Archive for mars, 2009

Wind power – what a costly and unreliable joke!

30 mars, 2009

As a complement to my previous post Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt - 12 and The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably, and as an excellent illustration point to my comment to Diego Méndez.

Today in Sweden we had quite steady winds around 7-10 m/s in the whole country.

I don’t think you could ask for better conditions for wind power.

And what is the combined output from the Swedish Wind turbines during these excellent conditions????

A WHOPPING 7%!

Yep! A whole 7%

And look at that constant rollercoaster in output – UP and DOWN, UP and DOWN day in and day out.

2009-03-30_223534

We are talking about drops of 50-70% during ONE DAY in total combined output.

And 80-90% in TWO DAYS.

The record so far is a DROP OFF A TOTAL STAGGERING 98% in THREE DAYS.

DO YOU WANT TO TRUST ANY ESSENTIAL LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT TO THIS POWER SUPPLY???

OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER???

And for this TOTAL unreliable power supply we the people pay HUGE taxes and subsidies. Plus pay high electric bills to support this ”green” alternative.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>
 
 varning-2

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

29 mars, 2009

More on the IPCC:s manipulation of data to fit in the Global Warming Hysteria.

This time about the ”sea rising” scare.

Se also my posts:

If ALL human activities CEASED in Alaska TODAY the effect on global temperature in 2100 would be 0,001 C

20, 000 year of Temperature, CO2 and sea level change data

Sea Level Rise in excess of 2 meters is physically untenable during the next 100 years 

Havsnivån har SJUNKIT med 170 m de senaste 80 miljoner åren!

Havsnivån har SJUNKIT med 170 m de senaste 80 miljoner åren – 2!

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

And 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!

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

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

IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!

Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?

IPCC and its bias!

Peer Review – What it actually means

The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature

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

Peer Review – What it actually means 2

Article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.

Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 6:31PM GMT 28 Mar 2009

If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under  water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

Climate shift ‘poles apart’ But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, ”the sea is not rising,” he says. ”It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will ”not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by  Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on ”going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC’s favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a ”corrective factor” of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they ”needed to show a trend”.

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an ”expert reviewer” on the IPCC’s last two reports, he was ”astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one”. Yet the results of all this ”deliberate ignorance” and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.

For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview ”Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud”; or email him – morner@pog.nu – to buy a copy of his booklet ‘The Greatest Lie Ever Told’

Blown away

The Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, timed his jibe impeccably last week when he said that opposing wind farms is as ”socially unacceptable” as ”not wearing a seatbelt”. Britain’s largest windfarm companies are pulling out of wind as fast as they can. Despite 100 per cent subsidies, the credit crunch and technical problems spell an end to Gordon Brown’s £100 billion dream of meeting our EU target to derive 35 per cent of our electricity from ”renewables” by 2020.

Meanwhile the Government gives the go-ahead for three new 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power stations in Wales. Each of them will generate more than the combined average output (700 megawatts) of all the 2,400 wind turbines so far built. The days of the ”great wind fantasy” will soon be over.

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

varning-2

The Globe is Cooling and the temperatures keep going down

29 mars, 2009

Here are figures and data from NASA about the global cooling. And remember these are the guys who have manipulated data so that it would support the Global Warming Hysteria. Yes, they have been caught with their pants down several times.

(Se my posts: GISS Climate Model already wrong after 5 years

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models 

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data

More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have 

The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data

Minus 60 C or not?

Documenting the global warming fraud – ”Getting Rid” of the Medieval Warming Period

The fight to get the temperature data that Global Warming Hysterics don’t want you to see

NOAA Cherry Picking on Trend Analyses

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!

The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria

The editor of the International Journal of Climatology has finally said that they do not require authors to provide supporting data)

And they did this in the name of ”good science” of course.

And they are officially spreading the Global Warming Hysteria with your tax money.

And they have the Global Warming high priest James Hansen as director of GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies).

Notice the difference between the northern hemisphere and the equatorial and the southern hemisphere. And between land and ocean.

The equatorial and the southern hemisphere are cooling faster than the northern hemisphere.

Notice especially that the equatorial latitudes (23,6 N -23,6 S) is cooling the fastest. And this is the warmest part of earth

And the oceans are cooling faster than land.

Wasn’t this to be a GLOBAL Warming??

Instead everything is cooling. And some parts are cooling even faster than the ”global mean”.

Se also my posts: All Oceans are steadily cooling

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models

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

The Big dropout of weather stations since 1989 – A 66% reduction in 11 years

Annual North American temperature is FALLING at a rate of 0.78C/decade   Temperature data – What it really means.

GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM 2500 B.C. TO 2008 A.D 

20, 000 year of Temperature, CO2 and sea level change data 

An Eighteen-Hundred-Year Climate Record from China

422 700 år av temperaturdata från Antarktis

Temperaturen för 130 000 år sedan,

Climate Change … Global Warming … Global Cooling

50 Years of CO2 monitoring: Can you see the increase???

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS

Global Warming No Longer Happening – Record cold in Canada

If ALL human activities CEASED in Alaska TODAY the effect on global temperature in 2100 would be 0,001 C

New Zealand COOLER in 2008 than 141 years ago

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

The Cooling World – Newsweek 1975

The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in San Francisco Bay

Annual Mean Temperature Change for Northern and Southern Hemispheres

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif

2009-03-28_230859

 Annual Mean Temperature Change for Land and Oceanhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif

 2009-03-28_231116

Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif

 2009-03-29_004232

Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

 2009-03-28_231419

Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif

2009-03-28_2316531

Seasonal Mean Temperature Change

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.lrg.gif

2009-03-28_231958

Comparison of 2009 Temperature to the Two Years with the Warmest Annual Means

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/2009+2005+2007.pdf

2009-03-28_232818

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

varning-2

Al Gore, James Hansen – Carbon Communists

25 mars, 2009

From Fridays Pravda. Pravda, (Пра́вда) means truth. All this was a big joke during communist time when Pravda was the official mouthpiece of the party, together with Izvestia (Известия) which means ”delivered messages”.

Well, it now makes a good point about the blatant hypocrisy from the high Priests of the Global Warming religion, which I have been saying all the time:

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

And that the politicians love this Global Warming Hysteria because they can tax everyone to death, and introduce new fees etc with the ”motivation” that ”they” are ”saving” the planet from the Global Warming treat.

Of course they don’t sacrifice anything themselves- se the glaring example of Al Gore who preaches frugality to the masses while he himself gladly continues with his great and energy rich lifestyle – they ONLY LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN and BURDEN of this sacrifice.

The sad part about this Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, is the press and medias role in censoring and intimidating everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

And there willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria. Not to mention their part in covering up the Giant Difference between what these high priests says and what they actually do. A total and utter shame for what journalism should be about.

Se also my posts:

Global Warming Hysterics – the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealotAl Gore Testifying About Global Warming During an Ice Storm,   Where is Al Gore when it is brutal cold?? Want to wreck the environment? Have a baby!How we know that they, the Global Warming Hysterics, know they are lyingGlobal Warming Hysteria – Governments AND Media Together Close Down The DebateAl Gore: The Mayans civilization died out because of global warming

And about ”dear” Al Gore and his total hypocrisy:

Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint - continuation!,  The master hypocrite Al Gore doesn’t want to criticise his Hollywood buddies! Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!Al Gores energislösande hem,  Hycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna rådClinton-Gore behind the Global Warming!Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press -2?Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?Emperor Al Gores Earth

Article here:

http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/107272-0/

Carbon Communism

20.03.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru

I think that the CO2-caused Global Warming theory is false and unproven junk science.

But let’s suppose for a moment that the CO2 equals Global Warming equation is real. The wealthy elitists James Hansen, Al Gore, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, and the other high-profile cheerleaders for CO2 reduction are asking the poor and middle classes to suffer the consequences of a radical shutdown of global commerce and energy production in order to ‘save the planet’ from Global Warming. They want to make serfs of the masses of working people, while a privileged elite will be permitted to continue living in high style with a much larger ‘carbon footprint’ than the un-entitled lower classes.

We should never let that happen. The only way that ‘carbon rationing’ should be allowed is by assigning the exact same carbon limit to all people everywhere. Al Gore, Barack Obama, a London cabbie, and a Kalahari Bushman should all be assigned exactly the same number of ‘carbon credits’, period. Let them trade their credits with each other, but everyone should be restricted to the same limited ‘carbon credit’ allowance. The long-term ultimate effect of this would be an economic leveling of society; essentially global Communism. Under such a system, no one would be able to accumulate an excess of personal property or wealth because they could never accumulate enough ‘carbon credits’ to do so.

When Hansen, Gore, Blair, and Obama give up their patrician incomes and lifestyles and restrict their own ‘carbon footprint’ to the level of the common labourer or office worker, I will begin to believe that they are sincere about preventing Global Warming. Their obvious unwillingness to do what they are asking the rest of us to do proves that they are not sincere. They want the common people to sacrifice their lives to prevent Global Warming, while the wealthy retain their high-carbon consuming and producing privileges.

We cannot permit a privileged elite to enjoy a ‘high-carbon’ lifestyle while the poor are restricted by law to a ‘low-carbon’ lifestyle. Any effort by any government to impose carbon rationing with preferential treatment to any class of people should be seen as sufficient reason for an all-out French-style revolution in which the majority population dispossess the elitists of their wealth, their positions of power, and their privilege. In a world that is constantly threatened by Global Warming, we cannot allow a greedy few to consume or produce in excess of the average ‘carbon footprint’ of the world’s population as a whole.

Barack Obama keeps the temperature at 78 degrees Fahrenheit in the Oval Office while telling the rest of us to turn our thermostats down. James Hansen has received grants amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the Global Warming theory. Al Gore has invested heavily in the ‘carbon trading’ brokerage business. All of these men jet around the world, live in oversized houses, and ride in limousines. If the common people are to be required by law to reduce our ‘carbon footprint’, we need to demand that our leaders and the wealthy elite be restricted to exactly the same carbon allowance as everyone else.

We are not all together in the fight against Global Warming unless everyone is required to make the same sacrifices by sharing an equal ‘carbon footprint’ and an equal ‘carbon ration’, which should be assigned equally to every living person in the entire world. We need to hold the elitists’ feet to the fire and require them to make exactly the same sacrifices as the rest of humanity.

Individual carbon limits and carbon rationing? Bring them on. Viva la Revolucion!

Gregory Fegel

© 1999-2006. «PRAVDA.Ru». 

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

varning-2

Global Warming Appetizer – the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice! And they are “studying global warming”

21 mars, 2009

The Catlin Arctic Project is out to prove that Global Warming is melting the Arctic ice sheet and disappearing (when it actually is increasing). And they have the usual High backing – BBC, WWF, Prince Charles etc.

And of course extensive media coverage – but I need not to say that do I.

When they where leaving from Britain the ”Global Warming Trio” last month was hampered by ”an unusually heavy snowfall”.

And then ”they were startled to find how cold it was” when they arrived at the Arctic. ”In temperatures of minus 40 degrees, they were ”battered by wind, bitten by frost and bruised by falls on the ice”.

Of course, if you are a global warming hysteric ANY contact with the real nature and climate MUST be a shock.

And now they are completely out of food because the cold weather prevents the airplanes from dropping food.

And the polar bears, which are supposed to be threatened by extinction ”by global warming” when they are actually increasing (do you see the pattern here?), are going around eying them for food.

Any one but me seeing the wonderful irony here?

”They were disconcerted to see one of those polar bears, threatened with extinction by global warming, wandering around, doubtless eyeing them for its dinner.

It’s the Al Gore effect!

The face of a person studying ”Global warming”!

2009-03-21-ben-hadow_1370351a 

Article here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aSqC0BzVMdKk&refer=canada

Polar Explorers Run Short of Food; Weather Stops Supply Flights

By Alex Morales

March 18 (Bloomberg) — Three U.K. explorers bound for the North Pole on a scientific expedition to study global warming said they are close to running out of food after ”brutal” weather conditions halted three attempts to fly in supplies.

The support team hopes to decide within hours on when it can send an airplane to land on nearby ice with provisions, Tori Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Catlin Arctic Survey in London, said in an interview today.

”We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in a statement e-mailed yesterday by his team. ”Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”

The severe weather is jeopardizing a journey aimed at projecting when global warming may melt the entire Arctic Ocean cap, a phenomenon that scientists say might trigger further gains in temperature.

Hadow, Ann Daniels and Martin Hartley are 18 days into their 100-day, 1,300-kilometer (800-mile) journey to the pole, during which they planned to use a custom radar to take as many as 13 million ice-thickness measurements. They aim to help scientists gauge how quickly the Arctic sea ice is thinning.

Previous estimates of melting have been based on less reliable depth soundings made by satellites and submarines, which can’t distinguish ice from snow. Scientists have made few surface measurements that are highly accurate because of difficulties in traveling on the ice cap.

”We’ve located a suitable airstrip,” Taylor said. ”We hope the plane will be able to land.”

Last Updated: March 18, 2009 06:07 EDT

And here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5028380/The-Global-Warming-Three-are-on-thin-ice.html

The ‘Global Warming Three’ are on thin ice

The ony problem with a project to prove that Arctic ice is disappearing is the fact that it is actually getting thicker, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 4:24PM GMT 21 Mar 2009

What a wonderful parable of our time has been the expedition to the North Pole led by the explorer Pen Hadow. With two companions, he is measuring the thickness of the ice to show how fast it is ”declining”. His expedition is one of a series of events designed to ”raise awareness of the dangers of climate change” before December’s conference in Copenhagen, where the warmists hope to get a new treaty imposing much more drastic cuts on CO2 emissions.

Hadow’s Catlin Arctic Project has top-level backing from the likes of the BBC, the WWF (it could ”make a lasting difference to policy-relevant science”) and Prince Charles (”for the sake of our children and grandchildren, I pray that we will heed the results of the Catlin Arctic Survey and I can only commend this remarkably important project”).

Christopher Booker’s NotebookWith perfect timing, the setting out from Britain of the ”Global Warming Three” last month was hampered by ”an unusually heavy snowfall”. When they were airlifted to the start of their trek by a twin-engine Otter (one hopes a whole forest has been planted to offset its ”carbon footprint”), they were startled to find how cold it was. The BBC dutifully reported how, in temperatures of minus 40 degrees, they were ”battered by wind, bitten by frost and bruised by falls on the ice”.

Thanks to the ice constantly shifting, it was ”disheartening”, reported Hadow, to find that ”when you’ve slogged for a day”, you can wake up next morning to find you have ”drifted back to where you started”. Last week, down to their last scraps of food, they were only saved in the nick of time by the faithful Otter. They were disconcerted to see one of those polar bears, threatened with extinction by global warming, wandering around, doubtless eyeing them for its dinner.

But at least one of the intrepid trio was able to send a birthday message to his mum, via the BBC, and they were able to talk by telephone to ”some of the world’s most influential climate change leaders”, including Development Secretary Douglas Alexander in front of 300 people at ”a conference on world poverty”.

The idea is that the expedition should take regular radar fixes on the ice thickness, to be fed into a computer model in California run by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, whose team, according to the BBC, ”is well known for producing results that show much faster ice-loss than other modelling teams”. The professor predicts that summer ice could be completely gone as early as next year. It took the Watts Up With That? science blog to point out that there is little point in measuring ice thickness unless you do it several years running, and that, anyway, Arctic ice is being constantly monitored by US Army buoys. The latest reading given by a typical sensor shows that since last March the ice has thickened by ”at least half a metre”.

”In most fields of science,” comments WUWT drily, ”that is considered an ‘increase’ rather than a ‘decline’.”

An unhealthy moral climate

A London employment tribunal has ruled that Tim Nicholson, right, was wrongly dismissed as a property firm’s ”head of sustainability” because of his fervent commitment to ”climate change”. Mr Nicholson had fallen out with his colleagues over his attempts to reduce the company’s ”carbon footprint”. The tribunal chairman David Neath found the company guilty of discriminating against Mr Nicholson under the 2006 Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations, because his faith in global warming was a ”philosophical belief”. Recalling how ”eco-psychologists” at the University of the West of England are pressing for ”climate denial” to be classified as a form of ”mental disorder”, one doubts whether the same legal protection would be given to those who fail to share Mr Nicholson’s ”philosophical belief”.

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 – 12

21 mars, 2009

Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably kommer här mera om hur opålitlig vindkraften är.

Så som jag konstaterat så många gånger tidigare: bergochdalbanan fortsätter i all oändlighet, upp och ner, upp och ner. Och verkar aldrig ta slut.

Nu senast EN MINSKNING AV DEN SAMLADE EFFEKTEN MED 50 % PÅ 1 DAG (18/3).

EN MINSKNING MED 50 % !

Och detta är ju på inget sätt uniktTvärtom!

Här kommer några exempel från de svenska vindkraftverken den senaste tiden:

Med 89 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (23-25/1).

 Med 98 % PÅ 3 DAGAR (23-26/1).

 Med 84 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (12-14/1).

MED 84 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (22-24/12).

MED 67 % PÅ 1 DAG (10/12).

MED 50 % PÅ 1 DAG (11/12).

MED 87 % PÅ 3 DAGAR (27-30/11)

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

2009-03-21_175957

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

varning-2

The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably

21 mars, 2009

More on the very high cots, high subsidy ant the unreliability of wind power. In this case from Spain where the government have subsidized wind power with OVER 90 % over the market price!

And solar power has been subsidized with OVER 575 % over the market price!

Isn’t it fantastic! Subsides of over 90% and 575% over market price!

I mean with subsides of over 90% and 575% I can turn any lousy money losing business into profit for my self but at a HUGE cost to society and the taxpayers.

And Shell is getting out of wind and solar power business for the same reasons.

Spain has increased its emissions by 40% since signing the Kyoto protocol. And yet, in contrast to the government estimate in 2004 that emissions permits would cost Spanish companies no more than 85 million euros annually, the real cost is now estimated at between 3 billion (government statement) and 15 billion euros (Price Waterhouse Coopers).”

”For the first 15 years, a subsidy of 90% over the market price has been payable, reducing to 80% thereafter. And for solar, in which Spain is also seen as a leader, subsidies have amounted to 575% of the market price for 25 years, then declining to ”only” 460%. With returns of 12 to 20%, the take up has been understandably high (indeed, there have been waiting lists). ”

”And they come at a cost: a renewables subsidy of 2.6bn euros in 2007, with about one third of the total going to the solar sector, which represents only 0.7% of installed capacity and about half the total number of jobs.”

The costs are such that the government has now had to reduce the subsidy for solar power by 30% and cap the amount of new capacity to be installed. This softening of support resulted in 10,000 job losses. Further reductions of subsidies put 40,000 more green jobs at risk. Energy prices are rising to cover losses in the distribution industry, and generators have announced the cancellation of 4.5bn euros of annual investment because they also pay an effective subsidy for renewable energy through the controlled price to the consumer.”

Se also my post among many others:

 Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to be – the reality is even worse

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power!

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

Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power!Carbon Credits Fund Broken Turbine

Article here:

http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=57640

Date: 20/03/09

Scientific Alliance newsletter 20th March 2009

The reality of wind power and green-collar jobs in Spain

Sometimes, two stories come along which starkly contradict each other. A perfect example is the reporting of Spain’s green credentials. The country is often held up as an example to laggards across the EU of how to invest in renewable energy. Take, for example, a piece in the Times last week, headlined ”Spanish windmills tilt country towards cleaner, greener energy”.

According to this, 30% of Spain’s energy in January and February came from wind and hydro power, thanks to wet and windy weather, and the figure for the year as a whole is expected to be nearer 30% than 20%. For comparison, ”carbon” energy (presumably coal- and gas-fired stations) accounted for 14.3% and nuclear 20.9%. Where the other 35% of energy came from is anyone’s guess: no figures are given. Crucially, the actual contributions of hydro and wind power are not given, but the likelihood is that the bulk of the 30% was hydro power.

Although great strides may well have been made in the last few years, it is difficult to reconcile these figures with those for Spain in 2005 taken from the EU energy portal (www.energy.eu). This gives a figure of 8.7% as the contribution of renewables: pretty much the EU average, and with a target of 20% by 2020. And as for carbon dioxide emissions, Spain is projected in 2010 still to be nearly 24% above its 2012 Kyoto target.

Another view of this situation was given by Dr Gabriel Calzada, Associate Professor of Economics at King Juan Carlos University during the Heartland Institute’s climate change conference in New York last week. In contrast to the Times article, the title was ”Spain’s new energy economy: Boom and bust of the Spanish renewable miracle”.

According to his figures, Spain has increased its emissions by 40% since signing the Kyoto protocol. And yet, in contrast to the government estimate in 2004 that emissions permits would cost Spanish companies no more than 85 million euros annually, the real cost is now estimated at between 3 billion (government statement) and 15 billion euros (Price Waterhouse Coopers).

As for renewable energy, the rapid growth of wind power is not surprising. For the first 15 years, a subsidy of 90% over the market price has been payable, reducing to 80% thereafter. And for solar, in which Spain is also seen as a leader, subsidies have amounted to 575% of the market price for 25 years, then declining to ”only” 460%. With returns of 12 to 20%, the take up has been understandably high (indeed, there have been waiting lists).

The result is that installed wind capacity is just over 10% of the total for the country, although it is unclear whether this is theoretical or makes allowance for a realistic efficiency factor. The buoyant market has created around 50,000 jobs, but these are nearly all for installing new capacity and so do not provide long term employment. And they come at a cost: a renewables subsidy of 2.6bn euros in 2007, with about one third of the total going to the solar sector, which represents only 0.7% of installed capacity and about half the total number of jobs.

The costs are such that the government has now had to reduce the subsidy for solar power by 30% and cap the amount of new capacity to be installed. This softening of support resulted in 10,000 job losses. Further reductions of subsidies put 40,000 more green jobs at risk. Energy prices are rising to cover losses in the distribution industry, and generators have announced the cancellation of 4.5bn euros of annual investment because they also pay an effective subsidy for renewable energy through the controlled price to the consumer.

So, with Kyoto emissions targets almost certain to be significantly overshot and the bubble of green-collar jobs now burst, the Spanish government must be wondering how it managed to waste so much money for so little reward. It is difficult to see an economic recovery in Europe (or the USA) being led by a boom in long-term green-collar jobs.

Shell gets back to basics

The reality of renewable power generation has also dawned on Shell. Several newspapers have carried the story that the company is stopping its investments in wind and solar power because they are simply uneconomic. Last year, it pulled out of a partnership with E.ON to build the 1,000 MW (when the wind blows at the right strength) Thames Array off-shore project.

Environmentalists will argue that such decisions are wrong, because they believe that the future lies with such clean technologies. To compound the offence, Shell is investing more in biofuels, which have been criticised because of the relatively low carbon saving they make and their distorting effect on food prices.

However, doing projects which are not commercially viable is not generally good business. Businesses have to look after their profitability and their shareholders first. In so doing, they are often highly innovative and take significant risks with technologies which give no payback for many years, moving away from renewables does not just mean the company is playing safe. Shell is changing tack for a reason, and that reason is that it sees no prospects of wind power becoming commercially viable for the foreseeable future.

Over the last decade or so, wind turbines have become more efficient, and wind is the renewable power source which needs the lowest subsidy to compete. But Shell does not see a continuation of the trend to the point where wind power will be economically viable without a subsidy. The situation for solar power (as the figures from Spain show well) is much further away from being economically competitive.

Even if wind (and eventually, solar) power become serious options, their intermittency remains a major problem until cheap, high capacity storage is available. In these circumstances, an energy company such as Shell is understandably getting back to basics and pursuing routes where it sees more potential. Biofuels is one of these.

True, this sector also has problems at present and requires subsidies to keep it viable. But the scope for major developments over the next few years is much greater. The first company which can convert waste biomass into a range of energy-dense fuels in a way which is potentially cost-effective has an important first mover advantage in what could be a large sector of the future transport fuels market.

It may turn out that Shell has backed the wrong horse in this particular case. Other companies may make a breakthrough in low-cost photovoltaics, or in some other area. But the point is that there will be a range of options being pursued by companies which all think they can be winners. Some of them will succeed, some will fail; the market will decide. This is a much better way of harnessing creative potential than single-mindedly focussing on just wind and solar power. Objective, hard-headed decision making will give the best results in the long term.

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

varning-2

All Oceans are steadily cooling

21 mars, 2009

According to the ARGOS buoys (3 325 of them) the last 4,5 years of float data from all the oceans down to the depth of 700 m, the temperature is cooling steadily at – 0.35 C per year.

Graph here (p21-24):

http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Craig_Loehle.ppt

Abstract Energy & Environment Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 2009

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene

Se also my posts: 

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models

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

The Big dropout of weather stations since 1989 – A 66% reduction in 11 years

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data

ABSTRACT

Cooling of the global ocean since 2003

By Craig Loehle, Ph.D. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (~0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.” GreenieWatch h/t Marc Morano

2009-03-21_161134

And here is a map of the positions of the ARGOS buoys today:

2009-03-21_162609

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

 varning-2

Global Warming No Longer Happening – Record cold in Canada

15 mars, 2009

Very good observations about the hypocrisy and double standard from the Global Warming Hysterics from today’s Edmonton Journal.

”This past Tuesday, Edmonton International Airport reported an overnight low of - 41.5 C, smashing the previous March low of – 29.4 C set in 1975. Records just don’t fall by that much, but the airport’s did. Records are usually broken fractions of degrees.

The International’s was exceeded by 12 degrees.”

  ”There are a lot of people in every age who think they know better than everyone else and, therefore, have a right to tell everyone how to live. In the 1950s, it was country-club and parish council busybodies with their strict moral codes. In the 1970s, it was social democrats with their fanciful economic theories. Today, it’s environmentalists.

 Same instinct, different wrapper.”

Article here:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Global+warming+longer+happening/

1391903/story.html

Global warming’s no longer happening

So why are eco types moaning about record highs while ignoring record lows?

By Lorne Gunter, The Edmonton Journal March 15, 2009

So far this month, at least 14 major weather stations in Alberta have recorded their lowest-ever March temperatures. I’m not talking about daily records; I mean they’ve recorded the lowest temperatures they’ve ever seen in the entire month of March since temperatures began being recorded in Alberta in the 1880s.

This past Tuesday, Edmonton International Airport reported an overnight low of -41.5 C, smashing the previous March low of -29.4 C set in 1975. Records just don’t fall by that much, but the airport’s did. Records are usually broken fractions of degrees. The International’s was exceeded by 12 degrees.

To give you an example of how huge is the difference between the old record and the new, if Edmonton were to exceed its highest-ever summer temperature by the same amount, the high here some July day would have to reach 50 C. That’s a Saudi Arabia-like temperature.

Also on the same day, Lloydminster hit -35.2 C, breaking its old March record of -29.2 C. Fort McMurray — where they know cold — broke a record set in 1950 with a reading of -39.9C. And Cold Lake, Slave Lake, Whitecourt, Peace River, High Level, Jasper and Banff, and a handful of other communities obliterated old cold values, most from the 1950s or 1970s, two of the coldest decades on record in the province.

This has been an especially cold winter across the country, with values returning to levels not often seen since the 1970s, which was an especially brutal decade of winters.

Temperatures began to plummet on the Prairies in December. The cold weather did not hit much of the rest of the country until January, but when it hit, it hit hard. Even against Canada‘s normally frigid January standards, ”this particular cold snap is noteworthy,” Environment Canada meteorologist Geoff Coulson said this past January. Many regions across the country had not been as cold for 30 years or more, he added.

Does this prove fear of global warming is misplaced? On its own, probably not. But if records were being broken the other way — if several Alberta centres had recorded their warmest-ever March values – you can bet there would be no end of hand-wringing, horror stories about how we were on the precipice of an ecological disaster of unprecedented proportions.

Environmentalists, scientists who advance the warming theory, politicians and reporters never shy away from hyping those weather stories that support their beliefs. But they tend to ignore or explain away stories that might cast doubt.

In 2005, the summer and fall of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when several major ‘canes pummelled North and Central America, we were told again and again that this was proof warming was happening and it was going to be bad. Al Gore has emissions from industrial smokestacks swirling up into a satellite image of a hurricane on the DVD box for his propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth to underline the point that more and eviller hurricanes will be the result of CO2 output.

But since 2005, only one major hurricane — this year’s Ike — has struck North America. And now comes a study from Florida State University researcher Ryan Maue, that shows worldwide cyclonic activity — typhoons, as well as hurricanes — has reached a 30-year low (tinyurl.com/bunynz).

Indeed, the hiatus may go back more than 30 years because it is difficult to compare records before about 1970 with those since, since measurements four or more decades ago were not as precise or thorough. Current low activity may actually be the lowest in 50 years or more.

If Maue had proven hurricane activity were at a 30-year high, of course his findings would have been reported far and wide. But since he is challenging the dogma of the Holy Mother Church of Climate Change, his research is ignored.

For at least the past five or six years, global temperatures have been falling. Look at the black trend line on the chart at http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ put out by the man who runs NASA’s worldwide network of weather satellites.

Also, in the past few months, two studies — one by the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Germany and another by the University of Wisconsin — have shown a slowing, or even a reversal of warming for at least the next 10 to 20, and perhaps longer.

Even the Arctic sea ice, which has replaced hurricanes as the alarm of the moment ever since hurricanes ceased to threaten, has grown this winter to an extent not seen since around 1980.

Global warming is not only no longer happening, it is not likely to resume until 2025 or later, if then. So why are we continuing to hear so much doomsaying about climate change?

There are a lot of people in every age who think they know better than everyone else and, therefore, have a right to tell everyone how to live. In the 1950s, it was country-club and parish council busybodies with their strict moral codes. In the 1970s, it was social democrats with their fanciful economic theories. Today, it’s environmentalists.

Same instinct, different wrapper.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

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

varning-2

Why greens don’t want to ‘solve’ climate change

15 mars, 2009

I found this interesting article from October 2007 which very accurately describes the core of the politics and religion of Global Warming Hysterics as anti human, anti technology, anti science and anti development.

Yet when planet-sized technological solutions to global warming – also known as ‘geo-engineering solutions’ – are put forward, environmentalists are the first to balk. ‘It will never work’, they say. Why are those who are most concerned about climate change also the most hostile to doing something serious to tackle it? ”

”Rather, environmentalists tend to dismiss geo-engineering because, at root, they are not interested in halting climate change. For many today, both green activists and leading politicians, climate change is a moral and political issue rather than simply a practical problem. They see the ‘issue of climate change’ as a means to changing people’s behaviour and expectations, rather than simply as a byproduct of industrialisation that ought to be tackled by technological know-how. They are resistant to geo-engineering solutions because putting an end to climate change would rob them of their raison d’être. ”

”Yet it is not particular technologies that environmentalists hate, so much as the whole idea of human ingenuity – the conscious, designing, problem-solving capabilities that distinguish mankind from naturally occurring species.”

”In recent years, environmentalists have found fault with just about every technology devised or conjectured in the battle against global warming.”

 

”The implication is that humans must first suffer, by cutting back on consumption and energy-use, before we can at least try to fix the problems of pollution. This gets to the nub of environmentalists’ hostility towards geo-engineering.

Environmentalists instinctively reject or ignore technological solutions to global warming because they are bent on making people atone for their sins. Their ridicule of geo-engineering reveals that, for them, climate change is a moral tale about humanity’s greed and arrogance, where the happy ending is a much-reduced human population where everyone lives simply and meekly.”

See also my posts: The environmentalists want to change us and our behaviour – Their ambition is to control and manipulate usEnvironmentalism is a Bigger Threat to Humanity than Global Warming and what is endangered is freedom and prosperity

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 change

Clearing out the environmental fogWorld’s Scariest Words: ‘I’m an Environmentalist and I’m Here to Help’

Article here:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/3950/

Wednesday 10 October 2007
Why greens don’t want to ‘solve’ climate change

Environmentalists are cagey about techno-fixes to climate change because berating mankind for its impact on nature is their raison d’être.

James Woudhuysen

Environmental activists and commentators frequently argue that climate change is the most pressing problem facing humanity, and that if we don’t do something about it the planet will burn up. Yet when planet-sized technological solutions to global warming – also known as ‘geo-engineering solutions’ – are put forward, environmentalists are the first to balk. ‘It will never work’, they say. Why are those who are most concerned about climate change also the most hostile to doing something serious to tackle it?

It isn’t just because such solutions would be ambitious, costly and distant in time; nor is it only because these solutions would carry risks. Rather, environmentalists tend to dismiss geo-engineering because, at root, they are not interested in halting climate change. For many today, both green activists and leading politicians, climate change is a moral and political issue rather than simply a practical problem. They see the ‘issue of climate change’ as a means to changing people’s behaviour and expectations, rather than simply as a byproduct of industrialisation that ought to be tackled by technological know-how. They are resistant to geo-engineering solutions because putting an end to climate change would rob them of their raison d’être.

On Sunday, the UK Observer reported that a forthcoming issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society will be devoted to geo-engineering, and that the Science Museum in London is opening an exhibition titled ‘Can Algae Save The World?’ (1). The Observer summarised six geo-engineering solutions that have been mooted, rating the chances of each succeeding from 1 to 5:

  1. Ocean pipes and pumps, bringing life forms from the depths to the surface, where they could absorb CO2. Chance of success: 3/5.
  2. Rocketing enough sulphur into the stratosphere for it to cool the planet by blocking the sun’s rays. Chance of success: 1/5.
  3. Doing much the same with giant mirrors, orbiting in space. Chance of success: 1/5.
  4. Seeding clouds to increase overall cloud cover from the sun by four per cent. Chance of success: 2/5.
  5. Building thousands of synthetic trees coated with materials that would absorb CO2. Chance of success: 4/5.
  6. Increasing the production of plankton and algae in the sea, which again would absorb more CO2. Chance of success: 2/5.

For all environmentalists’ enthusiasm for peer-reviewed climate science, they are enormously sceptical about human-created technology. The arbitrarily low ratings assigned to approaches 1 to 6 above are based on one-liner dismissals: the impact of ocean pumps on marine life, for example, could ‘count against’ them, and mirrors would be ‘incredibly expensive’. For sulphur and scheme 6, low ratings emerge, respectively, because the associated risks of acid rain and ozone depletion ‘will provoke opposition’, and because scheme 6 ‘faces considerable opposition’ over ‘potential’ damage to marine life. So, the existence, imagined or real, of opponents to geo-engineering is enough for its chances of success to be derided.

Yet it is not particular technologies that environmentalists hate, so much as the whole idea of human ingenuity – the conscious, designing, problem-solving capabilities that distinguish mankind from naturally occurring species. If, as environmentalists claim, mankind means waste and the reckless destruction of finite natural resources, then artificial constructions can only deserve varying degrees of ridicule – partly for the damage they will bring in tow, but mainly for their creators’ outrageous arrogance.

The Observer report began with the idea that geo-engineering technologies ‘are the ultimate technological fixes’. The phrase ‘technological fix’ has now replaced the earlier one, ‘technical fix’. ‘Technical fix’ was used to mean work-arounds, or engineering versions of a band-aid, which were used to solve problems but only temporarily. (In the world of software, such work-arounds are still called ‘patches’.) Today, ‘technological fix’ is uttered with a sneer: it is used to suggest that man-made technology can only ‘fix’ things for a short period of time and will fail to address the underlying problems facing the planet, which apparently are overproduction, overconsumption and too much development. The term ‘technological fix’ is used to denounce geo-engineering as flimsy and also to remind us of the real problem: mankind’s arrogance.

Some environmentalists argue that mankind is addicted to technology. As Nature pointed out in an excellent overview of recent debates: ‘Geo-engineering, many say, is a way to feed society’s addiction to fossil fuels. ”It’s like a junkie figuring out new ways of stealing from his children”, says Meinrat Andreae, an atmospheric scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.’ (2) Environmentalists love the addiction metaphor for a reason: it portrays human beings in general, and especially male engineers, as unthinking automatons, or zombies. Indeed, as the Observer notes: ‘Opponents to such schemes [of geo-engineering] point out that it is technology that got mankind in its current fix. An even bigger dose of technology is therefore the last thing the planet needs.’ Note the use of the word ‘dose’.

In recent years, environmentalists have found fault with just about every technology devised or conjectured in the battle against global warming. Carbon-free nuclear fission? Radioactive waste makes it a non-starter. Carbon-free nuclear fusion? Its success has always been, and will forever remain, 30 years away. Biofuels? Growing them will increase food prices, and stomachs must come before cars (3). A tidal barrage for the Severn estuary in the UK or large hydroelectric dams in the Third World? The first will kill wildlife, the second will displace local inhabitants on a shocking scale (4). Wind power done at scale? It has ‘non-negligible’ impacts on climate and destroys the visual appearance of the countryside (5). Clean coal-fired power plants through carbon capture and storage? Clean coal is an oxymoron.

Even green supporters of geo-engineering only go out on a limb because of how badly mankind is supposed to have behaved towards nature in the past. Thus the Observer paraphrases the ecologist James Lovelock by saying that, with geo-engineering, ‘there are dangers in intervening but the risks posed by doing nothing are worse’. Indeed, some researchers support geo-engineering on the basis that it is now mankind’s ‘only hope’ of saving itself from the impact of climate change.

It is worth recalling that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for what that body is worth, believes that the world faces a rise of sea levels of between 18 and 59 centimetres by the year 2100 – and that if the Greenland ice sheet should ever melt, it will be in hundreds of years’ time (6). So is global warming really so bad, and the world doing so little about it already, that geo-engineering is our ‘only hope’? On both sides of the geo-engineering divide, green sentiment begins and ends with the idea that mankind is a risky disaster waiting to happen.

To its credit, the Observer did recognise that carbon capture and storage is likely to play a major role in the world’s battle against climate change, ‘though perhaps not in the form of synthetic trees’. But the argument it cited against such trees is technically very poor. Critics of synthetic trees, the Observer tells us, suggest that ‘engineers could end up expending more energy in capturing carbon dioxide than they would save’. In the same way, environmentalists always point out how much energy is needed to build a carbon-free nuclear power station, distribute biofuels around a country, or put up a carbon-free hydroelectric dam.

This argument – that trying to prevent climate change through technology will lead to more energy use – is skewed. The Earth’s unlimited supply of energy in a chaotic form contrasts strongly with human beings’ desire, need and ability to order energy to pursue tasks that are more and more intricate – tasks that include cutting pollutants such as CO2 (7). The main use of energy is to extract, refine, process and purify energy itself. In the same way, mankind will most probably need to expend a lot of energy, and even generate a lot of carbon, to build the low- or zero-carbon power sources, and also the carbon traps, of tomorrow.

For environmentalists, however, all technological initiatives against global warming that are large in scale – geo-engineering schemes and big-league renewable energy apparatus emphatically included – can only add to our problems: they use up energy, generate carbon, and, above all, speak of our refusal to bow down to nature in the humility that is required. As Ralph Cicerone, president of the US National Academy of Sciences and a Nobel Prize-winner, points out in a seminal issue of the journal Climatic Change devoted to geo-engineering: ‘A commonly held view is that commitment to geo-engineering would undercut human resolve to deal with the cause of the original problem, greenhouse gases in the case of climate change.’ (8) But why must geo-engineering necessarily add to the sum-total of human laziness? And why does Cicerone go on not just to advocate more research into it, which is fair enough, but also to recommend that scientists meet to call a moratorium on large scale experiments in it – a moratorium that, ‘in the minds of many’, could only end if ‘humans had done enough to limit greenhouse gas emissions’? The implication is that humans must first suffer, by cutting back on consumption and energy-use, before we can at least try to fix the problems of pollution. This gets to the nub of environmentalists’ hostility towards geo-engineering.

Environmentalists instinctively reject or ignore technological solutions to global warming because they are bent on making people atone for their sins. Their ridicule of geo-engineering reveals that, for them, climate change is a moral tale about humanity’s greed and arrogance, where the happy ending is a much-reduced human population where everyone lives simply and meekly. As one contributor to Climatic Change puts it: ‘I feel we would be taking on the ultimate state of hubris to believe we can control Earth.’ (9) However, even without inadvertent, man-made climate change, and even without complete knowledge of how the Earth’s climate works, the aspiration to control the weather consciously, for the betterment of humanity, is a noble one. Moreover though technological experiments – of any sort – can always be dangerous, they will be required if climate control is ever to get anywhere.

Geo-engineering should not be a last-ditch bid for survival, but rather an expression of humanising the Earth. And tests of geo-engineering technologies will be essential, one day, if the potential of these technologies is ever to move from the world of research to the world of practical benefits. Those of us who see pollution as a problem to be solved, rather than as a stick with which to beat down people’s horizons, should call for more grand experimentation in the area of climate control.

James Woudhuysen is professor of forecasting and innovation, De Montfort University. Visit his website at www.Woudhuysen.com. He is speaking at the session London 2012 at the Battle of Ideas festival in London on 27-28 October.

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

varning-2

90 per cent of the participants at the Geoscience’s symposium did not believe the IPCC report

13 mars, 2009

Article from tomorrows The Australian here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html

Japanese scientists cool on theories

Peter Alford, Tokyo correspondent | March 14, 2009

THREE senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

”I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate,” Kanya Kusano told The Weekend Australian.

It could take 10 to 20 years more research to prove or disprove the theory of anthropogenic climate change, said Dr Kusano, a research group leader with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science’s Earth Simulator project.

Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth,” writes Shunichi Akasofu, founding director of the University of Alaska’s International Arctic Research Centre.

Dr Kusano, Dr Akasofu and Tokyo Institute of Technology geology professor Shigenori Maruyama are highly critical of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s acceptance that hazardous global warming results mainly from man-made gas emissions.

On the scientific evidence so far, according to Dr Kusano, the IPCC assertion that atmospheric temperatures are likely to increase continuously and steadily ”should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis”.

Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC’s fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ”is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.

When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, ”the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report”.

Dr Maruyama studies the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change, and he thinks the large influences on global climate over time may be global cosmic rays and solar activity.

Like Dr Akasofu, Dr Maruyama believes the earth has moved into a cooling period, and while Japan is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on carbon credits to hedge against global warming, the country’s greatest looming problem is energy shortage, particularly oil.

Our nation must pay huge amounts of money to buy carbon discharge rights,” he said. ”This is not reasonable, but meaningless if global cooling will come soon — scientists will lose trust.”

Dr Maruyama said he was uncomfortable, given the scientific uncertainty of man-made climate-change theory, that Japan had taken a leading position in the crusade for global greenhouse emission targets.

The scientists and two others — Seita Emori, of the National Institute of Environmental Studies, and Kiminori Ito, of Yokahama National University — contributed to a paper titled ”The scientific truth of global warming” that was published in January by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources.

Professor Emori is a firm supporter of man-made climate-change theory and Dr Ito is generally for it, although with reservations about the scientific rigour of the IPCC approach.

The doubters, particularly Dr Kusano and Dr Akasofu, are being widely cited by greenhouse-sceptic websites, after their sections of the paper were translated by The Register, a London-based online publisher.

However, the paper’s co-ordinator said the JSER’s position on anthropogenic global warming was neutral.

”This paper represents the views of the individuals and not of the society,” said Hideo Yoshida, of Kyoto University. ”The purpose is to stimulate debate among scholars and readers, and let them form their own judgment.”

The Japan Society of Energy and Resources is an academic group that promotes co-operation between industry, academic research and government.

Dr Maruyama said many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he said was leading society in the wrong direction.

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

varning-2

The perfect “Eco Friendly” life for humans according to The Global Warming Hysterics

11 mars, 2009

The perfect ”Eco Friendly” life for humans according to The Global Warming Hysterics

2009-03-11_141131

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1081.html

The quintessence of Carbon Trading and Global Warming Hysteria
   2009-03-11_original

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/963.html

Se also my posts on carbon trading:

Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals,  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 the debate in 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’

Also here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/10/carbon-cap-and-trade-in-trouble/

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

varning-2

The environmentalists want to change us and our behaviour – Their ambition is to control and manipulate us

9 mars, 2009

President Václav Klaus speech at the 2009 Heartland Institute International Climate Change Conference, New York, March 8, 2009

The Conference program here:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/agenda.html

Speech here:

http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=oWwyM2CjH0OG

No Progress in the Climate Change Debate

When preparing my today’s remarks, I took into my hands – looking for an inspiration – my last year’s speech here, at the Heartland Institute’s Conference. It did not help much. It is evident that the climate change debate has not made any detectable progress and that the much needed, long overdue exchange of views has not yet started. All we see and hear are uninspiring monologues.

It reminds me of the frustration people like me felt in the communist era. Whatever you said, any convincing and well prepared arguments you used, any relevant data you assembled, no reaction. It all fell into emptiness. Nobody listened, especially ”they” did not listen. They didn’t even try to argue back. They considered you a naive, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric, a complainer, someone not able to accept their only truth. It is very similar now.

A few weeks ago, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, I spent three hours at a closed session of about sixty people – heads of states and governments with several IPCC officials and ”experts” like Al Gore, Tony Blair and Kofi Annan. The session was chaired by the Danish Prime Minister because its main topic was how to prepare the new Kyoto, the December 2009 UN-Copenhagen summit.

It was a discouraging experience. You looked around in vain to find at least one person who would share your views. There was no one. All the participants of the meeting took man-made global warming for granted, were convinced of its dangerous consequences and more or less competed in one special discipline – whether to suggest a 20, 30, 50 or 80% CO2 emissions cut as an agreed-upon, world-wide project. It was difficult to say anything meaningful and constructive. Among other things I tried to turn their attention to was the argument that they made such radical proposals even though their own countries had not fulfilled even the relatively modest Kyoto Protocol obligations. There was no reaction to that. After the session, one friendly looking president of a relatively large non-European country told me that he had never heard anything like my views, but was interested and wanted to hear more. I gave him my book ”Blue Planet in Green Shackles” 1

Nevertheless, we have to continue speaking to those people because they have a very strong voice in popularizing the global warming alarmism and in making decisions with far-reaching consequences. I try to do it permanently. The politicians are, however, not alone. They succeeded in creating incentives which led to the rise of a very powerful rent-seeking group. Very much like the politicians, these people are interested neither in temperature, CO2, competing scientific hypotheses and their testing, nor in freedom or markets. They are interested in their businesses and their profits – made with the help of politicians. These rent-seekers profit:

- from trading the licenses to emit carbon dioxide;

- from constructing unproductive wind, sun and other similar equipments able to make only highly subsidized electric energy;

- from growing non-food crops which produce non-carbon fuels at the expense of producing food (with well-known side effects);

- from doing research, writing and speaking about global warming.

It is always the same story with the same results. On the one hand, a highly concentrated and easily organized rent-seeking group and, on the other, widely dispersed, and therefore politically unorganizable individuals, the usual silent majority. I am frustrated that the economists and other social scientists do not try to enter the current debate. For us, in the former communist countries, the discovery of the works of the public-choice school scholars was a revealing experience. I somewhat naively assumed that their views belonged to the ”conventional wisdom” in the Western world. This was not and is not true.

How to educate and enlighten those who make decisions? The politicians – hopefully – sometimes look at the very condensed versions of the IPCC’s Summaries for Policymakers but these documents do not represent science, but politics and environmental activism. It is difficult to change their minds. They did fully subscribe to the idea that the IPCC publications represent ”the” climate science. We know that is not true and that there is no scientific discipline of climate science. Climate is such a complex system that it has no ”science” of its own. There are, of course, very respectable sciences that deal with some parts of it. And they tell us quite persuasively that:

1. there is no one unique, unprecedented climate change just now, but permanent climate changes. The climate system of our planet has a significant internal variability. The past data are in this respect quite convincing;

2. the current climate changes cannot be subsumed under the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. This claim is based exclusively on the results of experiments with the very imperfect computer models;

3. the Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is lower than is assumed by the IPCC. For a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration the global average surface temperature will increase not more than by about 0,5 °C;

4. there is no fixed and stable relationship between measured temperature and CO2 emissions. The believers in this hypothesis are not able to explain why the global temperature increased from 1918 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased from 1976 to 1998 and decreased from 1998 to the present, irrespective of the fact that the people have been adding increasing amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.

I would be able to continue presenting further arguments of that kind but this is not a field in which I do possess any comparative advantage. Perhaps in Davos, but not here. I am, therefore, looking forward to new ideas, arguments and data coming out of this conference.

Let me make a few short comments from ”my” fields.

I am puzzled by the environmentalists’ approach to technical progress. On the one hand, there is a huge difference between our technology optimism, based on our belief in secular improvements in technology on condition the free and unregulated, unconstrained, unmanipulated economic system makes them possible, and environmentalists’ technology skepticism along traditional Malthusian lines. On the other hand, the environmentalists are, at the same time technology naivists who freely and irresponsibly operate with miraculous technologies which have only one defect: they have not yet been invented. This is an apparent schizophrenia on their side. They should tell us how it really is. I am afraid they are not so naive as they pretend to be. They, probably, ”only” do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions: to stop economic development and return mankind centuries back. In that case technologies are unimportant.

Their attack on today’s technologies is an irrational practice with fatal consequences. As far as I know the existing and functioning technologies had never been abandoned before they were genuinely replaced by better ones. There arises – for the first time in history – a threat that the old technologies will be abandoned before new technologies become available. This should also be explained to the politicians in alternative ”summaries for policymakers”, but they should be written by economists. We should also tell them that there is no known and economically feasible method or technology by which industrial economies can survive on expensive, unreliable, clean, green, renewable energy.

Another issue which bothers me is the exceptional absence of rational thinking as regards intertemporal decision making, especially when time-horizons are so long as in this case. The despotically ruling, politically correct aprioristic moralism (based on the disagreement with the infamous Keynes’ dictum ”in the long run, we are all dead” or with the not less famous Madame De Pompadour’s maxim – ”après nous le déluge”) is basically flawed. The questions which need to be answered are serious and non-trivial. Should we make radical decisions now? Should we tax today’s generations to benefit future generations? Should we be generously altruistic? Should we give preference to future generations and not to the people living in undeveloped countries today? My answer is no. We could have made such far-reaching decisions only on the absolutely unrealistic assumption that we know all relevant parameters of the future economic system, including the level of wealth and technology, and that we know all the parameters in an adequately discounted form. The controversy about Nicolas Stern’s and Ross Garnaut’s irrationally low discount rates used in their very influential models suggests that such transfers are not justifiable.

To conclude, it is evident that the environmentalists don’t want to change the climate. They want to change us and our behavior. Their ambition is to control and manipulate us. Therefore, it should not be surprising that they recommend „preventive”, not „adaptive” policies. Adaptation would be our voluntary behavior which is not what they aim at. They do not want to recognize that – to quote Nigel Lawson – ”the capacity to adapt is arguably the most fundamental characteristic of mankind” and that our ”adaptive capacity is increasing all the time with the development of technology”. 2

The environmentalists speak about ”Saving the Planet”. From what? And from whom? One thing I know for sure: we have to save it – and us – from them.

Václav Klaus, The 2009 Heartland Institute International Climate Change Conference, Marriott Marquis Hotel, New York, March 8, 2009

(publikováno dne 9. března 2009 v českém překladu a ve zkrácené verzi v Lidových novinách)

——————————————————————————–

1 – Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, May 2008. It has been published already in eight languages. In a week from now, the Italian edition will be launched in Milan.

2 – Nigel Lawson: An Appeal to Reason – A Cool Look at Global Warming, Duckworth Overlook, London, 2008, pp 39.

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

varning-2

Environmentalism is a Bigger Threat to Humanity than Global Warming and what is endangered is freedom and prosperity

9 mars, 2009

President Václav Klaus speech on Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics Conference, Santa Barbara, California, March 6, 2009

Speech here:

http://www.euportal.cz/Articles/4200-president-klaus-is-environmentalism-a-bigger-threat-to-humanity-than-global-warming-.aspx

President Klaus: Is Environmentalism a Bigger Threat to Humanity than Global Warming?

Autor: Václav Klaus | Publikováno: 7.3.2009

(distributed before the Q&A session with President Klaus at the Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics Conference in Santa Barbara)

Many thanks for the invitation to participate in this important and timely gathering of business people, economists, environmentalists and politicians. In this rather confused era, the organizing institution, the Wall Street Journal, remains one of the last pillars of reason and of healthy and so much needed stability and continuity of thoughts and attitudes.

As someone who spent most of his life in a communist regime, I am getting nervous when I see a serious-looking article with the title ”Rethinking Karl Marx” in a January edition of the Time Magazine, attempting to convince us that Marx’s analysis of capitalism was correct and that we should, therefore, study it very carefully right now.

For me, one of the main symptoms of unreason in our era and of our returning before the Age of Enlightenment is the current global warming debate and the futile ambitions to control climate. In its arrogance and immodesty, it reminds me of many unrealistic and all of us damaging and hurting plans and projects the communist propaganda kept supplying us with all the time. My answer to the question in the title of this session ”Is environmentalism a bigger threat to humanity than global warming?” is clear and straightforward: Environmentalism is a much bigger threat and what is endangered is freedom and prosperity, not climate. Climate is OK. This is also expressed in the subtitle of my book devoted to this topic, published two years ago.1

I have spent years studying this issue, which is only a new variant of the many times discredited and disproved Neomalthusian pessimistic and interventionistic environmentalist doctrine. This ideology, if not religion, should not be confused with scientific climatology in spite of the fact that it uses, or better to say, misuses some of its terms, concepts, hypotheses. Structurally, they belong to two, totally different fields. One is science, the other is politics.

It is difficult to quickly summarize my rather complex views about this issue in just a few sentences. For those who want to get acquainted with them in more detail, I recommend my book which is also available here. Nevertheless, a few most important points can be made:

1) science does not give us clear and strong evidence that dangerous and even measurable human-caused global warming is occurring. Besides the views of the IPCC, which is a group of people for several reasons fully committed to the idea of man-made global warming, there exists a more balanced, non-alarmist view held by thousands of serious scientists. The claims made by the alarmists about an undisputable scientific consensus about global warming and about the factors influencing it are not justified;

2) before discussing the currently circulated and – among politicians and some business people – very popular alarmist policy prescriptions, everyone should carefully study the economics of global warming, a field of economics which uses elementary tools and concepts of economic science such as

- the cost-benefit analysis,

- the risk aversion analysis,

- intertemporal analysis based on the idea of discounting,

- standard price theory and microeconomics, etc.

to be able to put the global warming debate into a proper perspective;

3) human experience, ”deposited” and assembled both in our knowledge and in serious social sciences, tells us that human behavior is sufficiently adaptive, that both wealth and technical progress change the parameters of our decision making in the direction of environment protection, that spontaneous reactions of billions of people are better than political governance and centralized masterminding of human fates. It warns us against attempts to introduce radical, extremely costly, human freedom and prosperity endangering mitigation measures based on a totally futile idea of changing the climate by limiting CO2 emissions.

I am surprised to see that many Americans support cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am convinced this is a wrong project for both the uncertainty about the real dangers of global warming and the certainty of the damage done by this policy.

Europe is several years ahead of the US in implementing these policies. The EU member countries all ratified the Kyoto Protocol and have undertaken a wide range of policies to lower the emissions and meet the promised targets. These policies include a cap-and-trade program known as the Emissions Trading Scheme, very high fuel taxes and ambitious programs to build windmills and other renewable energy sources. These policies were undertaken at a time when the EU economy was doing well and the irony is that emissions were not going down now as a result of these policies, but started to decrease as the economy moves into recession.

This is not a surprise for someone like me, who was very actively involved in the transition from communism to a free society and market economy. The old outmoded heavy industries that had been the pride of our Communist regime were – practically overnight – shut down because they couldn’t survive the introduction of rational economic policies. The secret behind cutting emissions was economic decline. As the economies of the Czech Republic and other central and eastern European countries were rebuilt and began to grow again, emissions have naturally started to go up. It is clear to everyone who looks that there is a very strong connection between economic growth and energy.

Cap-and-trade can only work by raising energy prices. Consumers who are forced to pay higher prices will have less money in their pockets to spend on other things. While the individual companies that provide the higher-priced ”green” energy may do well, the net economic effect must be negative. It is necessary to look at the bigger picture. Profits can be made when energy is rationed or subsidized, but only within an economy operating at lower, or even negative, growth rates. This means that over the longer term, everyone will be competing for a piece of a pie that is smaller than it would be without energy rationing.

Being often with many leading politicians, I feel frustrated that they do not listen. They already know. They fully subscribed to the idea that talking about ”saving the planet” is an effective way to show their ”caring” for humanity and that it is the easiest way to maximize votes irrespective of any relevant activity which would aim at the real needs of people. The global warming dogma has become a very easy form of escapism from the current reality. We should keep resisting it.    

Václav Klaus, Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics Conference, Bacara Resort, Santa Barbara, California, March 6, 2009

1 – ”Blue Planet in Green Shackles. What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C., 2008. Originally published in Czech language in 2007 under the title „Modrá, nikoli zelená planeta. Co je ohroženo: klima nebo svoboda?”, published by Dokořán, Prague, Czech Republic.

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

varning-2

Global Warming Hysterics – the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot

9 mars, 2009

From today’s The Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/

2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/

Where’s global warming?

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist  |  March 8, 2009

SUPPOSE the climate landscape in recent weeks looked something like this:

Half the country was experiencing its mildest winter in years, with no sign of snow in many Northern states. Most of the Great Lakes were ice-free. Not a single Canadian province had had a white Christmas. There was a new study discussing a mysterious surge in global temperatures – a warming trend more intense than computer models had predicted. Other scientists admitted that, because of a bug in satellite sensors, they had been vastly overestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice.

If all that were happening on the climate-change front, do you think you’d be hearing about it on the news? Seeing it on Page 1 of your daily paper? Would politicians be exclaiming that global warming was even more of a crisis than they’d thought? Would environmentalists be skewering global-warming ”deniers” for clinging to their skepticism despite the growing case against it?

No doubt.

But it isn’t such hints of a planetary warming trend that have been piling up in profusion lately. Just the opposite.

The United States has shivered through an unusually severe winter, with snow falling in such unlikely destinations as New Orleans, Las Vegas, Alabama, and Georgia. On Dec. 25, every Canadian province woke up to a white Christmas, something that hadn’t happened in 37 years. Earlier this year, Europe was gripped by such a killing cold wave that trains were shut down in the French Riviera and chimpanzees in the Rome Zoo had to be plied with hot tea. Last week, satellite data showed three of the Great Lakes – Erie, Superior, and Huron – almost completely frozen over. In Washington, D.C., what was supposed to be a massive rally against global warming was upstaged by the heaviest snowfall of the season, which paralyzed the capital.

Meanwhile, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has acknowledged that due to a satellite sensor malfunction, it had been underestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles – an area the size of Spain. In a new study, University of Wisconsin researchers Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis conclude that global warming could be going into a decades-long remission. The current global cooling ”is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Swanson told Discovery News. Yes, global cooling: 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade – global temperatures have not exceeded the record high measured in 1998, notwithstanding the carbon-dioxide that human beings continue to pump into the atmosphere.

None of this proves conclusively that a period of planetary cooling is irrevocably underway, or that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are not the main driver of global temperatures, or that concerns about a hotter world are overblown. Individual weather episodes, it always bears repeating, are not the same as broad climate trends.

But considering how much attention would have been lavished on a comparable run of hot weather or on a warming trend that was plainly accelerating, shouldn’t the recent cold phenomena and the absence of any global warming during the past 10 years be getting a little more notice? Isn’t it possible that the most apocalyptic voices of global-warming alarmism might not be the only ones worth listening to?

There is no shame in conceding that science still has a long way to go before it fully understands the immense complexity of the Earth’s ever-changing climate(s). It would be shameful not to concede it. The climate models on which so much global-warming alarmism rests ”do not begin to describe the real world that we live in,” says Freeman Dyson, the eminent physicist and futurist. ”The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.”

But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.

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

varning-2


Följ

Få meddelanden om nya inlägg via e-post.

Gör sällskap med 218 andra följare

%d bloggers like this: