Archive for februari, 2009

Peer Review – What it actually means 2

28 februari, 2009

Here is more on the subject of the unscientific ways of peer review from Professor Briggs.

”that peer review ”is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance.”

”It is easy to get a paper into print when the subject is ”hot”, or when you are friends with the editor or he owes you a favor, or your findings shame the editor’s enemies, or through a mistake, or by laziness of the referees”

”Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that ”peer review works well as it is”. (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192).

”A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research.” (Horrobin, 2001)”

”Peer Review is central to the organization of modern science…why not apply scientific [and engineering] methods to the peer review process” (Horrobin, 2001).”

”(5) Then there is the Sokal Hoax, where a physicist sent a paper full of gibberish to a preeminent social science journal to see if it would be published. It was. Sokal was careful to play to the preconceptions of the journals’ editors to gain acceptance. The lesson is the oldest: people-even scientists!-easily believe what they want to.”

”The authors liken acceptance of papers in journals to winning bids in auctions: sometimes the winner pays too much and the results aren’t worth as much as everybody thinks.”

See also my posts:

Peer Review – What it actually means

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

IPCC 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! 

Article here:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2009/02/25/peer-review/

 Peer review

 Published by Briggs at 7:07 am

Here is how peer review roughly works.

An author sends a paper to a journal. An editor nearly always sends the paper on to two or more referees. The referees read the paper with varying degrees of closeness, and then send a written recommendation to the editor saying ”publish” or ”do not publish.” The editor can either accept or ignore the referees’ recommendations.

The paper is then either published, or sent back to the author for revisions or rejection.

If the paper is rejected, the author will usually submit it to another journal, where the peer review process begins anew. This cycle continues until either the paper is published somewhere (the most typical outcome) or the author tires and quits.

Here are two false statements:

(A) All peer-reviewed, published papers are correct in their findings.

(B) All papers that have been rejected1 by peer review are incorrect in their findings.

These statements are also false if you add ”in/by the most prestigious journals” to them. (A) and (B) are false in every field, too, including, of course, climatology.

A climatology activist might argue, ”Given what I know about science, this peer-reviewed paper contains correct findings.” This is not a valid argument because (A) is true: the climatology paper might have findings which are false.

If the activist instead argued, ”Given what I know, this peer-reviewed paper probably contains correct findings” he will have come to a rational, inductive conclusion.

But a working climatologist (gastroenterologist, chemist, etc., etc.) will most likely argue, ”Given my experience, this peer-reviewed paper has a non-zero chance to contain correct findings.” Which is nothing more than a restatement of (A).

The ”non-zero chance” will be modified to suit his knowledge of the journal and the authors of the paper. For some papers, the chance of correct findings will be judged high, but for most papers, the chance of correct findings will be judged middling, and for a few it will be judged low as a worm’s belly.

Here is a sampling of evidence for that claim.

(1) Rothwell and Martyn (abstract and paper) examined referees’ reports from a prominent neuroscience journal and found that referee agreement was about 50%. That is, there is no consensus in neurology.

(2) No formal study (that I am aware of) has done the same for climatology, but personal experience suggests it is similar there. That is, there is at least one published paper on which the referees do not agree (at what is considered the best journal, Journal of Climate).

(3) Pharmacologist David Horrobin has written a commentary on peer-review in which he argues that the process has actually slowed down research in some fields. He also agrees with my summary:

Peer review is central to the organization of modern science. The peer-review process for submitted manuscripts is a crucial determinant of what sees the light of day in a particular journal. Fortunately, it is less effective in blocking publication completely; there are so many journals that most even modestly competent studies will be published provided that the authors are determined enough. The publication might not be in a prestigious journal, but at least it will get into print.

(4) I have just received an email ”Invitation to a Symposium on Peer Reviewing” which, in part, reads:

Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that ”peer review works well as it is”. (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192).

”A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research.” (Horrobin, 2001)

 Horrobin concludes that peer review ”is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance.” (Horrobin, 2001). This has been statistically proven and reported by an increasing number of journal editors.

But, ”Peer Review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice” (Goodstein, 2000), it is a necessary condition in quality assurance for Scientific/Engineering publications, and ”Peer Review is central to the organization of modern science…why not apply scientific [and engineering] methods to the peer review process” (Horrobin, 2001).

This is the purpose of the International Symposium on Peer Reviewing: ISPR (http://www.ICTconfer.org/ispr) being organized in the context of The 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Generation, Communication and Management: KGCM 2009 (http://www.ICTconfer.org/kgcm), which will be held on July 10-13, 2009, in Orlando, Florida, USA.

Be sure to visit the first link for more information.

 (5) Then there is the Sokal Hoax, where a physicist sent a paper full of gibberish to a preeminent social science journal to see if it would be published. It was. Sokal was careful to play to the preconceptions of the journals’ editors to gain acceptance. The lesson is the oldest: people-even scientists!-easily believe what they want to.

(5) John Ioannidis and colleagues in their article ”Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science.” The authors liken acceptance of papers in journals to winning bids in auctions: sometimes the winner pays too much and the results aren’t worth as much as everybody thinks. A review of the article here.

(7) UPDATE. Then there is arxiv.org, the repository of non-peer-reviewed ”preprints” (papers not yet printed in a journal). Arxiv is an acknowledgment by physicists, and lately mathematicians and even climatologists, that it’s better to take your findings directly to your audience and bypass the slow and error-prone refereeing process.

(8) It is easy to get a paper into print when the subject is ”hot”, or when you are friends with the editor or he owes you a favor, or your findings shame the editor’s enemies, or through a mistake, or by laziness of the referees, or in a journal with a reputation for sloppiness. In most fields, there are at least 100 monthly/quarterly journals. Thus it is exceedingly rare for a paper not to find a home, no matter how appalling or ridiculous its conclusions.

The listing of these facts is solely to prove that (A) and (B) are false, and that peer review is a crude sifter of truth.

Thus, when an activist or inactivist points to a peer-reviewed paper and says, ”See!”, he should not be surprised when his audience is unpersuaded. He should never argue that some finding must be true because it came from a peer-reviewed paper.

This web page has also tracked several peer-reviewed, published papers that are crap. Examples here, here, here, and here (more are coming).

————

1Incidentally, I have only had one methods paper rejected; all others I wrote were accepted to the first journal I sent them to. Nearly every collaborative paper I co-wrote has also been accepted eventually. I am an Associate editor at Monthly Weather Review, and have been a referee more times than I can remember, both for journals and grants.

I mention these things to show that I am familiar with the process and that I am not a disgruntled author seeking to impugn a system that has treated him unfairly. To the contrary, I have been lucky, and have had a better experience than most.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>varning-2

Annonser

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 11

22 februari, 2009

Och bergochdalbanan fortsätter i all oändlighet, upp och ner, upp och ner. Och verkar aldrig ta slut.

Idag den 21 februari, vid lunchtid denna vinterdag då det är minusgrader i hela landet, så är den SAMLADE EFFEKTEN FRÅN DE SVENSKA VINDKRAFTVERKEN  NERE PÅ 2,6 %.

Jäpp HELA 2, 6 %!

Jag säger bara en sak – tack Gode Gud för denna pålitliga och säkra energiförsörjning en vinter som denna!

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

Se även mina inlägg: Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals,  Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 10Vindkraften – En MINSKNING med 98 % på 3 dagar!Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 8However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to be – the reality is even worse,  Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 7Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 6Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 5Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 4Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 3Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 2Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effektThe Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power!Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion?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!Carbon Credits Fund Broken Turbine 

2009-02-22_010338

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

varning-2

GISS Climate Model already wrong after 5 years

21 februari, 2009

Här kommer mera om de felaktiga klimat modeller som hela Global Warming Hysterin bygger på. Som våra intälägänta politiker och massmedia dyrkar. Och är villiga att offra vanligt folks välstånd och sina länders ekonomier för.

I det här fallet är det GISS Modell E som har detaljstuderats från år 2003 till 2013:

”Extended trend IS ALREADY TOO HIGH by 0,15C or More in THE FIRST 5 YEARS”.

”Another way to look at is they have huge GHG temperature impacts built in (no way to get to +3.0C without it) but they need to build in almost as big negative temperature impacts from other sources to keep the hindcast close to the actual temperatures we have seen so far.

One could conclude they are just plugging the big negative numbers into the hindcast after the fact to make it work.

Which is close to the point Leland Teschler was trying to make in this article. (seen here)”

Se även min inlägg:  A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate ModelsThe Big dropout of weather stations since 1989 – A 66% reduction in 11 yearsThe Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature DataMore on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they haveThe world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature dataMinus 60 C or not?Documenting the global warming fraud – ”Getting Rid” of the Medieval Warming Period

Graphs here:

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2107/modeleextraev0.png

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8594/modeleextend2013gi9.png

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6131/modeleghgvsotherbc9.png

GISS E Model here

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

Article here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/19/short-term-trends-from-giss-model-e-the-model-would-be-off-by-about-015c-in-the-first-five-years/

2009-02-21_2255441

Detail

2009-02-21_225920

Detail

2009-02-21_232308

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

varning-2

Mr Pipik: I Don’t Believe In Global Warming come and sing with me

21 februari, 2009

Jag tänkte jag skulle vänta med det här inlägget tills helgen. Så här kommer mitt bidrag till melodifestivalen – En värdig vinnare!

Meet the new star Mr. Pipik and his new hit:

I Don’t Believe In Global Warming come and sing it now

I Don’t Believe In Global Warming come and sing with me

Glookabooka buk buk boo….

http://www.bigfish.tv/fest/films/view/global-warming

Tipps tack http://klimathot-gameover.blogspot.com/2009/02/ringsignalen-for-klimatpolitiker.html

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

varning-2

Speech of the President Václav Klaus in the European Parliament

21 februari, 2009

Det här talet höll president Klaus den 19 februari i Europa parlamentet. En del ”parlamentariker” kände sig förorättade, skrek och buade. Andra lämnade sessionssalen.

Vad dessa ”värdiga representanter” för ”folket” inte begrep, och som alla andra förstår, är att de därmed BARA BEVISADE vad Klaus tog upp i sitt tal om hur stort avståndet är mellan parlamentarikerna och det vanliga folket. Och hur demokratiskt undermålligt hela EU bygget är.

Som sagt, det ”demokratiska underskottet” inom EU är bara förnamnet!

Talet finns här:

http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=88EY96UW9zlp

19.2.2009 – ENGLISH PAGES

Speech of the President of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus in the European Parliament

Mr. Chairman, Members of European Parliament,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the possibility to speak here, in the European Parliament, in one of the key institutions of the European Union. I have been here several times but never before had an opportunity to speak at a plenary session. Therefore I do appreciate your invitation. The elected representatives of 27 countries with a broad spectrum of political opinions and views make a unique auditorium, as unique and in essence as revolutionary as the experiment of the European Union itself. For more than half a century, the EU has attempted to make decision-making in Europe better by moving a significant part of decisions from the individual states to the European institutions. 

I’ve come here from the capital of the Czech Republic, from Prague, from the historic centre of the Czech statehood, from one of the important places where European thinking, European culture and European civilisation has emerged and developed. I come as a representative of the Czech state, which has always, in all its various forms, been part of the European history, of a state, that has many times taken a direct and important part in shaping this history, and which wants to continue shaping it also today.

Nine years have passed since the president of the Czech Republic last spoke to you. That was my predecessor, Václav Havel, and it was four years before our accession to the European Union. Several weeks ago, the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek, also held a speech here, as a leader of a country presiding over the EU Council. His speech focused on topics, based on the priorities of the Czech presidency, as well as on the topical problems the EU countries are facing now.

This allows me to focus on issues that are more general, and – at first sight – perhaps less dramatic than solving the current economic crisis, the Ukrainian-Russian gas conflict, or the Gaza situation. I do believe, however, these issues are of extraordinary importance for the further development of the European integration project. 

In less than three months, the Czech Republic will commemorate the fifth anniversary of its EU accession. We will commemorate it with dignity. We will commemorate it as a country, which – unlike some other new member countries – does not feel disappointed over unfulfilled expectations connected with our membership. This is no surprise to me and there is a rational explanation for it. Our expectations were realistic. We knew well that we were entering a community formed and shaped by human beings. We knew it was not a utopian construction, put together without authentic human interests, visions, views and ideas. These interests as well as ideas can be found all over the EU and it cannot be otherwise. 

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

varning-2

(more…)

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 52 – IPRED och en Copyrightlagstiftning som har blivit absurd för konsumenterna

21 februari, 2009

Tyvärr så gäller fortfarande denna varning dag 52 och värre blir det:

varning-2

Från och med 00:00:01 den 1 januari 2009 så lever vi i ett land med en TOTAL OFFICIELL MASSAVLYSNING a la Stasi och KGB.

Tack vare våra intälägänta politiker som har, i brott mot grundlagen, sålt ut allt vad fri- och rättigheter, och rättssäkerhet heter.

Och vansinnet fortsätter! Och verkar snarast ÖKA I TAKT! Datalagringsdirektiv, Telekompaket, ACTA, IPRED, IPRED2, FRA1 och FRA 2, Remote Searching ,  Polismetodutredningen etc.

Som ett komplement till mina inlägg  Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 41 – Kriget mot kunderna och medborgarna och Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 25 kommer här bloggen Webbhakandes utmärkta sammanfattning av alla dessa inskränkningar och idiotier för konsumenten.

Samt en ledare i Expressen plus mera om underkännandet av FRA lagen från remissinstanser.

Märkligt nog är det ju så att konsumenten, den stackare som faktiskt betalar för boken/skivan/filmen hela tiden får sina rättigheter beskurna. Det är den som betalar som är rättslös. Det är därför man inte får flytta musik man köpt från en dator till en annan. Det är därför man antagligen begår ett brott om man berättar för någon kompis vad en bok handlar om. Det är därför alla filmer man köper börjar med en femminuters anklagelse om att man nog tänkt stjäla den här filmen, och att det är absolut förbjudet att se den här filmen tillsammans med andra människor (om inte de också köper varsitt exemplar, möjligen).

Det här är ovärdigt. I ett sunt samhälle med ett fungerande regelsystem skulle idiotier av den här typen inte förekomma. I ett samhälle med fungerande rättvisa borde det inte gå att dra människor inför domstol för att man tror att man förlorat pengar som man kanske kunde ta tjänat, eventuellt.”

Se även

Hård FRA-kritik från Töllborg

Publicerad: 20 februari 2009, 12.50. Senast ändrad: 20 februari 2009, 17.30

Släng förslaget om FRA-domstolen i papperskorgen! Den är helt feltänkt, öppnar för terrorangrepp och andra hot mot Sverige och ger sämre integritet för medborgarna. Den kritiken levererar professor Dennis Töllborg i ett remissvar från Göteborgs universitet till Försvarsdepartementet.

Han underkänner helt det kontrollsystem som nu är på väg att införas. I den nya Försvarsunderrättelsedomstolen ska ”personer som saknar varje form av erfarenhet och utbildning” i underrättelsefrågor i förväg lägga fast ramarna för FRA.

Svenska domare saknar helt utbildning för att klara av en sådan roll och ta den typ av proaktiva beslut som krävs, påpekar Töllborg. ”

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_2497813.svd

Förslag om FRA-domstol avvisas

Flera tunga remissinstanser sänker regeringens förslag om att inrätta en särskild FRA-domstol och riktar skarpa ord mot planerna.

Därmed får Anders Björck stöd för den kritik han i förra veckan framförde mot den nya lagen. ”

”Både Säkerhets- och integritetsskyddsnämnden (SIN) med förre Säpochefen Anders Eriksson som ordförande och hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge säger i sina remissvar till Försvarsdepartementet att de inte kan tillstyrka förslaget.

Hovrättens jurister konstaterar att det regeringen föreslår inte kan betecknas som domstol och därför bör kallas för vad det är, en nämnd.

Båda myndigheterna vänder sig mot att domstolen bara ska ha en domare, som utses av regeringen, och att dennes beslut inte ska kunna överklagas. SIN undrar om förslaget egentligen är förenligt med Europakonventionen om mänskliga rättigheter.

Meningslöst att informera

Båda svaren kritiserar också frånvaron av ett allmänt ombud i domstolen. Så här skriver Hovrätten:

Ett enpartsförfarande, där beslutet inte kan överklagas, ger ett förfarande som typiskt sett inte hör till rättsskipning”.”

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article4468570.ab

Inlägget här:

http://www.webhackande.se/foerbjud-allt

Förbjud allt

20 februari, 2009 – 15:32 – lholmq42

En god vän skrev en gång ”spräng allt och ät resten!” när han var på extra dåligt humör. Ibland känner jag att han nog hade en poäng där, det vore kanske läge att riva en del saker helt och bygga nytt från grunden i stället för att försöka lappa ihop och fixa brister en bit i taget.

Det är pusslandet som gjort Windows till det rappliga elände det är i dag, och när MS försöker komma med nya förbättrade versioner är de baserade på gammal kod bearbetad i kommittéer, vilket bara ger nya spännande felkällor i stället för ny stabil kod.

Copyrightlagstiftningen är också en sån här lappverkshistoria där alla ihärdigt lobbande företagsledare har gnällt till sig egna små förändringar tills man har ett samlat verk som är oöverskådligt, obegripligt, omöjligt att respektera och orimligt att försöka leva upp till. Jag såg nyss en artikel om att text-till-tal-programvara kan bryta mot författarnas copyright. Man har nämligen inte rätt att läsa högt. Det inkräktar på de stackars talboksförlagens möjliga intäkter, och vi vet ju att de möjliga intäkterna är de bästa intäkterna, och för att skydda sådana är ordningsmakten redo att göra ungefär vad som helst.

Så vad kommer härnäst? Jag förmodar att Ask kommer att ta krafttag mot alla svin till föräldrar som hänsynslöst läser sagor för sina barn utan att ge några pengar till de svältande konstnärerna. Det kanske kan bli en skatt på att ha läslampor, som kan fördelas enligt en hemlig formel av nystartade SFAA (svenska förläggares allmänna avskumsförening) till lite olika förlag, där de mystiskt smälter bort innan några ören råkar hamna hos de verkliga författarna?

Självklart blir det också ett frihetsberövande straff på sådär fyra år för det synnerligen grova brottet mot copyrighten. Ljudboksförlagen skulle ju tjänat 160 miljarder euro i veckan om det inte var för den här piratläsningen. Talsyntes måste förbjudas, för den kan ändå inte användas till lagliga saker, och de blinda som förlitar sig på det ska rimligen betala en extra straffavgift för att de helt egenmäktigt låter bli att köpa vanliga böcker och därmed kostar bokförlagen 160 miljarder euro till i förlorade intäkter. Egentligen kan man nog spara en massa tid och ork genom att fängsla alla med någon form av kollektivanslutning. Det finns ändå ingen som faktiskt lever upp till alla krav i alla delar av den där stinkande biten lagstiftning.

Med tanke på att det finns dårar där ute som argumenterar för att elever skall tvingas förstöra sina anteckningar efter avslutade studier, så de inte kan sälja det material de själva skrivit och därmed underminera studieboksförsäljningen, så är det bara att konstatera att det copyrightsystem vi har nu är så överarbetat och så snett ur nytto-kontra-kostnadssynpunkt att det inte finns något hopp för det. Elda upp skiten, och börja om från början, och ta med konsumentens behov i den nya versionen.

Märkligt nog är det ju så att konsumenten, den stackare som faktiskt betalar för boken/skivan/filmen hela tiden får sina rättigheter beskurna. Det är den som betalar som är rättslös. Det är därför man inte får flytta musik man köpt från en dator till en annan. Det är därför man antagligen begår ett brott om man berättar för någon kompis vad en bok handlar om. Det är därför alla filmer man köper börjar med en femminuters anklagelse om att man nog tänkt stjäla den här filmen, och att det är absolut förbjudet att se den här filmen tillsammans med andra människor (om inte de också köper varsitt exemplar, möjligen).

Det här är ovärdigt. I ett sunt samhälle med ett fungerande regelsystem skulle idiotier av den här typen inte förekomma. I ett samhälle med fungerande rättvisa borde det inte gå att dra människor inför domstol för att man tror att man förlorat pengar som man kanske kunde ta tjänat, eventuellt. Rättsväsendet borde gapskratta och kasta ut den som kommer och försöker starta en process på så vingliga grunder. I stället har vi påtryckningar från lobbygrupper, en rättegång där folk av allt att döma kommer att dömas för sina åsikter och inte för sina handlingar, och en justitieminister som jag inte kan beskriva med ord. När HTML 8 spikas och det finns ett protokoll för luktöverföring kan jag göra ett försök, möjligen.

JJ hade rätt. Spräng allt och ät resten, och bygg något nytt som faktiskt fungerar på de gamla ruinerna.

Ledaren här:

http://www.expressen.se/1.1473921

Isobel Hadley-Kamptz: Våra digitala liv är hotade

”Vi vinner oavsett hur det går.”

Det sade Peter Sunde, en av de åtalade bakom The Pirate Bay, på en presskonferens förra söndagen.

I snäv mening har han förmodligen rätt. PR-effekten för The Pirate Bays varumärke är oskattbar, och fälls de blir de ikoner för generationer. Fildelningen kommer knappast att påverkas alls.

Men det finns ett annat ”vi”. Ett vi – Internet, vi – mänskligheten. Och vi riskerar att förlora det mesta. Det handlar inte enbart om rättegången.

Nyligen blev det klart att socialdemokraterna på onsdag kommer rösta för Ipred och under våren kommer regeringen både lägga fram den reviderade FRA-lagen och datalagringsdirektivet.

Med dem kommer staten att ha total information om allas digitala liv.

I pipeline i EU finns Medina-rapporten, som vill kunna stänga av människor från Internet och Ipred2, som bland annat kommer straffa anstiftan till upphovsrättsintrång med näringsförbud.

Om det betyder att Expressen får lägga ner om jag skriver om fildelningens betydelse för kulturutvecklingen är oklart. Kanske skulle det krävas att jag aktivt uppmanade till kopiering.

Vi har precis levt i ett decennium av oöverträffad frihet. Den digitala revolution som pågått och pågår får 1968 att framstå som ett bridgeparty.

Kanske är det just därför som någon som Jan Guillou viftar undan nätet och påstår att den enda sanningen är möjlig i det han kallar riktiga medier. Nu är han del i den makt som hotas och därför försöker han låtsas som om ingenting förändras.

Men nätet är en enda ständigt pågående konversation där hierarkierna i sanning brutits ned.

Det handlar om en teknisk och mänsklig utveckling där det ena sporrar det andra i oändliga feedback-loopar.

Det som gör detta möjligt är dels internets själva struktur, dels den anda av frihet och nyfikenhet som präglar nätet.

Båda dessa grundförutsättningar hotas nu.

Det TPB-rättegången egentligen handlar om är om det i sig är olagligt att länka till saker som eventuellt är olagligt.

Skall man som länkande part ha ansvar för det material som finns på andra sidan länken, och i så fall i hur många led?

Om TPB är olagligt så är själva Internet olagligt. Internet bygger på länkandet, på sammankopplandet.

Man länkar sitt arbete och sin kreativitet till andras och summan blir större än delarna.

Det är inte en miljö där tanken att varje idé bör hållas åtskild från andra, skyddad i en liten guldbur låst med upphovsrätt och patent, är särskilt stark.

I sammanhanget är det dock fullt logiskt att franska underhållningsgiganten Vivendi kräver stopp för utbyggnaden av bandbredd.

Nu får det vara nog.

Alltihop används ändå bara av pirater.

Om länken är marken så är frihetsandan luften på nätet. Och den hotas direkt av alla integritetskränkande lagar.

Redan ser vi hur människor i Tyskland med deras FRA-lag avstår från att exempelvis kontakta psykologer och själavårdare via nätet.

Man vill inte få sina svagheter dokumenterade och lagrade av staten.

Samma sak kommer så småningom gälla även diskussioner om upphovsrätt, kopiering, multipliering. Straffen är så potentiellt drakoniska att människor kommer att dra sig för att ens riskera att delta.

Det är precis vad upphovsrättsindustrin vill. Men det är förödande för samhället. Vi får ett tystnadens klimat.

Kanske lever vi vårt -68. Men -68 var också året när Richard Milhouse Nixon blev president genom att kanalisera den lille mannens hat mot dem som var bättre rustade än han för framtiden.

Historien går igen på alldeles för många sätt.

 Av Isobel Hadley-Kamptz

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

Försvaret – Det totala vansinnet och oansvaret fortsätter som om ingenting har hänt

20 februari, 2009

Vad skall man säga?

När man tror att den absoluta bottennivån är nådd vad det gäller TOTAL INKOMPETENS OCH OANSVAR från försvarsledningen och våra politiker, och att  det OMÖJLIGEN KAN BLI VÄRRE. Ja menar det FINNS JU EN BOTTEN PÅ INKOMPETENSNIVÅN NÅGONSTANS.

Men tydligen INTEDet svenska försvaret ledds av personer som har lyckats med mästerstycket att passera den TOTALA INKOMPETENS NIVÅN och fortsätter neråt.

Det finns TYDLIGEN INGEN SOM HELST BOTTEN PÅ DENNA INKOMPETENS.

OCH INGEN TAR I VANLIG ORDNING NÅGOT SOM HELST ANSVAR FÖR NÅGONTING.

Varken politikerna eller försvarsledningen.

Och denna LEKSTUGA KOSTAR FORTFARANDE OMKRING 42 MILJARDER Kr.

OCH KAN INTE FÖRSVARA SVERIGE!

Och för DETTA OFFRAR ”VÅRA” politiker våra fri- och rättigheter med FRA-lagen i brott mot grundlagen!

Arma land och arma folk!

Se även mina inlägg:  Försvaret – Ett exempel PÅ TOTAL INKOMPETENS och OANSVARVi har en Försvarsmakt i fullständigt fritt fall – 2”Vi har en Försvarsmakt i fullständigt fritt fall”,  Försvaret – vilken total INKOMPETENS!,  Vårt dyra lilla försvar, Vårt dyra lilla försvar – 2, Vårt dyra lilla kastrerade försvar!

Artikeln här:

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_2495589.svd

Fienden kan avlyssna Gripenorder

Publicerad: 20 februari 2009, 06.10. Senast ändrad: 20 februari 2009, 08.59

Möjligheten att ta emot hemliga order försvann i den senaste versionen av stridsflygplanet Jas Gripen. Alla order till planet måste gå i klartext, uppger Sveriges Radios Ekoredaktion.

Det innebär inte bara att planets förare kan höra vad flygets stridsledningscentral säger – även en fiende kan höra det.

Dessutom blir det lättare att störa ut kommunikationen, säger FP-riksdagsmannen Allan Widman till Ekot. Och så här förblir det till 2015.

Widman hävdar att militärledningen hemlighöll detta för politikerna vid beslutet om köp av den ny Gripenversionen. De generaler som hade ansvar för projektet borde överväga att avgå, anser han.

De första Gripenplanen fick utrustning som möjliggjorde för piloterna att lyssna på sina krypterade order. Men de sista av de planen försvinner snart ur insatsorganisationen.

Anledningen till att det blivit så här är försvarets ekonomiska besparingar, säger flygvapnets utvecklingsansvarige Torgny Fälthammar till Ekot.

Stockholm TT

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/F%F6rsvar” rel=”tag”>Försvar</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>,<a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fra rel=”tag”>fra</a>

varning-2

Turning up the heat on Global Warming – The Climate models falsehood

19 februari, 2009

By Dr. Roy Spencer

Se also my posts: Global Warming: Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?50 Years of CO2 monitoring: Can you see the increase???Temperature data – What it really means.CO2 can not be blamed for Global Warming!Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me ThisÖppet brev till FN och konferensen på Bali

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

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

varning-2

IPCC – 80 percent of its members where not climate scientists

17 februari, 2009

Which means that only 20 % where climate scientists or had some dealing with climate”. Talking about ”consensus” and the ”debate is over and there is nothing to discuss”.

This according to William Schlesinger (president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies) a strong Global Warming Alarmist and a big fan of IPCC.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/16/christyschlesinger-debate-part-ii/

”I had intended to return to this point when I originally posted about this debate last week, but time got away from me. Thankfully, my colleague Roy Cordato brought it up today:

During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist. This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling. First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had ”some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.

This shatters so much of the alarmists’ claim, as they almost always appeal to the IPCC as their ultimate authority. Slain.”

Se also my posts: 

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!,  The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!The Great Global Warming Hoax,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?

 And

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate ModelsCLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS8 years of global cooling and 4 years of rapid global coolingLies the IPCC will tell youDocumenting the global warming fraud – ”Getting Rid” of the Medieval Warming Period

The question here (3:50-4:05):

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

varning-2

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 47 – Björck avgår i protest mot FRA lagen

16 februari, 2009

Tyvärr så gäller fortfarande denna varning dag 47 och värre blir det:

varning-2

Från och med 00:00:01 den 1 januari 2009 så lever vi i ett land med en TOTAL OFFICIELL MASSAVLYSNING a la Stasi och KGB.

Tack vare våra intälägänta politiker som har, i brott mot grundlagen, sålt ut allt vad fri- och rättigheter, och rättssäkerhet heter.

Det är många som har kommenterat Björcks avhopp i protest mot FRA lagen. Därför kommer här bara några korta kommentarer/reflektioner:

Han bekräftar det vi alla kritiker har sagt hela tiden: Att ALLA dessa nya organ (nämnder, domstolar etc.) är bara symbolisk bjäfs för att det skall se bättre ut än vad det egentligen gör. Och att de INTE förändrar ett smack i själva sakfrågan.

Dvs. En TOTAL massavlysning av svenska folket och en total kränkning av våra fri- och rättigheter i brott mot grundlagen.

Och kom ihåg att när vi alla påstod detta så blev vi idiotförklarade av statsministern försvarsministern et consortes.

Nu tillhör en f.d. försvarsminister, vice talman, vice ordförande för konstitutionsutskottet, landshövding m.m., och ordförande i FUN denna stora och växande skara.

En annan kritik som vi har framfört är att lagen är fullkomligt verkningslös då det gäller det ”uttalade” syftet att komma åt ”yttre hot”. En kritik som nu Björck delar.

För även detta påstående blev vi idiotförklarade  och betecknade som ”mindre vetande” etc.

Nu tillhör en f.d. försvarsminister, vice talman, vice ordförande för konstitutionsutskottet, landshövding m.m., och ordförande i FUN denna stora och växande skara.

Men vad vet han, han har ju bara ”övervakat” Sveriges samlade underrättelsetjänst de senaste 12 åren.

Och som jag konstaterat så många gånger tidigare: Det är samma intälägänta politiker som har sett till att Sverige är försvarslöst SAMTIDIGT som de inför en total massavlysning av svenska folket och kränker våra fri- och rättigheter MED MOTIVERINGEN ATT DE SKALL VÄRNA MOT YTTRE HOT.

Ett hot som vi alltså INTE KAN MÖTA tack vare dessa politiker.

Men att offra våra fri- och rättigheter med denna lögnaktiva ”motivering” går tydligen alldeles utmärkt.

Han har tydligen försökt framföra sin kritik internt som den lojale partgängare han är. Men utan något som helst resultat (någon som är förvånad? Någon?? v.g. räck upp en hand).

Men som sagt, Fredrik Reinfeldt är ju statministern som enligt egen utsago ”lyssnar”. Det vet vi ju eller hur.

Se mina inlägg:  CIA och Bruce Schneier – Varför FRA lagen INTE KOMMER ATT FUNGERA!

Och

Försvaret – Ett exempel PÅ TOTAL INKOMPETENS och OANSVARVi har en Försvarsmakt i fullständigt fritt fall – 2”Vi har en Försvarsmakt i fullständigt fritt fall”,  Försvaret – vilken total INKOMPETENS!,  Vårt dyra lilla försvar, Vårt dyra lilla försvar – 2, Vårt dyra lilla kastrerade försvar!

Så här säger Internationella Juristkommissionen i sin senaste rapport som släppets idag om utvecklingen av fri- och rättigheter i den demokratiska världen:

”In the course of this inquiry, we have been shocked by the extent of the damage done over the past seven years by excessive or abusive counter-terrorism measures in a wide range of countries around the world. Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights. The result is a serious threat to the integrity of the international human rights legal framework,” said Justice Arthur Chaskalson, the Chair of the Panel, former Chief Justice of South Africa and first President of the South African Constitutional Court.”

”It is now absolutely essential that all states restore their commitment to human rights and that the United Nations takes on a leadership role in this process. If we fail to act now, the damage to international law risks becoming permanent”, she added.

 ”The Panel received disturbing evidence that in many countries intelligence agencies have acquired new powers of surveillance, and even powers of arrest, detention and interrogation, in both criminal and non-criminal contexts. As a result, the work of the intelligence sector is increasingly overlapping with, or supplanting, the duties normally performed by law enforcement bodies, without being subject to the corresponding accountability and oversight mechanisms. This point was driven home in many Hearings including those on the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, and the Russian Federation. In some instances, it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that States are bolstering the role of intelligence agencies in preference to traditional law enforcement agencies, precisely because the latter have well-defined lines of accountability to the legislature and judiciary as well as the executive. Witnesses reported many abuses.”

”The transnational character of the current terrorist threat means that intelligence agencies in liberal democratic countries are increasingly cooperating with, and frequently are dependent on information from, their foreign counterparts, including those with known records of human rights violations. The Panel received evidence concerning increased powers of surveillance and data-collection, storage, and information sharing, often with insufficient safeguards built in to protect against an erosion of privacy rights.”

”The distinction between legal and operational use of such information obtained by torture and other illicit treatment suggests that the receipt of intelligence information is frequently not subject to any meaningful restraint, so long as it is not used in legal proceedings. The Panel is concerned that the regular reliance on and acceptance of such ”tainted” information implies an encouragement of and even complicity in internationally prohibited practices.”

”The need for secrecy cannot excuse these or other grave human rights violations. Yet the Panel received evidence that intelligence services worldwide effectively enjoy impunity for human rights violations because of a lack of meaningful civilian oversight and/or a lack of political will by governments to investigate and prosecute State agents involved in such abuses. In addition, legal doctrines such as state secrecy or public interest immunity have been used to foreclose civil suits and hence remedies to the victims of such abuses.”

”The Panel recommends that agencies involved in intelligence gathering, including military intelligence, must be subject to effective mechanisms of control and that their operations (domestic and transnational) must be governed by law and regulations in full compliance with all human rights standards.”

Som sagt, är det någon som lyssnar bland våra intälägänta politiker? 

http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=4453&lang=en

Pressmeddelandet finns här:

http://www.icj.org/IMG/EJP_PRESSE_RELEASE_16.02.09.pdf

Rapporten finns här:

http://www.icj.org/IMG/EJPReport.pdf

Se även.:

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/02/anders-bjorck-m-avgar-i-protest-mot-fra.html

http://blogg.expressen.se/peterj/entry.jsp?messid=472195

Nyheten här:

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_2473427.svd

Björck avgår i protest mot FRA-lag

Publicerad: 16 februari 2009, 00.34. Senast ändrad: 16 februari 2009, 00.35

Anders Björck avgår i förtid som högste kontrollant av Sveriges underrättelsetjänst. Han slutar i protest mot FRA-lagarna som han anser leder till en ineffektiv underrättelsetjänst med sämre skydd för integriteten.

Läs vidare Fakta

  • Försvarets underrättelsenämnd förkortas FUN.

Nämnden består idag av ordföranden, sekreteraren, en hög jurist och fyra politiker. Den granskar främst FRA och Försvarsmakten. FUN fick med FRA-lagarna ett större ansvar.

Fakta

Landshövdingen och tidigare försvarsministern Anders Björck har i tolv år varit ordförande för Försvarets underrättelsenämnd, FUN. Nämnden övervakar Sveriges underrättelsetjänst – hemliga verksamheter som kostar över en halv miljard kronor varje år. Den största myndighet som FUN kontrollerar är Försvarets radioanstalt, FRA.

Björck har ett förordnande som går ut i juni, men ville sluta redan igår.

– I min avskedsansökan har jag begärt att sluta den 15 februari. Försvarsministern har bett att jag ska vara kvar till årets slut. Men jag är en hederlig och principfast man, förklarar Anders Björck för SvD.

Avgången är en protest mot FRA-lagarna, en kritik som han ”i hög grad” har fört fram till regeringen.

Jag har tänkt över detta noga. Lagarna och den kontrollverksamhet man nu tänker sig främjar varken integriteten eller effektiviteten. Jag tror inte på de lösningar som har genomförts och de som nu skisseras från den 1 juli. Då tycker jag det är enklast och renhårigast att de som tror på det här får driva det vidare, förklarar Anders Björck.

Eftersom spaningen kostar så mycket gäller det enligt honom att driva den effektivt och få valuta för pengarna.

– Då är det oerhört viktigt att ha en integritet som fungerar, och inte en massa nya organ som skänker en bild av att det kommer att fungera bättre än det system vi haft tidigare. Det tror jag inte det kommer att göra, säger Anders Björck.

Samtidigt med Björck slutar nämndens sekreterare Ulf Birath. Istället har regeringen utsett ambassadör Ulf Håkansson till kanslichef. Försvarsminister Sten Tolgfors (M) säger att han uppskattar Anders Björcks arbetsinsats. Björck är ännu inte entledigad av regeringen som ska utse hans efterträdare inom kort.

– Det ska nämligen istället vara en domare som ska leda nämndens arbete. Fyra partiledare, fyra partier och en riksdagsmajoritet har sagt att den juridiska kompetensen i FUN ska stärkas, säger Sten Tolgfors.

Mikael Holmström

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/F%F6rsvar” rel=”tag”>Försvar</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>,<a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fra rel=”tag”>fra</a>

Why should anyone believe The Global Warming Hysterics?

15 februari, 2009

The Guardian has played a mayor role in promoting and spreading the Global Warming Alarmism. And preaching Gloom and Doom to the masses and the ”near” destruction of Earth. Now the tides are slowly turning.

Article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/06/antarctic-warming-climate-change

Climate scientists blow hot and cold

Antarctic warming isn’t evidence of climate change – despite what scientists would have us believe

Patrick Michaels guardian.co.uk, Thursday 12 February 2009 11.00 GMT

Just about every major outlet has jumped on the news: Antarctica is warming up.

Most previous science had indicated that, despite a warming of global temperatures, readings from Antarctica were either staying the same or even going down.

The problem with Antarctic temperature measurement is that all but three longstanding weather stations are on or very near the coast. Antarctica is a big place, about one-and-a-half times the size of the US. Imagine trying to infer our national temperature only with stations along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, plus three others in the interior.

Eric Steig, from University of Washington, filled in the huge blanks by correlating satellite-measured temperatures with the largely coastal Antarctic network and then creating inland temperatures based upon the relationship between the satellite and the sparse observations. The result was a slight warming trend, but mainly at the beginning of the record in the 1950s and 1960s. One would expect greenhouse effect warming from carbon dioxide to be more pronounced in recent years, which it is not.

There’s actually very little that is new here. Antarctic temperatures do show a warming trend if you begin your study between 1957, when the International Geophysical Year deployed the first network of thermometers there, and the mid-1960s. Studies that start after then find either cooling or no change.

Steig and his colleagues didn’t graph the data for the continent as a whole. Instead they broke it into two pieces: the east and west Antarctic ice sheet regions. A naïve reader would give equal weight to both. In fact, in the east, which is much larger, there is clearly no significant warming in the last several decades. When the results are combined, the same old result reappears, namely that the ”warming” is driven by years very early in the record, and that the net change since the early 1970s is insignificant.

The reaction to this study by Steig and his co-authors is more enlightening than its results. When Antarctica was cooling, some climate scientists said that was consistent with computer models for global warming. When a new study, such as Steig’s, says it’s warming, well that’s just fine with the models, too. That’s right: people glibly relate both warming and cooling of the frigid continent to human-induced climate change.

Perhaps the most prominent place to see how climatologists mix their science with their opinions is a blog called RealClimate.org, primarily run by Gavin Schmidt, one of the computer jockeys for Nasa’s James Hansen, the world’s loudest climate alarmist.

When studies were published showing a net cooling in recent decades, RealClimate had no problem. A 12 February 2008 post noted: ”We often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the southern ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict … and have predicted for the past quarter century.”

A co-author of Steig’s paper (and frequent blogger on RealClimate), Penn State’s Michael Mann, turned a 180 on Antarctic cooling. He told Associated Press: ”Now we can say: No, it’s not true. … [Antarctica] is not bucking the trend.”

So, Antarctic cooling and warming are both now consistent with computer models of dreaded global warming caused by humans.

In reality, the warming is largely at the beginning of the record – before there should have been much human-induced climate change. New claims that both warming and cooling of the same place are consistent with forecasts isn’t going to help the credibility of climate science, and, or reduce the fatigue of Americans regarding global warming.

Have climate alarmists beaten global warming to death? The Pew Research Centre recently asked over 1,500 people to rank 20 issues in order of priority. Global warming came in dead last.

We can never run the experiment to see if indeed it is the constant hyping of this issue that has sent it to the bottom of the priority ladder. But, as long as scientists blog on that both warming and cooling of the coldest place on earth is consistent with their computer models, why should anyone believe them?

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

varning-2

Thank God for Global Warming

15 februari, 2009

From SAGINAW Opinion February 13, 2009

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/saginaw/index.ssf/2009/02/

letters_benedict_criticism_pro.html

Global warming?

Editor, The News:

Every day, I thank my lucky star that Al Gore was able to invent his very lucrative global warming phenomenon.

After shoveling snow nearly every day during January and sending in a $300 heating fuel payment, one can’t cease wondering how much more difficult winters would be without global warming.

Maybe we could get an Algorean tree hugger to come and sprinkle a tad more global warming pixie dust on Michigan. I hear Florida could use a bit of it, too.

William E. Miller

Saginaw Township

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

varning-2

Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

11 februari, 2009

”Despite Europe‘s boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram.”

”The climate hasn’t in fact profited from these developments. As astonishing as it may sound, the new wind turbines and solar cells haven’t prohibited the emission of even a single gram of CO2.

Under current EU law, German wind turbines aren’t helping to reduce CO2 emissions. They simply allow Eastern European countries to pollute more.”

Experts have known about this situation for some time, but it still isn’t widely known to the public.”

”At the same time, big energy companies have an interest in maintaining the status quo. As a result, no one is pushing for change. Everyone involved is remaining silent.”

Germany was able to sell unused certificates across Europe — to coal companies in countries like Poland or Slovakia, for example. Thanks to Germany‘s wind turbines, these companies were then able to emit more greenhouse gases than originally planned.”

”…when it comes to climage change, investments in wind and solar energy are not very efficient. Preventing one ton of CO2 emissions requires a relatively large amount of money. Other measures, especially building renovations, cost much less — and have the same effect.”

Se also my posts: Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 10Vindkraften – En MINSKNING med 98 % på 3 dagar!Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 8However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to be – the reality is even worse,  Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 7Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 6Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 5Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 4Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 3Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 2Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effektThe Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power!Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion?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!Carbon Credits Fund Broken Turbine

And

It’s not going to be cheap, easy or quick!Global Warming Hysteria – Governments AND Media Together Close Down The DebateEuropean workers aren’t believers in the myth of ”green jobs.”,   Poland applies EU climate brakes – the French Presidency is only looking out for itself (as usual),  Six EU states ready to block climate plan, Italy’s Environment Minister says EU CO2 targets too costly,  Europe finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!,   ”Sustainability” and Carbon Taxes runs amok in my townPutin’s Useful Idiots – The Environmental Movement,

And

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,

And more about USA:

Obama’s Carbon Ultimatum – The coming offer you WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSEDemocratic 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. economyAn Open Letter to the Presidential Candidates on Global WarmingCarbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’

Article here:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html

02/10/2009

CLIMATE CHANGE PARADOX

Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

By Anselm Waldermann

Despite Europe’s boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram. Now, even the Green Party is taking a new look at the issue — as shown in e-mails obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Germany’s renewable energy companies are a tremendous success story. Roughly 15 percent of the country’s electricity comes from solar, wind or biomass facilities, almost 250,000 jobs have been created and the net worth of the business is €35 billion per year.

But there’s a catch: The climate hasn’t in fact profited from these developments. As astonishing as it may sound, the new wind turbines and solar cells haven’t prohibited the emission of even a single gram of CO2.

Under current EU law, German wind turbines aren’t helping to reduce CO2 emissions. They simply allow Eastern European countries to pollute more.

Even more surprising, the European Union’s own climate change policies, touted as the most progressive in the world, are to blame. The EU-wide emissions trading system determines the total amount of CO2 that can be emitted by power companies and industries. And this amount doesn’t change — no matter how many wind turbines are erected.

Experts have known about this situation for some time, but it still isn’t widely known to the public. Even Germany’s government officials mention it only under their breath. No one wants to discuss the political ramifications.

It’s a sensitive subject: Germany is recognized worldwide as a leader in all things related to renewable energy. The environmental energy sector doesn’t want this image to be tarnished. Under no circumstances does Berlin want the Renewable Energy Law (EEG) — which mandates the prices at which energy companies have to buy green power — to fall into disrepute.

At the same time, big energy companies have an interest in maintaining the status quo. As a result, no one is pushing for change. Everyone involved is remaining silent.

Not an Instrument against Climate Change

In truth, however, even the Green Party has recognized the problem, as evidenced by an e-mail exchange last year between party energy experts and obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE. One wrote the following message to a colleague: ”Dear Daniel, sorry, but the EEG won’t do anything for the climate anyway.” Ever since the introduction of the emissions trading system, the Renewable Energy Law had become ”an instrument of structural change, but not an instrument to combat climate change.”

That means: wind turbines and solar energy plants are revolutionizing Germany‘s mix of power sources, creating jobs and making the country more independent from imports. But they aren’t helping in the fight against climate change.

In the worst case scenario, sustainable energy plants might even have a detrimental effect on the climate. As more wind turbines go online, coal plants will be able to reduce their output. This in itself is desirable — but the problem is that the total number of available CO2 emission certificates remains the same. In other words, there will suddenly be more certificates per kilowatt of coal energy. That means the price per ton of CO2 emitted will fall.

That is exactly what happened in recent trading. A certificate to emit a ton of CO2 cost almost nothing. As a result, there was very little incentive for big energy companies to invest in climate friendly technologies.

On the contrary. Germany was able to sell unused certificates across Europe — to coal companies in countries like Poland or Slovakia, for example. Thanks to Germany‘s wind turbines, these companies were then able to emit more greenhouse gases than originally planned. Given the often lower efficiency of Eastern European power plants, this is anything but environmentally beneficial.

This phenomenon is especially apparent whenever the sustainable energy industry grows more quickly than anticipated — as in recent years when growth in the renewable energy branch quickly rendered the EU Commission’s CO2 plans obsolete.

Building Renovations Are Better than Windmills

Experts from the Green Party are taking the problem very seriously: ”We are in a veritable crisis situation, and that means we must reconsider and alter things we once took for granted,” writes one contributor, adding that it’s important to re-examine ”whether we have set the right priorities.”

Another expert begins his e-mail with a general clarification: ”Dear People, I’m not fundamentally against the EEG. I only emphasize this because Manfred has repeatedly and erroneously described me as an opponent of the EEG.” But here comes the big ”but”: ”When reduction of CO2 emissions is more cheaply achieved through insulating a building than using a wind turbine, that is where we should concentrate our support.” When it comes to climate change, everything else is secondary to reducing CO2 emissions.

The Costs of CO2 Reduction
To reduce CO2 emissions by one ton, it costs (in euros):  
Building Renovations (90% of cases) <0 *
Building Renovations (5% of cases) 0-100
Building Renovations (5% of cases) >100
Modernizing an old black-coal power plant 20
Reductions in industrial CO2 emissions >20
Replacing black coal with natural gas 28
Brown-coal power plant with carbon capture technology >30
Modernizing a new black-coal power plant 50
Replacing brown coal with natural gas 50
Black-coal power plant with carbon capture technology >50
Biomass >50
Biofuel >50
Wind Energy 50-60
Geothermal Energy >100
Solar Energy (Photovoltaic) 300-500
* A value less than zero indicates that the measure is actually profitable.
Sources: McKinsey, RWE, German Renewable Energy Federation

 

Indeed, when it comes to climage change, investments in wind and solar energy are not very efficient. Preventing one ton of CO2 emissions requires a relatively large amount of money. Other measures, especially building renovations, cost much less — and have the same effect.

The e-mail exchange ends with a conciliatory ”What do you think?” But it is quickly followed by a bitter PS: ”Do the Greens think that this problem (of climate change) will solve itself if we just screw solar panels onto our rooftops?”

Environmental Groups Admit to the Problem

The German Renewable Energy Federation is clearly not thrilled about the debate. The lobbying group’s official line is: ”By implementing renewable energy, there will by a reduction in 2008 of 120 million tons of CO2.” When pressed, however, representatives of the federation will admit that this only applies to Germany. But the reality is that the freely traded CO2 certificates can be sold and used abroad.

Likewise, one federation employee openly said that there is ”a certain degree of inconsistency” between the EEG and emissions trading.

But does it really have to be like this? Is it really so impossible to reconcile both of these instruments for protecting the climate?

In theoretical terms, of course it’s possible. To do so, however, currently existing laws designed to prevent CO2 emissions would have to be reconciled. In real terms, for example, that means that every time a new wind turbine is built, the state would be forced to take certificates off the market. It is only in this way that you can achieve real positive effects on the climate.

Politicians Buckle to Business

There were discussions about such a system under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who governed in a coalition with the Green Party. At the time, Minister of the Environment Jürgen Tritten wanted to exclude the amounts of energy covered by the EEG from the calculations used in the carbon-trading scheme. Instead, the industry-friendly regulations currently in effect were pushed through. Major energy corporations, which had claimed as many CO2 certificates as they possibly could, lobbied heavily.

So why has nothing changed? According to experts, one reason has to do with technical problems. In the course of an ongoing trading period, they claim, adjusting the volume of CO2 certificates is no easy task.

Still, an SPD insider provides yet another explanation: ”Politicians just have to resign themselves to certain things.” As he sees it, if the state went back to the companies and took away the certificates they had been allotted, the result would be an uproar. ”What do you think the companies would say to us?” he asks. ”As a politician, there are certain storms that you simply can’t weather.”

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

varning-2

The Global Warming Crowd will Attack Anyone who dares to speak his mind

11 februari, 2009

Mike Thomas wrote a commentary in the Orlando Sentinel yesterday ”Science of global warming doesn’t support the hype” (see below). About how he ”I have gone from being a believer to being a global-warming agnostic. I think we are having some impact but am not convinced how much of one.”

And he wrote: ”Those who dispute this are one of the following: dumb, misinformed, skeptics, members of the flat-earth society, members of the Cato Institute or paid off by Exxon.

And the beauty of this juggernaut is that it has inoculated itself against dissent by labeling, in advance, any dissenters as deniers.

True believers must buy into the apocalypse. Every day seems to bring yet another doomsday scenario for penguins, polar bears and Miami Beach condo dwellers.

Deniers are a threat to our very survival. Even worse, they are a threat to the careers (and funding) of countless researchers, as well as an entire industrial complex that is about to make global warming a trillion-dollar business.”

And the response from the Global Warming Hysterics?  The usual hatred and slander (see below):

”My column questioning the zeal of global-warming advocates noted that they innoculate themselves against dissent by attacking the dissenters as dimwitted deniersTrue to form, many of those attacking the column accused me of everything from being a Bush stooge to pandering for web clicks to pandering for a job.  It’s impossible, it seems, for anyone to even suggest we keep an open mind on this theory without being a fool or having evil intent.

 They are, in effect, proving one of the main points I was trying to make.

Climate change has gone from being a science to being two competing political movements. This does not bode well for getting at the truth behind our impact on global warming.”

The Global Warming Hysterics are such a scientific people dedicated to the search of facts and truth. And so full of intellectual curiosity, understanding and human compassion are they not!

Se also my posts: How the world was bullied into silence over the Global Warming HysteriaHow we know that they, the Global Warming Hysterics, know they are lyingGlobal Warming Hysteria – Governments AND Media Together Close Down The Debate,  Global Warming Skeptics: Why Do They Exist?Global Warming Mass Hysteria at it’s peak – scaremongering is the name of the gameThe Greenhouse ConspiracyMoney Behind Warming Alarmism ‘Can Corrupt Anybody’Academic inquiry failing on global warming,  Enron – The BIG Sponsor of Global Warming Hysteria!Advice on the matter of climate change is poisoned by fear among many scientists!”Blue Planet in Green Shackles”The dangers of adopting an apocalyptic mindset when addressing the issue of climate change”Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion” – 2”Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion”,   ‘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 ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!,

And

 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!A Cool Look at Global WarmingHow BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics!How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics – part 2

And

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYSGlobal 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 fogWorld’s Scariest Words: ‘I’m an Environmentalist and I’m Here to Help’

Article here:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/localandstate/orl-miket1009feb10,0,7016747.column

COMMENTARY

Science of global warming doesn’t support the hype

Mike Thomas | February 10, 2009

Did last week have anyone questioning global warming?

Think how people in Chicago feel. They’re going through the coldest winter in a quarter-century, and the ninth-coldest of all time.

Of course, none of this contradicts the theory that we are turning Planet Earth into a convection oven.

It goes something like this: If the planet is warm, it is because of global warming. If the planet is cold, it is in spite of global warming.

I’ve noticed this dynamic in play for quite some time. Whenever the weather smacks us around, be it a Midwest flood, a Florida drought, a New Orleans hurricane or a California wildfire, it is blamed on Hummers.

Those who dispute this are one of the following: dumb, misinformed, skeptics, members of the flat-earth society, members of the Cato Institute or paid off by Exxon.

And the beauty of this juggernaut is that it has inoculated itself against dissent by labeling, in advance, any dissenters as deniers.

True believers must buy into the apocalypse. Every day seems to bring yet another doomsday scenario for penguins, polar bears and Miami Beach condo dwellers.

Deniers are a threat to our very survival. Even worse, they are a threat to the careers (and funding) of countless researchers, as well as an entire industrial complex that is about to make global warming a trillion-dollar business.

The science of global warming has arrived at a conclusion, which all data must now accommodate.

Unfortunately, it sometimes does not.

You may recall that in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore noted nine of the 10 hottest recorded years have occurred since 1995. That’s what the NASA data showed until a blogger crunched the agency’s data and found out it made a mistake.

In fact, six of the 10 hottest years came before 1954, with the 1930s being particularly toasty. Ever hear of the Dust Bowl?

There has been much alarm about Greenland melting and drowning Florida. Feeding this are images of rapidly melting glaciers. They were melting quickly between 2000 and 2005. But since then the melting has slowed to what is considered a normal level.

Researchers from the Los Alamos National Laboratory discovered that the rate of warming in Greenland between 1920 and 1930 was 50 percent higher than today. And the glaciers were smaller.

Ice cores taken from a Russian research site in the Antarctic reveal that when you go back in time, the theory of global warming seems to put the cart before the horse. We are told that greenhouse gases build up and cause temperatures to rise.

But an analysis of the ice cores shows the temperature goes up first, followed by an increase in greenhouse gases. The heat is triggered by other natural phenomenon, such as solar radiation. This heats up the ocean, which releases carbon dioxide.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now actually is downright paltry compared with what it has been during Earth’s history.

I could go on and on. Most all scientists agree the world has gotten warmer.

But many distinguished scientists think the evidence blaming humans is either bogus, incomplete or not overwhelming enough to think we are a significant part of a problem.

I have gone from being a believer to being a global-warming agnostic. I think we are having some impact but am not convinced how much of one. I remain receptive to arguments from both sides.

Global warming is a science in which imperfect data are plugged into imperfect models by too many scientists looking for the same conclusion.

By all means, let’s limit our use of fossil fuels and move toward being a conservation-conscious society.

I just have qualms about damning the cost and going full speed ahead. Too many people can’t afford that. If things are as dire as many predict, we are doomed regardless. It could well be that our money might be better spent on other ventures to save humanity.

And his comment here about the attacks:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2009/02/and-now-i-am-one-of-the-evil-deniers.html

And now I am one of the evil ”deniers!”

Posted on Feb 10, 2009 12:20:43 PM

 My column questioning the zeal of global-warming advocates noted that they innoculate themselves against dissent by attacking the dissenters as dimwitted deniersTrue to form, many of those attacking the column accused me of everything from being a Bush stooge to pandering for web clicks to pandering for a job.  It’s impossible, it seems, for anyone to even suggest we keep an open mind on this theory without being a fool or having evil intent.

 They are, in effect, proving one of the main points I was trying to make.

Climate change has gone from being a science to being two competing political movements. This does not bode well for getting at the truth behind our impact on global warming.

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

varning-2

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models

11 februari, 2009

All these useless computer ”climate” models upon which this Global Warming Hysteria is based. This time the GISS models predictions has, surprise, surprise, been completely wrong.

This is what the model predicted that the heat accumulation, as measured in Joules in the upper 700m of the ocean: 

2003 8*10**22 Joules
2004 9*10**22 Joules
2005 10*10**22 Joules
2006 11*10**22 Joules
2007 12*10**22 Joules
2008 13*10**22 Joules

The ACTUAL RESULT:

2003 ~0 Joules
2004 ~0 Joules
2005 ~0 Joules
2006 ~0 Joules
2007 ~0 Joules
2008 ~0 Joules

And upon this nonsense our ”dear” politicians want to ruin the common people’s living standard.
 
Papers here:

Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions

http://climatesci.org/2009/02/09/update-on-a-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/

 A Litmus Test For Global Warming – A Much Overdue Requirement

http://climatesci.org/2007/04/04/a-litmus-test-for-global-warming-a-much-overdue-requirement/

In that weblog, I wrote

”A figure, such as Figure 8 in Willis, J.K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle, 2004: Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales. J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036, doi: 10.1029/2003JC002260.

 should be widely communicated each year (or more frequently). For example, as a requirement to NOT reject the IPCC claim for global warming, Climate Science proposes that on the scale presented in Figure 3 in Willis et al, the left axis in their Figure 8 must exceed the following values in each year

2003 8*10**22 Joules
2004 9*10**22 Joules
2005 10*10**22 Joules
2006 11*10**22 Joules
2007 12*10**22 Joules
2008 13*10**22 Joules
2009 14*10**22 Joules
2010 15*10**22 Joules
2011 16*10**22 Joules
2012 17*10**22 Joules”

This is an accumulation of heat of 1 * 10**22 Joules per year. We now have data to assess what actually occurred in terms of this metric of global warming up through the end of 2008 (i.e. see the Figure in Pielke (2008), Figure 1 in Willis (2008) and personal communication from Josh Willis to extend the data to the end of 2008).

The use of the ocean  heat content change as the most appropriate metric to diagnose global warming was reported in

Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, J. Wang, T.L. Delworth, K.W. Dixon, and A.J. Broccoli, 2001: Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system. Science, 292, 267-269

and

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.

In a 2008 Climate Science weblog

Comparison of Model and Observations Of Upper Ocean Heat Content,

I wrote

The conclusion in Hansen et al. 2005 that the ”Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± Watts per meter squared more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space is well supported by their modeling results for the ten years or so ending in 2003.”

With respect to the heating rate, in the paper

Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev, 2005: Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431-1435, doi:10.1126/science.1110252,

they wrote

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.” 

See also the response by Jim Hansen to a comment by Christy and Pielke Sr [which Science refused to publish], where Hansen wrote me with respect to their GISS model predictions that

Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean.”

 He further writes

The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2, includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.”

Thus, the best estimate value of 0.60 Watts per meter squared given in Hansen et al can be used, as a conservative value, to calculate the heat change in Joules that should be expected in the upper ocean data from 2003 to the present, as an update to results reported on Climate Science on June 5 2008.

The observed best estimates of the observed heating and the Hansen et al prediction in

Joules in the upper 700m of the ocean are given below:

OBSERVED BEST ESTIMATE OF ACCUMULATION Of JOULES [assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002].

2003 ~0 Joules
2004 ~0 Joules
2005 ~0 Joules
2006 ~0 Joules
2007 ~0 Joules
2008 ~0 Joules
2009 — 
2010 — 
2011 — 
2012 —     

HANSEN PREDICTION OF The ACCUMULATION OF JOULES [ at a rate of 0.60 Watts per meter squared] assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002].

2003 ~0.98 * 10** 22 Joules
2004 ~1.96 * 10** 22 Joules
2005 ~2.94 * 10** 22 Joules
2006 ~3.92 * 10** 22 Joules
2007 ~4.90 * 10** 22 Joules
2008 ~5.88 * 10** 22 Joules
2009 ~6.86 * 10** 22 Joules
2010 ~7.84 * 10** 22 Joules
2011 ~8.82 * 10** 22 Joules
2012 ~9.80 * 10** 22 Joules

Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should be approximately 5.88 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2008 than were present at the beginning of 2003.

For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 9.8 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next four years. This requires a heating rate over the next 4 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean of 2.45 * 10**22 Joules per year, which corresponds to a radiative imbalance of ~1.50 Watts per square meter.

This rate of heating would have to be about 2 1/2 times higher than the 0.60 Watts per meter squared that Jim Hansen reported for the period 1993 to 2003.

 While the time period for this descrepancy with the GISS model is relatively short, the question should be asked as to the number of years required to reject this model as having global warming predictive skill, if this large difference between the observations and the GISS model persists.

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

varning-2

Climate Change … Global Warming … Global Cooling

10 februari, 2009

By Chemical Engineer Dr. Tony Burns of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia 

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 varning-2

 

more about ”Climate Change … Global Warming ……”, posted with vodpod

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 41 – Kriget mot kunderna och medborgarna

10 februari, 2009

Tyvärr så gäller fortfarande denna varning dag 41 och värre blir det:

varning-2

Från och med 00:00:01 den 1 januari 2009 så lever vi i ett land med en TOTAL OFFICIELL MASSAVLYSNING a la Stasi och KGB.

Tack vare våra intälägänta politiker som har, i brott mot grundlagen, sålt ut allt vad fri- och rättigheter, och rättssäkerhet heter.

Som ett komplement till mitt inlägg Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 35, kommer här mera om IPRED och våra intälägänta politiker.

Som istället för att inse den unika möjligheten att för första gången i mänsklighetens historia göra kunskap och information åtkomlig och lättillgänglig här och nu ÖVER HELA VÄRLDEN för ALLA ”instantly”, istället gör ALLT för att begränsa denna frihet och att upprätthålla några få, stora bolags förlegade och teknik/konsument fientliga affärsmodeller.

Se där ett värdigt mål att offra alla medborgares fri- och rättigheter samt vår rättssäkerhet för!

Läs även inlägg från Oscar Swartz:

The Pirate Bay och kriget mot MÄNNISKAN

http://swartz.typepad.com/texplorer/2009/02/the-pirate-bay-och-kriget-mot-m%C3%A4nniskan.html

Artikeln här

http://sydsvenskan.se/nojen/article411387/Kriget-mot-kunderna.html

Kriget mot kunderna

Av Anders Mildner

 Först publicerad: 7 februari 2009 23:30, Senast uppdaterad: 8 februari 2009 11:42

Anders Mildner har bevakat fildelning och upphovsrätt för Sydsvenskan sedan år 2000. Här ger han sin egen bild av vad som hänt – och varför frågan är viktigare än någonsin.

 – Jag önskar att jag hade ett svar till honom.

Skivbolagsmannen skruvade på sig och sa:

– Men det har jag inte.

På bordet framför honom låg ett brev från en kille som gillade Kent. Det innehöll en enkel fråga. Ingen på skivbolaget kunde komma på ett svar. Det nya seklet hade precis tagit sina första steg och någonstans på vägen hade nöjesbranschen blivit galen. Enkla frågor fick plötsligt oerhört komplicerade svar.

I brevet frågade killen med Kent-skivan hur bolaget tyckte att han skulle göra för att lyssna på den. Han hade nämligen upptäckt att skivans kopieringsskydd gjorde det omöjligt att föra över låtarna till en mp3-spelare. Eftersom han inte hade en cd-spelare kunde han nu inte höra musiken alls.

För skivbolaget var detta ett olösligt problem. Resonemanget gick så här: eftersom digitala filer kunde kopieras – och därmed spridas vind för våg – var kopieringsskydd nödvändiga. Det egentliga svaret blev därför: du måste fortsätta att lyssna i en cd-spelare. Men kunde verkligen producenterna få bestämma vilken maskin konsumenterna skulle använda när de lyssnade?

När konsumenterna envisades med att välja filer framför cd-skivor, gjorde inte bolagen det naturliga (att snabbt som tusan börja sälja vad publiken efterfrågade) utan förklarade i stället krig mot sina kunder. De försökte på alla sätt hindra filer från att användas.

Där någonstans blev fildelningen en konsumentfråga. Tidiga tjänster som Napster och Mp3.com hade gjort nöjesbranschen livrädd. Den ekonomiska dippen fick bolagen att agera allt märkligare. 2005 avslöjades att Sony BMG smugit in ett spionprogram på sina cd-skivor, som inte bara kunde skada användarnas datorer – utan också sände information om datorn tillbaka till skivbolaget. När skandalen var ett faktum svarade bolaget med att skicka ut ett program som skulle ta bort spionprogrammet. Men det enda som hände var att man inte längre kunde upptäcka spionprogrammet.

Föraktet för publiken nådde möjligen en topp med detta. Fildelningen kunde i det läget ha stannat kvar i konsumentfrågefacket – om inte nöjesindustrin utnyttjat alla muskler för att påverka lagstiftarna i kriget mot kunderna.

Då hände två saker. Dels kom fildelningsfrågan att handla om övervakning och integritet, dels kunde piratjakten på ett för politikerna fiffigt vis kopplas samman med terroristhot och kamp mot organiserad brottslighet.

Dessa beståndsdelar har bildat grunden för den kraftsamling vi har sett de senaste åren, som bäst kan beskrivas som ett angrepp mot det fria internet och mot människors rätt att vara anonyma på nätet. Och då handlar det plötsligt om något mycket större – nämligen demokratins förutsättningar.

Skivbolagen struntar i vilket.

I dagsläget är de mest inriktade på att få tillstånd att ta reda på vem som döljer sig bakom vilka ip-adresser, för att därefter skicka utpressningsbrev med hot om stämningar om inte skyhöga schablonsummor betalas ut inom mycket kort tid. Galenskapen har inte direkt avtagit med åren.

Under de nio år som jag har diskuterat ämnet har jag aldrig mött någon i den svenska skivbolagsbranschen som tagit frågan på intellektuellt allvar. Det är problematiskt, inte minst eftersom den piratfråga de så gärna vill diskutera på ett sätt faktiskt redan är överspelad.

– Vi måste kunna tjäna pengar på våra verk! säger branschrepresentanterna.

Ja, men gå och gör det då. Affärsmodellerna finns redan, vilket tjänster som Spotify och Last FM har visat. Men i stället för att omfamna dem och försöka sälja det som efterfrågas (gratistjänster), gör nöjesindustrin allt för att motarbeta utvecklingen och lobbar för en integritetskränkande lagstiftning, som sista utväg i en värld där ingen vill köpa dess produkter i den form som de saluförs.

Den fria tillgången till information utmanar nu med stark kraft alla maktstrukturer. Vi brukar ju prata om den svenska folkskolans effekter på samhället. Vad kan man tänka sig händer i ett läge där all världens böcker, alla världens filmer, all världens musik, ja, all världens samlade digitala kunskap blir tillgänglig för alla människor på hela jorden?

Fildelningen är utan tvivel en av de viktigaste samhällspolitiska frågorna just nu, inte minst eftersom den rymmer så mycket, och för att utfallet pekar mot ett lika stort spektrum.

Vi skulle nämligen alla kunna vara vinnare i den här utvecklingen.

Det kan bli så att vi alla förlorar.

 

Artikeln här:

http://www.expressen.se/1.1458125

Isobel Hadley-Kamptz: Upphovsrätten är inte självklar

Jag började fildela på en av Svenska Arbetsgivareföreningens datorer. Det var vintern 1999 och fildelningsnätverket Napster hade precis blivit stämt av den amerikanska skivbolagsindustrin.

Själv hade jag mitt livs första jobb på SAF:s informationsavdelning och tyckte att allt som fanns i glamorösa it-tidningen Wired var framtiden.

En viktig diskussion på jobbet gällde då den globalisering som yrvakna frihandelsförespråkare genom WTO-kravallerna i Seattle plötsligt upptäckt att man måste försvara. En knäckfråga hette TRIPS, det avtal om immateriella rättigheter som den rika världen tvingade på den fattiga i utbyte mot lite friare handel. TRIPS tillät exempelvis inte parallellimporterade AIDS-mediciner till döende afrikanska befolkningar, eftersom det hotade patenträtten.

Snabbt blev det tydligt för mig att de två områdena, musiken på nätet och immaterialrättens hot mot den fria handeln, hängde ihop.

Borde verkligen upphovsrätt och patent fungera som de gjorde? Den frågan förtjänar fortsatt att ställas. Hittills har allt dock gått i motsatt riktning, med patent på mänskligt DNA och allt längre upphovsrättstider.

Om vi håller oss till musik och film så stängdes Napster snart av den jagande industrin och nästa måndag börjar rättegången här i Sverige mot The Pirate Bay. Redan har dock en del EU-politiker förklarat hur den svenska domstolen bör döma i frågan.

I mars kommer nämligen Europaparlamentet ta ställning till Medinarapporten. Den slår fast att The Pirate Bay är olagligt, trots att det är ytterst juridiskt osäkert och alltså under pågående rättsprövning. Medina föreslår också drakoniska straff för fildelning, som avstängning från internet, trots att parlamentet flera gånger tidigare avvisat sådana straffmöjligheter.

Rapporten är som en önskelista från upphovsrättslobbyn. Att SF:s Rasmus Ramstad i veckan krävt att staten ska stänga de internetleverantörer som ger tillgång till upphovsrättsskyddat material, det vill säga alla, är i sammanhanget helt logiskt. Ta bort hela det där internetet så att vi kan fortsätta tjäna pengar på samma sätt som vi alltid gjort.

Det är ledsamt men i grunden rätt ointressant att följa denna kamp för döende affärsmodeller. Det som däremot är viktigt är grundfrågan. Är det rimligt att allting patenteras och skyddas för allt längre tid?

Är tanken att idéer kan ägas och förhindras att användas av andra till godo för samhället?

 Spontant talar mycket för det. Man ska kunna tjäna pengar på sitt tankearbete. Men vi ser hur det inskränker forskningsvärlden, där alltmer kunskap blir otillgänglig för människor utanför det egna forskningslaget eller företaget.

Här blir det också tydligt att immaterialrätt inte alls handlar om det förenklade resonemanget att man ska äga sina tankar. Kampen för patent handlar ju tvärtom ofta om att flera personer tänkt likadant, men att någon var lite snabbare med att kräva skydd. När patenten registreras fråntas konkurrenterna därför lagenligt rätten till sina tankar.

Bland intellektuella är det i dag nära nog självklart att ifrågasätta immaterialrättssamhället.

I veckan höll näringslivsgurun Chris Anderson föredrag i Malmö om gratiskulturen. Alla där var tveksamma till dagens upphovsrätt och till kampen för att rädda dess privilegier.

Samtidigt kämpar upphovsrättslobbyn vidare för att stänga av internet. Den kommer inte att lyckas. Frågan är hur mycket de kan förstöra på vägen. Och varför alla politiker tycker att en viss branschs slumpmässigt hävdvunna villkor är viktigare än hela samhällets bästa.

  Av Isobel Hadley-Kamptz

 

Och här:

http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2007/12/20/technology/circuitsemail/index.html

 The Generational Divide in Copyright Morality

By DAVID POGUE  December 20, 2007

I’ve been doing a good deal of speaking recently. And in one of my talks, I tell an anecdote about a lesson I learned from my own readers.

It was early in 2005, and a little hackware program called PyMusique was making the rounds of the Internet. PyMusique was written for one reason only: to strip the copy protection off of songs from the iTunes music store.

The program’s existence had triggered an online controversy about the pros, cons and implications of copy protection. But to me, there wasn’t much gray area. ”To me, it’s obvious that PyMusique is designed to facilitate illegal song-swapping online,” I wrote. And therefore, it’s wrong to use it.

Readers fired back with an amazingly intelligent array of counterexamples: situations where duplicating a CD or DVD may be illegal, but isn’t necessarily *wrong.* They led me down a garden path of exceptions, proving that what seemed so black-and-white to me is a spectrum of grays.

I was so impressed that I incorporated their examples into a little demonstration in this particular talk. I tell the audience: ”I’m going to describe some scenarios to you. Raise your hand if you think what I’m describing is wrong.”

Then I lead them down the same garden path:

I borrow a CD from the library. Who thinks that’s wrong?” (No hands go up.)

I own a certain CD, but it got scratched. So I borrow the same CD from the library and rip it to my computer.” (A couple of hands.)

I have 2,000 vinyl records. So I borrow some of the same albums on CD from the library and rip those.”

 ”I buy a DVD. But I’m worried about its longevity; I have a three-year-old. So I make a safety copy.”

 With each question, more hands go up; more people think what I’m describing is wrong.

Then I try another tack:

I record a movie off of HBO using my DVD burner. Who thinks that’s wrong?” (No hands go up. Of course not; time-shifting is not only morally O.K., it’s actually legal.)

I *meant* to record an HBO movie, but my recorder malfunctioned. But my buddy recorded it. Can I copy his DVD?” (A few hands.)

I meant to record an HBO movie, but my recorder malfunctioned and I don’t have a buddy who recorded it. So I rent the movie from Blockbuster and copy that.” (More hands.)

And so on.

The exercise is intended, of course, to illustrate how many shades of wrongness there are, and how many different opinions. Almost always, there’s a lot of murmuring, raised eyebrows and chuckling.

Recently, however, I spoke at a college. It was the first time I’d ever addressed an audience of 100 percent young people. And the demonstration bombed.

In an auditorium of 500, no matter how far my questions went down that garden path, maybe two hands went up. I just could not find a spot on the spectrum that would trigger these kids’ morality alarm. They listened to each example, looking at me like I was nuts.

Finally, with mock exasperation, I said, ”O.K., let’s try one that’s a little less complicated: You want a movie or an album. You don’t want to pay for it. So you download it.”

 There it was: the bald-faced, worst-case example, without any nuance or mitigating factors whatsoever.

 ”Who thinks that might be wrong?”

 Two hands out of 500.

Now, maybe there was some peer pressure involved; nobody wants to look like a goody-goody.

Maybe all this is obvious to you, and maybe you could have predicted it. But to see this vivid demonstration of the generational divide, in person, blew me away.

 I don’t pretend to know what the solution to the file-sharing issue is. (Although I’m increasingly convinced that copy protection isn’t it.)

I do know, though, that the TV, movie and record companies’ problems have only just begun. Right now, the customers who can’t even *see* why file sharing might be wrong are still young. But 10, 20, 30 years from now, that crowd will be *everybody*. What will happen then?

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

The Gore Effect

10 februari, 2009

2009-02-10_121230

                 And of course it snowed in Dubai

2009-02-10_121346

http://www.goredearth.com/archives.html

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

varning-2

Global Warming is a Hoax

8 februari, 2009

Kelly Wendeln speaks to the members of the Wichita City Council, Kansas about global warming on February 3, 2009.

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

varning-2

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS

8 februari, 2009

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

As I wrote in my post on 23 may, 2008  ”Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism:

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.

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: (se the pictures in my post  Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism,)

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?

Se also my posts: Global 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 fogWorld’s Scariest Words: ‘I’m an Environmentalist and I’m Here to Help’

From Professor Alexander’s new article:

”Why should the citizens of our country and the rest of Africa, particularly the poor and disadvantaged communities be burdened with this nonsense when we have much higher priorities to address?”

”Sometimes I get the impression that the climate alarmists consider that the rest of us mortals have an intelligence that is on the level of that of the monkeys. This is especially the case when it comes to global climate computer models. They assure us that these models are far too complex for the rest of us to understand. They say this to disguise the fact that these models all have a fundamental shortcoming. They fail to incorporate the critical fourth dimension in their model structures – time.”

”The South African government regards climate change as one of the greatest threats to our planet and to our people.

What is the basis for this doomsday pronouncement? It is based entirely, let me repeat entirely, on the outputs of global climate computer models. Remove all references to these models from the IPCC’s assessment reports and the whole fabric of climate change theory collapses.”

”For a start where is this evidence? There is no evidence that any of these dramatic changes are taking place in South Africa. The only ‘evidence’ relating to our water resources is the output of their climate models.

Then there is the issue of consensus. Note the cunning reference to consensus in this paragraph. It refers to a consensus among the computer projections. Previously, alarmists maintained that there was a consensus among scientists. But they knew very well that this would no longer hold water. Now they are on dangerous ground. This phrase confirms that all their assumptions relevant to water resources are based on their computer model outputs and not on studies of our comprehensive hydro-climatological databases.

The next issue is temperature. However, temperature does not feature at all in water resource analyses. Were the compilers of this report not aware of this elementary fact?

This is followed by claimed changes in precipitation patterns. But there is no mention at all of corresponding changes in river flow. Have these people never heard of phrases such at the Hurst Phenomenon, or the Noah and Joseph Effects, or solar linkages? Applied hydrologists have addressed these anomalies in rainfall and river flow for decades. Are we expected to believe that they can be accommodated in global climate models? ”

”Again there is mention of increases in flooding and droughts. I have been searching for evidence of changes in these processes that could be attributed to climate change ever since 1993. It does not exist. Where long records are available, the most severe floods were in the mid-1800s. The Great Depression drought of the early 1930s remains the most damaging country-wide drought.”

”Finally they mention sea-level rise. The observed increase in sea-level at our ports is equivalent to the width of my thumbnail every ten years.

I am flabbergasted. This introductory paragraph is a manipulation of the truth. The providers of the information in this introductory paragraph are totally ignorant of the foundation of water resource analyses. They insult our intelligence. Does the WRC not realise that climatological models are fundamentally incapable of producing quantitative information required for water resource analyses? I cannot believe that they are so dumb.”

”If the climate alarmist community rejects my well established, predictable, 21-year periodicity in hydro-climatological data and its linkage with solar activity, as well as my statistical analyses, how on earth are they going to solve future problems associated with water resource development and management? How are they going to generate hydrological time series if they do not even understand the basic statistical procedures for time series generation and analyses?”

”..my very important question is why are these models that are described below, and which have rainfall, river flow and open water surface evaporation in their inputs, not included in the classification of climate prediction models? What is the difference between predicting future rainfall and flows in our rivers and predicting future temperatures in South Africa? The reason why hydrological models are not considered to be climatological models is obvious. They completely undermine climate change theory and the models based on it.”

”This is the clue. I could include the time dimension in my computer models. That was 25 years ago.

Now consider the GCMs. They do not have a time dimension in their structure. How on earth can they be used for water resource analyses? It is my view that by following the climate change route, the WRC is misleading the public and wasting the taxpayers’ money. It will NEVER succeed in solving our future water resource problems by using climatological models. In the meantime we are heading towards drought periods that do not even feature in the WRC’s research programme.

Let me repeat. An essential component in all water resource studies is the development and analysis of historical and synthetic hydro-meteorological time series. Climatological models are fundamentally incapable of producing this information. Why can’t the WRC understand this simple fact?”

”Like all computer models the reliability of the output depends on the reliability of the input. It is the input that is being increasingly challenged.

In my field I challenge the absence of the well-documented and well-established solar linkage in the models. As I reported in a previous memo this influence is more than 17 times that of the claimed human influence. I also challenge the absence of the well-established multiyear periodicity in the models. Other scientists have challenged the claimed linkage between carbon dioxide emissions and global temperatures.”

– The increasing activities of the green movements with their emphasis on environmental concerns above humanitarian concerns, are threatening democratic structures.

– The compartmentalisation of science in a period when there is an urgent need for multidisciplinary approaches to global problems.

– The political misuse of science that the world is now experiencing in the climate change issue. Imagine the outcry when the nations of Africa appreciate that pressures from affluent countries to undertake measures that will damage their economies and make them less competitive in global markets, signal a return of colonialism. Several African countries have already taken steps to increase trade with China, India, South Korea and Brazil and lessen their ties with the UK and the rest of Europe.”

Article here:

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/climate-models-for-monkeys/

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS February 8, 2009

By Professor Will Alexander

Via email, February 7, 2009

Dear all,

I completely fail to understand why our Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism decided to hold the Midrand Summit on Climate Change at this stage. South Africa has nothing to gain and much to lose by this hasty action.

Equally, I fail to understand why our Water Research Commission has chosen to abandon our tried and tested methods for water resource development while our available water resources rapidly approach depletion. As I demonstrate in this memo there is no way whatsoever that climatological computer models can be used for future water resource development and operation.

Why should the citizens of our country and the rest of Africa, particularly the poor and disadvantaged communities be burdened with this nonsense when we have much higher priorities to address?

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a> varning-2

(more…)

Medias part in spreading the Global Warming Alarmism

7 februari, 2009

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/

54_say_media_hype_global_warming_dangers

54% Say Media Hype Global Warming Dangers

Friday, February 06, 2009

More bad news for the media.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of U.S. voters say the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is. Only 21% say the media present an accurate picture, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Thirteen percent (13%) think the media make climate change appear to be better than it truly is. Twelve percent (12%) don’t have an opinion.

No wonder 23% say it is at least somewhat likely that global warming will destroy human civilization within the next century.

Common to all surveys about the media, Republicans are more critical than Democrats. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of GOP voters say the media paints a darker picture of global warming that the reality merits, and 63% of voters not affiliated with either party agree. Democrats, however, are much more closely divided: 27% say the media make it look worse than it is, 22% better, and 34% say they present an accurate picture.

Men are more skeptical about media coverage of global warming than women. Younger voters question it more than their elders.  Whites are more than twice as likely as African-Americans to say the media make global warming look worse than it is.

One beneficiary of positive media coverage is former Vice President Al Gore who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-global warming efforts. But only 36% of voters believe he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the environment and global warming.

Still, 64% of voters think global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 41% saying it is Very Serious. These numbers are down slightly from earlier surveys.

But voters are shifting away from the idea promoted by Gore and others that human activity is the cause of global warming and are viewing it instead more as the result of long-term planetary trends.

The majority perception that the media aren’t playing it straight with global warming matches similar Rasmussen Reports surveys last year in which doubts were raised about news coverage of the presidential campaign and the problems in the economy. Public unhappiness with this coverage comes at a time when newspapers, magazines and broadcast media are all dramatically downsizing, thanks to shrinking audiences and advertising revenues.

In a survey in mid-November, 46% of Americans said most reporters and media outlets try to make the economy seem worse than it really is. This was a slight improvement from July, however, when 50% said the media was guilty of painting a worse economic picture than the facts merited.

Just before last November’s election, 68% of voters said most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and 51% believed they were trying to help Democrat Barack Obama. Just seven percent (7%) thought they were trying to help his Republican opponent, John McCain .

The number of those suspecting a media tilt toward Obama had grown since June when just 44% believed reporters would try to help him get elected. At that time 13% thought they would work for McCain’s benefit.

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

varning-2

Scare tactics of Global Warming Hysterics

6 februari, 2009

Here is the Heartland Institute’s promotion of the second International Conference on Climate Change, taking place March 8-10 in New York City. Approximately 1,000 scientists, economists, policy experts, elected officials, and civic and business leaders are expected to attend the conference.

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

varning-2

8 years of global cooling and 4 years of rapid global cooling

5 februari, 2009

Here are some temperature graphs for the last 4, 8 and 23 years. Plus a comparisons of the IPCC forecast against the actual CO2 levels . And hurricanes and tropical cyclones at the lowest ACE level in 30 years.

Global Warming anyone?

Rapporten finns här:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/

originals/jan_co2_report.pdf

2009-02-05_210932

 2009-02-05_210946

 2009-02-05_210958

 2009-02-05_211036

 2009-02-05_211207a

 

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

varning-2

Ethanol Bankruptcies Continue, 14 Studies Have Exposed the High Cost of Ethanol and Biofuels

5 februari, 2009

More studies of the high cost of ethanol and biofuels. And now they are going bankrupt.

Se also my posts: World’s Scariest Words: ‘I’m an Environmentalist and I’m Here to Help’Etanol – An Environmental DisasterAvgasutsläppen 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!

And

Global 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 fog,

Article here:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1281

Posted on Feb. 04, 2009

By Robert Bryce

Ethanol Bankruptcies Continue, 14 Studies Have Exposed the High Cost of Ethanol and Biofuels

On its website, Wisconsin-based Renew Energy says it is the ”biofuels industry leader for innovation and efficiency.” It goes on, saying that its new 130 million gallon per year ethanol plant in Jefferson, Wisconsin is ”the largest dry mill corn fractionation facility in the world” which uses 35 percent less energy and 33 percent less water than similar ethanol plants.

That would be impressive but for one fact: Renew Energy just filed for bankruptcy. Renew, which had $184.2 million in revenue in 2008, filed Chapter 11 papers on January 30, just nine days after it posted an article on its website from Ethanol Producer Magazine which touted their new ethanol production process as one that ”adds up to higher profitability and sustainability.”

The failure of Renew occurred just two days after Oregon-based Cascade Grain Products filed for Chapter 11. Cascade began operating its 108 million gallon per year distillery in Clatskanie, Oregon last June. Another distiller, New York-based Northeast Biofuels, filed for bankruptcy on January 14. That company’s plant, a $200 million facility with 100 million gallons per year of capacity, began operating last August. In October, VeraSun Energy, the second-largest ethanol producer in the country, declared bankruptcy. Other recent failures in the sector include Greater Ohio Ethanol and Gateway Ethanol.

About 9 percent of all the ethanol plants in the US have now filed for bankruptcy and some analysts believe the numbers could reach as high as 20 percent.

It may be unkind to kick the industry while it is circling the drain, but little of this financial news is overly surprising. The corn ethanol industry has always depended on federal handouts for its existence. And now that the economy has hit the skids, the ethanol makers have been slammed by high corn costs and low gasoline prices.

Given the string of bankruptcies, it’s worth reviewing the many studies produced over the past two years that have shown the high costs of ethanol and biofuels. Here are 14 of them, with links to the original documents.

1. In May 2007, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University released a report saying the ethanol mandates have increased the food bill for every American by about $47 per year due to grain price increases for corn, soybeans, wheat, and others. The Iowa State researchers concluded that American consumers face a ”total cost of ethanol of about $14 billion.” And that figure does not include the cost of federal subsidies to corn growers or the $0.51 per gallon tax credit to ethanol producers.

2. In September 2007, Corinne Alexander and Chris Hurt, agricultural economists at Purdue University, found that ”about two-thirds of the increase” in food price increases from 2005 to 2007 was ”related to biofuels.” The report also says, ”Based on expected 2007 farm level crop prices, that additional food cost is estimated to be $22 billion for U.S. consumers compared to farm prices for the crops produced in 2005. A rough estimate is that about $15 billion of this increase is related to the recent surge in demand to use crops for fuel.”

3. October 2007, the International Monetary Fund said, ”Higher biofuel demand in the United States and the European Union (EU) has not only led to higher corn and soybean prices, it has also resulted in price increases on substitution crops and increased the cost of livestock feed by providing incentives to switch away from other crops.”

3. In March 2008, a report commissioned by the Coalition for Balanced Food and Fuel Policy (a coalition based in Washington, D.C. of eight meat, dairy, and egg producers’ associations), estimated that the biofuels mandates passed by Congress will cost the U.S. economy more than $100 billion from 2006 to 2009. The report declared that ”The policy favoring ethanol and other biofuels over food uses of grains and other crops acts as a regressive tax on the poor.” It went on to estimate that the total cost of the U.S. biofuels mandates will total some $32.8 billion this year, or about $108 for every American citizen.

4. An April 8 internal report by the World Bank found that grain prices increased by 140 percent between January 2002 and February 2008.

”This increase was caused by a confluence of factors but the most important was the large increase in biofuels production in the U.S. and E.U. Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize [corn] stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate.” Robert Zoellick, president of the Bank, acknowledged those facts, saying that biofuels are ”no doubt a significant contributor” to high food costs. And he said that ”it is clearly the case that programs in Europe and the United States that have increased biofuel production have contributed to the added demand for food.”

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

varning-2

(more…)

The global warming hoax is an obvious fallacy – chief meteorologist Jym Ganahl

5 februari, 2009

NBC 4 chief meteorologist Jym Ganahl:

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

varning-2

Lies the IPCC will tell you

5 februari, 2009

”The Copenhagen Climate Conference of 2009 is promising to issue some of the strictest regulations yet regarding carbon emissions that would have developed nations basically shutting down their economies while waiting for the economies of developing nations, which will be able to continue spewing carbon into the atmosphere at will, to catch up.

So the real reason behind the global warming hysteria is and always has been, about the redistribution of wealth.  If the planet really were in the throes of cataclysmic crises, as the climate change hysterics claim, then reducing carbon emissions, all carbon emissions, would be the key, regardless of whether the ”polluter” is a developed or developing nation.  As it stands, these so-called strict emission controls that the IPCC is promising are aimed primarily at wealthy nations, while those less wealthy get a pass.”

”Carbon emissions from developed nations are harmful, while those from developing nations aren’t.  Does that make any sense?

Article here: 

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8184

Lies the IPCC will tell you

By Klaus Rohrich  Wednesday, February 4, 2009

The recent announcement by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body charged with whipping up global hysteria over climate change, that ”developing countries” would be exempt from emission cuts is proof that the idea of catastrophic climate change is a total scam that’s much more focused on improving economic conditions in the Third World than on combating climate change.  The reasoning behind such a conclusion should be obvious, given that if the earth’s climate truly were on the verge of a total and catastrophic collapse, then no one would really care about whether or not developing countries should be exempted from carbon emissions.

The Copenhagen Climate Conference of 2009 is promising to issue some of the strictest regulations yet regarding carbon emissions that would have developed nations basically shutting down their economies while waiting for the economies of developing nations, which will be able to continue spewing carbon into the atmosphere at will, to catch up.

Redistribution of Wealth

So the real reason behind the global warming hysteria is and always has been, about the redistribution of wealth.  If the planet really were in the throes of cataclysmic crises, as the climate change hysterics claim, then reducing carbon emissions, all carbon emissions, would be the key, regardless of whether the ”polluter” is a developed or developing nation.  As it stands, these so-called strict emission controls that the IPCC is promising are aimed primarily at wealthy nations, while those less wealthy get a pass.

One would think that individuals who have bought into the global warming/climate change scam would take the time to look out their windows, rather than swallow the climate change garbage trickling into their homes through the media.  Global warming stopped abruptly some 10 years ago and a new cooling trend has taken hold.  Those in rampant denial need merely to look at the streets of London and Madrid where this week 30 cm of snow and ice are wreaking havoc with people’s lives.  In fact, severe winters have been a trend in Europe for the past decade, yet somehow this fact seems to be lost on those who insist that we’re all going to die because of climate change.

Height of ignorance

The very idea of vilifying a substance like carbon and calling it a ”pollutant” is the height of ignorance, given that most life on earth is, how shall I put it, carbon-based.  There are four elements, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen that make life on earth possible.  Without these, no life.  Yet the morons at the head of this debate are attempting to convince the gullible and ovine populace that the key building block on which 99% of all earth’s life is based is toxic.

A belief in catastrophic climate change is one of the orthodoxies of liberalism, along with many other, equally silly beliefs.  As our own Dr. Tim Ball pointed out in these pages earlier, plant life, which produces oxygen, another necessary element for animal life to survive, does so by consuming carbon and exuding oxygen, which we then breathe.  So the whackos that want to outlaw carbon emissions could end up destroying all life on earth as one of their unintended consequences.

But don’t take my word for it.  Listen to what the climate change lobby appears to be saying.  Carbon emissions from developed nations are harmful, while those from developing nations aren’t.  Does that make any sense?  Or is this a case of the rumors of earth’s imminent demise being greatly exaggerated?

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

varning-2

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 35

4 februari, 2009

Tyvärr så gäller fortfarande denna varning dag 35 och värre blir det:

varning-2

Från och med 00:00:01 den 1 januari 2009 så lever vi i ett land med en TOTAL OFFICIELL MASSAVLYSNING a la Stasi och KGB.

Tack vare våra intälägänta politiker som har, i brott mot grundlagen, sålt ut allt vad fri- och rättigheter, och rättssäkerhet heter.

Så här skrev Eva Rundkvist, ordförande för socialdemokraterna i Upplands Väsby angående kritiken mot FRA lagen:

http://evarundkvist.blogspot.com/2009/02/sondag-kommer-fore-mandag.html

Hela debatten känns i alla bemärkelser en smula nattstånden.

 Jag har i alla fall dunderkoll på halva min bekantskapskrets, minut för minut. Det har säkert världens säkerhetstjänster också, med eller utan signalspaning.

Skillnaden, men det är knivigare att ta till sig kanske, är att redskapet signalspaning kan vara ett skydd mot yttre hot. Givet att svenska myndigheter kan använda det.

Och då tänker jag nog inte riktigt på den lede ryssen som alla mossiga tyckare tror, utan de tiotusentals kapade datorer som kan användas i terrorsyfte och riktas simultant mot exempelvis svenska finansiella betalsystem.

För att ta ett enda exempel i raden.

Själv undrar jag bara:

Vem betalar Alexandersson och hans kompisar. För det de gör kostar pengar. Inte den lede ryssen väl?

Intresset ljuger sällan.”

Läs detta uttalande en gång till.

Och begrunda att detta är hur en ledande socialdemokrat ser på all debatt och kritik som varit mot hur våra ”folkvalda” sålt ut allt vad fri- och rättigheter heter.

Hon anklagar alltså försåtligt alla som kritiserat FRA lagen för att vara ”köpta” av den lede fi.

En dag senare ”tvingades” hon ta tillbaka det hela och be om ursäkt. Men det är på det där raljanta politiska sättet ”härtill är jag nöd och tvungen”, där ”ursäkten” snarare förstärker förolämpningen.

Och här kommer det ”roliga”. Eva Rundkvist jobbar som kommunikationsstrateg och webbsidesansvarig på Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap.

Som skapades genom en sammanslagning av Räddningsverket, Krisberedskapsmyndigheten och Styrelsen för psykologiskt försvar.

Innan dess så jobbade hon i sekretariatet på MSB-kommittén som låg bakom denna förändring.

Hallå!? Är det någon vaken?

Ok, jag tar det än gång till.

Socialdemokraten Eva Rundkvist jobbar som kommunikationsstrategmyndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap.

Alltså den myndighet som skall ”värna” oss medborgare i händelse av olika kriser.

 Så här står det på kommittens hemsida:

”MSB är en sammanhållen mångfacetterad myndighet med ansvar för allt från vardagsolyckor till katastrofhantering och krisberedskap.

MSB ska värna befolkningens liv och hälsa, samhällets funktionalitet samt förmågan att upprätthålla grundläggande värden som demokrati, rättssäkerhet samt mänskliga fri- och rättigheter.

MSB ska leda och driva det gemensamma arbetet för ett stärkt samhällskydd och en god beredskap där alla tar ansvar. För att lyckas ska MSB vara en öppen, kompetent och drivande myndighet med fokus på individen och samhället.”

http://www.sou.gov.se/msb/

http://msbkommitten.blogspot.com/

Som sagt ” förmågan att upprätthålla grundläggande värden som demokrati, rättssäkerhet samt mänskliga fri- och rättigheter.”

Yes box, det har vi just sett ett lysande exempel på eller hur!

Är det någon mer än jag som känner ett ”mycket stort förtroende” för denna myndighets kompetens? Och dess sätt att värna våra ”grundläggande värden som demokrati, rättssäkerhet samt mänskliga fri- och rättigheter.”

Som sagt det är ”värdiga” representanter vi har i våra partier. Och visst är det tryggt med sådana representanter i ledningen för Myndigheten för SAMHÄLLSSKYDD och BEREDSKAP!

Som ”värnar” våra intressen.

Läs även:

Vi blev lurade!

FRA-lagen kommer fortfarande, med eller utan de aviserade ändringarna, att utgöra den största nedmontering av grundläggande fri- och rättigheter som Sverige sett i modern tid.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/article4313534.ab

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

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

2 februari, 2009

From today’s Wall Street Journal about a report commissioned by the Australian parliament ”as a peer review of Treasury modelling of the impacts on Australia’s economy of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.”

”The bottom line, these studies say, is that regardless of what governments are saying, reducing economy-wide carbon emissions will almost certainly not be quick, cheap, or easy.”

”The Australian report also highlighted a flaw that also affects California’s cost-benefit accounting of its own climate policy-both are, at this point, going it alone. California‘s cost-benefit analysis of its climate bill assumes the rest of the country will implement something just as strict. Australia’s government assumes the entire world will immediately agree to a comprehensive climate accord, and never calculated what would happen to Australian industry were it to be the only country in the region with strict climate laws.”

The report is here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fuelenergy_ctte/senate_ets_report_020209_final.pdf

The article is here:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/02/02/green-dreams-australias-and-californias-rosy-climate-visions-come-under-attack/

February 2, 2009, 2:23 pm

Green Dreams: Australia’s and California’s Rosy Climate Visions Come Under Attack

Posted by Keith Johnson

 The global economic downturn is causing a rethink of some of the rosier projections for the true costs of battling climate change.

Australia is the latest place to question the idea that climate-change legislation will be a free lunch, or nearly so. In a report commissioned by the Australian parliament, independent consultants found that the government’s optimistic cost estimates for climate-change legislation suffer from loads of flaws, from the future cost of energy to the ease at which industries can adapt to a low-carbon future. That means that the official line could be underestimating the costs of curbing emissions and overstating its benefits.

Australia’s second-guessing mirrors similar exercises from California to Europe. A coal-dependent country with high per-capita greenhouse-gas emissions and a new convert to aggressive action on climate change, Australia’s hand-wringing holds lessons for the U.S.

Australia’s outlook-like California’s-seems to suffer from the perils of economic modeling on computers; the conclusions are only as good as the assumptions the model rests on.

Economic models tend to overlook real-world realities, the study found-like the fact that big capital investments in the power sector don’t disappear overnight, making a ”seamless” transition from a high-carbon energy mix to a low-carbon mix more difficult in the real world than on paper.

The Australian report also highlighted a flaw that also affects California’s cost-benefit accounting of its own climate policy-both are, at this point, going it alone. California‘s cost-benefit analysis of its climate bill assumes the rest of the country will implement something just as strict. Australia’s government assumes the entire world will immediately agree to a comprehensive climate accord, and never calculated what would happen to Australian industry were it to be the only country in the region with strict climate laws.

Both Australia and the U.S. projections also rely on ”clean coal” to magically become commercially viable and widespread within about 15 years, even though no clean coal plants exist today, and questions remain over the economics of clean coal even under a cap-and-trade scheme.

The bottom line, these studies say, is that regardless of what governments are saying, reducing economy-wide carbon emissions will almost certainly not be quick, cheap, or easy. Which makes an honest tallying of the costs and benefits all the more necessary to make climate policy work.

 Comments

Re: your para 6, from yesterday’s Economic Times (India):
”AHMEDABAD: The Copenhagen Climate Conference 2009, is likely to conclude on a strict regulatory regime on emissions for developed countries rather than for the developing countries, nobel laureate R K Pachauri said here today….”
.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who argues that India or China have any intention of slowing their economic development by even a tenth of a percentage point/annuum is either a fool, a liar or both.

Comment by Climateer – February 2, 2009 at 3:45 pm

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

varning-2

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 10

1 februari, 2009

Som ett komplement till mitt inlägg Vindkraften – En MINSKNING med 98 % på 3 dagar!

DEN SAMLADE EFFEKTEN FRÅN DE SVENSKA VINDKRAFTVERKAN HAR DE  SENASTE 4 DAGARNA (26-30/1) LEGAT PÅ 3-4 %!

 

2009-02-01_005510

Så under dessa vinterdagar då det har varit minusgrader i hela landet, så har den SAMLADE EFFEKTEN FRÅN DE SVENSKA VINDKRAFTVERKEN  PENDLAT MELLAN 3 och 4%!

Jag säger bara en sak – tack Gode Gud för denna pålitliga och säkra energiförsörjning en vinter som denna!

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

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

varning-2


%d bloggare gillar detta: