Archive for oktober, 2008

Politically Incorrect Guide To Politics and the US election

29 oktober, 2008

As a complement to my post Structured Investment Vehicle OR the Sub Prime Crisis Explained the way the popular press never managed to do it  comes here ABC: s program 20/20 from Friday, October 17, Politically Incorrect Guide To Politics. Which gives a good background to the election.

And politicians and politics in general.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>miljö USA</a>

The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature

29 oktober, 2008

Som ett komplement till mina tidigare inlägg bl.a.: 422 700 år av temperaturdata från Antarktis, Temperaturen för 130 000 år sedan och Temperature data – What it really means., som handlade om Vostok Ice Core temperatur data. Kommer här en mera detaljerad genomgång av Vostok datat uppsplittrat på 50 000 års intervaller.

Se även: GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM 2500 B.C. TO 2008 A.D.,    Global Warming: Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?,  This is what the Global Warming Hysteria is all about – 0,03%!,  A Climate of Belief – The Story of Climate models!,  Study of Greenland Ice Finds Rapid Change in Past Climate,  NOAA Cherry Picking on Trend Analyses,  The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic,  Ytvattentemperaturen i Atlanten utanför Central Amerika de senaste 32 000 åren.,  Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series,  Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming ”theories” are correct!,  Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric Temperatures,  2 miljarder år av temperaturdata!Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?Outstanding Job That Anthony Watts Has Done On Documenting The Immediate Environment Of Suface Temperature Monitoring Sites,  The wonderful benefits of CO2!,  När CO2 var som störst var temperaturen som lägst!

Observera att det är bara några få procent under dessa 422 700 år som temperatur variationen har legat ÖVER 0 grader.

Global Warming anyone?

Orginal data här:

Och här:

The 800 year lag – graphed

Carbon follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores

In the 1990’s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, here and here, and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.

NOTE 1: What really matters here are the turning points, not the absolute levels.

NOTE 2: The carbon data is unfortunately far less detailed than the temperature data.

Beware of making conclusions about turning points

or lags when only one single point may be involved.

NOTE 3: The graph which illustrates the lag the best, and also has the most carbon data is 150,000-100,000 years ago.

The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are fairly neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise, positive feedback would become exponential fast. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide.

                   Klicka på graferna så blir de större!

                 Och så här såg min mera sammanpressade graf ut: 

                       Klicka på bilden så blir den större




Two weeks after I started this scientific poll the result are as follows:

Bring Global Warming ON – Please, Please!     -100%

Nä tack. Jag föredrar lovikavantar och pälsmössa   – 0%

If this whoping trend continues, I have to notify IPCC and Al Gore of this, as yet, unreported BIG shift in the opinion.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Alaska’s Glaciers Are Growing

28 oktober, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel från gårdagens Canada Free Press.

Solar winds, sunspot activity, high energy cosmic rays

Alaska’s Glaciers Are Growing

By Dennis Avery  Monday, October 27, 2008

Alaska’s glaciers grew this year, after shrinking for most of the last 200 years. The reason?  Global temperatures dropped over the past 18 months. The global mean annual temperature has been declining recently because the solar wind thrown out by the sun has retreated to its smallest extent in at least 50 years. This temperature downturn was not predicted by the global computer models, but had been predicted by the sunspot index since 2000.

The solar wind normally protects the earth from 90 percent of the high-energy cosmic rays that flash constantly through the universe. Henrik Svensmark at the Danish Space Research Institute has demonstrated that when more cosmic rays hit the earth, they create more of the low, wet clouds that deflect heat back into outer space. Thus the earth’s recent cooling.

Unusually large amounts of Alaskan snow last winter were followed by unusually chilly temperatures there this summer. ”In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years,” says Bruce Molnia of the U.S. Geological Survey, and author of The Glaciers of Alaska. ”It’s been a long time on most glaciers where they’ve actually had positive mass balance (added thickness).”

Overall, Molnia figures Alaska had lost 10-12,000 square kilometers of ice since 1800, the depths of the Little Ice Age. That’s enough ice to cover the state of Connecticut. Climate alarmists claim all the glaciers might disappear soon, but they haven’t looked at the long-term evidence of the 1,500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles. During the Little Ice Age-1400 to 1850-Muir Glacier filled the whole of Glacier Bay. Since then, the glacier has retreated 57 miles. But the Little Ice Age was preceded by the Medieval Warming, the cold Dark Ages, a Roman Warming, and a whole series of moderate warmings and coolings that extend back at least 1 million years based on the evidence of the microfossils in the world’s seabed sediments.

The real question is whether today’s warming is different than the previous Dansgaard-Osechger warming cycles. I think that the difference, if any, is slight.  Most of our Modern Warming occurred before 1940 and virtually all of our human-emitted CO2 came after that date. The temperatures in 1998-the recent peak-were only 0.2 degree C higher than in 1940. After the temperature drop of the past 18 months, the temperatures are now cooler than in 1940.

The 1,500-year cycles usually start with a sudden shift of 1-2 degrees-in temperate zones-and double that in Alaska. Then temperatures erratically rise and fall with the sun’s total irradiance changes, often in 11-year cycles. At the end of the warming, comes another Little Ice Age; or, every 100,000 years, a Big Ice Age that will drop temperatures about 15 degree C. That’s when insulation will truly become the most important invention in history.

The sunspots are now predicting a 30-year cooling of the earth. That would thicken the Alaskan glaciers somewhat, but probably wouldn’t refill Glacier Bay with ice. That’ll have to wait for the next icy age. 

The sunspot index has a 59 percent correlation with our temperatures (with a roughly ten-year lag). CO2 has only an ”accidental” 22 percent correlation with our temperatures, which should be grounds for dismissing CO2 as a major climate player.

All this is radically different from the 5-degree C warming predicted by the computer models. However, the scientific rule says:  if actual observations tell you something that’s the opposite of your theory, change your theory.

Dennis T. Avery, is a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute in Washington.  Dennis is the Director for Global Food Issues ([url=][/url]). He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Emissions from burping cows ‘higher than family car’

21 oktober, 2008

It’s those dam cows, goats, sheeps and camels again!

As a complement to my previous posts:  Global Warming Mass Hysteria – Scientists search for sheep that produce less fart,  Global Warming Mass Hysteria at it’s peak – collecting cow farts and burps!,  Global Warming Mass Hysteria at it’s peak – scaremongering is the name of the game

Here is some more about those dangerous cows, sheep, goats and camels which are EVEN WORSE than humans according to the Global Warming Hysterics.

Cats and dogs next as the BIG Threat to the environment?

Then hamsters and guinea pigs?

And who’s next?

The article from todays Independent is here:

Emissions from burping cows ‘higher than family car’


Tuesday, 21 October 2008

Cows produce large amounts of methane as they digest their food and then belch out most of it through their mouths

A herd of cows belches out more climate-changing gas than a family car, a university researcher said today.

Dr Andy Thorpe, an economist at the University of Portsmouth, explained that 200 cows burp the annual equivalent amount of methane to the energy produced by a family car being driven 111,850 miles..

The amount of methane produced by a herd was the same as the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced by a car burning 21,400 litres of petrol, he said.

He added that while CO2 emissions have increased by 31 per cent during the past 250 years, methane, which has a higher warming potential and a longer lifetime in the atmosphere, has increased by 149 per cent during the same period.

Dr Thorpe added that methane in the atmosphere was believed to be responsible for one-fifth of global warming experienced since 1750.

The main animal producers are domestic animals, particularly cows, sheep, goats and camels which have an additional stomach, he said.

They produce large amounts of methane as they digest their food and then belch out most of it through their mouths.

A dairy cow in New Zealand will typically produce around 176lb (80kg) of methane per year.

Dr Thorpe explained that much of the methane increase was taking place in the developing world where cows and other domestic animals are often bred for food.

He said: ”Methane emission growth, like CO2 growth, has been increasing exponentially in the developing world due to a rise in incomes leading to an increased demand for meat, and the ‘hamburger connection’ where developing countries make a lucrative profit supplying meat to developed countries.

If anything, methane emissions in the developing world are likely to increase.”

Dr Thorpe said methane was covered by the Kyoto Protocol on climate change but much of the developing world had not signed up to the agreement.

He explained that up to 75 per cent of animal methane emissions came from developing countries, with India and Brazil being the leading producers.

He said efforts were being made to reduce the emissions, including providing different feed and using vaccinations, but added that they were in early stages of research.

And he said there could be problems with downsizing herds as working animals could end up being replaced by petrol-driven vehicles and a reduction in meat could lead to a ”disastrous” increase in demand for fish and cereals.

Dr Thorpe, whose paper has been published in the journal Climatic Change, said: ”Developing countries are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol’s bid to limit emissions so there is currently little incentive for them to sacrifice foreign exchange earnings and/or eat less meat by herd downsizing.”

Each year, around 600 teragrammes of methane is produced worldwide with between 55 per cent and 70 per cent coming from man-made sources.


Two weeks after I started this scientific poll the result are as follows:

Hamsters   46%

Camels        15%

Guinea pigs   15%

Cows          15%

Humans         8%

If this trend continues, I have to notify IPCC and Al Gore of this, as yet, unreported BIG threat to the environment. However, I hope these poor hamsters doesn’t have to wear those huge plastic containers on their back as the cows in Argentina had to do ”in the name of research”.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Emperor Al Gores Earth

21 oktober, 2008

Some cartoons about The Global Warming Hysterics and their naked Emperor Al Gore.

The cartoons can be found here:

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Warning! In Case of Terrorist attack: Keep Your Wits! Do not discard brain

20 oktober, 2008


Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land 54!

Här kommer en utmärkt affisch som kollektivt tillägnas de intälägänta och värdiga representanter vi har i Sveriges riksdag och regeringen som röstade igenom FRA lagen.

De skulle behöva ha denna affisch klistrad på vaggen framför dem så att de förhoppningsvis förstår att det är TILLÅTET att tänka självständigt – om inte annat ibland, eller åtminstone en gång per mandatperiod.

De är ju trotts allt ”våra valda representanter” eller har jag missförstått något?

Finns som PDF här:

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, <a href=” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>,<a href=” rel=”tag”>fra</a>

Obama’s Carbon Ultimatum – The coming offer you WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE

20 oktober, 2008

Här kommer en som vanligt utmärkt artikel från dagens Wall Street Journal. Som beskriver hyckleriet från Global Warming hysterikerna. I det här fallet Obama, som först kritiserar Bush regeringen för att EPA är ”politiserat” (dvs. Bush har stoppat EPA från att driva en egen politik skild från kongressen).


Obama kör alltså över sitt EGET PARTI i DENNA FRÅGA (där motståndet är stort) och vill tvinga på ALLA SINA åtgärder.

Känns mönstret igen? Det är så här Global Warming hysterikerna reagerar när de får motstånd – Strunta i alla regler och tvinga igenom besluten!

Snacka om ”demokratiskt underskott” i dubbel bemärkelse!

Så mycket för Obamas ”consensus” och ”change”.

Och det var väl därför ALLA svenska partiledare UNISONT sa att de föredrog Obama i utfrågningen förra veckan. De verkar ju ha ett och annat att lära av ”mästaren” hur man får igenom sin vilja – oavsett vad det egna partiet och parlamentet tycker.

Se även mina inlägg: Democratic Senators rebelled against their leadership and opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill, America’s native criminal class – The CongressThe USA policy towards Kyoto,  Global Warming Hysterics view rising fuel costs as ‘the best thing that can possibly happen.’They Will Tax You to Death by cap and trade, But They Can’t Even Run a Restaurant!  Cap and Burn – Bye Bye Lieberman-WarnerThe scariest organization you ever seen – Take your children and run before they tax you to death!This carbon bill isn’t the answerCap and Spend – The largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax!,  An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!,  We Don’t Need a Climate Tax on the PoorClimate Reality Bites with Cap and trade – This is a giant revenue grabSacrifices to the Climate Gods Beware Lieberman-Warner, Just Call It ‘Cap-and-Tax’The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change LegislationDemocrats Fall OutMcWavering: What’s the Deal-Breaker for Lieberman-Warner?Obamas Big Carbon FootprintHow Hawaii Will Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change LegislationClimate Catastrophe for The state of WashingtonGlobal warming proposals would gut N.C. economy An Open Letter to the Presidential Candidates on Global WarmingCarbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’,


Obamas senate achievements – Ehh… Which achievements?? , Obamas Big Carbon Footprint

Artikeln finns här:

Obama’s Carbon Ultimatum

The coming offer you won’t be able to refuse.Article

Liberals pretend that only President Bush is preventing the U.S. from adopting some global warming ”solution.” But occasionally their mask slips. As Barack Obama’s energy adviser has now made clear, the would-be President intends to blackmail — or rather, greenmail — Congress into falling in line with his climate agenda.

Jason Grumet is currently executive director of an outfit called the National Commission on Energy Policy and one of Mr. Obama’s key policy aides. In an interview last week with Bloomberg, Mr. Grumet said that come January the Environmental Protection Agency ”would initiate those rulemakings” that classify carbon as a dangerous pollutant under current clean air laws. That move would impose new regulation and taxes across the entire economy, something that is usually the purview of Congress. Mr. Grumet warned that ”in the absence of Congressional action” 18 months after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, the EPA would move ahead with its own unilateral carbon crackdown anyway.

Well, well. For years, Democrats — including Senator Obama — have been howling about the ”politicization” of the EPA, which has nominally been part of the Bush Administration. The complaint has been that the White House blocked EPA bureaucrats from making the so-called ”endangerment finding” on carbon. Now it turns out that a President Obama would himself wield such a finding as a political bludgeon. He plans to issue an ultimatum to Congress: Either impose new taxes and limits on carbon that he finds amenable, or the EPA carbon police will be let loose to ravage the countryside.

The EPA hasn’t made a secret of how it would like to centrally plan the U.S. economy under the 1970 Clean Air Act. In a blueprint released in July, the agency didn’t exactly say it’d collectivize the farms — but pretty close, down to the ”grass clippings.” The EPA would monitor and regulate the carbon emissions of ”lawn and garden equipment” as well as everything with an engine, like cars, planes and boats. Eco-bureaucrats envision thousands of other emissions limits on all types of energy. Coal-fired power and other fossil fuels would be ruled out of existence, while all other prices would rise as the huge economic costs of the new regime were passed down the energy chain to consumers.

These costs would far exceed the burden of a straight carbon tax or cap-and-trade system enacted by Congress, because the Clean Air Act was never written to apply to carbon and other greenhouse gases. It’s like trying to do brain surgery with a butter knife. Mr. Obama wants to move ahead anyway because he knows that the costs of any carbon program will be high. He knows, too, that Congress — even with strongly Democratic majorities — might still balk at supporting tax increases on their constituents, even if it is done in the name of global warming.

Climate-change politics don’t break cleanly along partisan lines. The burden of a carbon clampdown will fall disproportionately on some states over others, especially the 25 interior states that get more than 50% of their electricity from coal. Rustbelt manufacturing states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania will get hit hard too. Once President Bush leaves office, the coastal Democrats pushing hardest for a climate change program might find their colleagues splitting off, especially after they vote for a huge tax increase on incomes.

Thus Messrs. Obama and Grumet want to invoke a political deus ex machina driven by a faulty interpretation of the Clean Air Act to force Congress’s hand. Mr. Obama and Democrats can then tell Americans that Congress must act to tax and regulate carbon to save the country from even worse bureaucratic consequences. It’s Mr. Obama’s version of Jack Benny’s old ”your money or your life” routine, but without the punch line.

The strategy is most notable for what it says about the climate-change lobby and its new standard bearer. Supposedly global warming is the transcendent challenge of the age, but Mr. Obama evidently doesn’t believe he’ll be able to convince his own party to do something about it without a bureaucratic ultimatum. Mr. Grumet justified it this way: ”The U.S. has to move quickly domestically . . . We cannot have a meaningful impact in the international discussion until we develop a meaningful domestic consensus.”

Normally a democracy reaches consensus through political debate and persuasion, but apparently for Mr. Obama that option is merely a nuisance. It’s another example of ”change” you’ll be given no choice but to believe in.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>miljö USA</a>

Paul Krugman and The Nobel Prize in economics – We’d like all of them back EXCEPT FOR Paul Krugman.

13 oktober, 2008

Min kommentar till att Paul Krugman får ”Nobels” ekonomipris (en utnämning så PK fast inte av lika ”hög” klass som Al Gores fredspris):

Tidskriften Slaters chefredaktör Cyrus Krohn (som var med från starten 1996 och blev chefredaktör i juli 2002) skrev ett memo till chefsjuristen på Microsoft (tidskriften ägdes av Microsoft vid tillfället) för att klaga på att New York Times ”snodde” deras bästa reportrar. Och att detta var ett brott mot den ”non-compete clause” som journalisterna undertecknat.

Och här kommer den obetalbara slutklämmen (som jag till fullo delar) – ”But just in case, we’d like all of them back except for Paul Krugman”.

Paul Krugman jobbade där mellan1996 och1999 då han gick till NYT,

”Slate is a daily magazine on the Web. Founded in 1996, we are a general-interest publication offering analysis and commentary about politics, news, and culture.”

Topic: Memos Sent to Romenesko

Date/Time: 9/5/2003 1:06:35 PM

Title: Slate publisher’s memo re losing staff to NYT

Posted By: Jim Romenesko

TO: Brad Smith

Sr. Vice President, Microsoft Legal & Corporate Affairs

FROM: Cyrus Krohn

Publisher, Slate Magazine

RE: Non-Compete Clause & Contractual Interference

Dear Brad:

As per my voicemail earlier today, I would like to bring to your attention an ongoing problem we’re experiencing at Slate.

A prominent East Coast newspaper, The New York Times, has been poaching from Slate, taking key writers and editors invaluable to our evolving franchise. Several years ago I viewed these departures as testament to Slate’s reputation within our industry. Being recognized by the media establishment as a breeding ground of top journalists was rewarding. But no longer do I hold these egress offenders in such high regard.

Granted the New York Times has been experiencing talent problems of their own lately, but that’s no excuse to ”brain drain” us. In my seven years with Slate, I’ve seen the Times make off with no fewer than five Slatesters. And just last week, they tried to hire away our esteemed editor-in-chief, Jacob Weisberg, according to this item in the New York Post. While the opportunity offered Weisberg was beneath his abilities, I’m thankful he didn’t follow his former colleagues.

Our mantra at Slate is to support budding journalists growing in their profession. Should a better opportunity present itself, by all means go forward. But this trend must cease. Our staff are bound by the non-compete clause they signed upon employment, and I was wondering if you could spare some time for Slate now that the DOJ case is behind us? This tortuous contractual interference is beginning to have adverse effects on us.

It’s improbable we’ll be able to recoup our losses. But just in case, we’d like all of them back except for Paul Krugman.

I appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you.



Putin’s Useful Idiots – The Environmental Movement

11 oktober, 2008

Här kommer en artikel av William Yeatman som beskriver det Tyska beroendet av den Ryska gasen och de utrikespolitiska följderna det har fått. Och det kan vi ”tacka” den tyska miljörörelsen för som konsekvent har motsatt sig ALLA realistiska alternativ, INKLUSIVE DE EGNA STORA GASTILLGÅNGARNA SOM MAN AV ”MILJÖSKÄL” INTE KAN ANVÄNDA.

Däremot så protesterar INTE miljörörelsen MOT den STORA importen av rysk gas. Och det totala beroende som detta har medfört.

Intressant eller hur.

Se även mina tidigare inlägg

 How the West Fueled Putin’s Sense of Impunity by doing nothing,  A Short collection of news about ”friendly neighborly Russian behavior”Russia’s War in Georgia and the background chronology to it,  Damage assessment: Georgian village Tamarasjeni the most destroyed and damagedAnother Russian Journalist Shoot in the Head – By the Police An Investment Gets Trapped in Kremlin’s Vise – Justice a la Gazprom/Russian style,  Russia’s Disinformation Campaign over South OssetiaCriticism = extremism in RussiaThe Russian system is characterized by intimidation and political passivity on the part of the population.How Putins critics get ”erased” from the TV screen Some more examples of Gazprom/Russian ”friendly” behaviourList of Gazprom’s huge empire of subsidiaries – Part 1,  List of Gazprom’s huge empire of subsidiaries – Part 2Before the Gunfire, Cyberattacks against GeorgiaGazprom and Nord Stream’s strong PR drive to influence local governments,   The Re-Sovietization of the Russian Press and Gazprom’s active part in it. Russia’s Gazprom’s Energy ImperialismScratch Russia Georgia War and You Find Oil and Gas Pipelines och Moscow’s Sinister Brilliance – Who wants to die for Tbilisi or Stockholm?

Artikeln finns här:

Putin’s Useful Idiots

By William Yeatman

Posted October 2008

Wonder why Russia has Europe over a barrel? Ask German environmentalists.

Give nukes a chance? Environmental activists have given Moscow new leverage over Europe.It is said that Vladimir Lenin once called Soviet sympathizers in Western countries ”useful idiots” for unwittingly advancing the cause of revolutionary Russia. Were the Bolshevik leader alive today, he might apply the same label to German environmentalists, whose influence over their country’s energy policy has been an inadvertent, but essential factor in Moscow‘s post-Cold War rise.

Two decades of stringent environmental regulations have made Germany, Europe‘s largest economy, increasingly dependent on natural gas from Russia, the world’s largest exporter. Of course, economic leverage translates seamlessly into political power, and Russia‘s sway over German foreign policy has been conspicuous as the recent imbroglio in Georgia has continued to play out.

In fact, Germany has the means to power its economy without Russian natural gas, so energy dependence is unnecessary. For starters, it is home to the largest reserves of coal in Europe. But thanks to the European Union’s marquee climate-change mitigation policy-the continent-wide Emission Trading Scheme-the economics of power production have shifted decidedly against coal because its combustion releases the most greenhouse gases of any conventional fuel source.

Given that coal is currently taboo, Germany could meet its energy needs by expanding the use of nuclear energy, which emits no carbon dioxide when used to generate electricity. Yet the environmental movement in Germany opposes nuclear energy because its waste is difficult and dangerous to store. In 2000, environmentalists won passage of the Nuclear Exit Law, which commits German utilities to phasing out nuclear power by 2020.

Rather than coal or nuclear, the environmental movement prefers sustainable sources of power such as wind and solar, and it has convinced the German government to grant generous subsidies to the renewable energy industry. But despite these investments, renewables are still too costly to displace conventional energy sources, which is why wind and solar power account for less than 2 percent of Germany‘s primary energy production, according to government figures.

That leaves natural gas, which is cleaner than coal and less expensive than alternative energy. Germany is fortunate to have large deposits of gas-more than 9 trillion cubic feet-most of which is thought to lie beneath the northwestern state of Niedersachsen. Environmental regulations, however, have limited exploration and development in the region.

To meet its demand for energy, Germany turned to Gazprom, a state-owned company that has a legal monopoly on natural gas exports from Russia. Natural gas currently accounts for almost a quarter of all the energy consumed in Germany, including all electricity in homes, gasoline in cars, and coal for industrial boilers. That’s up 40 percent since 1991. And Gazprom now supplies 40 percent of all natural gas consumption in Germany, an increase of 55 percent over the same period.

Currently, almost 40 percent of Germany’s domestic gas consumption comes from Russia. That share is likely to increase with the construction of the Northern Pipeline, a project to be completed in 2010 that would link Russian gas directly to Central European markets.

It’s little wonder, then, that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was the first major world leader to pay a visit to new Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Or that at last spring’s NATO summit in Romania, German diplomats orchestrated the opposition to U.S. President George W. Bush’s plan for expanding the trans-Atlantic military alliance to include Georgia and Ukraine. Before the summit, Russian officials had warned that NATO expansion would cause a ”deep crisis,” and provoke a ”response” from Russia.

Then, last week in St. Petersburg, Merkel became the first Western leader to restore close bilateral ties with Russia after the August conflict in Georgia. Not coincidentally, Merkel’s trip to Russia came at the same time that a major gas deal was signed between Gazprom and E.On, the German gas giant.

Merkel has been outspoken as the Kremlin has demonstrated a seeming willingness to use Russia’s energy resources as a cudgel in interstate disputes. As winter approached a year ago, Gazprom threatened to cut gas supplies to Ukraine after the pro-Russia candidate lost a major election. The timing of the warning was widely interpreted as a thinly veiled threat. So was the decision by Transneft, a state-owned pipeline company that has a monopoly on oil exports from Russia, to precipitously cut supplies to the Czech Republic last July after that country signed a deal with the United States to host radar technology as part of a global missile shield-a policy strenuously opposed by Moscow.

But actions speak louder than words, and Medvedev and his mentor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, are no doubt paying more attention to what Germany‘s leader does than what she says.

Domestic opposition to the Northern Pipeline has grown recently, and a debate has started on the future of coal in Germany. For the foreseeable future, however, Germany‘s foreign policy will be beholden to its energy dependence on Russia. And for that, we have the environmental movement to thank.

William Yeatman is an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om” rel=”tag”>Fri- och rättigheter</a>, <a href=”” rel=”tag”>Yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”” rel=”tag”>Russia</a>, <a href=” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”” rel=”tag”>Försvar</a>

Structured Investment Vehicle OR the Sub Prime Crisis Explained the way the popular press never managed to do it

11 oktober, 2008

Först ett brittiskt tv inslag för ETT år sedan där John Bird och John Fortune ”brilliantly, and accurately, describing the mindset of the investment banking community” i den här intervjun.

Och här ett nyhetsinslag från CNBC från juni 2007 som på ett enkelt sätt förklarar det hela.

Och sedan Olle Rossander i dagens DN Debatt om hur massmedia har, återigen, svikit i sin rapportering FÖRE, UNDER och EFTER finanskrisen. Allt han säger kan ordagrant överföras till vad det gäller ”rapporteringen” av Global Warming Hysterin.

Samma svek där och samma spridande av panik och skuldbeläggning av vanligt folk för saker som de INTE kan påverka.

DN Debatt:

Under finanskrisen sviker massmedierna sitt ansvar”

Mångårige ekonomijournalisten Olle Rossander om att ingen framhåller bankernas under lång tid lysande resultat: Läsare, kunder och ägare lämnas i sticket. Trots att rykten rasat i flera veckor om hur hårt våra svenska banker drabbats har inte någon ekonomiredaktion lyckats leverera en enda rejäl företagsanalys av exempelvis Swedbank. Läsare, kunder och ägare har lämnats i sticket av massmediernas ekonomibevakning. Ingen ekonomijournalist har ägnat sig åt vad som måste vara höstens viktigaste företagsanalys. Och detta är inte någon plötsligt påkommen försumlighet. Under flera år har ekonomiredaktionerna struntat i att tydligt beskriva bankernas hittills lysande resultat. Om ekonomijournalisterna i stället hade ifrågasatt bankchefernas egna versioner så skulle mycken oro ha besparats allmänheten och vanliga placerare hade undgått obegripliga riskpapper. Det skriver Olle Rossander, författare och ekonomijournalist sedan flera decennier.

Kris, krasch och elände! Krigsrubriker och hetsrapporter haglar. Banker får kapitaltillskott. Riksbanker pumpar in miljarder. Skattebetalare ser miljarder fladdra i väg ner mot Wall Street och Stureplan. Teve visar en kö utanför ett bankkontor – två minuter före öppningsdags. Tevekanalen rapporterar om landsting som förlorat hundratals miljoner på kraschen. Den stora dagstidningen (SvD) skriver utförligt om vad som händer ”NÄR BANKEN GÅR I KONKURS” – inte om! Tidskriften Fokus kör rubriken ”NÄR FALLER SWEDBANK?” utan egen analys. Aftonbladet skriver i krigsrubriker ”DITT KONTO KAN VARA I FARA” och Expressen kör hela listan: ”Kolla själv SÅ HÄR FARLIG ÄR DIN BANK – ny lista efter kraschen”.

Och kolla själv är just vad man får göra. Inte bara därför att tidningarna kan ha direkt fel, som i det skandalösa fallet med Aftonbladets (o)farliga konton, utan därför att journalisterna sviker sitt ansvar.

Trots att rykten rasat i flera veckor om hur drabbade våra svenska banker är, och då i synnerhet Swedbank, har inte ens specialtidningarna lyckats leverera en enda rejäl företagsanalys av den, eller för all del någon annan svensk bank. Läsare, kunder och ägare lämnas i sticket. Ingen ekonomijournalist tycks ha haft, eller fått, tid att ägna sig åt vad som måste vara höstens viktigaste företagsanalys!

Dagstidningarna fylls i stället av obekräftade uppgifter och pliktskyldiga uttalanden från bankledningen. Inte ens när Affärsvärlden i veckan satte av utrymme blir det en djuplodande företagsanalys med nyckeltal och jämförelser över tiden och med konkurrenterna.

Den bristfälliga bankbevakningen har pågått länge. Under flera år har ekonomiredaktionerna nästan undvikit att tydligt beskrivit bankernas hittills lysande resultat. Kortsiktiga kvartalsresultat har sällan satts i sitt sammanhang. Trots svindlande vinster med rörelsemarginaler på mellan 30 och 50 procent (!) har bankchefer kunnat lägga pannan i djupa veck och beklaga sig över den tuffa konkurrensen och det svaga räntenettot.

Senast häromveckan lyckades DN återigen skriva en om text hur svårt de stackars bankerna har det, eller i vart fall kan få, eftersom vinsterna väntas sjunka med flera miljarder! Men i förhållande till vad? Inte en stavelse på denna helsida om hur vinsten förhåller sig till omsättning eller eget kapital eller något annat som hade kunnat ge siffrorna relevans!

Och nu när sparare oroas för sina pengar går också våra största och mest ansedda redaktioner till bankchefen, Riksbanken och Finansinspektionen och frågar hur banken mår! Det är som att fråga hästhandlaren hur hästen mår! ”Jo, tack utmärkt” är ju det enda möjliga svaret. Sannolikheten för ett ärligt svar är nog störst hos hästhandlaren, för där råder ändå en viss lagstadgad köptrygghet. Bankchefer, i synnerhet riksbankschefer, får och skall nog om inte ljuga så i alla fall mörka om banken är i kris.

Jäktade reportrar tvingas att bli passiva mikrofonhållare och vidarebefordrare av andras utsagor. Medier fylls av illa underbyggda anekdotiska sanningar baserade på anonyma källors utsagor. Men vilka är dessa kunskapsstinna källor? Hur många är de? Hur mycket vet de? Vilka intressen har de själva? Hur många, av varandra oberoende, källor har journalisten?

Om fler journalister ägnat mer tid år att tidigt just ifrågasätta sina källors motiv och kunskap skulle mycken oro ha besparats allmänheten och vanliga placerare hade kanske avstått från obegripliga riskpapper. Och med mer källkritik hade kanske en del paniklösningar kunnat undvikas när bubblan väl sprack.

Varför kan jag inte få läsa några djuplodande, oberoende, kritiska företags- och branschanalyser? Det enkla svaret är – ekonomi! Massmedier är, eller beter sig som, kommersiella företag. Och rubriker om panik, kris, kaos, ras och katastrof säljer bättre än fluffiga formuleringar om å ena sidan och å andra sidan, både och, delvis och stabilt. Kan man sedan tillverka sina artiklar och inslag till lägsta möjliga kostnad på kortast möjliga tid ökar lönsamheten. Och med dagens teknik går det fort om man avstår från fördjupningar, dubbelkollar och långa förklaringar, så då gör man det. Undantaget är de många kloka texterna om det internationella läget de som ofta visar sig vara mer eller mindre rena omskrivningar (re-writes) av artiklar i Financial Times, New York Times, Economist och andra kvalitetstidningar.

Nu är jakten i gång efter förklaringen (helst den enda) och på de skyldiga (helst någon namngiven kändis). Då duger det inte att komma med fler samverkande komplicerade faktorer. På den journalistiska paletten ryms oftast inte fler färger än svart och vitt. Utpekade blir, självklart, finansmatadorer och presidenten, girigheten och bristen på regelverk! Hur kunde de vara så giriga och ansvarslösa? Varför har inget gjorts? Varför stoppades inte galenskaperna? Varför varnade man inte tid?

Frågorna haglar så högljutt att klirret från glashusets krossade rutor inte hörs! Journalisternas egen roll i krisen är viktig. När alltför många blir illa informerade sprider sig paniken. Och paniken föder som bekant sig själv.

Härmed inte sagt att finanskrisen skulle var massmediernas fel eller att det inte finns anledning till oro. Vad jag menar är att allmänheten inte har fått en rimlig chans till en välgrundad uppfattning i frågan eftersom alltför många journalister och redaktioner inte tagit sitt ansvar.

Och det är inte något slags förmyndaransvar för att lugna allmänheten eller hjälpa politiker, myndigheter och banker att lösa problemet. Ansvaret gäller att ge allmänheten korrekt och relevant information – ge det perspektiv och den insyn som krävs för att människor skall få en chans att förstå vad som händer eller kan hända. I stället får vi alltför många rent ut sagt stolliga, obegripliga, vilseledande och direkt felaktiga texter där det är uppenbart att journalisten själv inte begriper vad han eller hon rapporterar.

Nu är det inte lätt att hålla reda på facktermerna och i korta telegram förklara hur starka och rika företag kan få brist på pengar. Det är inte lätt att förstå vad det betyder när en riksbank ”tillför marknaden” ett antal miljarder. Det är inte lätt att veta att amerikanska bostadslån inte alls fungerar som i Sverige. Det är inte lätt att analysera en banks ekonomiska situation. Och det tar lite tid att ge perspektiv som sträcker sig längre än något kvartal tillbaka i tiden.

Men vem har sagt att journalistiken skall vara lätt? Det är kunniga journalisters jobb att ta reda på, och därefter förklara, hur det förhåller sig. För att göra ett fullgott jobb räcker det inte med att sticka en mikrofon under näsan på någon hyfsat verbal expert eller kollega och fråga hur han eller hon upplever situationen!

Olle Rossander

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, <a href=” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>

Global Warming Mass Hysteria – Scientists search for sheep that produce less fart

10 oktober, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt inlägg Global Warming Mass Hysteria at it’s peak – collecting cow farts and burps! kommer här mera nyheter och rön om de stora vetenskapliga landvinningar som man ägnar sig åt i Global Warming Hysterins ehh.. förlåt vetenskapens namn.

Scientists search for flock with less fart

Posted Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:01am AEDT

Updated Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:40am AEDT

Australian researchers have begun looking at how to breed sheep that produce less methane gas.

The CRC for Sheep Industry Innovation says the average sheep produces 20 litres of methane gas per day and with almost 90 million sheep in the national flock, it says there is significant pressure to reduce gas production in light of the climate change debate.

Now researchers are working to unlock the science behind how sheep produce the greenhouse gas.

CRC professor James Rowe says one element is to look at the genetic variation of animals.

He says this may help breeders select sheep that produce less gas.

 ”The genetic angle is brand new, nobody has successfully looked at the genetic variation,” he said.

Professor Rowe says researches will try and select sheep that produce less methane gas, while still producing quality wool.

The last thing we want to do is to be selecting for sheep that produce very little methane but they don’t grow, they don’t produce the wool that we need,” he said.

”So having this resource where we can understand the full genetic implications of selecting and working with more efficient sheep is the real breakthrough we’re talking about.”

The first results are expected by the end of the year.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Global Warming Skeptics: Why Do They Exist?

8 oktober, 2008

Här kommer tre utmärkta artiklar. En av James Nash (a climate scientist with Greatest Planet) om bl.a. hockey-stick skandalen.

Och två bra artiklar om ”Hard Sience” och ”Climate: The First Post-Modernist Science?”av Warren Meyer.

Visst är det skönt med all denna ”vetenskap” som ligger bakom Global Warming Hysterin!

Climate: The First Post-Modernist Science?:

Reading this, I start to come to the conclusion that climate scientists are attempting to make Climate the first post-modernist physical science.  It certainly would explain why climate is so far short of being a ”big-boy science” like physics, where replicating results is more important than casual review of publications by a cherry-picked group of peers.

Additionally, it goes a long way to explaining why Steve McIntyre gets this response when he requests the data he needs to try to replicate certain climate studies (and here):

”    We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.”

Fake but Accurate — Now Coming to the Hard Sciences:

A huge number of physicists and geologists who actually take the time to look into the details of climate science come away being shocked at the scholarship.  Take a world class physicist, drop him into a discussion of the details of the Mann hockey stick analysis, and in an hour you will have a skeptic.

Crazy?  Remember the words of from National Center for Atmospheric Research (NOAA) climate researcher and global warming action promoter, Steven Schneider:

”We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Global Warming Skeptics: Why Do They Exist?

By : James Nash    

Submitted 2008-10-07 22:06:21 

In the global warming debate, there are essentially two broad camps. One believes that the science is settled, that global warming is serious and man-made, and that urgent action must be taken to mitigate or prevent a future calamity. The other believes that the science is far from settled, that precious little is known about global warming or its likely effects, and that prudence dictates more research and caution before intervening massively in the economy.

The ”science is settled” camp, much the larger of the two, includes many eminent scientists with impressive credentials. But just who are the global warming skeptics who question the studies from the great majority of climate scientists and what are their motives?

Many in the ”science is settled” camp claim that the skeptics are untrustworthy — that they are either cranks or otherwise at the periphery of their profession, or that they are in the pockets of Exxon or other corporate interests. The skeptics are increasingly being called Deniers, a term used by analogy to the Holocaust, to convey the catastrophe that could befall mankind if action is not taken. Increasingly, too, the press is taking up the Denier theme, convincing the public that the global-warming debate is over.

Many critics became involved in the global-warming debate after the publication of research by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann’s study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are ”likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years” and that the ”1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year” of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann’s hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick’s long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick’s blade) this century.

Mann’s findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann’s work also had its critics, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.

Many critics found that Mann made a basic error that may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology, and that here was no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians. Instead, Mann and his small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their studies. I]f statistical methods are being used, the critics argue, then statisticians ought to be funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the best quality science is being done, adding that there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics.

In other words, the critics believe that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt – although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, they believe, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.

One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. As an example of the statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, the critics cite the American Meteorological Association’s 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association.

While the critic’s advice – to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics – may seem too obvious to need stating, the ”science is settled” camp resists it. Mann’s hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.

To which the critics, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. They are baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.

Author Resource:- James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet ( Greatest Planet is a non-profit environmental organization specialising in carbon offset investments.

James Nash is solely responsible for the contents of this article.

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Italy’s Environment Minister says EU CO2 targets too costly

7 oktober, 2008

Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg Six EU states ready to block climate plan kommer här några kommentarer i en intervju idag från Italiens miljöminister Stefania Prestigiacomo. Som också har insett de gigantiska kostnaderna för dessa nonsensåtgärder.

Men våra inhemska varianter pratar fortfarande på i nattmössan om att Sverige skall gå i täten och ta ledningen. Arma svenska folk med sådana värdiga representanter i Sveriges regering och riksdagen.

Italy minister says EU CO2 targets too costly-report

10.07.08, 8:11 AM ET

MILAN, Oct 7 (Reuters) – The global financial turmoil has made European plans to cut carbon emissions steeply by 2020 too costly and its burden should be shared with other countries, Italy’s Environment Minister was on Tuesday quoted as saying.

By 2020 the European Union aims to cut greenhouse gases emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels and have 20 percent of energy coming from renewable sources with overall costs estimated at about 0.5 percent of gross domestic product a year.

‘In this period of international economic difficulties it is absurd that Europe alone should take on a heavy burden of costs to achieve very modest environmental benefits,’ Stefania Prestigiacomo told Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore in an interview.

Meeting the EU targets, including debated car emission reductions, would cost Italy unsustainable’ 20-25 billion euros ($27.18 billion to $33.98 billion) a year, while its contribution to the overall carbon dioxide reduction goal was a tiny 0.3 percent, Prestigiacomo said.

Italy would like to ‘improve’ the EU package by scrapping binding mechanisms and clarifying criteria on how target burden is distributed among the countries, she said.

The EU also should get the world biggest polluters, such as the United States, China and India, involved more actively in fighting climate change to make it really efficient, she added.

‘We are ready to accept sacrifices if they bring real benefits, not virtual,’ she said ahead of European ministers’ meeting on climate change and energy policy on Oct. 15.

(Reporting by Svetlana Kovalyova; editing by James Jukwey) ($1=.7358 EURO)

Copyright Thomson Financial News Limited 2008. All rights reserved.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om =” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Atmospheric CO2 and Climate on Millennial Time Scales During the Last Glacial Period

5 oktober, 2008

These increases in CO2 concentration occurred during stadial (cold) periods in the Northern Hemisphere, several thousand years before abrupt warming events in Greenland.”

Hur var det nu Nobelprisvinnarna IPCC och Al Gore et consortes brukar säga:

”CO2 drives temperature”  Ehh.. Tror inte det!

”The paper concludes:

Our results support the idea that atmospheric CO2 concentration is controlled by oceanic processes, especially those associated with proxies for the reduction of stratification in the Southern Ocean, but also affected by the Northern Hemisphere climate. Reductions in overturning circulation in the Northern Hemisphere appear to be associated with increases in atmospheric CO2. On the basis of these data, if global warming causes a decrease in the overturning circulation, we might expect a positive feedback from additional CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. However, the application of those observations to the future carbon cycle should be done cautiously because of differences between glacial and interglacial climate boundary conditions. It is likely that higher-resolution records of CO2 will reveal more details about precise timing between Antarctic and Greenlandic temperature and atmospheric CO2.”

Abstract finns här:

Originally published in Science Express on 11 September 2008

Science 3 October 2008:

Vol. 322. no. 5898, pp. 83 – 85

DOI: 10.1126/science.1160832


Atmospheric CO2 and Climate on Millennial Time Scales During the Last Glacial Period

Jinho Ahn* and Edward J. Brook

Reconstructions of ancient atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) variations help us better understand how the global carbon cycle and climate are linked. We compared CO2 variations on millennial time scales between 20,000 and 90,000 years ago with an Antarctic temperature proxy and records of abrupt climate change in the Northern Hemisphere. CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature were positively correlated over millennial-scale climate cycles, implying a strong connection to Southern Ocean processes. Evidence from marine sediment proxies indicates that CO2 concentration rose most rapidly when North Atlantic Deep Water shoaled and stratification in the Southern Ocean was reduced. These increases in CO2 concentration occurred during stadial (cold) periods in the Northern Hemisphere, several thousand years before abrupt warming events in Greenland.

Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-5506, USA.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Global Warming Appetizer – Coldest September in Ireland for 14 years

5 oktober, 2008

Most of the country suffered the coldest September in 14 years, forecasters revealed. In its monthly summary Met Eireann said the temperature never rose above 20 Celsius anywherethe first such occurrence in more than 30 years.”

Coldest September for 14 years

October 1, 2008

Most of the country suffered the coldest September in 14 years, forecasters revealed. In its monthly summary Met Eireann said the temperature never rose above 20 Celsius anywherethe first such occurrence in more than 30 years.

Average monthly air temperatures were around half a degree below normal at some southern weather stations and it was the coolest September since 1994 almost everywhere. Forecasters said they were unable to predict the weather over the winter months but the Met Office in Britain claimed temperatures are likely to be above normal over much of Europe, although not as mild as last year.

The summer washout seeped into the first half of September, with Dublin stations recording their usual monthly level of rainfall within the first six days. This also brought the stations’ annual totals for 2008 above the amount normally recorded in a full year. Dublin Airport’s downpour of 43.5mm on the 5th was its highest level for September since the station opened in 1941, while torrential rain on September 9 and 10 caused widespread flooding, especially in the south and west.

Copyright © 2008 The Press Association. All rights reserved

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

The English coastline was 2 miles (3 218 m) INLAND 2000 years ago – So Much For Sea Level Rise!

5 oktober, 2008

När romarna invaderade Storbritannien 43AD nära Sandwich så låg strandkanten drygt 3 218 m inåt land jämfört med nu.

Se det vare en havs höjning  Ehh.. SÄNKNING som heter duga.

Drygt 3218 m på 2000 år!

Dvs. en Flyttning av strandkanten med i GENOMSNITT 1,61 Meter Per År!

Eller som Nobelspristagen Al Gore brukar säga:

asserts that a sea-level rise of 20 feet is a realistic short-term prospect”

Se även bl.a. mina inlägg: Sea Level Rise in excess of 2 meters is physically untenable during the next 100 years,  Havsnivån har SJUNKIT med 170 m de senaste 80 miljoner åren!, Havsnivån har SJUNKIT med 170 m de senaste 80 miljoner åren – 2!,

Artikeln finns här:

Och här:

UK Beach 2 Miles Inland in 43 AD

So much for sea level rise:

The ‘lost’ beach where the Romans landed 2,000 years ago to begin their invasion of Britain has been uncovered by archaeologists. The remains of the shingle harbour were buried beneath 6ft of soil nearly two miles inland from the modern Kent coast.

It lies close to the remains of the Roman fort of Richborough near Sandwich, one of the most important Roman sites in England and once the gateway to the British Isles.

Daily Mail: ‘Uncovered, the ‘lost’ beach where the Romans got a toehold on Britain’

October 3rd, 2008 |

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Med anledning av kommentarerna – Så här ser det ut i verkligheten:

Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint – continuation!

5 oktober, 2008

Här kommer en uppdatering till mitt inlägg:  Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint! 

Al Gore är ju mannen som predikar för oss vanligt folk hur vi skall byta glödlampor och cykla till jobbet etc. Allt för att bekämpa CO2. Själv fortsätter dock hans eget ”carbon footprint” att ÖKA i GIGANTISKA PROPORTIONER

Som jag sagt tidigare:

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

Själv lever han som sagt inte som han lär, tvärtom.

Denne hycklare i kubik (om man räknar i hans 3 energislösande ”hem”, hans modesta resvanor med privata jetplan och limousiner), fick alltså Nobels fredspris för SINA insatser. Som jag sagt tidigare i mina inlägg om Al Gore: Hur långt får hyckleriet gå innan någon reagerar och säger ifrån?

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

Al Gore vägrade att svara och idag är det 564 dagar sedan han fick frågan. Och han vägrar fortfarande att svara och att avge något löfte.

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

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

Se även 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,  Hycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna råd

The Personal Energy Ethics Pledge finns här:

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Where’s Al Gore now?

Obviously, Al Gore’s personal ”carbon footprint” is massive. As I dug deeper into Gore’s own energy use, even I was surprised at the extent of the absolutely cartoonish gap between his words and his actions.

Remember, Al doesn’t think that you should have the right to make your own hallway light bulb choice.

Some recent stops on Gore’s travel schedule (which some are calling his ”con-trail”):

October 24, 2008–Seattle
October 15, 2008–Stockholm

October 7, 2008–Nashville (!)
October 4, 2008–Des Moines, Iowa
October 4, 2008–Minneapolis
September 27, 2008–Napa
September 27, 2008–San Jose
September 25, 2008–London
September 24, 2008–New York
August 23, 2008–Boulder, Colorado

May 19, 2008–Israel
May 18, 2008–Pittsburgh
May 4, 2008–Ohio
May 3, 2008–Philadelphia
May 2, 2008–New York
April 18, 2008–Nashville
April 15, 2008–Geneva
April 11, 2008–San Francisco
April 8, 2008–Iceland
April 7, 2008–Faroe Islands
April 5, 2008–Montreal
March 18, 2008–New York
March 15, 2008–India
March 12, 2008–Poland
March 11, 2008–Geneva
March 1, 2008–Monterey, California
February 14, 2008–New York City
January 31, 2008–Atlanta
January 24, 2008–Switzerland
January 22, 2008–Sweden
January 19, 2008–Park City, Utah
Dec 13, 2007–Bali
Dec 12, 2007–Frankfurt
Dec 12, 2007–Stockholm
Dec 7, 2007–Norway
November 30, 2007–London
November 20, 2007–The Turks and Caicos Islands
November 19, 2007–New York
November 6, 2007–New York
October 26, 2007–Spain
October 25, 2007–France
October 12, 2007–Palo Alto, California
October 5, 2007–Pacific Palisades, California
Sept. 25, 2007–New York
Sept. 19, 2007–Australia
Sept. 16, 2007–Los Angeles
August 26, 2007 San Francisco
August 26, 2007 Los Angeles
August 26, 2007 Nashville
August 9, 2007–Hong Kong
July 9, 2007–New Jersey
July 9, 2007–Washington, DC
July 3, 2007–London
June 20, 2007–South Africa
June 12, 2007–Istanbul
June 3, 2007–Denver
May 29, 2007–Washington, DC
May 24, 2007–New York City
May 23, 2007–San Francisco
May 22, 2007–Beverly Hills
May 11, 2007–Argentina
April 17, 2007–Nashville
April 13, 2007–New York
April 3, 2007–San Jose
April 2, 2007–Arizona
March 29, 2007–Oslo
March 22, 2007–Montreal
March 12, 2007–London
March 7, 2007–Brussels
February 25, 2007–Hollywood
February 6, 2007–Madrid
January 28, 2007–New York City
January 20, 2007–Century City, California
January 18, 2007–London
January 15, 2007–Tokyo

Note that this is only a partial list.

For example:

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

When he’s not in a fossil fuel-powered jet, maybe Gore is relaxing in one of these three homes:

[Al and Tipper] have a new multimillion-dollar home in a tony section of Nashville and a family home in Virginia, and have recently bought a multimillion-dollar condo at the St. Regis condo/hotel in San Francisco.

A video of Gore taking a private jet is here.

A related article is here, entitled ”Gore home’s energy use: 20 times average”.

Six EU states ready to block climate plan

5 oktober, 2008

De ekonomiska realiteterna vad det gället hela Global Warming Hysterin börjar gå upp för allt fler politiker ute i Europa. Nu har 6 stater i EU (Polen, Ungern, Slovakien, Rumänien, Bulgarien och Grekland) bildat en ”blocking minority” för att tvinga EU att tänka om och ändra systemet med handeln med utsläppsrätter.

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!

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

Jag har skrivit otaliga inlägg om detta, här är några:  Environmental Hysteria by Penn and Teller,  Rajendra Pachauri, The head of IPCC endorses and defends India’s aggressive coal plant building!Carbon quacks and reality denying politicians!A factory that makes 30 TIMES MORE MONEY by selling ”carbon credits” to fight global warming than it makes by selling it’s products.The scariest organization you ever seen – Take your children and run before they tax you to death!,  Billions wasted on UN climate carbon offsetting programme,  GREEN CORRUPTION: UNITED NATIONS CARBON CREDIT SCHEME ACCUSED OF FRAUD,  Russia will not sell it’s emission rights,  Why the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjust,  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. 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 Way,  Don’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,

Och se även mina inlägg om hur USA påverkas av en carbon trading tax:

Democratic Senators rebelled against their leadership and opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill,  America’s native criminal class – The Congress,  The USA policy towards KyotoGlobal Warming Hysterics view rising fuel costs as ‘the best thing that can possibly happen.’,  They Will Tax You to Death by cap and trade, But They Can’t Even Run a Restaurant!Cap and Burn – Bye Bye Lieberman-Warner,  The scariest organization you ever seen – Take your children and run before they tax you to death!This carbon bill isn’t the answer,  Cap and Spend – The largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax!,  We Don’t Need a Climate Tax on the PoorClimate Reality Bites with Cap and trade – This is a giant revenue grab,  Sacrifices to the Climate Gods Beware Lieberman-Warner,  Just Call It ‘Cap-and-Tax’,  The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation,  Democrats Fall Out,  McWavering: What’s the Deal-Breaker for Lieberman-Warner?,  Obamas Big Carbon Footprint,  How Hawaii Will Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change LegislationClimate Catastrophe for The state of Washington,  Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy,  Carbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’,

Artikeln finns här:

Six EU states ready to block climate plan: Poland

Fri Oct 3, 2008 5:37am By Gabriela Baczynska

WARSAW (Reuters) – Poland has assembled a blocking minority among the European Union members enabling them to stall Brussels’ climate package, Polish officials said.

Poland and Greece reached an agreement late on Thursday, following a similar accord with Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, that more debate was needed on the EU’s package of climate measures.

The European Commission — EU’s executive arm — aims, among others, to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by a fifth by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. Building up a blocking minority would now force it to seek a compromise on the plan.

”Poland’s Environment Minister Maciej Nowicki signed in Greece an agreement referring to the climate package,” Joanna Mackowiak of Nowicki’s cabinet, told Reuters late on Thursday. ”We have the blocking minority.”

Under the EU’s voting rules, some decisions may be blocked by a certain number of member states representing enough voting power.

The EC’s proposal sets full auctioning of the CO2 emission permits as of 2013. The six states want to delay this, arguing their power plants will not have enough cash to compete with giants like the Germany‘s E.ON on the free-market auctions.

At present, industry gets some permits for free and companies have to buy additional ones only if they exceed their granted quotas.

”This minority refers only to the auctioning,” a source responsible for the negotiations told Reuters on Friday, adding the EC would now try to lure particular countries away from the group.

”It’s not the biggest success when you build up a blocking minority. It’s when the minority sticks together to the very end.”

(Editing by James Jukwey)

© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

%d bloggare gillar detta: