at the ethanol industry is staggering. A comprehensive study recently published by the non-partisan International Institute for Sustainable Development estimates that federal and state subsidies for ethanol in 2006 were somewhere between $5.1 billion and $6.8 billion, and that they will soon increase, to as much as $8.7 billion annually, assuming no further change in policy.

Those estimates, moreover, are conservative, because they do not include the benefi ts

bestowed by federal and state ethanol-consumption mandates, loan guarantees, subsidized loans, implicit subsidies provided by tax-exempt bond financing for the construction of ethanol processing plants, subsidized water for corn production, and state vehicle purchase incentives. Don’t forget the regulatory loophole given to manufacturers of fl exfueled vehicles – cars that can run on gasoline or blends of gasoline and ethanol – under federal automobile fuel-effi ciency mandates.

Without those subsidies, there would be no corn-based ethanol production at all. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, corn ethanol’s variable production costs are 96 cents a gallon, while capital costs average $1.57. The upshot is that ethanol costs an average of $2.53 a gallon to produce in the United States, far more than the cost of conventional gasoline. The stuff only makes it to the pump because the feds and the states give it a big financial boost. In 2006, the subsidies translated into $1.05 to $1.38 per gallon of ethanol, or 42 percent to 55 percent of its wholesale market price.”

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

(more…)

Why the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjust

8 maj, 2008

Som jag har konstaterat tidigare:

Folk börjar äntligen få upp ögonen och genomskådar detta gigantiska skojeri som Global Warming Hysterikerna försöker tvinga på folk genom nya och högre skatter/avgifter. Och framförallt detta sanslöst dyra system med handel på utsläppsrätter som 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!

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.

Istället pratar våra svenska politiker på som om inget har hänt och vill 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.

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?

Här kommer mera kritik från en studie som har undersökt de lokala effekterna av handeln med utsläppsrätter. Observera att författarna tror på Global Warming.

Citat:

Abstract

Tree plantations aimed at ”compensating” for industrial carbon-dioxide emissions are now being established in many parts of the world. The market for what such plantations are said to produce — which is not, strictly speaking, carbon but rather a sort of carbon-sink equivalent — presupposes an accounting system capable of commensurating and calculating over decades the global interactions of intercoupled ecological, social, geological, political, hydrological, bureaucratic, biochemical, economic, and atmospheric systems. The fact that such an accounting scheme is impossible has not so far proved to be an obstacle to the ongoing construction of the market and its associated system of property rights and distribution. This market is being put together not so much by states as by a burgeoning international web of technocrats, multilateral agencies, corporate alliances, brokers, lobbyists, consultants, financiers, think tanks, lawyers, forestry companies and non-government organizations. Like other enclosure movements, the push for carbon ”offset” plantations extends and normalizes inequality. In applying ”first-possession” views of property to the atmosphere, it would put particular pressure on local land and water rights in the South and could well become a source of rural strife rivaling industrial pulpwood and oil palm plantations. Understanding the discourses through which the carbon ”offset” market is being created will be crucial to political action on climate change.

Most presentations at our [Yale University] Agrarian Studies 2000 conference analyze, in one way or another, past and present agrarian economies. This paper, by contrast, looks at what may become a future tree plantation economy revolving around a new global export crop: biological climate-change equivalents, or carbon sequestration credits. I hope to establish three main points: first, that the commodity to be traded in this new market is fictitious and that buying and selling it does not, in fact, address the issue of climate change; second, that the system of property rights the new market presupposes is inegalitarian and regressively redistributive; and third, that the expansion of carbon ”offset” plantations is likely to provoke rural resistance. One ironic consequence of this new agrarian economy may be that industrialized countries’ destabilization of global climate becomes, for the first time, an everyday political issue for many rural dwellers in the South.”

Se även mina tidigare inlägg bl.a.: Green tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!Green Week and Earth Week probably should be disclosed as lobbying efforts!How will the political class manage the necessary climb-down?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 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!,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=52186

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

(more…)

Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views!

8 maj, 2008

Här kommer mera om hur Global Warming Hysterikerna SYSTEMATISKT FÖRVANSKAR OCH FÖRÄNDRAR biografier i Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) från vetenskapsmän som inte stödjer Global Warming Hysterin.

Samtidigt som de förskönar motsvarande biografier från sina egna ”hjältar” inklusive tar bort all kritik på deras felaktiga vetenskapliga resultat.

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

Som sagt – ”Debatten är ju över”, ”Det finns inget att diskutera” och ”Det är omoraliskt att ENS TÄNKA TANKEN” enligt Al Gore et consortes.

Visst är det skönt att leva i ett öppet samhället där sanning och vetenskap respekteras! Och tur att vi inte lever på inkvisitionens tid då man förföljde och tystade folk p.g.a. deras vetenskapliga åsikter som gick på tvärs mot vad man DÅ var överens om.

Se även mitt inlägg:  Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything critically of Global Warming!

Några citat:

”Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he’s a big shot at Wikipedia — an administrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down scientists of great accomplishment. Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought-after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.

One such scientist is Fred Singer, the First Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a NASA commendation for research on particle clouds — in short, a scientist with dazzling achievements who is everything Connolley is not.

Under Connolley’ssupervision, Singer is relentlessly smeared, and has been for years, as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. When a smear is inadequate, or when a fair-minded Wikipedian tries to correct a smear, Connolley and his cohorts are there to widen the smear or remove the correction, often rebuking the Wikipedian in the process.

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, as well as a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favours.

”Peiser’s crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an ”edit war,” as they’re called.”

Connolley and his cohorts don’t just edit pages of scientists actively involved in the global warming debate. Scientists who work in unrelated fields, but who have findings that indirectly bolster a critique of climate change orthodoxy, will also get smeared. So will non-scientists and organizations that he disagrees with. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5-million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=490337&p=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…)

IPCC Review Editors – “No Working Papers”, “No Correspondence” are kept!

5 maj, 2008

Här kommer en fortsättning på beskrivningen hur IPCC:s arbete EGENTLIGEN GÅR till. Jag har redan tidigare konstaterat att det är ett mycket begränsat fåtal (Bara 5, säg 5 vetenskapsmän kommenterade alla 11 kapitlen) som de facto bestämmer vad som står i WG1 och ”Summary for Policymakers”. (The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!)

Nu visar det sig att ” Review Editors” systematiskt bryter mot IPCC: s egna regler som säger att ALLA KOMMENTERER skall bevaras i 5 år och att hela processen skall vara  ”open and transparent”.

Vilket vi redan vet är en lögn då man systematiskt förvägrar insyn och det är bara tack vara USA:s freedom of information act som vi har fått tillgång till delar av materialet som rör WG1 eftersom de är placerade i USA (tack för det USA!)

Nu visar det sig dessutom att de ansvariga ” Review Editors” systematiskt har förstört allt material (knappt innan ”bläcket” har hunnit torkat på den officiella rapporten AR4)! Eller så säger man sig INTE KUNNA HITTA korrespondens eller kommentarer.

Visst är det en tjusig och SANN vetenskaplig verksamhet som dessa politruker bedriver i vetenskapens namn!

Och på grund av dessa politiska manipulationer i ”vetenskapens namn” så skall alltså GIGANTISKA SUMMOR läggas ut på nonsensåtgärder som förstör ekonomin och välståndet i den industriella världen.

Och som sagt, den svenska regeringen vill gå i täten på detta sorglustiga spektakel och därmed verkligen garantera att det svenska folket får betala enorma summor för att göda skojeriet med handeln på utsläppsrätter.

Se även bl.a 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!IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?IPCC and its bias!Peer Review – What it actually means

Och

Green tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!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!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  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,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3061

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…)

China ALONE was behind a 54 % INCREASE in CO2 emissions 2001-2006!

3 maj, 2008

Här kommer en mycket intressant artikel i Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L08806, doi:10.1029/2007GL032887. som heter ”China: Emissions pattern of the world leader in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption and cement production,”. Och är skriven av Gregg, J. S., R. J. Andres, and G. Marland från ”the University of Maryland, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Austria’s International Institute for Applied Systems.” Analysis

Varför i hela friden är nu detta papper så intressant? JO, förutom att konstatera att Kina numera är nummer ett på CO2 utsläpp Kina ENSAMT svarade för 54 % av ÖKNINGEN av CO2 utsläppen under 2001-2006!

Som jämförelse så har utsläppen i USA stått stilla och till och med sjunkit under denna tidsperiod. Se mitt inlägg: Ett obekvämt faktum!

Och som sagt Kina har INTE skrivit under Kyoto protokollet och har INGA som helst planer på att göra detta (tillsammans med Indien och en mängd andra länder).

Vad som mera är intressant är deras konstaterande: ”Fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacture are the principal anthropogenic sources of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2), and hence the principal concern in efforts to address anthropogenic climate change.”

Några citat:

Fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacture are the principal anthropogenic sources of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2), and hence the principal concern in efforts to address anthropogenic climate change.” Furthermore, they state ”The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) database shows global emissions from fossil fuels and cement have grown from 6.2 Pg C in 1990, the base year for commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, to 7.2 Pg C in 2001 and 8.4 Pg C in 2006.”

”Be alert that we are looking at the buildup of carbon (C), and not the much larger number for the buildup of CO2. Recall from your recent chemistry class that the molecular weight of carbon is 12, while the molecular weight of CO2 is 44. The convention in the scientific community is to keep track of the carbon and report the results for carbon only. The global emissions of carbon is 2006 was 6.2 Pg; the global emission of CO2 in 2006 was therefore 22.7 Pg. We find a great deal of confusion on this topic as we examine websites on global warming.”

Rapid growth over the last five years has been dominated by economic growth in developing countries, with 54% of the global increase in CO2 emissions over the period 2001-2006 coming from China alone.”

They note ”CO2 emissions from China increased nearly 80% from 2000 to 2006. Emissions for 2003 and 2004 saw rates of increase of 17% and 18% respectively. This outpaced the phenomenal 10% annual growth in real gross domestic product.” They note that ”when considering estimates of monthly CO2 emissions, our best estimate is that China reached US levels of emissions for the first time in November 2005, with both countries emitting 132 TgC/month, and then eventually passed the US in September of 2006, emitting at a rate 142 TgC/month, subject again to the uncertainties in the underlying data on energy consumption, as discussed below. Therefore, our best estimate is that the crossing between the United States and China occurred late 2006.”

”Gregg et al. generated the monthly plot below (Figure 2) for the period 2001 through 2006, and it also shows the incredible increase in CO2 emissions from China.

However, almost lost in the focus on China is the fact that CO2 emissions from the United States have not increased over the 2001-2006 period. Who would ever believe that the CO2 emission of the United States has not increased one bit during the Bush-Cheney administration. This fact is certainly not going to be well received by the climate alarmists who seem anxious to blame the United States for anything related to global warming.”

Designated as a developing country, China was not given Annex I status, and thus is not required to meet emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Whether we are observing increasing consumption in developing countries or the export of emissions from developed countries, global CO2 emissions are in a period of rapid growth that is nullifying the mitigation aspirations of international agreements. Although there is still concern about energy data from China, it is clear that CO2 emissions are growing very rapidly; over half of the global growth in emissions is occurring in China. Per capita emissions from China are now at global-average values and are reaching European-average values in some rapidly industrializing areas. This is propelling China into the position as the largest national source of CO2.”

Se även mina inlägg: A CO2 graph that says it all!Realpolitik i klimat dimmorna

Abstract finns här (man måste betala för att läsa hela artikeln):

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032887.shtml

Artikeln finns här (och nedan med grafer):

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/02/china-is-1/

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

(more…)

Green tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’

2 maj, 2008

Folk börjar äntligen få upp ögonen och genomskådar detta gigantiska skojeri som Global Warming Hysterikerna försöker tvinga på folk genom nya och högre skatter/avgifter. Och framförallt detta sanslöst dyra system med handel på utsläppsrätter som 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!

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.

Istället pratar våra svenska politiker på som om inget har hänt och vill 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.

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?

Några citat:

”The survey also reveals that most Britons believe ”green” taxes on 4x4s, plastic bags and other consumer goods have been imposed to raise cash rather than change our behaviour, while two-thirds of Britons think the entire green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes.”

”Mike Childs, the head of campaigns for Friends of the Earth, blamed the Government for generating a cynical response to ”green taxes”. ”People do get cynical unless they see benefits,” he said. ”The Government is playing a dangerous game. They are using climate change to identify potential new taxes and revenues but the public aren’t seeing anything in return.

”Mark Hodson, of Opinium Research, said: ”Britain appears to be feeling increasingly negative about being more carbon neutral. We are questioning the truth behind being greener and many feel that Government is creating a green fear for monetary gain.”

Se även mina inlägg: A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!Green Week and Earth Week probably should be disclosed as lobbying efforts!How will the political class manage the necessary climb-down?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 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!,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/green-tax-revolt-britons-will-not-foot-bill-to-save-planet-819703.html

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

(more…)

Snötäcket fortfarande stort på norra halvklotet!

2 maj, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg om rekordnivåer på havsisen (Havsisen fortsätter att växa så det knakar!) så kommer här data om snötäckningen på norra halvklotet.

I januari så var snötäcket det största på 10 år på norra halvklotet. Och det här årets vinter (december-februari) har den tredje största snötäcket sedan 1966.

Tänk vad Global Warming kan ställa till med! Det är ju tur att vi INTE HAR Global Cooling.

Här pratar Global Warming Hysterikerna ständigt om att glaciärer, isar smälter etc. och så har vi rekordnivåer på snö och ismassor både på norra och södra halvklotet!

Global Warming Anyone?

SSe även mina inlägg: Snötäcket det största på 10 år på Norra halvklotet!Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age! Eller – If global warming gets any worse we’ll all freeze to death!

 

  

 

 

 

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!

2 maj, 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. April ligger 20% ÖVER DET NORMALA (januari låg 35% över, februari låg 30 % över, mars 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?

Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008 – the second smallest since 1987! EXPLORER’S NORTH POLE ATTEMPT HALTED BY ICEHavsisen fortsätter att växa så det knakar!

 

                 GLOBAL SEA ICE AREA

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

 


%d bloggare gillar detta: