Archive for september, 2009

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 273 – Telekomoperatörerna går ÄNTLIGEN i svaromål

30 september, 2009

Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare inlägg: Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 269 – En Copyright/Rättighetslagstiftning som MED Politikernas HJÄLP har blivit ETT DIREKT HOT mot våra fri- och rättigheter och EN FARA för demokratin., kommer här för första gången ett samlat svar och motattack riktat till våra intälägänta politiker som lydigt och tjänstvilligt har sprungit upphovsrättens lobbyisters ärenden, från de tunga telekomoperatörerna. Och det är inte en dag förtidigt!!

Förut så har det kommit enstaka svar och motattacker. Medans merparten har tyvärr varit tysta. Vilket är märkligt med tanke på att de är de som våra politiker ålägger att ansvara för innehållet i nätet. Och att vidta alla de åtgärder som inskränker våra fri- och rättigheter samt yttrandefriheten.

En fullkomligt horribel uppgift ur alla aspekter. Som blir ÄNNU MER HORRIBEL med tanke på att den beslutas av de (dvs.politikerna) som är SATTA ATT VÄRNA DESSA FRI- OCH RÄTTIGHETER i demokratins namn.

Telekom operatörerna gör en utmärkt jämförelse med vad det innebär om Posten, Vägverket, kaféägaren etc. skulle åläggas samma ansvar.

Det är alltså detta sanslösa tillstånd som vår regering och riksdag är ansvarig för.

De kämpar AKTIVT FÖR ATT INSKRÄNKA SINA MEDBORGARES (eller snarare undersåtars) yttrandefrihet och deras fri- och rättigheter.

Och för vilka ”ädla” syften gör man denna våldtäckt på allt vad rättssäkerhet och demokrati heter?

Jo, för att tillfredsställa en mycket liten men högljudd grupp som beter sig som en maffiaorganisation med direkta hot, utpressning etc. RIKTAT MOT ENSKILDA INDIVIDER. Och numera även mot telekomoperatörerna och andra bolag.

Och ALLT detta för att rädda deras affärsmodell som har varit oförändrad sedan Hendehös tid – INGENTING; ABSOLUT INGENTING SKALL FÅ FÖRHIDRA VÅR TOTALLA KONTROLL ÖVER PRODUKTER OCH DISTRIBUTION FÖR ALLTID OCH PÅ DET SÄTT SOM VI ALLTID HAR GJORT.

Det är alltså dessa mörkermän som har bekämpat ALLT vad teknikutveckling heter sedan början av 1920 talet (se Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 110 – Nu får det vara nog! ) som skall bestämma över landet Sveriges framtid inom IT, och våra fri- och rättigheter. Där våra politiker annars så gärna ställer upp och talar varmt om hur viktigt det är med att vi leder IT utvecklingen och ligger i framkant som nation.

Som ett praktexempel på de värdiga representanter vi har i Sveriges riksdag och regering se svaret från Hans Rothenberg (M) nedan, ledamot i näringsutskottet och en av dem som röstade ja till Ipred-lagen. Och som fortsätter att ihärdigt försvara beslutet.

”Det handlar inte om att agera polis, bara om att följa de lagar som riksdagen beslutat om.”

Ehhh… jasså??  Så om lagar som antas av riksdagen bryter mot Europakonventionen, våra egna grundlagar, bryter mot vår egen rättstradition etc. etc. så spelar det tydligen ingen som helst politisk roll. Det VIKTIGA är at DE ÄR ANTAGNA. Punkt slut.

Jag kan upplysa Herr Hans Rothenberg, som liksom de flesta av vår ”företrädare” i riksdagen och regeringen HELT verkar sakna ett historiskt perspektiv. Och förståelse för fundamentala fri- och rättigheter som tillhör en verklig demokrati:

Det har antagits många lagar i olika parlament i olika länder under det senaste seklet som har inneburit förtryck, tortyr, masslakt, folkmord etc. för den egna befolkningen, eller andra.

Men ALLT DETTA SPELAR INGEN SOM HELST ROLL FÖR VÅRA VÄRDIGA ”KÄMPAR” i riksdagen. Det ”viktiga” är nämligen INTE innehållet, eller att beslutet bryter mot våra eller internationella lagar och konventioner, eller vad det får för FAKTISKA KONSEKVENSER. Nej, det viktiga för dessa potentater är att lagen är antagen i ”laga ordning” (SIC!).

När det blir sådana här ”intälägänta” argument så brukar jag ta exemplet med den Sovjetsiska författning som kom till under Stalin. På pappret en av de mest demokratiska författningar som någonsin har skrivits. Och som i sedvanlig stil antogs med att 100% av ledamöterna röstade ja.

Och vi vet ju alla (utom de i riksdagen och regeringen då förstås), vilket fruktansvärt massförtryck och terror som genomfördes mot den egna befolkningen med hjälp av denna författning. 

Men den var ju som sagt ANTAGEN I ”LAGA ORDNING” så Rothenberg et consortes oroar sig inte. Och kan med varm hand med SAMMA argument försvara dessa i ”laga ordning” antagna lagar som ledde till massmord på den egna befolkningen.

Där våra politiker 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!”

Se även: http://rickfalkvinge.se/2009/09/30/tva-intressanta-artiklar/

http://swartz.typepad.com/texplorer/2009/07/stockholmsprogrammet—kriminella-internetleverant%C3%B6rer.html

http://www.expressen.se/1.246926

http://swartz.typepad.com/texplorer/2009/08/black-internet—vem-finansierar-%C3%B6verklagandet.html

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/09/valkomna-in-i-matchen.html

 Artikel här:

http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_3584645.svd

Nätoperatörernas roll görs omöjlig

Publicerad: 30 september 2009, 04.43. Senast ändrad: 30 september 2009, 09.27

INTERNET Tänk dig att kaféägare tvingas ansvara för gästernas samtal, eller Vägverket för vad bilisterna gör på vägarna. Sådana krav ställs redan på internetoperatörerna. ­Resultatet blir strypt yttrandefrihet och ökade kostnader. Skjut inte budbäraren, skriver Ann-Marie ­Fransson, IT&Telekomföretagen, tillsammans med vd:arna för nio internetoperatörer.

Den senaste tiden har vi haft flera uppmärksammade fall i Norden, där upphovsrättsföreträdare via olika domstolar tvingat operatörer att, i det senaste fallet under hot om vite, stänga av uppkopplingen till en kund. Det är fullkomligt oacceptabelt.

Vi operatörer driver en infrastruktur. Att tillhandahålla en transportmöjlighet mellan två punkter är kärnan i verksamheten. Dessa tjänster gör att industrin, tjänstesektorn, stat, kommuner och landsting – det vill säga hela Sverige – fungerar.

Alla blir vi i allt större utsträckning beroende av internet. Detta i en omfattning som vida överstiger det beroende vi för 30 år sedan hade av Televerkets telefoner, och för tio år sedan av mobiltelefoner och personsökare. Den största skillnaden är att vi med internet kan nå alla samtidigt. Nyttoeffekten av detta är obestridlig och syns överallt i samhället. Och snart kommer också prylar, sensorer och styrinstrument att vara uppkopplade, till nytta för miljö och Sveriges konkurrensförmåga.

Dessa ökade kommunikationsmöjligheter bidrar till att frågan om operatörernas roll blir allt viktigare. Därför måste den debatteras nu, innan nya lagar och regleringar gör vår roll omöjlig.

Här är det viktigt att poängtera att det är den som använder ett transportsystem som är skyldig att se till att alla tillämpbara regler följs. Det är en självklar och allmänt accepterad rättsprincip. Varför skall inte den gälla på nätet? Kör du bil måste du ha säkerhetsbälte och en besiktigad bil. Skickar du ett paket med farligt gods måste det märkas. Var och en tar ansvar för sina egna handlingar. Som komplement till egenansvaret har staten kontrollsystem. Tullen granskar post, Polisen gör fart – och nykterhetskontroller och rättsväsendetbeslutar om hemlig teleövervakning eller hemlig teleavlyssning.

Operatörer är inte en myndighet och har inte har något myndighetsliknande ansvar. Att lagar och förordningar följer med in i den elektroniska världen är de rättsvårdande myndigheternas ansvar. Att tvinga operatörerna att ta det juridiska ansvaret för vilken trafik som är tillåten skulle medföra oöverskådliga effekter.

Ansvarskravet på operatörer kompliceras ytterligare av att kunder som hyr transportkapacitet ofta säljer den vidare. Kunden blir återförsäljare av operatörens transporttjänster. Stänger man som operatör i det läget av en kund drabbas i värsta fall tiotusentals slutkunder. Varje sådant ingrepp kan få ödesdigra konsekvenser för såväl företag som samhället i stort, och effekterna är dessutom fullständigt omöjliga att förutse.

Mest olyckligt är att vissa vill tvinga oss att granska våra kunder. Om trenden fortsätter tvingas vi se till att varje kund uppfyller hårt ställda etiska, moraliska och affärsmässiga krav, som leder till en byråkrati. Låt oss slå fast det här och nu – det är fullständigt orimligt att operatörer skall ta ansvar för att granska kunderna innan vi sluter avtal.

Allt detta ger uteslutande negativa effekter. Yttrande- och informationsfriheten undergrävs, kostnaderna för operatörerna ökar med höjda bredbandsavgifter och mindre resurser för oss att bygga ut Internetsverige som följd.

Tänk dig att Posten måste ta ansvar för att dess kunder inte skickar skadligt material, att kaféägare måste ta ansvar för gästernas samtal, eller att Vägverket skall ansvara för vad bilisterna gör på vägarna och stänga vägar där brottslingar kan tänkas fara.

”Brottsbekämpningen ska ske ur ett brett och nära medborgarperspektiv. Civilrätten ska vara enkel, tydlig och förutsebar. Människor ska känna att rättsväsendet finns nära dem och finns till för dem, att lagar och regler är rimliga och relevanta och att rättsväsendet fungerar effektivt och rättssäkert”.

Så skriver justitieminister Beatrice Ask i sin ämbetsförklaring på Regeringskansliets hemsida. Den verkligheten gäller i allt mindre utsträckning internet. Särskilt om den nuvarande politiska och regulatoriska trenden tillåts fortgå. Kräv ansvar där ansvaret ska utkrävas. Skjut inte budbäraren.

ANNE-MARIE FRANSSON förbundsdirektör, IT&Telekomföretagen inom Almega

ERIK HEILBORN vd TDC Sverige

GEORGI GANEV vd Bredbandsbolaget

JON KARLUNG vd Bahnhof

MIKAEL EK vd Svenska Stadsnätsföreningen

NICLAS PALMSTIERNA vd Tele2 Sverige

OLA NORBERG vd AllTele

ROGER SÖDERBERG vd BT Nordics

STEFAN TRAMPUS chef för Bredbandstjänster Sverige, TeliaSonera

TOMAS FRANZÉN vd Com Hem

Artikel om Telia här:

http://www.sr.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=1646&artikel=3128697

Ifpi missnöjt med Telia

Måndag 28 september 2009 07:07 Uppdaterad 11:52

Telia vill spara mindre information om vilka som finns i deras sladdar

Sveriges största internetoperatör Telia ska nu spara så lite uppgifter som möjligt om sina kunder på grund av Ipredlagen.

Det kan göra det svårare för polis och åklagare att jaga till exempel barnporr och ekonomisk brottslighet, men det är priset man få betala för kundernas integritet, säger Patrik Hiselius som är jurist på Telia.

Med anledning av Ipredlagen ser vi nu över rutinerna för lagringen av kundernas uppgifter säger han.

Operatörerna är kritiska mot lagen för att det är för enkelt för bland annat  film och musikbranschen att få ut uppgifterna om kunderna via domstol. Det påverkar kundernas integritet säger dem.

Ipredlagen som ska stoppa illegal fildelning av musik film och spel bland annat bygger på att kunduppgifterna måste sparas för att rättighetsinnehavarna ska kunna gå till domstol för att få ut namnen på misstänkta pirater från operatörerna

Just nu försöker Antipiratbyrån få ut namnet på en av Telias kunder via domstol med hjälp av Ipredlagen. Tingsrätten har även förbjudit Telia att radera kundens uppgifter. Därför försöker Telia nu att hitta ett sätt för att spara så lite uppgifter som möjligt så att det inte ska ske igen.

Vi tittar på att korta lagringstiderna, och ändå upprätthålla säkerhet, kvalitet och kapaciteten i nätet säger Patrik Hiselius.

Det har flera andra operatörer redan gjort.

– När det gäller integriteten så finns det krav från våra kunder att inte spara i onödan säger Georgi Ganev VD på Bredbandsbolaget.

Att operatörerna nu försöker spara så lite kunduppgifter som möjligt gör det svårare för polis och åklagare att utreda till exempel barnporrbrott tror Patrik Hiselius på Telia.

– Ju kortare tid vi spara uppgifter ju svårare blir det för rättsväsendet.

Vad tänker du om det?

– Det är inte bra, men vi lagrar utifrån våra kunders behov, det är där vår prioritet ligger säger Patrik Hiselius, jurist på Telia.

På Ifpi, som representerar musikbolagen, tycker man det är synd att operatörerna nu gör det svårare för dem att komma åt illegal fildelning.

— Jag kan tycka att det är ett oansvarligt agerande där man motverkar rättighetsinnehavarnas möjligheter att bekämpa brottslighet på nätet säger Magnus Mårtensson på Ifpi.

Flera operatörer gör alltså så här, och det får också musikbranschen att byta taktik.

– Vi anpassar oss efter det och försöker hitta vägar och bekämpar brottlisghet trots att de försöker sätta käppar i hjulet.

På vilket sätt anpassar ni er?

– Det arbete vi gör genom att samla bevisning och sammanställa det i polisanmälningar, det gör vi snabbare än vi gjorde tidigare, vi tvingas att göra det och det verkligheten vi får anpassa oss till då avslutar Magnus Mårtensson.

Lars-Peter Hielle

Artikel här:

http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/it/artikel_3586975.svd

Internetoperatörer får politikerstöd

Publicerad: 30 september 2009, 13.51. Senast ändrad: 30 september 2009, 13.57

Internetoperatörerna vill slippa ansvaret för vad deras kunder gör på nätet och oroas av utvecklingen på integritetsområdet ute i Europa. De får stöd av svenska oppositionspolitiker.

För första gången går ett flertal av de stora svenska nätoperatörer ihop och kräver idag på SvD Brännpunkt besked från regeringen om det ansvar som ålagts dem sedan Ipredlagen trädde i kraft. Upphovsrättsinnehavare har rätt att vända sig till domstol för att få ut uppgifter om vem som står bakom en viss ip-adress – en skyldighet som operatörerna opponerat sig emot sedan lagen blev känd.

Slutförhandlingarna kring det uppmärksammade telekompaketet pågår som bäst i EU just nu direktiv om allt från konsumenträttigheter till hur internet ska styras. En central fråga är möjligheten att stänga av användare från internet – ett lagförslag som redan röstats igenom i Frankrike.

I debattartikeln i dagens SvD ifrågasätter internetoperatörerna de nuvarande ansvarskraven och jämför sig med Vägverket och Posten. Man är också orolig för den utveckling som nya EU-direktiv skulle kunna innebära.

– Vi kan inte agera polis och hållas ansvarig för infrastrukturen. Lika lite som Posten ansvarar för vad som skickas i deras bilar eller Vägverket har ansvar för hur folk kör, säger Jon Karlung, vd för operatören Bahnhof.

Grundproblemet i dagsläget ligger i en konflikt med lagen om elektronisk kommunikation, LEK menar Georgi Ganev, vd för Bredbandsbolaget som tröttnat på tystnaden från regeringen.

Vi har å ena sidan skyldighet att värna våra kunders integritet och inte lagra uppgifter om dem men å andra sidan skyldighet att hjälpa polis och åklagare vid domstolsbeslut. Det går inte ihop, säger han och menar att regeringen saknar en helhetssyn.

Det behövs någon som kan se helheten, hur dessa lagar påverkar varandra. I dagsläget vet inte folk när de gör fel och när de gör rätt, det ser vi tydligt när vi tittar på de samtal vår kundtjänst tar emot.

Han vänder sig också mot de merkostnader man uppges ha.

Vi får agera som regeringens kundservice, folk ringer hit och frågar vad som gäller. Den energin ska inte vi behöva lägga ned när vi istället skulle kunna fokusera på utveckling och samarbeten kring lagliga alternativ för film och musik, säger Georgi Ganev till SvD.se.

Men det synsättet vänder sig Hans Rothenberg (M), ledamot i näringsutskottet och en av dem som röstade ja till Ipred-lagen emot.

– Företag har precis som privatpersoner rätt att se till att lagar och regler efterföljs. Det handlar inte om att agera polis, bara om att följa de lagar som riksdagen beslutat om. Han ifrågasätter också den merkostnad som bolagen beskriver att lagstiftningen genererat.

– Precis som man har skyldighet att ha en lagstadgad redovisning måste man ha resurser att göra det som krävs utifrån gällande lagstiftning.

Bredbandsoperatörerna får dock stöd från delar av oppositionen.

Vi har fått en bisarr utveckling där regeringen gått på de stora mediebolagens linje – resultatet av ett intensivt lobbyarbete, säger Lage Rahm (MP), partiets talesperson i integritetsfrågor som tycker det är fel att operatörerna tvingas lämna ut uppgifter.

– I förlängningen leder den här typen av krav till att de riktigt obehagliga personerna på nätet, till exempel pedofiler utvecklar allt mer avancerade metoder för att gömma sig. Det skadar brottsbekämpningen mer än det hjälper, säger han till SvD.se.

Även Kent Persson (V) ledamot i näringsutskottet har förståelse för operatörernas oro.

– Man kan absolut fundera på vilken påverkan diskussionen inom EU kommer att få för svensk lagstiftning – det finns många orosmoln. Regeringen är relativt passiva, jag förväntar mig en rapport om läget efter det att Ipred infördes men det har hittills varit tyst.

SvD.se har sökt justitieminister Beatrice Ask (M).

Alexandra Hernadi

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>

varning-2

Annonser

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 269 – En Copyright/Rättighetslagstiftning som MED Politikernas HJÄLP har blivit ETT DIREKT HOT mot våra fri- och rättigheter och EN FARA för demokratin.

26 september, 2009

Tyvärr så gäller fortfarande denna varning dag 269 och eländet fortsätter:

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.

Nu vet vi även om EU:s Indect projekt som skall ÖVERVAKA INTERNET  för att LETA EFTER ”Abnormal Behaviour”. Där det ingår sådana delprojekt som ”ADABTS: Automatic Detection of Abnormal Behaviour and Threats in crowded Spaces”, ”SUBITO: Surveillance of unattended baggage and the identification and tracking of the owner” och ”SAMURAI: Suspicious and Abnormal behaviour Monitoring Suspicious Using a network of cameras for sItuation awareness enhancement”.

 “A five-year research programme, called Project Indect, aims to develop computer programmes which act as ”agents” to monitor and process information from web sites, discussion forums, file servers, peer-to-peer networks and even individual computers. Its main objectives include the ”automatic detection of threats and abnormal behaviour or violence”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6210255/EU-funding-Orwellian-artificial-intelligence-plan-to-monitor-public-for-abnormal-behaviour.html

Så här skrev jag i mitt inlägg Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 135 – IPRED och en Upphovs- och Copyrightlagstiftning som har blivit absurd för konsumenterna:

”Bonniers avtal låser författare på livstid, och författarens arvingar ytterligare en livstid.”

”Bonniers utnyttjar sin dominerande position för att få avtal som ger dem rätt att sitta på författares texter utan att faktiskt göra något. Böcker låses in i upp till tre år utan att författaren får en enda krona.”

”På det här sättet drar Bonniers med sig hela bokbranschen i samma träsk som nästan tagit kål på musikbranschen.”

Ett mycket illustrativt exempel på IPRED lagens totala vansinne och dess förödande effekter. Det är alltså dessa affärsintressen regeringen har gett större befogenheter än polisen och offrat våra fri- och rättigheter samt vår rättssäkerhet för.

Så att privata affärsintressen kan låsa in vår kultur i TVÅ livstider. Och stämma skiten ur och HOTA vanliga familjer så att de kan sitta på denna kultur utan att behöva GÖRA NÅGONTING!

Tack för det Sveriges riksdag och regeringen!

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!

Som sagt, vi har ”värdiga” representanter i regeringen och riksdagen som ”verkligen” tillvaratar svenska folkets intressen. Om 4 veckor är det val till EU parlamentet (se mitt inlägg EU – The inner game and the Corruption that Cost £684 931,5 per hour EVERY hour EVERY day EVERY year. And is increasing.). Då blir det ett utmärkt tillfälle att påminna dessa arroganta makthavare som har gjort allt för att inskränka våra fri- och rättigheter och vår rättssäkerhet i brott mot grundlagen,  om att det FORTFARANDE faktiskt är folket som röstar  och FORTFARANDE avgör vilka partier som kommer in.

Som det står i regeringsformens första kapitel första paragrafen: ”All offentlig makt i Sverige utgår från folket. Den svenska folkstyrelsen bygger på fri åsiktsbildning…” och ” Den offentliga makten utövas under lagarna.”

http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6055.aspx

Jo vi har märkt det!

Det är dags att folket tar tillbaks denna makt och påminner vår politiska maktelit om att detta enkla förhållande FORTFARANDE FAKTISKT GÄLLER.”

Och så här skrev ja i mitt inlägg Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 110 – Nu får det vara nog!:

 ”Som sagt – NU får det vara nog!

We are Mad as hell på att bli betraktade som tjuvar och skurkar. Och har vi inget gjort nu så UTGÅR MAN FRÅN ATT VI SNART KOMMER ATT GÖRA NÅGOT!

Hur vi än gör så är vi antingen redan brottslingar eller presumtiva brottslingar i ”deras” värld. För så har ”de” bestämt!

Att tvingas se på en ”uppläxning” på 23 eller 27 OLIKA SPRÅK där man förklarar för oss att man betraktar ”oss” som presumtiva tjuvar i 5 minuter.

INNAN VI ENS KAN BÖRJA TITTA PÅ FILMEN!

För en film som jag HAR KÖPT OCH HAR ÄGANDERÄTTEN TILL.

Eller att om jag köper en DVD i New York så kan jag inte titta på den i Europa, Asien etc. För det har ”de” bestämt!

Om jag däremot köper en tidning, bok etc. i New York så utgår ALLA naturligtvis från att man kan läsa den varthelst på jorden man är.

Och om jag köper en CD skiva så kan jag inte kopiera den till datorn eller i vissa fall inte spela den i cd spelaren i bilen. För det har ”de” bestämt!

För en CD skiva som JAG HAR KÖPT OCH HAR ÄGANDERÄTTEN TILL.

Och jag kan ge hur många exempel som helst på detta, det totala vansinnet att en hel industri förklarar krig MOT SINA EGNA KUNDER. Och gör ALLT för att göra livet som kund så svårt det överhuvudtaget går.

Och lägg märke till att denna industri ALLTID HAR MOTARBETAT TEKNISKA LANDVINNINGAR OCH UTVECKLINGEN!

Man var emot och motarbetade radion redan på den tiden. Följt av kampen mot grammofonen, TV: n , videon, kassettbandspelaren etc. etc.

Och bara för att visa hur otroligt korkade och ICKE AFFÄRSMÄSSIGA de här mörker männen och kvinnorna är så kan man just ta exemplet med videon som det gjorde ALLT för att motarbeta och sänka.

På 80 och 90 talet så tjänade denna industri MERA på intäkterna från dessa videos (försäljning, uthyrning etc.) ÄN VAD DE TJÄNADE PÅ SJÄLVA FILMVERKSAMHETEN!

Om dessa mörkermän och kvinnor hade lyckats med att stoppa videon så hade de med andra ord raderat sin största inkomstkälla de närmaste 20 åren.

Snacka om smart business och customer orientation!

Och detta totala vansinne får nu AKTIVT STÖD AV VÅRA POLITIKER OCH RÄTTSAPPARATEN!

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

Och överlämnar rättskippningen till privata affärsintressen som numera har större befogenheter än polisen.

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!”

Vidare så behandlas återigen frågan om FRA1,och FRA2 i riksdagen just nu. Omröstningen sker den 14 oktober. Och det vanliga fulspelet och trixandet från regeringen fortsätter för att förhindra en seriös debatt inför omröstningen.

thttp://www.riksdagen.se/Webbnav/index.aspx?nid=5475

http://rickfalkvinge.se/2009/09/25/halarm-mer-fulspel-med-fra/

Vad det gäller Telekompaketet så börjar tredje ronden  nu på måndag. Den 28 sept träffas Europaparlamentets delegation till förlikningskommittén – som skall förhandla om telekompaketet.

Etc. Etc.

Nu börjar lokala politiker, författare etc. bli varse vad allt det där snacket om ”rättigheter” från de stora musik och media bolagen är värt. De var ju för att ”skydda” dessa rättigheter som våra politiker tjänstvilligt har tagit fram och genomdrivit alla dessa lager som inskränker vanliga medborgares fri- och rättigheter, hotar yttrandefriheten och demokratin (IPRED m.fl.).

Nå, nu var det ju bara det att när dessa musik och media bolag så varmt snackade om att ”skydda” dessa ”rättigheter” så tänkte man JU INTE PÅ UPPHOVSMÄNNEN/KVINNORNA (dvs. de som faktiskt har skrivit verken) UTAN SIN EGEN TOTALA KONTROLL ÖVER DESSA VERK OC RÄTTIGHETER.  Där man INTE HAR NÅGRA SOM HELST SKYLDIGHETER GENTEMOT UPPHOVSMÄNNEN och där man kan sitta på dessa ”rättigheter” för evigt.

Ja ni läser helt rätt – de vill ha Total Kontroll för EVIG TID.

Se även mina inlägg:

They, the politicians, take away our freedom and privacy – And All for nothing

 Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 110 – Nu får det vara nog! – 2

Läs mera om mina inlägg här:

Fri- och Rättigheter

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/category/fri-och-rattigheter/

Yttrandefrihet

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/category/yttrandefrihet/

FRA

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/fra/

 Här kommer 4 utmärkta exempel på denna ilska som lokala politiker och författare känner.

http://badlandshyena.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/hot-okar-vinsten-30-000-ganger/

Hot ökar vinsten 30.000 gånger

22 september 2009 · 14 kommentarer

Är stämningar musikindustrins nya affärsidé? frågar sig Madeleine Sjöstedt (FP) i SvD. Den påstådda förlusten av fildelning är 30.000 gånger större än den mängd stålar skivförsäljningen någonsin fått att löpa in i hagen, påpekar Sjöstedt.

Nu är det faktiskt så att verklig försäljning på en fri marknad inte längre räcker för att inbringa de vinster som företag kräver. Visst kan man avreglera allting, men vi stöter ändå mot en gräns – den som sätts av konsumentens ”lust” att konsumera.

Men fantasins värld är obegränsad. Och det är något musikindustrin insett. När förlusten på grund av tänkt illegal aktivitet är 30.000 gånger större än den summa som skivförsäljningen någonsin inbringat blir möjligheterna att kräva ersättning av konsumenterna så oerhört mycket större.

Affärsmodellen ”inbillad förlust” kan och bör övertas av alla företag. Gränsen sätts då endast av företags och branschers fantasi. Vinsten slutar vara beroende av den motsträvige och oberäknelige konsumenten och förs över dit där den hör hemma – till företaget.

Innovation och kreativitet blir följden när mängder av metoder att pressa folk på pengar utvecklas. Och är det något vi behöver i det halvkommunistiska u-landet Sverige (endast Nordkorea och Kuba är värre) är det innovativa och kreativa affärsidéer. Endast fantasin sätter gränsen.

Ordet ”fantasi” har dock en negativ klang, då man tänker på konstnärer och andra psykotiker. Låt oss i stället utgå från ordet ”kreativ” när det gäller den nya ekonomin. Låt oss kalla den kreationistisk ekonomi.

Klaus-Dieter Fliik

Brilliant!

Överste von Gyllenstråhle // 22 september 2009 vid 11:42 f m | Svara

Jag har personligen som managementkonsult länge ägnat mig åt sk. ”aggresiv fakturering”, dvs varje gång jag tänkt på kunden så har jag fakturerat en timme.

På senare tid har jag dock ägnat mig åt ”kreativ fakturering”, dvs jag har tagit hänsyn till multipla tidsdimensioner. Detta innebär att varje gång jag rent teoretiskt skulle ha kunnat tänka på kunden i någon tidsdimension så debiterar jag kunden en timme för varje tänkbar tidsdimension.

På detta vis kan jag debitera varje kund 30.000 gånger 24 timmar (dvs 720000 timmar) per dygn.

 

Madeleine Sjöstedts artikel här:

http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_3552619.svd

 ”Är stämningar musikförlagens nya affärsidé?

Publicerad: 22 september 2009, 08.58. Senast ändrad: 22 september 2009, 10.30

Kan det vara så att hot och stämningar är musikförlagens nya affärsidé när skivförsäljningen har gått ned? Den frågan ställer sig kultur- och idrottsborgarrådet Madeleine Sjöstedt (FP) efter den strid som blossat upp efter att en föreställning på Stockholms stadsteater stoppats av upphovsrättsskäl.

En strid har blåst upp kring upphovsrätten. Stockholms stadsteater står i fokus då en föreställning stoppats och en spelar under hot från musikförlagen. Fokus riktas mot upphovsrätten. Håller upphovsrättsinnehavarna på att skjuta fram sina positioner? I så fall kan det få allvarliga konsekvenser för upphovsmännen, som har rätt att få betalt, och för teatrarna, som vill sprida musik och naturligtvis ska betala för sig.

Svenska musikförläggarföreningen (SMFF) skriver i ett brev till mig att jag sprider ”felaktig information” när jag menar att musikförlagen inte respekterar Stim-avtalet, och att jag ”ensidigt pekar finger” (osäkert dock på vad) i diskussionen om Stadsteaterns uppsättning De tre musketörerna. Brevet är precis som hela musikindustrins process mot Stadsteatern denna sommar ett hot mot den fria kulturen i Stockholm. ”

Men det är inte vad diskussionen handlar om, utan hur musikförlagen beter sig gentemot teatrar som vill använda musik i sina uppsättningar, deras ”viktiga roll”.

”Under våren och sommaren har Stadsteatern vidare gjort stora ansträngningar att komma överens med musikförlagen om ytterligare ersättning till upphovsmännen. Denna ansträngning har nonchalerats av flertalet förlag, trots att, som SMFF själva påpekar, flera av upphovsmännen ställer sig positiva till att verken framförs i pjäsen.”

”Under våren och sommaren har Stadsteatern vidare gjort stora ansträngningar att komma överens med musikförlagen om ytterligare ersättning till upphovsmännen. Denna ansträngning har nonchalerats av flertalet förlag, trots att, som SMFF själva påpekar, flera av upphovsmännen ställer sig positiva till att verken framförs i pjäsen

Dagen för nypremiären den 14 augusti hade Stadsteatern fortfarande inte erhållit svar på alla sina förfrågningar hos förlagen. Två av de sex berörda förlagen hade överhuvudtaget inte hört av sig.

Under hela denna process har Universal – samtidigt som man har haft ett avtal med Stadsteatern – dessutom förklarat att man kommer att stämma teatern. Första gången var i slutet av april, och andra gången i augusti.

I augusti förklarar Universal också att gästspelet Sounds of Silence från Riga, i vilket man spelar musik av Simon and Garfunkel på en grammofon i bakgrunden, inte ska få spelas i Stockholm. Uppsättningen har turnerat över hela Europa och aldrig haft några problem. Men plötsligt har Paul Simon fått upp ögonen för uppsättningen, och vill inte att hans musik används, hävdar Universal.

Jag skrev då brev till Paul Simon och frågade om detta verkligen var hans avsikt, och fick snabbt besked från hans representant Eddie Simon om att här måste något ha blivit fel. Universal representerar inte Paul Simon i avtal med teatrar. Och Paul Simon har definitivt inte sagt nej till uppsättningen, förklarade han. Universal backade då och sa att det inte längre var några problem. Den lettiska teatern hade dock redan dragit tillbaka uppsättningen, som Stockholmspubliken nu inte fick se.

Om detta bara var en enskild incident skulle det hela kunna ursäktas som resultat av nonchalans. Kan det vara så att hot och stämningar är musikförlagens nya affärsidé när skivförsäljningen har gått ned? I USA har detta nämligen blivit vardag.

I våras dömde en domstol i Boston, Jim Tenenbaum att betala 675 000 dollar i böter till de fem skivbolag – av vilka Universal var ett – som stämt honom för att ha laddat ned 30 låtar på fildelningssiten Kazaa. Det är cirka 160 000 kronor per låt.

Enligt skivbolagens internationella samarbetsorganisation IFPI kopierades 40 miljarder musikfiler olagligt under 2008. Om varje låt var värd 160 000 kronor skulle det innebära att den totala skadan var 6,4 miljoner miljarder kronor.

När skivförsäljningen i världen nådde sin topp i början av 2000-talet sålde man enligt samma organisation skivor för 27 miljarder dollar, cirka 200 miljarder kronor. Den påstådda förlusten av fildelningen som man grundade skadeståndsanspråken på var alltså drygt 30 000 gånger större än vad skivförsäljningen någonsin inbringat. Domen mot Tenenbaum handlade alltså inte om ersättning för en skada, den är en del av en ny affärsmodell för skivbolagen.

Risken är nu att samma förfarande kommer till Sverige. Frågan handlar därför inte bara om Stadsteaterns rätt att använda musiken i enlighet med det avtal man har haft med Stim sedan länge, utan om att de stora musikbolagen måste sluta hota med stämning. Då slutar man använda musik. Det vore en katastrof.

I SMFFs brev till mig står det att de vill ha dialog. Det sker inte genom hot eller via domstol.

MADELEINE SJÖSTEDT (FP)

Kultur- och idrottsborgarråd Stockholms stad

Isobel Hadley-Kamptz artikel här:

http://www.expressen.se/kultur/1.1719716/de-forledande

De förledande

Bonnierkoncernens nya kontrakt berövar författarna upphovsrätten. Isobel Hadley-Kamptz förklarar varför hon inte vill skriva under.

”Hjälp” sa jag trött och mer än en liten aning förfärat. Vi stod några stycken i augusti och pratade efter bokförlagen Atlas och Natur & Kulturs gemensamma seminarium om bokbranschens framtid. Sällan har jag känt tydligare att jag verkar i en gryende och en döende bransch samtidigt.

Alla verkade eniga, även i rapporteringen efteråt. Att döma av den aggressivt defensiva stämningen på tillställningen är frågan snarare om bokbranschen alls har en framtid än om hur den i så fall ser ut.

Det är i och för sig ingen ny insikt. Under det senaste halvårets alltmer intensiva diskussion om nya medie- och kulturformer har bokvärlden, förlag och i viss utsträckning författare, positionerat sig som bakåtsträvandets främsta härförare. Det var ett svenskt bokförlag, och inte Hollywood eller Big music, som i våras hängde på låset för att utnyttja Ipred, denna vår senaste privatisering av rättssystemet.

Förläggarföreningen hostade upp multum i Almedalen i somras för att sprida de mest banala fientligheter mot internet och mot en friare kulturspridning, inklusive en debatt där lobbyisten Henrik Pontén fejkagerade som ”expert” och ett föredrag där den statligt avlönade Dick Harrison var skorrande uppbragt över att hans studenter inte ville betala extra för att ta del av utbildningsmaterial han sammanställt på sin statligt betalda arbetstid.

Författarna vill desperat hålla fast vid den romantiska, och i den längre historien rätt aparta, idén om det enskilda geniet som skapar ur intet och som därför har en moralisk rättighet till sitt verk. En rätt som sägs trumfa den rätt alla människor har till vårt gemensamma kulturarv, för att njuta av den och för att ur den skatten skapa ny kultur. Det är ledsamt, men ändå kanske förståeligt.

De stora förlagen däremot är mest ute efter att tjäna så mycket pengar så möjligt, utan att ändra sina affärsmodeller. Jag hårdrar här, det är medvetet. Tyvärr är inte överdriften lika stor som jag skulle önska.

För parallellt med den här debatten har jag fört en alldeles privat diskussion som författare med mitt bokförlag, Wahlström & Widstrand.

Tidigt i våras lämnade jag nämligen in ett förstamanus till min förläggare på min nya roman. Av olika anledningar dröjde det långt in i preutgivningsmaskineriet innan jag ens fick ett kontraktsförslag. Jag orkade inte bråka, eftersom jag ändå inte akut behövde förskottspengarna.

När jag väl fick kontraktet i handen var jag mycket tacksam över just det. Annars hade jag kanske skrivit under av pur finansiell desperation.

I det beryktade tillstånd som kan kallas förr i världen, exempelvis när jag gav ut min debutbok för drygt två år sen, skrev man kontrakt som var bindande för båda parter. Förlaget fick ensamrätt om att ge ut boken men var också bundet att faktiskt göra det. Bonniers, för det är likadana nya kontrakt inom hela koncernen, ville nu i stället både äta kakan och bakbinda kakbakaren.

De vill ha rätten att ge ut boken, i alla tänkbara format, pocket, ljudbok et cetera men utan motsvarande skyldighet att faktiskt göra det. Om de alltså inte skulle känna för att göra en pocket så småningom måste författaren i stället hitta ett annat förlag som är berett att köpa pocketrätten av Bonniers. Pengar som författaren såklart inte får någon del av.

Lägg till detta hanteringen av den digitala marknaden, där Bonniers ville köpa rätten till alla upptänkliga, nu och i framtiden existerande, digitala format för evig tid. För denna digitala livegenskap vill de betala 11 procent av nettointäkten.

Som författarförbundet redan gjort kan detta jämföras med de 63 procent av intäkterna som Google Books lovar författare, eller varför inte bara med de 24 procent som är standard för vanliga böcker. Så småningom backade Bonniers från det livslånga till, i internetvärlden obetydligt kortare, sju år.

Men syftet går inte att bortse från. De vill, i strid med all svensk upphovsrättstradition, ta ifrån författaren rätten att själv bestämma över sitt verk och bakvägen införa producenträttigheter för litteratur, något som redan finns för skiv- och filmbolag.

För att ta ett konkret exempel så skrev jag min förra roman delvis på och med hjälp av min blogg. Om jag skrivit under ett liknande kontrakt då hade Bonniers plötsligt ägt rättigheterna till bloggen också. Hela den möjliga användningen av internet blir på förlagets villkor, så fort det finns ett tecknat kontrakt måste författaren be om lov också för sin kreativa process.

Skälen till de nya kontrakten är enkla. Vi vet att också litteraturen är på väg in i det digitala. Läsplattor, print-on-demand och andra ännu inte kända publiceringsformer kommer att revolutionera bokmarknaden och förlagsvärlden står i strålkastarskenet, orörlig av fasa och förvirring. Det enda de stora förlagen kan komma på är att försöka föra över risken på författarna och säkra stålarna till sig själva.

Här spricker ohjälpligt den korporativistiska illusionen att författare och förlag skulle ha samma intressen. Den bilden vill ju upphovsrättsindustrin gärna hålla fast vid, eftersom enskilda konstnärer är bättre omslagsflickor för vilken politisk linje som helst än skivbolagsdirektörer eller bokbaroner.

Men det var talande att ingen på det där seminariet i augusti sade något om författares möjligheter att nå ut, endast om förlagens möjligheter att tjäna pengar. För författare och konstnärer är ju den nya världen full av möjligheter snarare än faror. Världens hela bibliotek i fickan, världens alla läsare precis bortom fingrarna.

Den tanken är, med alla potentiella inblandade hot och svårigheter, så glimrande i sin lockelse att jag knappt står ut med att finnas i ett sammanhang där det reaktionärt och kortsiktigt kommersiella är så dominerande. Detta, nästan mer än det förolämpande i att ses som blott en intäktskälla, är anledningen till att jag ändå inte tänker skriva under.

Tack men nej, tack.

Och det är faktiskt inte jag, det är ni.

Linda Skugges artikel här:

http://www.expressen.se/kultur/1.1717568/de-forlegade

De förlegade

Förlagsbranschen hänger inte med i utvecklingen på bokmarknaden. Linda Skugge listar några av de kommande årens stora förändringar.

När jag i slutet av augusti var inbjuden att delta i en debatt om bokbranschens framtid på bokförlaget Natur & Kultur så möttes jag av en vägg av hat, man kunde skära hatet i luften med kniv.

En fåfäng förläggare frågade varför personer som inte kommer ifrån bokbranschen ska få uttala sig (hej Kristoffer Lind). Så jag som författare till fler än tio böcker, mediearbetare i hela mitt vuxna liv, redaktör, skivbolagsboss (eget bolag på 90-talet), vd för ett print on demand-företag som på två år har givit ut 10 000 titlar tillhör alltså inte branschen?) Maken till vuxenmobbning får man leta efter.

Min tioåriga dotter frågar mig om det är skivbolagen som har kommit på Spotify. Naturligtvis är det så det borde ha varit, skivbolagen skulle ha varit offensiva i stället för att försöka hindra att tiden har sin gång. Nu gör bokförlagen samma misstag. Bokförlagen är i dag i samma läge som skivbolagen var i början av 2000-talet. Digitaliseringen av böcker kommer göra det svårare att kontrollera affärskedjan. Vem som helst förstår att det får långtgående konsekvenser, och effekterna blir inte mildare för att man håller för öronen.

Det man nu verkar ägna stor energi åt är att skjuta budbäraren och låtsas som om branschen är immun mot förändringar. Varför tog inte bokförlagen ett initiativ till läsplatta och en digitalplattform för flera år sedan? Och när man påtalar detta får man höra att man är den citat mest korkade person som gått i ett par skor slut citat (hej Lasse Winkler).

De fina förlagen tål nämligen inte att höra sanningen.

Det finns bara en sanning och den är bitter, kära vänner. Bokbranschen kommer inom kort att se helt annorlunda ut. Var lite innovativa för en gångs skull. Jag pratade om reklamfinansierade böcker eller olika samarbeten redan när jag gav ut mina allra första böcker på 90-talet.

Men hos förlagen får man noll gehör för nya innovativa idéer. Så jag gav upp och startade mina egna bolag.

Förändringar som kommer:

X Snart kommer vi alla köpa böcker och tidningar till läsplattor/mobiler så som vi köper musik på Itunes och lyssnar i realtid på Spotify. Bokhandlare är väl inte drömyrket just nu.

X Nätet är en framtida försäljningskanal. Operatörerna sitter på en fett gigantisk galleria, den största bokbasar världen skådat. Alltid öppet, alltid tillgänglig.

X Print-on-demand blir vardag för alla författare. Nej, jag hypar inte upp mit eget företag här, vi gör nåt helt annat. Vi ger inte främst ut ”författare” utan snarare böcker för eget bruk, alltifrån en present till en smal udda bok om dialektala uttryck i övre Bohuslän, som trycks i tio exemplar och köpes nästan uteslutande av skribenten själv.

X Vi kommer att se andra former för bokutgivning, det kan vara att SL/SJ distribuerar en massupplaga av en bok. Företagssamarbeten, se pigge Sigge Sigfridssons utgivning av Jesper Kärrbrinks deckare som säljs i spelbutiker där man får Trisslotter på köpet. Eller som Max Ström som ger ut en fredsbok till landets alla 16-åringar i samarbete med Swedbank, Oriflame, Expressen, Adlibris med flera. Volvo borde sponsra nästa Läckberg som ren produktplacering, naturligtvis går det lika bra i en bok som i en film. Book your life är en strålande modern idé, med tydliga intäkter från dag ett. Naturligtvis kom det inte från förlagen. Utan från entreprenören Carina Nunstedt.

På Natur & Kulturs debatt sa förläggarna att deras författare är nöjda. Nej, författarna är inte nöjda, det är snarare så att de inte vågar svara annat när stora förlaget frågar. Alla författare är missnöjda med sina förlag, jag pratar dagligen med kända författare eftersom mina vänner är dessa författare! Marknadsföringen är obefintlig.

Jo, det klassiska ”vi har ju skickat ut recensionsex” och sedan sitta och VÄNTA vid telefon tillämpas fortfarande.

Som branschen fungerar i dag är förlagen marknadsföringsmaskiner för ett fåtal storsäljare. Det rimmar illa med det jag ofta får höra att förlagen sysslar med Kultur, och vikten av goda Berättelser, att man gör en kulturgärning. Det är inte sant! Visst finns det personer på förlagen som är kunniga och genuint intresserade av skapandet i sig men själva företagsapparaten är inställd på något helt annat.

Detta är ett kortsiktigt lönsamt koncept, men om man inte underhåller intresset för bra berättelser och god litteratur så minskar efter en tid intresset för litteratur.

Google Books är en alldeles strålande kulturgärning, och naturligtvis bromsar förlagen utvecklingen.

Och Lasse Winkler, jag ska söka upp dig om 10 år, så får vi se hur korkad jag var hösten 2009.

Linda Skugge

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 IPCC’s Fabrication of Atmospheric CO2 ‘Residency Time’

23 september, 2009

More on the IPCC and their falsifying of data to suit their Global Warming Hysteria. This time it’s about Atmospheric CO2 ‘Residency Time’ (the time CO2 remains in the atmosphere before being recycled by the oceans).

IPCC put a value of 100 years when all other scientific studies show a value of 5-15 years.

“In order for increased human CO2 emissions to cause accelerated global warming, the climate models need to assume that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a very long time, up to 100+ years. Since the IPCC’s task is to prove any global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, they decided to proclaim that CO2 was long-lived in the atmosphere – a fabricated assumption.

They did this despite the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed studies (and corroborating empirical measurements) finding that CO2 in the atmosphere remained there a short time. Literally, a fabricated assumption, driven by political agenda, became a cornerstone of fraudulent climate model science. As a result, billions spent on climate models that are unable to predict climate with any accuracy.”

Book here:

http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253581727&sr=8-1

See also:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/09/the-liberal-attack-on-science-acorn-style-the-ipcc-fabrication-of-atmospheric-co2-residency-time.html

Bigger graph here

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

             Maximum residence time of Atmospheric CO2

2009-09-23_213120

                                     2009-09-23_214637

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

varning-2

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic 2

21 september, 2009

Here are some more on the same theme as my last post. This time from Barry Moore

Isn’t good that the science is “settled” and that there is NOTHING to discuss. And that to EVEN ask these questions is beyond heresy “it’s completely immoral, even, to question now”. (Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!)

Yes that the brilliant state of science today (How can the Scientific Community Still Allow the Parody of “science” called Global Warming Hysteria?)

And thank God for the media and its CENSORING AND INTIMIDATING OF EVERYONE WHO HAS OPPOSED THIS Global Warming HYSTERIA.

Article here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-barry-moore/

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic: Barry Moore

Posted by Barry Moore, September 21st, 2009 – under Opinion.

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports are a collection of mind numbing statistics from which they claim “solid scientific proof” that man made CO2 is causing global warming. From these statistics empirical formula have been generated which form the basis of the computer programs that are then used to “prove” the empirical formula.

This is circular logic and the output of a computer cannot be used to prove the validity of its programming inputs.

The only way an empirical formula can be validated is by experimental results or by strict mathematical proof based on accepted scientific laws.

Not one of the predictions made by some 29 computer programs in the past 10 to 15 years even remotely resembles the climate of the past 10 years

The IPCC assessment reports do not contain any mathematical analysis based on the laws of physics to support their formulae or hypothesis.   We are reduced to statistical correlation between the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the average global temperature.

Yet consider the number of factors that can affect the global temperature:

1. The suns radiation entering the top of atmosphere (TOA)

2. Infrared radiation leaving the TOA.

3. Cloud cover which has 3 different components – high, mid and low level cloud.  These three components have a distinctly different effect on the incoming and outgoing infrared and visible light energies.

4. Ocean surface temperature.

5. Volcanic ash suspension in the atmosphere.

6. Smoke from forest fires, human emissions and fly ash.

7. Carbon dioxide content.

8. Water vapour content.

9. Other trace gasses with resonant frequencies in the IR spectrum.

10. Cosmic radiation that influences low level cloud formation and stratospheric trace gases.

Listed above are 13 variables and this is not a complete list.  But it does demonstrate that the average global temperature is a result of many different factors some of which vary significantly in a short period of time (weeks) some in a medium period of time (years) and some long term (decades). In addition many of these factors are interrelated.

In order to separate any one of the factors statistically and determine its effect one must be able to quantify all the othersOf course we are not even close to being able to do this, so to determine the effect of CO2 is mathematically impossible by statistical analysis.

In fact we only have data on some of the above variables since the weather satellites started to orbit the earth in 1979 and sea temperatures have only been accurately monitored worldwide since the Argo buoy programme became fully operational in 2003.

According to the satellite data, since 1979 there has been no significant increase in global temperature.  We have had 20 years of increasing temperature and 10 years of decreasing temperature, while the CO2 content has shown a uniform increase.  Hence there is no correlation.  If there was, I would ask the question: “Is the CO2 causing a temperature change or is the temperature change causing a CO2 change?”

********************

Barry Moore lives in Calgary.

Originally from the UK, Mr Moore graduated in London in 1960 with an honours degree in mechanical engineering before working for 13 years in nuclear research in eastern Canada. In 1981 he moved west to Calgary and joined the oil industry becoming an instrumentation and controls specialist.  

Mr Moore became interested in the Kyoto Accord about 12 years ago – just wanting to find out the truth.  In the process he has read thousands of technical papers and articles covering the full range of technologies, political and economic aspects of this very diverse and complex subject.

Read more from Mr Moore here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/barry-moore

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

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic

20 september, 2009

A very good general description of why the Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with facts and science, as I have stated many many times – it’s all about a political agenda, by Michael Hammer.

“If I adopt this 10:1 ratio by looking at the last 100 years worth of data I find 1910-1940 temperatures rising while CO2 was not1940 to 1975 temperatures falling while CO2 rising, 1975 to 1998 temperatures rising while CO2 rising and 1998 to 2009 temperatures falling while CO2 rising.   Three quarters of the period shows no correlation or negative correlation with CO2 and only one quarter shows positive correlation.  I do not understand how one can claim a hypothesis proven when ¾ of the data set disagrees with it.  To me it is the clearest proof that the hypothesis is wrong.”

“I have looked at the raw temperature record for the USA (USHCN data) and the Bureau of Meteorology data for Victoria, Australia.  Both show fluctuations of temperature with time but zero underlying trend for the last centuryBy contrast, the official IPCC endorsed data shows a strong underlying upwards trend.  When I investigate why the difference, I find that the raw data has been adjusted for several supposed factors and every one of these adjustments created a warming trendThis implies that the claimed warming trend is due to the adjustments, not the raw data.  In any less controversial scientific issue, such a result would be viewed with the greatest possible scepticism and would be extremely unlikely to be accepted.

When I examine the raw temperature data record for cities compared with nearby suburban or rural areas, I find an extremely high signature of urban heat island effect.  Yet the people doing the temperature adjustments claim that urban heat island effects are negligible and do not require correction.  This is despite the fact that a significant proportion of the measurement stations are in cities.”

“Looking further at the claim of warming ocean temperatures.  Late last century it was realised that the method of measuring ocean temperatures was extremely inaccurate and unreliable.  To overcome that, a sophisticated, global system of buoys was designed and implemented at very considerable cost and effort.  These buoys repeatedly dive down to measure temperatures  and then resurface to report back findings  This network is called the Argo network and it became operational in 2003.  Since becoming operational, it has shown ocean cooling.  Yet the scientists who claim ongoing ocean warming exclude the Argo data and the satellite data instead relying entirely on the earlier poor reliability methods.

The same scientific community which claimed a method was inaccurate and unreliable, designed and implemented  a new high accuracy measurement system, are now rejecting the new high accuracy data in favour of the older data they themselves viewed as unreliable.  How can that be justified?  Why is the data from the older less reliable method correct, while results from the new, high accuracy methodology are wrong?  What does that say about the scientists who designed the Argo system but apparently don’t trust its output?  To me it suggests selecting data to prove a favoured hypothesis, commonly called cherry picking.”

“FROM a slightly different but related perspective, I see the AGW story continuously changing.  When one measure no longer trends the wanted way, a change is made to a new measure (change from surface to ocean temperatures and ocean acidity).  In one report, an effect is claimed to be negligible when that suits the hypothesis yet the same measure is later used as a reason to explain away embarrassing trends (Solar influence and ocean currents).  All the observed effects are very moderate (less than 0.5C) if present at all yet hysteria is generated on the basis of hypothesised extreme future outcomes (up to 6C rise and 10 meter sea level rises).  Outcomes far enough in the future so as to be un-testable yet close enough to impact people being born today.  Claims based on abstract models that fail even short term validation tests.   As a practicing scientist, I have seen this scenario more than once before, changing benchmarks and indicative parameters, rewriting predictions and predicted causes after the event, excusing erroneous predictions.  These are clear signs of propping up a false hypothesis.”

“There is another very serious unintended consequence that I would like to raise here; one that concerns me very deeply.  When I listen to the public AGW debate  I hear very high profile politicians and prominent public figures calling for people who openly disagree with AGW to be put on trial for treason.  I hear many cases of people losing their jobs because of voicing sceptical opinions.  I hear prominent global warming advocates refusing to enter into debates or trying to avoid debates by claiming the science is settled, and by claiming we do not have time, we have only weeks to act.  I hear AGW advocates resorting to personal attacks against people who disagree rather than addressing the technical issues they raise.

I hear AGW proponents claiming to be the under funded underdogs, fighting to protect the planet against greedy capitalists, yet the reality is their funding is at least 1000 times greater than the sceptics funding.  I see many reports of scientists refusing to release their workings, thus preventing review of their methodology, despite the fact that their work was funded by public money.

I see how the established media abandons balance in reporting by strongly favouring proponents of AGW, ignoring or denigrating sceptics and forcing most onto blog sites like this one.  I hear some environmental groups and activists publicly claim that its OK and even necessary to exaggerate the threat so as to get the public to engage. I see the courts condoning acts of vandalism and even violence against essential public infrastructure.  I see high profile public figures supporting such acts and claiming them to be reasonable and justified.

In short I see our society abandoning some of our most vital democratic freedoms over this hysteria:  Free speech, impartial enforcement of the law, balance in reporting, freedom of information.  These are freedoms our forebears gave their lives to bequeath to us, they are our most valuable inheritance and we seem to be throwing them away over an unproven hysterical hypothesis.

More recently I have read articles from England advocating individual ration cards for petrol, heating oil, gas, electricity.  Is water and food next?  War time austerity as an ongoing future way of life?  A return to the agrarian poverty of the middle ages?  I note the new film “Not evil just wrong” has had to be distributed via the internet rather than traditional media.  One step from distribution through an underground network?  Will that apply to all future sceptical writing?   What about other writing contrary to the popular opinion of the day?

These are the issues that differentiate between a free democracy and a totalitarian regime and the further one goes down this path the harder it is to pull back.  History has shown us that the disease is far easier to acquire than to get rid of.”

Article here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-michael-hammer/

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic: Michael Hammer

Posted by Michael Hammer, September 21st, 2009 – under Opinion.

I HAVE been asked several times ‘why am I so sceptical of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis’?  There are many reasons, some of which I have documented in previous articles at this weblog, but these have relied on sometimes complex calculations which I admit can be difficult to appreciate.  So I would like to outline here a few of my reasons based only on simple consistency with the AGW proponents’ own data.

1.  The AGW movement claims there has been a global temperature rise of 0.5C over the last 60 years and that this is due to increasing CO2.  Both AGW proponents and sceptics accept that the relationship between energy retained and CO2 concentration is logarithmic (a constant increase in retained energy for each doubling of CO2).  The AGW movement data also shows that since 1900 CO2 has risen by very close to half a doubling  over this 60 year period.

IPCC have claimed in their 4th assessment report (summary for policy makers), that the most likely temperature rise by 2070, when CO2 will have risen by a further half doubling to twice the level in 1900, is a further 3C rise  (page 12).  Why would the first half doubling give 0.5C rise while the second half doubling gives 3C or 6 times as much rise?

2.  One claim I have heard is that it takes the climate a long time to respond to the change in CO2 concentration and we have not yet seen the entire rise from the first half doubling.  The same IPCC 4th assessment report (page 12, 13 and 14) indicates that if CO2 were stabilised at the current level, the temperature would rise by a further 0.2C over 2 decades stabilising at 0.7C above the 1900 level.

If the current temperature rise is not yet at the equilibrium level then for the business as usual scenario the temperature rise by 2070 will also not be at the equilibrium level.  Yet the IPCC data suggests the equilibrium rise from the first half doubling is not even one quarter of the less than equilibrium rise from the second half doubling.  To me this is illogical.

3.   IPCC claim an increase in retained energy of around 3.7 watts/sqM for each doubling of CO2 (1.66 watts/sqM for the current rise page 4).  They admit this is much too small to result in a 3+ degree temperature rise.  The large temperature rise is based on claims of very large net positive feedback in the climate system.  

Yet, every natural stable system I can think of exhibits net negative feedback.   Indeed the terms stability and negative feedback are synonymous since negative feedback is what causes stabilityBy contrast, positive feedback causes instability (such as tipping points where a large change in output occurs for a small change in input).   Stability does not mean zero change, it means the response to changes in input are small enough and sufficiently controlled so as to not cause system destruction or runaway.  If you want to argue that the climate system is not stable then I would why it has remained conducive to continued life on this planet for billions of years.  This is despite all the change in CO2 levels, volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output and orbital changes over the millennia.  To me, that is a very good definition of climate stability.

4.  The AGW modellers claim cloud feedback is positive.   AGW advocates seem to divide clouds into two categories, low clouds and high clouds.  Every report I have read acknowledges that low clouds cause cooling.  With regard to high clouds there is some dispute but the AGW modellers claim they cause warming.  Further they claim a warming planet results in a bias away from low clouds and towards high clouds thus exacerbating  warming, hence contributing to positive feedback.

At the same time they claim constant relative humidity in their models.  This means that as the temperature rises, more water must be evaporating.  Now unless we want to predict that the amount of water in the atmosphere is going to continuously rise until the oceans are suspended over our heads, more evaporation must imply more precipitation ie: more rain.  However, rain only comes from low clouds not high clouds, so more rain means more low cloud mass not less low cloud mass.  This contradicts the previous position.  If the claim is that both increase, then that means significantly more cloud mass in total.  Clouds are the biggest contributor to Earth’s albedo (the fraction of incoming solar energy reflected back out to space).  Rising total cloudiness means increasing albedo and the albedo is very strongly coolingThe albedo already causes 100 watts/sqM to be reflected away from Earth.  To cancel out the entire impact claimed by IPCC for doubling CO2 only requires an increase in cloudiness from 60% to 62.4%.

An increase in temperature, leading to more evaporation, in turn leading to more cloudiness which reduces the solar input to Earth thus reducing temperatures is a description of negative feedback not positive feedback.

5.  The claimed “proof” of positive feedback is a model prediction of a hot spot in the tropics at mid troposphere levels.  However all the experimental evidence from many, many measurements has failed to find any evidence of such a hot spot.  In science, a clear prediction that is falsified experimentally means the underlying hypothesis on which the prediction is based is wrong.

6.  The reports documenting man’s CO2 emission use some scarily large numbers but these have to be viewed in the light of the overall system size.  For example, a million dollars is an extremely large amount of money for a private individual but it is almost petty cash for a government.  If we want to put the numbers into perspective we need to relate them to the size of the system.  Why not express CO2 quantities in terms of how many PPM 1 year’s emissions will raise or lower the atmospheric CO2 level (if all of it stayed in the atmosphere).  We could call that PPM equivalents.

In those terms, human emissions amount to about 2.7 PPM equivalents.  Now NASA have published a diagram showing annual CO2 transfers for the planet.  This shows terrestrial plants absorbing about 61 PPM equivalents.  We know that both rising CO2 and rising temperature favour faster plant growth.  That’s why horticulturalists artificially raise CO2 levels in glass houses to about 1000 PPM.  It is also why plants grow faster in the tropics than in cooler locations on earth.  More to the point, a recent study showed average plant growth has accelerated by about 6% over the last 30 years.  A 6% increase in plant growth means a 6% increase in absorbed CO2, from 61PPM equivalents to 64.7 PPM equivalents.  This means that human emissions have increased by 2.7 PPM equivalents but plants have increased their absorption by an extra 3.7 PPM equivalents over the same period.  The increased plant growth is consuming more than 100% of human emissions.  Is there another (natural) factor contributing to CO2 increases?

This response, more CO2 leading to faster plant growth which in turn consumes more CO2 is another example of the widespread bias towards negative feedback I alluded to earlier.   Apart from which, is increased plant growth and thus agricultural productivity bad?  I would have thought it was highly desirable.

7.  The AGW hypothesis is based on temperature rises between about 1975 and 1998 or about 25 years worth of data.  This is claimed to be definitive yet the last 10 years worth of data shows falling global temperatures.  This is claimed to be a short term aberration and of no consequence.  I do not see how 25 years can be considered definitive beyond dispute while 10 years of data is a short term aberration, too short to be significant.  I would have thought at least a 10:1 ratio would be necessary to make such a claim.

8.  If I adopt this 10:1 ratio by looking at the last 100 years worth of data I find 1910-1940 temperatures rising while CO2 was not1940 to 1975 temperatures falling while CO2 rising, 1975 to 1998 temperatures rising while CO2 rising and 1998 to 2009 temperatures falling while CO2 rising.   Three quarters of the period shows no correlation or negative correlation with CO2 and only one quarter shows positive correlation.  I do not understand how one can claim a hypothesis proven when ¾ of the data set disagrees with it.  To me it is the clearest proof that the hypothesis is wrong.

9.  For the last 10 years the global temperature data shows either no atmospheric temperature rise or indeed a falling global temperature.  Recently this has been claimed to be due to a combination of a quiet sun and changes in ocean circulation superimposed on the underlying warming trend.  The further claim is that when these effects reverse, warming will start again with a vengeance.

If these natural processes can cancel out the impact of AGW then they are as powerful as AGWIf they can overwhelm the impact of AGW to cause cooling they are more powerful, yet IPCC and other AGW proponents have claimed in previous assessment reports that solar influences are only a minor contributor compared to CO2.

The  sun was unusually active during the latter half of the 20th century in contrast to its current inactivity and the ocean circulation was the opposite of what is now happening.  Thus the natural effects claimed to be causing cooling now would have been causing warming in the late 20th century.  If these natural effects are as large as the AGW impact then they would have caused half the observed 20th century warming.  If the natural effects now outweigh the AGW impact to cause cooling then they would have been responsible for more than half the observed 20th century warming.

This is not only in contradiction of the earlier IPCC claims, it also means that the actual impact of CO2 increases since 1900 is much less than the claimed 0.5C.  At most 0.25C and possibly much less even than that.

If in fact the temperature returns to the long term average over the next few years (as seems to be increasingly likely), it suggests that these natural processes were responsible for essentially all the observed temperature changes over the 20th century with negligible impact from CO2 changes.

10.  I have looked at the raw temperature record for the USA (USHCN data) and the Bureau of Meteorology data for Victoria, Australia.  Both show fluctuations of temperature with time but zero underlying trend for the last centuryBy contrast, the official IPCC endorsed data shows a strong underlying upwards trend.  When I investigate why the difference, I find that the raw data has been adjusted for several supposed factors and every one of these adjustments created a warming trendThis implies that the claimed warming trend is due to the adjustments, not the raw data.  In any less controversial scientific issue, such a result would be viewed with the greatest possible scepticism and would be extremely unlikely to be accepted.

When I examine the raw temperature data record for cities compared with nearby suburban or rural areas, I find an extremely high signature of urban heat island effect.  Yet the people doing the temperature adjustments claim that urban heat island effects are negligible and do not require correction.  This is despite the fact that a significant proportion of the measurement stations are in cities.

Such a clear factor not corrected for while other more subtle claimed factors are corrected casts further doubt on the correction protocol.  If there is an upwards bias in the corrections, it means the claimed warming trend is exaggerated and may in fact not exist at all.

11.  The mainstream media keep reporting that the current situation is increasingly dire and is much worse than even the previous pessimistic projections.  When I examine this statement I find that previous projections predicted rapid atmospheric warming during the last 10 years whereas in fact we have had cooling.  They predicted rapid increase in rate of rise of sea level when in fact the rate of sea level rise has recently declined.  They predicted a very rapid increase in Arctic summer sea ice loss whereas in fact, for the last 2 years, it has been increasing.  They predicted a rapid rise in hurricane incidence and severity when in fact there has been a decline.  To me the media’s many claims are not supportable.  I also consider it to be beyond simple error.  At best it is unpardonable gross carelessness in checking the data they are reporting and at worst it is deliberate bias in reporting.

12.  More recently, in response to the data showing no warming for the last 10 years, I have seen new claims that global land temperatures are now deemed irrelevant.  The newly discovered measure of importance is the rise in ocean temperature, since it is now claimed that this is by far the largest planetary heat sink.  If that claim is true, it makes all the previous data claiming to show strong global warming over the period 1975 to 1998 also irrelevant.  To suggest that from 1975 to 1998, the energy went into warming the land and air and then abruptly in 1998 it stopped doing that and the heat instead went into heating the oceans is, to me, completely absurd.  Nature simply does not work that way.  It is like claiming you put the kettle on, for the first minute the energy goes into heating the water and then abruptly it stops heating the water and starts heating the room instead.

13.  Looking further at the claim of warming ocean temperatures.  Late last century it was realised that the method of measuring ocean temperatures was extremely inaccurate and unreliable.  To overcome that, a sophisticated, global system of buoys was designed and implemented at very considerable cost and effort.  These buoys repeatedly dive down to measure temperatures  and then resurface to report back findings  This network is called the Argo network and it became operational in 2003.  Since becoming operational, it has shown ocean cooling.  Yet the scientists who claim ongoing ocean warming exclude the Argo data and the satellite data instead relying entirely on the earlier poor reliability methods.

The same scientific community which claimed a method was inaccurate and unreliable, designed and implemented  a new high accuracy measurement system, are now rejecting the new high accuracy data in favour of the older data they themselves viewed as unreliable.  How can that be justified?  Why is the data from the older less reliable method correct, while results from the new, high accuracy methodology are wrong?  What does that say about the scientists who designed the Argo system but apparently don’t trust its output?  To me it suggests selecting data to prove a favoured hypothesis, commonly called cherry picking.

Some sites are talking about “correcting” the Argo data.  Why should a carefully thought out, brand new, high accuracy system already require adjustment to its outputs?  Was a mistake made in the design?  Why are the proposed adjustments again in the direction of exacerbating the claimed warming?  When the raw data contradicts the hypothesis yet the “adjustments and corrections” all reverse that result so as to support the championed hypothesis, it’s time to start worrying.

14.  What mankind is doing by consuming fossil fuels is recycling CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere but got trapped in the distant past.  Is there a “correct” level of CO2?  What I have read suggests that the Earth was a more verdant place before the CO2 got locked up in fossil fuels.  Would the Earth be more or less pleasant a place if the carbon currently locked up in fossil fuels were again available to the biosphere.  Not just for humans but for all living things, plants and animals.  Surely we should consider that before we pick some arbitrary recent point in time and declare that the CO2 level at that time is the ideal to be maintained at all costs.

FROM a slightly different but related perspective, I see the AGW story continuously changing.  When one measure no longer trends the wanted way, a change is made to a new measure (change from surface to ocean temperatures and ocean acidity).  In one report, an effect is claimed to be negligible when that suits the hypothesis yet the same measure is later used as a reason to explain away embarrassing trends (Solar influence and ocean currents).  All the observed effects are very moderate (less than 0.5C) if present at all yet hysteria is generated on the basis of hypothesised extreme future outcomes (up to 6C rise and 10 meter sea level rises).  Outcomes far enough in the future so as to be un-testable yet close enough to impact people being born today.  Claims based on abstract models that fail even short term validation tests.   As a practicing scientist, I have seen this scenario more than once before, changing benchmarks and indicative parameters, rewriting predictions and predicted causes after the event, excusing erroneous predictions.  These are clear signs of propping up a false hypothesis.

There does seem to be clear evidence that temperature changed several times over the 20th century both up and down.  There is far less evidence for any underlying upwards trend due to CO2 and many reasons to question the data analysis that tries to demonstrate such a trend.

One of the arguments I often hear is “well even if AGW is not absolutely proven we should take action just in case its correct” – the precautionary principle.  I see two reasons to disagree with that.

Firstly, if rising CO2 should bring about some warming it is by no means certain that this would be catastrophically bad or for that matter whether it would be bad at all.  It seems quite likely to me that the cure would be worse than the disease.

Secondly, and to me much more importantly, there is another issue we need to consider and that is the law of unintended consequences.  Briefly this states that whenever you take action there will always be consequences you did not consider in advance and did not intend.  Since there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right there is a better than 50:50 chance that these consequences will be bad.  If the original action is based on a false premise it greatly increases the risk of bad unintended consequences.  The precautionary principle is based on the belief that there is no down side to taking action.  The law of unintended consequences tells us that there is always a down side and the cost versus benefit always needs to be carefully evaluated before acting.

We are already seeing some very bad unintended consequences of the action taken so far over global warming.  The government driven initiative to use less fossil fuel by diluting it with ethanol is causing massive forest clearing the Amazon basin (to grow the ethanol feedstock) and is very significantly raising food prices causing even worse starvation in 3rd world countries.  Terrible as it is, this has not greatly impacted on western society but the next phase most certainly will.

There is another very serious unintended consequence that I would like to raise here; one that concerns me very deeply.  When I listen to the public AGW debate  I hear very high profile politicians and prominent public figures calling for people who openly disagree with AGW to be put on trial for treason.  I hear many cases of people losing their jobs because of voicing sceptical opinions.  I hear prominent global warming advocates refusing to enter into debates or trying to avoid debates by claiming the science is settled, and by claiming we do not have time, we have only weeks to act.  I hear AGW advocates resorting to personal attacks against people who disagree rather than addressing the technical issues they raise.

I hear AGW proponents claiming to be the under funded underdogs, fighting to protect the planet against greedy capitalists, yet the reality is their funding is at least 1000 times greater than the sceptics funding.  I see many reports of scientists refusing to release their workings, thus preventing review of their methodology, despite the fact that their work was funded by public money.

I see how the established media abandons balance in reporting by strongly favouring proponents of AGW, ignoring or denigrating sceptics and forcing most onto blog sites like this one.  I hear some environmental groups and activists publicly claim that its OK and even necessary to exaggerate the threat so as to get the public to engage. I see the courts condoning acts of vandalism and even violence against essential public infrastructure.  I see high profile public figures supporting such acts and claiming them to be reasonable and justified.

In short I see our society abandoning some of our most vital democratic freedoms over this hysteria:  Free speech, impartial enforcement of the law, balance in reporting, freedom of information.  These are freedoms our forebears gave their lives to bequeath to us, they are our most valuable inheritance and we seem to be throwing them away over an unproven hysterical hypothesis.

More recently I have read articles from England advocating individual ration cards for petrol, heating oil, gas, electricity.  Is water and food next?  War time austerity as an ongoing future way of life?  A return to the agrarian poverty of the middle ages?  I note the new film “Not evil just wrong” has had to be distributed via the internet rather than traditional media.  One step from distribution through an underground network?  Will that apply to all future sceptical writing?   What about other writing contrary to the popular opinion of the day?

These are the issues that differentiate between a free democracy and a totalitarian regime and the further one goes down this path the harder it is to pull back.  History has shown us that the disease is far easier to acquire than to get rid of.

*******************

Notes and Links

Michael Hammer graduated with a Bachelor of Engineering Science and Master of Engineering Science from Melbourne University.  Since 1976 he has been working in the field of spectroscopy with the last 25 years devoted to full time research for a large multinational spectroscopy company.

To read more from Mr Hammer click here and scroll down:  http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/michael-hammer/

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

Any reduction of CO2 emissions is considered a fantasy by China – the Biggest CO2 emitter in the World

19 september, 2009

Some Chinese wisdom for our own Global Warming Hystric politicians and media to ponder. And hopefully BEFORE our politicians have sacrificed our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars of OUR money to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the Computer Models.

“A 2C rise in global temperatures will not necessarily result in the calamity predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), China‘s most senior climatologist has told the Guardian.”

”There is no agreed conclusion about how much change is dangerous,” Xiao said. ”Whether the climate turns warmer or cooler, there are both positive and negative effects.”

“Even with weather satellites and sophisticated simulation software, Xiao is not overly optimistic about accuracy the initial results.

Climate prediction has only come into operation in recent years. The accuracy of the prediction is very low because the climate is affected by many mechanisms we do not fully understand.”

“As the biggest carbon emitter in the world, China will certainly be pressured on carbon emission from developed countries. Currently China is at the peak of economic development and any reduction of carbon emissions is considered a fantasy by Chinese experts.“

“Emission rights are development rights”

“The IPCC’s estimate of a global temperature increase of 2.5 degrees C due to CO2 emissions increase is an average value obtained by some meteorologists through multiple model calculations. Ding’s report found that there is no solid scientific evidence to strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations. Some geologists believe that global temperature is related to solar activities and glacial periods. At least human activity is not the only factor to cause the global temperature increase. Up to now not a single scientist has figured out the weight ratio of each factor on global temperature change.

However, the massive propaganda “human activity induced the global temperature increase” has been accepted by the majority of the society in some countries, and it has become a political and diplomatic issue. Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiation table? The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries, and for keeping their own advantageous positions.”

Article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/17/climate-rise-fears-china

Also see  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/18/chinese-climate-wisdom/

China‘s top climatologist stays cool over 2C rise. It is too early to determine the level of meteorological risk posed by global warming, says the director-general of the Beijing Climate Centre

Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 15.48 BST

A 2C rise in global temperatures will not necessarily result in the calamity predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), China‘s most senior climatologist has told the Guardian.

Despite growing evidence that storms in China are getting fiercer, droughts longer and typhoons more deadly, Xiao Ziniu, the director general of the Beijing Climate Centre, said it was too early to determine the level of risk posed by global warming.

”There is no agreed conclusion about how much change is dangerous,” Xiao said. ”Whether the climate turns warmer or cooler, there are both positive and negative effects. We are not focusing on what will happen with a one degree or two degree increase, we are looking at what level will be a danger to the environment. In Chinese history, there have been many periods warmer than today.”

The IPCC warns a 2C rise substantially increases the risks of floods, drought and storms.

Whether a 2C rise turns global warming into global burning has emerged as one of the most contentious issues in advance of the Copenhagen summit.

The G8 and EU want the world to set 2C as a ceiling by 2050, but China is sceptical. A senior government adviser said yesterday that the target of two degrees was unrealistic and would not give developing nations room to grow.

Xiao said China had started its own climate modelling programme for the next 100 years aimed at predicting the point when global warming will result in environmental collapse.

His centre will also release yearly climate predictions for China. Even with weather satellites and sophisticated simulation software, Xiao is not overly optimistic about accuracy the initial results.

”Climate prediction has only come into operation in recent years. The accuracy of the prediction is very low because the climate is affected by many mechanisms we do not fully understand.”

China’s growing influence in climate studies was recognised this year when the World Meteorological Organisation selected Beijing as a co-host of the Asian Climate Centre. Alongside Tokyo, it will be responsible for monitoring and predicting changes in weather patterns and their impact on natural disasters, water resources and soil quality.

Even at current levels of warming, the centre has collected a strong body of evidence that climate change is wreaking havoc in China.

A report provided by the centre to the Guardian shows rainfall coming in shorter, fiercer bursts, interspersed by protracted periods of drought, particularly in the north. Water supplies have been badly affected. The Yellow river watershed has suffered a continuous drought since 1965 and it is getting worse, it said. Almost half the serious droughts of the past 60 years have occurred since 1990.

”Due to climate change, drought disasters come more frequently and across a wider area,” the report noted.

Since 1950, Beijing has had an average of 36 rainy days a year, but not once in the past decade has that figure been reached. In 2007, the northernmost province of Heilongjiang reported a summer drought, which is almost unheard of in what is usually a flood season. Glaciers are melting at an accelerating rate.

A ferocious storm on 10 May this year broke records in Gaoqing, Shandong, with nearly 19.7cm of water dumped from the skies in one day. On the edge of the Gobi desert in Xilin Haote, Inner Mongolia, 5.6 cm of rain fell on 27 June 2008 – the most since a monitoring station was established in the area fifty years earlier.

Summer is coming earlier and hotter across swaths of the North. Of the many records broken this year, the most dramatic was in Shijiazhuang Hebei where the temperature soared to 30C on 17 March, more than six degrees higher than the previous high for that day.

Near the border with Siberia, the counties of Yilan and Yichun have experienced the hottest May in history and searing heat of more than 40C is now commonplace in many areas of the north.

”I think it is the responsibility of scientists to have a sense of crisis. We should study whether climate change threatens human survival,” says Xiao. ”But I believe humans are wise creatures. With wisdom and effort, we will prevent disaster. There is always hope.”

Founded in 1995 as a national level organisation, the centre’s 150 staff compile data from four Chinese weather satellites, thousands of national monitoring stations and a regional network of meteorological organisations.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

 

Article here:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2319

Original Chinese article here:

http://www.edu.cn/re_dian_tui_jian_1279/20090907/t20090907_405060.shtml

Posted on Sep. 17, 2009

By Energy Tribune

China Fights Back: Scientists Find ””””no solid scientific evidence to strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations””””

On the way to the December climate conference in Copenhagen, Chinese scientists are tackling the issue of carbon emissions. To our knowledge this is the first time that this has happened. Until now, China has been sheepish or even defensive as to how they would address carbon dioxide emissions. Considering the strict media controls in China on anything that is published (the government owns all publishing houses) the article below should be viewed as reflecting the views of the Chinese government. China is now questioning the motives of the countries who are promoting limits on carbon dioxide and it sees those limits as an attempt by the developed world to stifle China’s economic growth.

Below is an abridged English translation of an article by Wang Jing that appeared in China’s Science Times on September 7, 2009.

The upcoming Copenhagen United Nations Climate Change Conference in December will have a deep impact on the economic development of every country. Many major, economically strong, countries will come together to discuss climate change and craft a greenhouse gas emission agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, signed in December 1997.

As the biggest carbon emitter in the world, China will certainly be pressured on carbon emission from developed countries. Currently China is at the peak of economic development and any reduction of carbon emissions is considered a fantasy by Chinese experts.

But what kind of gesture should Chinese make at the Copenhagen conference? How can China fight for its right to emit while continuing to develop its economy?

Recently, Ding Zhongli, an academician and the vice president of the Science Academy of China, published a research paper titled “2050 Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Control: Emission Rights Calculation for Each Country” on Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences (Vol. 39, No.8, 1009 -1027, 2009). That paper detailed the historical CO2 emission data of developed countries and their economic development and provides fresh thinking on how China can win the argument during the carbon emission negotiations.

Emission rights are development rights

All developed countries, without exception, became developed through high-speed industrial growth, and that growth inevitably resulted in intense utilization of fossil energy and massive CO2 emissions. In the US, CO2 annual per capita emissions increased by an average rate of 5 percent during 1901 to 1910; Germany averaged 9.9 percent during 1947 to 1957; Japan averaged 12 percent during 1960 to 1970. Therefore, emission rates correlate with development rates and emission rights are development rights. However, in exactly the era that China puts its full effort on economic development, some developed countries are proposing CO2 emission cuts.

The IPCC’s estimate of a global temperature increase of 2.5 degrees C due to CO2 emissions increase is an average value obtained by some meteorologists through multiple model calculations. Ding’s report found that there is no solid scientific evidence to strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations. Some geologists believe that global temperature is related to solar activities and glacial periods. At least human activity is not the only factor to cause the global temperature increase. Up to now not a single scientist has figured out the weight ratio of each factor on global temperature change.

However, the massive propaganda “human activity induced the global temperature increase” has been accepted by the majority of the society in some countries, and it has become a political and diplomatic issue. Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiation table? The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries, and for keeping their own advantageous positions.

Cumulative emission per capita reflects more fair and justified principle

… Ding’s research shows that cumulative emission per capita indicates the economic level of a country. By 1960, US emission per capita was 234.48 tC (tons of carbon); Britain’s level was 177.17 tC; Canada’s level was 149.49 tC; and France’s level was 73.56 tC. However, the cumulative emission per capita for China was only 24.14 tC from 1900 to 2005. China’s GDP per capita in 2005 was much lower than that of the average of the developed countries in 1960.

If the global temperature increase indeed is the result of human activity, controlling the CO2 concentration should be the historical responsibility of each country that has already emitted CO2. About 70 to 80 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been emitted by the developed countries. The cumulative emission per capita from Britain and US is about 1,100 tC, the cumulative emission per capita from China and India are only 66 tCO2 and 23 tCO2, respectively. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the historical emission of the developed countries directly resulted in the global temperature increase, if the claimed correlation is to be accepted.

Nevertheless, after emitting greenhouse gases for over a century and imagining a horrible consequence, the developed countries now strongly require that the developing countries also bear the historical responsibility. As is well known, the long time biggest emitter, the US first refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and then asked that China provides its emission reduction goal. On June 27, 2008, the then-British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said in Tokyo that to avoid the risk of extreme climate change, all countries have to adjust their national economic structure. But only the promise of change by the developed countries is not enough for developing countries. It is truly hegemony.

Internationally there are two ways to control atmospheric CO2 concentration, one is to emphasize on reduction of emissions, another is to emphasize emission quotas. … Ding’s research indicates that whenever there are conflicts between the international climate framework and US domestic economic development, the climate policies are adjusted to protect the economic development and business interests. Since the 1950s, US academics led in global climate change studies and have made significant contributions on this issue. However, the US government policy started to change in the late 1980s. The first Bush administration appeared sluggish on the climate issue. The climate policy of the Clinton administration was active internationally, but inactive internally. The second Bush administration became even more hesitant and instead of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, they structured a replacement for Kyoto Protocol “Clear Skies & Global Climate Change Initiatives” to put the US in a good position for economic development. Therefore, it is necessary for China to insist on emission quotas to ensure a continuous economic development.

The G8 meeting held in Italy in July 2009 proposed to reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent globally and by 80 percent for G8 countries by 2050. … It looks like the developed countries contribute more on reducing emission, but if using 1900 level as the baseline, the average cumulative emission per capita for G8 countries is 356.58 tC, compared to 59.95 tC per capita for all the other countries. Ding’s calculations indicate that the average cumulative emission per capital of G8 countries from 1990 to 2050 would be 3 times more than that of other countries. Therefore, the G8 proposal is extremely unfair….

Currently the need for fossil energy in China is enormous. China can use the “cumulative emission quota per capita” strategy to gain favorable status. Ding’s research categorized countries with population over 300,000 into four different groups according to four indices:

due quota between 1900 and 2050,

actual emission between 1900 and 2005,

2005 emission level, and

emission average increase rate from 1996 to 2005.

He concluded that although China is in the group that needs to reduce the emission increase rate, China can strive for more emission rights since China could get over 30 percent of the global emissions quota.

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

varning-2 

World’s Largest Auditor of Clean-Energy projects was suspended by UN inspectors because they had NO qualifications and did NO vetting

15 september, 2009

The never ending story of the giant swindle that’s called cap and trade, carbon trading, CDM etc continuous with ever more revelations of the blatant corruption in the system.

As I have said in many of my posts: The cap- and trade scheme is a giant swindle where BOTH buyer AND Seller benefits from cheating. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. At normal peoples expense.

The latest episode of “The Sopranos” is the news that the BIGGEST company that is supposed to do the vetting, verifying and checking of the projects BEFORE THEIR APPROVAL is now suspended by it’s UN masters.

As it turns out (surprise, surprise) the staff of SGS lacks skills, knowledge and where under “external influence”.

And these guys spends billions of $ of our tax money

About 150 million tonnes of carbon units (CER- Certified Emission Reductions) were issued by UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) on SGS recommendation. This is almost 50% of the total carbon credits issued by UNFCCC, since the start of the scheme in 2005.

One reason why the global head of SGS resigned was because of the severe criticism that SGS faced after recent blatant display of non-professionalism in evaluating projects.

Se also the interesting report by WWF and Öko Institute for Applied Ecology of these companies. And the abysmal scores they where given in this report (May 27).

On a scale of A (best) to F (very bad), both DNV and SGS received an F!

According to one of the authors of the report, Lambert Schneider of the Öko Institute, another major problem is that auditors are ”caught in an inherent conflict of interest. They should serve as the extended arm of the EB (CDM Executive Board ) but are paid by the project developers.” (se my lines above: The cap- and trade scheme is a giant swindle where BOTH buyer AND Seller benefits from cheating. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. At normal peoples expense.)

And these companies where “entrusted” to spend  $billions of our money.

The report here:

“A rating of Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) Accredited under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)”

http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/902/2009-020-en.pdf

Se among other my posts:

Cap and trade – What food, clothes, travel etc is the common people to be without?

The blatant hypocrisy from the UN pack and their jet set allies

Cap and trade scheme defeated – And It should have been because it’s insane

The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!

Se also my posts on carbon trading here:

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/carbon-trading/

 

Article here:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/

natural_resources/article6832259.ece

From The Sunday Times September 13, 2009

Carbon-trading market hit as UN suspends clean-energy auditor

Danny Fortson, Georgia Warren

The legitimacy of the $100 billion (£60 billion) carbon-trading market has been called into question after the world’s largest auditor of clean-energy projects was suspended by United Nations inspectors.

SGS UK had its accreditation suspended last week after it was unable to prove its staff had properly vetted projects that were then approved for the carbon-trading scheme, or even that they were qualified to do so.

The episode will be embarrassing for European lawmakers in the run-up to the global climate summit in Copenhagen, where they will attempt to lure big polluters such as America and China into a binding agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol. SGS is the second such company to be suspended – Norway’s DNV was penalised last November for similar infractions.

The EU’s carbon-trading system, which puts a price on pollution through carbon permits that can be bought and sold, is the key element in Europe’s fight against climate change.

About a fifth of the $100 billion of credits traded annually come from projects funded under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The heavily criticised programme allows industrialised countries to offset their pollution by buying “certified emission reductions credits” generated by low-car-bon schemes in the developing world. China and India are the biggest generators of the credits: more than 900 projects are now running, producing billions of credits, with thousands more in the pipeline.

Critics say the system is not sufficiently policed and allows western polluters to buy their way out of more costly carbon-cutting measures.

All such schemes must first be approved by organisations such as SGS. DNV was the single biggest auditor until it was suspended last year, when much of its workload was shifted to SGS, which was simply unable to cope.

Simon Shaw, chairman of EEA Fund Management, a backer of emission-reduction projects and an investor in Climate Exchange, the carbon-trading platform, said: “There was obviously a lack of resources. We knew this was coming.”

UN inspectors said they found six irregularities in a recent spot check. The firm has now rectified these, but remains suspended until the UN verifies sufficient changes have been made. SGS could not be reached for comment.

Lawmakers are expected to reform the CDM in Copenhagen in December. A research firm that tracks trends in clean energy and carbon trading has been put up for sale with a £30m-£40m price tag. New Energy Finance was set up in 2004 by Michael Liebre-ich, a former McKinsey consultant who owns a key stake.

Its backers include former Reed Elsevier boss Sir Crispin Davis and Mike Luckwell, a one-time investor in Hit Entertainment. The corporate finance firm Quayle Munro was brought in to advise on options after takeover approaches were received.

Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.

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

varning-2

This first global CO2 map released from GOSAT – Very interesting results!

14 september, 2009

An interesting initial analysis from GOSAT CO2 data.

The satellite was launched on January 23 this year. Data is currently in the preliminary stages of being calibrated and validated. And the initial data is just from April 20-28 this year.

As you can se from the map below China, India, South-eastern Europe, the Mideast and Africa have the majority of the CO2 hotspots.

And NONE OF THESE COUNTRIES HAVE SIGNED THE KYOTO TREATY, OR HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO REDUCE CO2

And look at Sweden! Not a spot, nothing!

 2009-09-14_232124

And for that “worthy goal” our politicians want to sacrifice our freedom, 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 gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.

 Initial Analysis here:

http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/eng/result/download/GOSAT_L2_20090528_en.pdf

 Bigger map here:

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/05/img/20090829_ibuki_1Le.jpg

 Se also

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/13/some-results-from-gosat-co2-hot-spots-in-interesting-places/

 “The Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) Project is a joint effort promoted by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).

Analyses of GOSAT observation data will make it possible to ascertain the global distributions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) and the geographical distribution of and seasonal and inter-annual variations in the flux (i.e., emission and absorption) of greenhouse gases.”

http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/index_e.html

2009-09-14_225713

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

varning-2

Cap and trade – What food, clothes, travel etc is the common people to be without?

13 september, 2009

As said in many of my posts: The cap- and trade scheme is a giant swindle where BOTH buyer AND Seller benefits from cheating. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. At normal peoples expense.

And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.

So we are talking about 0,03%.

Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, 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 gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.

Here is some more on that subject by Viv Forbes how asks “Our politicians should be asked, individually, what food, mineral products and travel they propose doing without in order to meet the 2020 cuts specified in their Ration-and-Tax Schemes.”

A very good question which our “dear” politicians will not and can not answer.

Se my posts on carbon trading here:

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/carbon-trading/

Article here:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14645

Our politicians should be asked what effect these measures and our local Ration-N-Tax Schemes

ETS will kill Tourism, Transport and Trade

 By Viv Forbes  Saturday, September 12, 2009

Emissions trading schemes proposed for the western world will guarantee another global financial crisis for tourism, transport and world trade.

All carbon control schemes have at their core two essential features aimed at reducing man’s production of the harmless gas, carbon dioxide. Firstly, increasingly severe rationing of carbon dioxide (CO2) releases. And secondly, taxes on all permitted emissions and punitive taxes on any excess. They are all Ration-and-Tax Schemes and they will all enforce arbitrary reductions by 2020.

But not one car, truck, bus, train, plane or ship can move without producing CO2. There is no possibility that this will change significantly before the doomsday year of 2020, just a decade away. Therefore neither Australia nor New Zealand can cut CO2 emissions by 2020 without slowly strangling all those industries that rely on moving people or goods.

Our politicians should be asked, individually, what food, mineral products and travel they propose doing without in order to meet the 2020 cuts specified in their Ration-and-Tax Schemes.

Australia and New Zealand comprise four lonely islands in the vast southern oceans which stretch from Africa to South America. However, world population, political power and finance are concentrated far away in the Northern Hemisphere.

Apart from a few stock horses used by drovers, the occasional sailing yacht, some suburban bicycles and some hydro power that moves trains, our transport fleets rely totally on petrol, diesel, gas and coal. There are no solar powered aeroplanes or sail powered ocean liners – all produce CO2.

Neither country can import tourists, get mineral and food products to their cities or export goods to world markets without producing CO2.

Already France has introduced travel rationing using a carbon tax and the UK Institute for Public Policy says that “the government may need to introduce carbon rationing to cut pollution from everyday activities such as filling up the car, using electricity and flying abroad for holidays”. A UK government committee even proposes that airline taxes should be raised progressively to “a level that would put people off flying”.

Our politicians should be asked what effect these measures and our local Ration-N-Tax Schemes will have on the South Pacific tourist industries.

And why are Australian politicians rushing to construct transport infrastructure for trucks, trains, planes and ships if all of these industries are going to be subject to mandatory rationing and taxes – no additional infrastructure or jobs are needed for a world in which tourism, transport and trade are doomed to contract.

It is a sad indictment of business, media, opposition parties and union leaders in Australia and New Zealand that so few are asking these vital questions.

The Ration-N-Tax Schemes will have zero beneficial effects but, they will cause crippling contraction and job losses in our backbone industries.

This is the real global warming crisis.

Viv Forbes, Chairman,The Carbon Sense Coalition, has spent his life working in exploration, mining, farming, infrastructure, financial analysis and political commentary. He has worked for government departments, private companies and now works as a private contractor and farmer.

Viv has also been a guest writer for the Asian Wall Street Journal, Business Queensland and mining newspapers. He was awarded the “Australian Adam Smith Award for Services to the Free Society” in 1988, and has written widely on political, technical and economic subjects.

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

varning-2

How can the Scientific Community Still Allow the Parody of “science” called Global Warming Hysteria?

12 september, 2009

It has always baffled me that all the good scientists out there mostly in silence allow the shenanigans and charlatans of there craft to destroy the creditability of science as a whole.

A very good description in today’s The Australian of the sad state of the so called “science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria. And the medias and politicians roll in spreading this gospel.

And the censorship and intimidation from the press, media, politicians and fellow “scientists” of everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

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.

Article here

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26056202-7583,00.html

Global warming hotheads freeze out science’s sceptics

Christopher Pearson | September 12, 2009

GARTH Paltridge was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO’s division of atmospheric research before becoming the director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and chief executive of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre.

His latest sceptical contribution to the debate on the dangers of carbon dioxide is a book, endearingly titled The Climate Caper.

Paltridge gives a crisp summary of the physics and economics of climate change, but I want to focus here on his account of the new green religion. ”Perhaps the most interesting question in all this business is how it can be that the scientific community has become so over-the-top in support of its own propaganda about the seriousness and certainty of upcoming drastic climate change. Scientists after all are supposed to be unbiased in their assessment of a problem and are expected to tell it as it is. Over the centuries they have built up the capital of their reputation on just that supposition. And for the last couple of decades they have put that capital very publicly on the line in support of a cause which, to say the least, is overhung by an enormous amount of doubt. So how is it that the rest of the scientific community, uncomfortable as it is with both the science of global warming and the way its politics is being played, continues to let the reputation of science in general be put at considerable risk because of the way the dangers of climate change are being vastly oversold?

Part of the answer lies in the way institutions find ways to silence their employees. Paltridge himself was involved in setting up the Antarctic research centre in the early 90s with the CSIRO. As he recalls: ”I made the error at the time of mentioning in a media interview — reported extensively in The Australian on a slow Easter Sunday — that there were still lots of doubts about the disaster potential of global warming. Suffice it to say that within a couple of days it was made clear to me from the highest levels of CSIRO that, should I make such public comments again, then it would pull out of the process of forming the new centre.The CSIRO, it turned out, was in the process of trying to extract many millions of dollars for further climate research at the time.

Almost the only scientists at liberty to speak their minds are retirees, such as William Kininmonth and Paltridge himself. He gives an example, Brian Tucker, a former chief of CSIRO’s Atmospheric Research Division. Tucker was ”a specialist in numerical climate modelling and therefore knew better than most where the bodies are buried in the climate change game. He kept remarkably quiet about his worries on the matter. Then he retired, and for four or five years thereafter was the bane of the global warming establishment because of his very public stance against many of its sacred cows.” Eventually he was marginalised by being described as ”one of the usual suspects, who was now out of date and in any event was probably on the payroll of industry”.

Another eye-opener is the story of how a committee of the Australian Academy of Science was dissuaded from its plans to respond to the Garnaut Report. Paltridge says: ”While the committee was aware of all the ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ of 100-year prediction of rainfall, it was aware too of the delicacy of saying so in an Academy response. But if indeed there is something of the order of a 50-50 chance that the forecasts supplied to Garnaut were nonsense, then it seems reasonable that the fact should be made known in plain English …” Academy members met Garnaut and ”rumour has it that sometime during the meeting Professor Garnaut became very sympathetic to the need for vast new resources to address the need for basic research … In the end it seems that the idea of a response to the Garnaut Report was dropped altogether.”

Eventually the academy came out with a statement of priorities for climate research, which contained a brief reference to the fact that the rainfall projections Garnaut relied on were problematical, but most of the public were none the wiser.

Paltridge says that behind the climate change debate there are two basic truths seldom articulated. ”The first is that the scientists pushing the seriousness of global warming are perfectly well aware of the great uncertainty attached to their cause. The difficulty for them is to ensure that the lip service paid to uncertainty is enough to convince governments of the need to continue research funding, but is not enough to cast real doubt on the case for action. The paths of public comment and official advice on the matter have to be trodden very carefully. The second basic truth is that there is a belief among scientific ‘global warmers’ that they are an under-funded minority among a sea of wicked sceptics who are extensively funded by industry and close to Satan. The difficulty for them is to maintain a belief in their own minority status while insisting in public that the sceptics, at least among the ranks of the scientifically literate, are very few.”

The Royal Society did its own reputation a disservice by sending a letter to Exxon-Mobil oil corporation declaring an anathema on dissident climate research. It said: ”To be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give the people the final push they need to take action and we can’t have people trying to undermine it.”

Paltridge says: ”The staggering thing is that the society, which in other circumstances would be the first to defend the cause of free inquiry … seemed not to be able to hear what it was saying.”

He takes a gloomy view of the likelihood that the political class will soon come to its senses. ”One suspects that a fair amount of the shrillness of the climate message derives from a fear that something will happen to prick the scientific balloon so carefully inflated and overstretched over the last few decades. But the IPCC doesn’t really need to worry. The difficulty for the sceptics is that credible argument against accepted wisdom requires, as did the development of the accepted wisdom itself, large-scale resources which can only be supplied by the research institutions. Without those resources, the sceptic is only an amateur who can quite easily be confined to outer darkness.”

In the last chapter, Paltridge lists some hidden agendas. ”There are those who, like president (Jacques) Chirac of France, look with favour on the possibility of an international de-carbonisation regime because it would be the first step towards global government. There are those who, like the socialists before them, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between individual nations. There are those who, like the powerbrokers of the European Union, look upon such action as a basis for legitimacy. There are those who, like bureaucrats the world over, regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of power which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions. More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue.”

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

Washington Post’s Own Meteorologist goes Against the newspapers Official line of promoting Global Warming Hysteria

10 september, 2009

More and more people have had enough of the religious gospel that most of the mainstream media is spreading. AT THE SAME TIME AS THESE MEDIA IS CENSORING AND INTIMIDATING EVERYONE WHO HAS OPPOSED THIS HYSTERIA.

A truly “worthy” goal for the organizations and companies whose goals was supposed to protect and enhance freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Talking about the ultimate betrayal of all that good and independent journalism was supposed to be.

One such brave man is Washington Post own meteorologist Matt Rogers, (former director of Weather for MDA EarthSat Weather); who have had enough of his own papers spreading of this hysteria.

In his own words here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/09/

a_skeptical_perspective_on_glo.html

A Skeptical Take on Global Warming

This Capital Weather Gang blog entry is written with considerable trepidation given the politically-charged atmosphere surrounding human-induced global warming.

I am a meteorologist with a life-long weather fascination. As I’m sure you know, meteorology is an inexact science due to the large number of variables involved in predicting and understanding the weather. I frequently say that weather forecasting is a humbling endeavor, and I have learned to respect its challenges. From this perspective, you might be able to better understand why I wince when hearing pronouncements such as ”the science is settled”, ”the debate is over”, or even the ”the temperature in the 2050s is projected to be…” I realize that forecasting climate and weather are different, but both involve a large number of moving parts.

There are numerous reasons why I question the consensus view on human-induced climate change covered extensively on this blog by Andrew Freedman. But for this entry, I scaled them down to ten:

(10) Hurricanes: One of the strongest value propositions presented for fighting global warming is to slow tropical cyclone intensity increases. Katrina was cited as a prime example. But the storm only made landfall as a category three (five being strongest) and affected a city built below sea level. Stronger storms have hit North America before, but the Katrina route and the weak levees made this situation much worse. I follow global hurricane activity closely and earlier this summer, we reached a record low. Florida State has a site that tracks global hurricane activity here. Since the 1990s, this activity has been decreasing, which goes against what we were told to expect on a warming planet.

(9) Ice Caps: In 2007, the Northern Hemisphere reached a record low in ice coverage and the Northwest Passage was opened. At that point, we were told melting was occurring faster than expected, and we needed to accelerate our efforts. What you were not told was that the data that triggered this record is only available back to the late 1970s. Prior to that, we did not have the satellite technology to measure areal ice extent. We know the Northwest Passage had been open before. In Antarctica, we had been told that a cooling of the continent was consistent with global climate models until a recent study announced the opposite was true. The lack of information and the inconsistencies do not offer confidence.

(8) El Niño: This feature in the Tropical Pacific Ocean occurs when water temperatures are abnormally warm. Some climate change researchers predicted that global warming would create more and stronger El Niño events like the powerhouse of 1997-98. Indeed in 2006, esteemed climate scientist James Hansen, predicted this. But we are now about to complete an entire decade without a strong El Niño event (three occurred in the 1980s-1990s). So the more recent 2007 IPCC report backtracked from Hansen’s prediction, noting that there were too many uncertainties to understand how El Niño will behave with climate change. Recent research speaks to how important El Niño is to climate. In the past two decades, these warm El Niño and opposite cold La Niña events have accentuated the global temperature peaks and valleys highlighting the importance of natural variability and the limitations of the science.

(7) Climate Models: To be blunt, the computer models that policy-makers are using to make key decisions failed to collectively inform us of the flat global land-sea temperatures seen in the 2000s (see more on this in item 5 below). The UN IPCC did offer fair warning of model inadequacies in their 2007 assessment. They mentioned a number of challenges, which is wholly reasonable since countless factors contribute to our global climate system–many of them not fully understood. My belief is that they are over-estimating anthropogenic (human) forcing influences and under-estimating natural variability (like the current cold-phase Pacific Decadal Oscillation and solar cycles). The chaos theory describes why it is far more difficult to project the future than climate scientists may realize (I give them a break here since climate modeling is in its relative infancy). We poor hapless meteorologists learned the chaos theory lesson long ago.

(6) CO2 (Carbon Dioxide): The argument that the air we currently exhale is a bona fide pollutant due to potential impacts on climate change flummoxes me. CO2 is also plant food. Plants release oxygen for us, and we release CO2 for them. Over the summer, CO2 reached almost .04% of our total atmosphere as reported here. Because CO2 is but a sliver of our atmosphere, it is known as a ”trace gas.” We all agree that it is increasing, but is there a chance that our estimate of its influence on the Greenhouse Effect is overblown given its small atmospheric ratio?

(5) Global Temperatures: As a meteorologist, verification is very important for guiding my work and improving future forecasts. The verification for global warming is struggling. Three of four major datasets that track global estimates show 1998 as the warmest year on record with temperatures flat or falling since then. Even climate change researchers now admit that global temperature has been flat since that peak. As shown above, the CO2 chart continues upwards unabated. If the relationship is as solid as we are told, then why isn’t global temperature responding? I’m told by climate change researchers that the current situation is within the bounds of model expectations. However, when I look at the IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1 report, I can see that without major warming in the next 1-2 years, we will fall outside those bounds. This is why I believe James Hansen is predicting a global temperature record in the next two years.

(4) Solar Issue: Look for this issue to get bigger. Our sun is currently becoming very quiet. Not only is the number of sunspots falling dramatically, but the intensity of the sunspots is weakening. The coincident timing of major solar minimums with cooler global temperatures (such as during the Little Ice Age) suggests that maybe the sun is underestimated as a component for influencing climate. The second half of the twentieth century (when we saw lots of warming) was during a major solar maximum period– which is now ending. Total solar irradiance has been steady or sinking similar to our global temperatures over much of this past decade. Indeed, recent research has suggested the solar factor is underestimated (here and here). Perhaps one day, we’ll have a different version of James Carville’s famous political quote…something like ”It’s the sun, stupid!”

(3) But what about…? Ultimately after I explain my viewpoint on climate change, I get this question: ”But what about all this crazy weather we’ve been having lately?” As a student of meteorology, we learned about amazing weather events in the past that have not been rivaled in the present. Whether it was the 1900 Galveston Hurricane, the 1889 Johnstown Flood, or even the worst tornado outbreak in history (1974), we have and will continue to see crazy weather. Very few statistics are available that correctly show an increase in these ”crazy” events.

(2) Silencing Dissent: I believe the climate is always changing. But what percentage of that change is human-induced? Like most, I believe that a more balanced energy supply benefits us politically due to the reduced reliance on foreign sources and benefits us locally due to improved air quality. But several times during debates individuals have told me I should not question the ”settled science” due to the moral imperative of ”saving the planet”. As with a religious debate, I’m told that my disagreement means I do not ”care enough” and even if correct, I should not question the science. This frightens me.

(1) Pullback: Does climate change hysteria represent another bubble waiting to burst? From the perspective of the alarmism and the saturation of the message, the answer could be yes. I believe that when our science or economic experts tend to be incorrect, it usually involves predictions that have underperformed expectations (Y2K, SARS, oil supply, etc). Can we think of any other expert-given, consensus-based, long-term predictions that have verified correctly? Not one comes to mind. I believe that predictions of human-caused climate change will continue to be overdone, and we’ll discover that natural factors are equally and sometimes even more important.

Let me end by offering all the appropriate disclaimer information. I respect Andrew Freedman and his beliefs. We have had a number of discussions both publicly and privately regarding our differing viewpoints, and he has been nothing but respectful and professional. The viewpoints presented in this entry are my own and do not represent the Capital Weather Gang, the Washington Post, or my company, the Commodity Weather Group.

By Matt Rogers |  September 10, 2009; 10:00 AM ET

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

Why Obama is losing it – He forgot the wellbeing of the normal people

9 september, 2009

I am here going to present polls, statistics etc that you would find it very hard to find in the Swedish press and media, which are singing in the Obama hallelujah choir.

Forgetting that they are supposed to be “journalists”, not spin doctors.

As with the Global Warming Hysteria, they have sadly betrayed everything that good and independent journalism should stand for.

Obama went to the presidential election promising change and portraying himself as a moderate politician and pragmatist. The problem was that most of the American people never understood how radical that change was meant to be.

But his radical policies have finally caught up with him and the normal American people have taken notice.

-The stimulus package of $787 billion which have hardly stimulated anything, let alone created any jobs.

– The Cap and trade bill that meant that the Blue Dog democrats lost their credibility among their voters.

And now the Obama health care plan which is going to cost bare minimum a $1 trillion and more likely $2 trillion during the next 10 years.

As a consequence the budget deficit is running wild under Obama – The deficit in 2008 was $455 billion. At the end of this year it has soared to almost $1.6 trillion. That my folks are a quadrupling IN ONE YEAR. A new world record!

Currently, the U.S. Debt is estimated at EST 4 pm today: $11,803,653,380,955.

Your share of today’s public debt is: $38,398

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

And as a consequence of this awakening to what change means in Obama speak, the normal American people have started to react. Look at this chart over health care and the drastic difference in just 6 months:

Health Care 2009-09-08.jpg

 

And look at this chart of independents. They were the ones that made Obama and the democrats victory so big (together with all disgruntled republicans) because most of them voted for the democrats. And they played a KEY ROLE in tipping some swing states. And look at this chart and the drastic difference in just 6 months:

 

Job Approval Independents 2009-09-08.jpg

 

And then there is the Gallup poll that shows that more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal.

The news isn’t just that self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals nationwide. That’s old news. The big news from Gallup is that conservatives outnumber liberals in every state in the union, including supposedly very liberal Vermont and Massachusetts. (Look at the chart below)

The strength of ”conservative” over ”liberal” vividly apparent in Gallup’s state-level data, where a significantly higher percentage of Americans in most states, even some solidly Democratic ones, call themselves conservative rather than liberal.

“Despite the Democratic Party’s political strength (majority in Congress and in state houses across the country), more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal. While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level. Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”

Gallup poll here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx

State jan-june

 

And then there are the Obama Czars, more than 35+ of them:

Obama and the Left

The lesson of the rise and fall of Van Jones., SEPTEMBER 8, 2009, 5:49 A.M. ET

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574399452969175732.html#printMode

“As a candidate, Barack Obama was at pains to offer himself as a man of moderate policies, and especially of moderate temperament. He said he would listen to both the right and left, choosing the best of each depending on ”what works.” He sold himself as a center-left pragmatist. When his radical associations—Reverend Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers—came to light, Candidate Obama promptly disavowed them. Now comes Mr. Jones, with a long trail of extreme comments and left-wing organizing, who nonetheless became the White House adviser for ”green jobs.” This weekend he too was thrown under the bus.

However, Mr. Jones wasn’t some unknown crazy who insinuated himself with the Obama crowd under false pretenses. He has been a leading young light of the left-wing political movement for many years. His 2008 book—”The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems”—includes a foreword from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and was praised across the liberal establishment.

Mr. Jones was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which was established, funded and celebrated as the new intellectual vanguard of the Democratic Party. The center’s president is John Podesta, who was co-chair of Mr. Obama’s transition team and thus played a major role in recommending appointees throughout the Administration. The ascent of Mr. Jones within the liberal intelligentsia shows how much the Democratic Party has moved left since its ”New Democrat” triangulation of the Clinton years.

Mr. Jones’s incendiary comments about Republicans and his now famous association with a statement blaming the U.S. for 9/11 had to have been known in some White House precincts. He was praised and sponsored by Valerie Jarrett, who is one of the two or three most powerful White House aides and is a long-time personal friend of the President.

Our guess is that Mr. Jones landed in the White House precisely because his job didn’t require Senate confirmation, which would have subjected him to more scrutiny. This is also no doubt a reason that Mr. Obama has consolidated so much of his Administration’s governing authority inside the White House under various ”czars.” Mr. Jones was poised to play a prominent role in disbursing tens of billions of dollars of stimulus money. It was the ideal perch from which he could keep funding the left-wing networks from which he sprang, this time with taxpayer money.”

“Mr. Sirota is speaking for many on the movement left who believe they helped to elect Mr. Obama and therefore deserve seats at the inner table of power. They are increasingly frustrated because they are discovering that Mr. Obama will happily employ ”movement progressives,” but only so long as their real views and motivations aren’t widely known or understood. How bitter it must be to discover that the Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck, who drove the debate about Mr. Jones, counts for more at this White House than Mr. Sirota. “

“….but the rise and fall of Mr. Jones is one more warning that Mr. Obama can’t succeed on his current course of governing from the left. He is running into political trouble not because his own message is unclear, or because his opposition is better organized. Mr. Obama is falling in the polls because last year he didn’t tell the American people that the ”change” they were asked to believe in included trillions of dollars in new spending, deferring to the most liberal Members of Congress, a government takeover of health care, and appointees with the views of Van Jones.”

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

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

varning-2

Temperature measurements since 1701 Refute Human caused temperature fluctuations – Open letter from 67 German scientists

6 september, 2009

The opposition to the Global warming Hysteria is growing among scientists, who no longer are afraid of speaking their mind. Regardless of the censorship and intimidation from the press, media, politicians and fellow “scientists” of everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

So, as a complement to my resent posts here comes more than 67 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their opposition to the man-made global warming hysteria in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Among the more than 67 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

“History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time.” 

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.”

“More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. “

“In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. …..Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming.”

Original open letter in german here:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-anzeige/klimawandel-offener-brief-an-kanzlerin-merkel-temperaturmessungen-ab-1701-widerlegen-anthropogen-verursachte-temperaturschwankungen/

Open letter in english here:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Merkelbrief_Englisch_-1.pdf

Signed by:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Unterzeichner_30.8.09.pdf

Temperature measurements here:

 http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Kernaussagen_2.pdf

    Temperature measurements from 46 stations since 1700

2009-09-06_141426

                     Temperature changes in Berlin since 1701

2009-09-06_141510

                   Temperature changes between 1870 to 2008

2009-09-06_144240

   Temperature changes on continents between 1860 to 2001

2009-09-06_145851

     Temperature changes in regions between 1860 to 2001

2009-09-06_144525

                     CO2 measurements between 1900 to 1960

2009-09-06_145549

           CO2 measurements in Liege between 1883 to 1884

2009-09-06_145528

Sea level changes in the North sea during the last 3000 years

2009-09-06_145405

                    Changes in IPCC prognosis on sea level rise

2009-09-06_163837

   Infrared radiation from the sun between 1600 and 2000

2009-09-06_144659

 

Open Letter – Climate Change

Bundeskanzleramt

Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel

Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1

10557 Berlin

#

Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a

E-mail: limburg@grafik-system.de

Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.

 The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world’s best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed – under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe

Universität. – GH – Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

#

Dr. Holger Thuß

EIKE President

European Institute for Climate and Energy

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

 

Klimawandel: Offener Brief an Kanzlerin Merkel – ”Temperaturmessungen ab 1701 widerlegen anthropogen verursachte Temperaturschwankungen

In einem offenen Brief an die Physikerin und Kanzlerin Frau Dr. Merkel fordern über 280 Wissenschaftler und engagierte kompetente Bürger, die Kanzlerin möge sich nicht länger den offensichtlichen Fakten gegenüber verschließen und von der Pseudoreligion der anthropogenen Erwärmung ablassen. Dazu gehört auch, sich nicht länger von Leuten, wie dem Kanzlerinberater und PIK Chef Prof. Dr. Schellnhuber, täuschen zu lassen. Derselbe Schellnhuber, der öffentlich etwas anderes sagt, als in wissenschaftlichen Zirkeln. Öffentlich tut er seine Verzweiflung über die ”Klimakatastrophe” kund: So im ZEIT-Interview :”Manchmal könnte ich schreien” (DIE ZEIT: 26.03.2009) und darin auf die Frage zur Entwicklung an der Klimafront: ”Und wie ist die Lage?” Sch.: ”Verdammt ungemütlich… Viele Worst-Case-Szenarien werden von der Wirklichkeit übertroffen.” Doch in einem erst vor kurzem erschienenen Aufsatz zur menschgemachten Klimakatastrophe schreibt er als Mitautor ” Bei den allermeisten Stationen stellten wir keine Anzeichen für eine globale Erwärmung der Atmosphäre fest. Ausnahmen sind Bergstationen in den Alpen” Schellnhubers Äußerungen sind bipolar. Je nachdem, wer Auftraggeber ist. Für Kanzlerin Dr. Merkel werden Katastrophen benötigt. Im Wissenschaftsbericht stellt er die Lage so dar wie sie ist. Von Klimakatastrophe keine Spur.

Betrifft: Klimawandel – ein offener Brief

Sehr verehrte Frau Bundeskanzlerin,

 aus der Geschichte können wir lernen, dass oft der Zeitgeist die Entwicklung der Gesellschaften bestimmt hat; mancher hatte schlimme oder gar schreckliche Auswirkungen. Die Geschichte lehrt uns auch, dass politisch Verantwortliche nicht selten verhängnisvolle Entscheidungen getroffen haben, weil sie inkompetenten oder ideologisierten Beratern gefolgt sind, und das nicht rechtzeitig erkannten. Außerdem lehrt uns die Evolution, dass die Entwicklung zwar viele Wege beschreitet, die meisten aber in Sackgassen enden.  Keine Epoche ist vor Wiederholungen gefeit.

Politiker suchen zu Beginn ihrer Laufbahn ein Thema, mit dem sie sich profilieren können. Als Umweltministerin haben Sie das verständlicherweise auch getan. Sie haben den Klimawandel entdeckt, und er wurde Ihnen zur Herzensangelegenheit. Dabei ist Ihnen ein folgenschwerer Fehler unterlaufen, was angesichts dieses Metiers gerade Ihnen als Physikerin nicht hätte passieren dürfen. Sie haben den Klimawandel als menschengemacht anerkannt und teure Strategien zur Vermeidung des sogenannten Treibhausgases CO2 als Handlungsmaxime verinnerlicht, ohne vorher in wirklich kontroversen Diskussionen prüfen zu lassen, ob auch die früheren Temperaturmessungen und viele weitere relevante Klimafakten diese Annahme überhaupt rechtfertigen. Tatsächlich tun sie es nicht!

 Bei einer umfassenden Prüfung, die wegen der Bedeutung für uns alle zwingend erforderlich gewesen wäre,  hätte sich schon vor der Gründung des IPCC gezeigt, dass wir keine CO2-kausal begründbare globale Erwärmung haben, sondern periodische Temperaturschwankungen normalen Ausmaßes. Dementsprechend hat sich die Atmosphäre seit 1998 – also seit 10 Jahren – nicht weiter erwärmt und seit 2003 wird es sogar wieder deutlich kühler. Keines der teuren Klimamodelle hat diese Abkühlung prognostiziert. Laut IPCC hätte es weiter und unvermindert wärmer werden müssen.

Aber, was wichtiger ist, anthropogenes CO2 spielt dabei keinerlei erkennbare Rolle. Der vom CO2 absorbierbare Strahlungsanteil ist bereits durch die gegenwärtige Konzentration nahezu ausgeschöpft. Selbst wenn CO2 eine Wirkung hätte und alle fossilen Brennstoffvorräte verbrannt würden, bliebe die zusätzliche Erwärmung langfristig auf den Bereich von Zehntelgraden beschränkt.

 Das IPCC hätte diesen Sachverhalt auch feststellen müssen, hat jedoch bei seiner Arbeit 160 Jahre Temperaturmessungen und 150 Jahre CO2-Bestimmungen außer Acht gelassen und damit jeden Anspruch auf Wissenschaftlichkeit verloren. Die wesentlichen Aussagen zu diesem Thema sind als Kernaussagen beigefügt.

Inzwischen wurde die Überzeugung vom Klimawandel und dessen menschlicher Urheberschaft  zu einer Pseudoreligion entwickelt. Ihre Verfechter stellen nüchtern und sachbezogen analysierende Realisten, zu denen ein Großteil der internationalen Wissenschaftlerelite gehört, bedenkenlos an den Pranger. Im Internet findet man zum Glück zahlreiche Arbeiten, die detailliert nachweisen, dass es keinen durch anthropogenes CO2 verursachten Klimawandel gibt. Gäbe es das Internet nicht, könnten sich die Klimarealisten kaum Gehör verschaffen, denn ihre kritischen Beiträge werden nur noch selten veröffentlicht.

Die deutschen Medien nehmen in der Ablehnung solcher Beiträge einen traurigen Spitzenplatz ein. Beispiel: Im März diesen Jahres fand  in New York die 2. Internationale Klimakonferenz der Klimarealisten statt. An dieser wichtigen Konferenz nahmen ca. 800 führende Wissenschaftler teil, darunter viele der weltbesten Klimatologen bzw. Fachleute verwandter Disziplinen.  Während die US-Medien und hier nur die Wiener Zeitung ausführlich darüber  berichteten, haben bei uns Presse, Fernsehen und Radio geschwiegen. Es ist bitter, feststellen zu müssen, wie sich unsere Medien weiterentwickelt haben: In früheren Diktaturen wurde ihnen mitgeteilt, was nicht berichtenswert sei, heutzutage wissen sie es leider ohne Anweisungen.

Meinen Sie nicht auch, dass Wissenschaft nicht nur die Suche nach der Bestätigung einer These ist, sondern vor allem die Prüfung, ob das Gegenteil die Realitäten besser erklärt? Wir ersuchen Sie daher, Frau Dr. Merkel, Ihre Position zu diesem Komplex gründlich zu überdenken und ein vom Potsdamer Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (PIK) unabhängiges ideologiefreies Gremium einzuberufen, in dem kontroverse Argumente offen ausgetragen werden können. Wir Unterzeichner wollen hierzu gerne unsere Hilfe anbieten.

 Wir verbleiben mit freundlichen Grüssen

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe.  Universität. – GH –  Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

Dr. Holger Thuß EIKE Präsident Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Die Kernaussagen können als pdf Datei herunter geladen werden s.u.

* in der Physical Review E68, 046133 (2003) ,** Interview Die Zeit

Mitunterzeichner: (wer gern zusätzlich unterschreiben möchte verwende bitte die Kommentarfunktion dazu)

Wissenschaftler

1 Prof. Dr. Hans-Günter Appel Hütteningenieur und Werkstoffwissenschaftler.

2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Prof .für  Ökonometrie und angewandte Mathematik VizeDekan der Universität Poznan   Polen

3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Leiter des Instituts für Schwingungstechnik, FH Düsseldorf   bis zum Ruhestand 2002

4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Geschäftsführer / Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH – Environmental Services

5 Dipl.Biologe Ernst Georg Beck

6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Dipl.Physiker

7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Biologe ehem. MdL BW Grüne

8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Biochemiker

9 Dr.Ing. Ivo Busko Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V.  in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Institut für Technische Physik

10 Dr. Ing. Gottfried Class nukleare Sicherheit, Kernfusion, Thermohydraulik, physikalische Chemie

11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Kernphysiker Thermodynamiker, Energietechniker

12 Dr. rer. nat. Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energieexperte

13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze

14 Dr. rer. nat. Siegfried Dittrich Physikochemiker

15 Dr.rer.nat. Theo Eichten Diplom-Physiker

16 Oliver Elias Agentur Ute Nicolai

17 Ferroni Ferruccio Zürich Präsident NIPCC-SUISSE

18 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agrarbiologe, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay

19 Dr. rer..nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Dipl. Geologe

20 Dr. rer.nat. Josef Große- Wördemann Physikochemiker

21 Dr. rer. nat. Günther Hauck Dipl.-Chem.  

22 Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Detlef Hebert ehem. Fakultät für Chemie und Physik Institut für Angewandte Physik

23 Dipl. Geologe Heinisch Heinisch

24 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Dipl. Chemiker

25 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Uni-Münster Institut für Physikalische Chemie 

26 Dipl. Geologe Andreas Hoemann Dipl. Geologe

27 Dr. rer. nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker

28 Dr. rer.nat. Bernd Hüttner Theor. Physiker

29 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein dipl. Physiker & Geograph

30 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH

31 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster Agrarwissenschaftler

32 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemiker Forschung

33 Dr. rer. nat Norbert Kunert Dipl. Geologe

34 Dr. rer. nat. Peter Kuzel Diplomchemiker  

35 Drs.oek. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert reviewer, Dipl. Kfm.

36 Dr. rer.nat Ludwig Laus Dipl. Geologe

37 Dr. rer.nat. Rainer Link Physiker

38 Dipl. Pysiker Alfred Loew

39 Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke Dipl. Physiker HTW Saarbrücken

40 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg Universitätsprofessor (A.D.) für Meteorologie und Klimatologie 

41 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologe

42 Diplom-Meteorologe Dieter Niketta

43 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Leiter ehem. des Geol.-Paläont. Museums der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster 

44 Dr. rer.nat. Wolfgang Poppitz Chemiker

45 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus-Eckart Puls Dipl. Meteorologe

46 Prof. Dr. Dieter Pumplün Mathematik

47 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Hochschule OWL Abt. Höxter 

48 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser UNI Regensburg

49 Dipl. Physiker Wolfgang Riede Dipl.-Phys. ETH, DLR Stuttgart

50 Dipl.-Ing. Wolfgang Sander

51 Diplom- Mineralogin Sabine Sauerberg Geowissenschaftlerin

52 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemiker

53 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien Hochschullehrer i.R.

54 PD Dr.habil.Dr.rer.nat. Eckhard Schulze Dipl.Pys., Med. Physik

55 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Dipl.-Geologe

56 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physikochemiker

57 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Diplomchemiker

58 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Gutachter

59 Dr.phil. Dipl. Meteorologe Wolfgang Thüne Umweltministerium Mainz

60 Dr. rer. oec., Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energiewirtschaftler, Institut für Energetik, Leipzig

61 Dipl. Meteorologe Horst Veit

62 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe ehem. Hauptgeschäftsführer DVS

63 Dipl. Geograph Heiko Wiese Geographie, Meteorologie, stud. Wetterbeobachter)

64 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologe

65 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Dipl Geologe

66 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Bodenkunde

67 Dr.rer.nat. Mathias Zucketto

Besorgte engagierte Bürger

212 namen

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

Climate Model biases are still a serious problem says IPCC scientist

5 september, 2009

At least some of the scientist and Global Warming Hysterics are starting to come to their senses.  And backing of from the all familiar mantra “The science is settles, there is nothing to discuss. it’s completely immoral, even, to question now”.

“Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts,” said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.

So could some please “inform our “dear and intelligent” politicians before they succeed in destroying our freedom, wealth and economic living standard.

See also all my posts on climate models:

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/klimatmodeller/

And temperature data

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/temperaturdata/

And IPCC

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/ipcc/

 And PDO and NDO

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

NO correlation between the shifts in the net flow of heat in oceans and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration

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

 CO2 monthly mean at Mauna Loa leveling off, dropping?

All Oceans are steadily cooling

 Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This

Se also:

No climate model had ever been validated!

A Climate of Belief – The Story of Climate models!

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models

Climate computer models wrong on Mars, as on Earth

Fatal Errors in IPCC’S Global Climate Models

Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC

The IPCC must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices!

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS,

The Globe is Cooling and the temperatures keep going down

Global Warming Hysteria – Governments AND Media Together Close Down The Debate

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

Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!

Article here

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

World’s climate could cool first, warm later

17:56 04 September 2009 by Fred Pearce, Geneva

Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world’s top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter ”one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

”People will say this is global warming disappearing,” he told more than 1500 of the world’s top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN’s World Climate Conference.

”I am not one of the sceptics,” insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. ”However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.”

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.

Nature vs humans

This is bad timing. The UN’s World Meteorological Organization called the conference in order to draft a global plan for providing ”climate services” to the world: that is, to deliver climate predictions useful to everyone from farmers worried about the next rainy season to doctors trying to predict malaria epidemics and builders of dams, roads and other infrastructure who need to assess the risk of floods and droughts 30 years hence.

But some of the climate scientists gathered in Geneva to discuss how this might be done admitted that, on such timescales, natural variability is at least as important as the long-term climate changes from global warming. ”In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year,” said Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office.

Cold Atlantic

Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. ”But how much? The jury is still out,” he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. ”The oceans are key to decadal natural variability,” he said.

Another favourite climate nostrum was upturned when Pope warned that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. Preliminary reports suggest there has been much less melting this year than in 2007 or 2008.

In candid mood, climate scientists avoided blaming nature for their faltering predictions, however. ”Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts,” said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.

The world may badly want reliable forecasts of future climate. But such predictions are proving as elusive as the perfect weather forecast.

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


%d bloggare gillar detta: