Författararkiv

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

Annonser

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

29 augusti, 2009

I have written extensible about the UN pack, this travelling circus that fly around the globe in first class, or private jet, stay in hotel rooms at £400-500 per night in spa resorts, and gets wined and dined at expensive restaurants.

All of this of course paid by us, the normal people.

While they at the same time preach austerity, frugality and sacrifice from us, the taxpayers.

This blatant hypocrisy is so mind numbing that it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these people have the power to force us to obey them.

They are a truly parasitic class in the sense that Karl Marx wrote about it.

How ironic that today most of this class is leftists and so called “liberals”.

Below is an article by Lorrie Goldstein where he makes the same observations.

As I said in my posts:

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

”So if the Global Warming Hysterics want to succeed the formula is very simple:

Start civil wars, Support dictators, Oppress ALL political freedoms and rights, and keep the people in TOTAL poverty.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, will you succeed in reducing mankind to enough poverty and slavery to be able to succeed in this “worthy” goal to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

They, the Dictators, are great at reducing EVERYTHING, including CO2 emissions.

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.”

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!

”Environmentalism is an anti-human, anti-science-and-technology religion which has gripped the world. It worships a nebulous undefined indefinable entity called The Environment which has some of the characteristics of the Christian Heaven, is an ideal place, existing somewhere on the earth, but without humans. It is a jealous God, demanding ever increasing sacrifices to satisfy its demands.”

The essential dogma of Environmentalism is the belief that humans are destroying the earth, or, as they prefer it, the planet.. Evolution is invariably harmful, and is exclusively conducted by humans. It must be prevented at whatever cost.

”The environment” is envisaged as one or more ”ecosystems”, patterned on the Garden of Eden,  unchanging, static, ”balanced” associations of organisms which are ”fragile”, and ”threatened” by evolution, which is wielded exclusively by humans, whose every activity ”damages” this idyllic  paradise. Evolution has to be stopped, or even reversed.”

The necessary and universal mechanism of evolution, the extinction of organisms which can no longer survive, to be replaced by the newcomers, is seen as evil. ”Endangered species” have to be preserved at all costs, and the newly evolving ones exterminated as pests.

Sustainability is the reverse of evolution. It is a bedfellow with conservatism and conservation.  People dislike change, so we must stop it.

Humans, like other creatures, survive by modifying the world in our favour. There is therefore something to be said for maintainability, such as measures to keep fish stocks at a reasonable level, or to preserve the fertility of soil, but retainability, keeping things the same for its own sake, is futile. Evolution happens whatever you try to do to stop it. Sustainable development is an oxymoron, a contradiction.

The Precautionary Principle does the reverse. The greatest precautions and the greatest costs are to be taken when the risk is small or even zero. All risks are exaggerated and the highest cost and greatest inconvenience are always chosen.

Developments in technology are always harmful and dangerous, and must be prevented. This applies particularly to Genetic Modification and Nuclear Power..

Instead of choosing the cheapest alternative of an action, environmentalists insist on the most expensive, because the Environment requires it. This may take the form of protracted legal cost for permission, or the use of unnecessarily expensive technology.

Thus vehicles must burn biofuels which raise the price of food and increase poverty. An extreme example is the use of hydrogen in vehicles. This is expensive, inconvenient and dangerous, so we must do it.

Reverse economics is now being applied internationally. The disasters caused by environmentalism such as the high cost of energy and food, are being tackled by the least effective method, the printing of money. This is the policy which led to the downfall of the German Weimar Republic, and is the cause of the current disaster in Zimbabwe.

The advertising industry has softened up the public to accept the most outrageous swindles by endless repetition, the use of phony logic and the endorsement by celebrities. Science is in decline and is being taken over by the pseudoscience of the environment. It has thus become possible to put over on the public the most outrageous spin ever. They have selected, distorted and fabricated scientific results to justify the environmentalist creed with huge success. Everything can be ”linked” with  disaster  whatever the probability.

They get repeated free advertising in nearly all media and ”debate” no longer exists. Every event is referred to environmentalist priests for comment. Other comments are not welcome. Some people make a lot of money out of it.”

Al Gore, James Hansen – Carbon Communists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Se also my posts:

Miljökonferensen på Balis stora miljökostnader

Miljökonferensen på Balis verkliga inre liv

Öppet brev till FN och konferensen på Bali

Realpolitik i klimat dimmorna

Hycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna råd

Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint – continuation!

Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!

Al Gores energislösande hem

Al Gores energislösande resande

Obamas Big Carbon Footprint

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

Scare the wits out of people with Global warming, then make money off their fear.

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!

The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!)

Local and global environmental policy is lead by a coterie of fanatics and their powerful opportunistic bedfellows

“Sustainability” and Carbon Taxes runs amok in my town

Climate of Fear – 5!

Svindeln och fusket med utsläppsrätter!

EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!

 

Article here:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/08/23/10569871-sun.html

Orgies of consumption

UN climate conferences pull together jet-setters in far flung exotic locales. What a load of hot air

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Last Updated: 23rd August 2009, 4:59am

One of the most reliable ways to determine whether people are behaving hypocritically is to examine what they do as opposed to what they say.

Using that standard, the thousands upon thousands of jet setters who, year in and year out, attend never-ending United Nations climate change conferences in some of the world’s most popular and exotic locales, define the word ”hypocrite.”

This includes everyone from UN officials, to politicians, bureaucrats, celebrities, high-flying global ”green” entrepreneurs and environmentalists.

If everyone in the world would or could generate the massive carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions this crowd does as they jet in and out of Bali, Copenhagen, Bonn, Barcelona, Bangkok, Paris, Vienna, Valencia, Sydney, Rio De Janeiro, Washington, New York, Montreal, Anchorage and on and on, the Hollywood disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow would have been a documentary.

That is, if you believe the hysteria these same people incessantly spout about how the world will rapidly come to an end in an Armageddon of weather extremes, unless everyone massively reduces their carbon footprint and leads simpler lives … except them.

The next orgy of UN-inspired carbon-emitting will come in Copenhagen from Dec. 7-18, ostensibly aimed at developing a successor agreement to the Kyoto accord, when an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 UN hangers-on will descend upon Denmark’s capital, once again making airline reservations, five-star hotel rooms and rented SUVs an endangered species.

The only good news for the planet is the Danish foreign ministry recently cancelled 20,000 overnight hotel reservations in advance of the conference because not as many people as initially thought may turn up. But don’t hold any tag days for the conference just yet — the Copenhagen Post reports the government remains confident the other 100,000 overnight stays it has pre-booked will be filled.

During a previous UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia in December, 2007, Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, estimated the 10,000 climate change revellers staying in one of the world’s most exotic — and hottest — tourist locales, emitted enough GHG during their 12-day stay to nearly match what the African nation of Chad (population 10 million) emits in a year.

The UN claimed the emissions were only half that, or, as The Associated Press reported, the equivalent to what a modern Western city of 1.5 million people, say Marseille, emits in a day.

The point is, you can’t fool the planet. Flying, air conditioning, caravans of SUVs shuttling around VIPs, exotic food and drink ordered up in five-star hotels (often on the public’s dime) all create GHG emissions, regardless of whether the person doing it is the CEO of an oil company, or a diplomat who’s ”concerned” about climate change.

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer has been asked about this huge disconnect between what these UN conferences preach and what they do, but sees no problem at all.

”Wherever you held it, people would still have to travel to get there,” he said in Bali. ”The question is perhaps: Do you need to do it at all? My answer to that is yes.”

Fine. My answer is ”no.”

No, the UN doesn’t need to stage these orgies of consumption in the name of moderation.

It isn’t necessary in the age of instant global communications and it’s obscene during a world-wide recession.

The last refuge of these scoundrels is that they buy ”carbon offsets” to reduce their carbon footprint to zero, a claim so absurd to anyone who understands the science of global warming, it’s beyond laughable.

Once you emit a greenhouse gas, there’s no way to put the genie back in the bottle. The only way not to emit it, is not to emit it.

That’s just the inconvenient truth.

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

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL COOLING – This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling

27 augusti, 2009

“This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling. The only time that there was a decrease in emissions was from 1979 to 1982 when the world was warming.

The only part of the Earth’s thermal radiative spectrum that is affected by CO2 is the 14.77micron band, but Arrhenius, unaware of this fact used measurements limited to only 9.7microns and therefore was not actually measuring the effect from CO2.

It is easily demonstrated that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Over the three years from 1979 to 1982 when CO2 emissions were decreasing due to the rapid increase in the price of oil that drastically reduced consumption, there was no change in the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 proving that humans were not the primary source for the increase in concentration.”

Comparing climate alarmist Hansen to Cassandra is WRONG. Cassandra’s (Greek mythology) dire prophecies were never believed but were always right. Hansen’s dire prophecies are usually believed but are always wrong (Prof. Laurence Gould, U of Hartford, CT)

The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken

Here are some revealing quotes from some environmentalists. They are SOOOO humane are they not:

The First Global Revolution” (1991, p. 104) published by the ”Club of Rome”: In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.

—David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.

—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS

—Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.

—Lamont Cole

Poverty For “Those People”

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.

—Carl Amery

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

http://www.pushback.com/environment/EcoFreakQuotes.html

Article here:

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/08/anthropogenic-global-cooling-email-from.html

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL COOLING?

An email from Norm Kalmanovitch [kalhnd@shaw.ca]

There is a very good case to be made for anthropogenic global cooling from CO2 emissions. The beginning of rapid increases in global CO2 emissions started in 1945 with the rapid increase in post war industrialization that has seen CO2 emissions rise from under 4gt/year in 1945, to over 31.5gt/year today. This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling. The only time that there was a decrease in emissions was from 1979 to 1982 when the world was warming.

This forms a positive correlation of sufficient statistical significance to make a reasonable case for this relationship to be valid. Although correlation is not causation, there is nothing in the current science literature database that demonstrates any contrary evidence so based solely on ”peer reviewed” science literature (as is the case for AGW), this hypothesis could be taken as valid.

The original paper on this topic by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 can be shown to be in error because at the time quantum physics had not yet revealed the physical process of interaction between the Earth’s radiative energy and atmospheric CO2.

The only part of the Earth’s thermal radiative spectrum that is affected by CO2 is the 14.77micron band, but Arrhenius, unaware of this fact used measurements limited to only 9.7microns and therefore was not actually measuring the effect from CO2. He also used an experimental source for thermal radiation that was at 100°C, and the radiative spectrum from this source includes the 4.2micron wavelength band of CO2 that is not part of the Earth’s radiative spectrum, so he was not measuring the actual effect from the thermal radiation from the Earth.

In 1970 the Nimbus 4 satellite measured the Earth’s radiative spectrum showing that the spectral band affected by CO2 had a deep notch in it centred on 14.77microns. This deep notch demonstrated that well over 90% of the possible effect had already been achieved from just the 325ppmv atmospheric concentration of CO2, so further changes in concentration would have only minor effects, and increases in CO2 concentration could neither be responsible for either global warming or global cooling of any significant degree.

While CO2 concentration increases can be demonstrated to have little further effect on global temperatures, this has no bearing on CO2 emissions because there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration, and CO2 emissions may alter the global temperature by processes other than changes to the greenhouse effect. It is easily demonstrated that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Over the three years from 1979 to 1982 when CO2 emissions were decreasing due to the rapid increase in the price of oil that drastically reduced consumption, there was no change in the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 proving that humans were not the primary source for the increase in concentration.

The science literature data base is filled with articles about global warming and CO2, but none of these articles actually relate CO2 emissions to global warming, and just falsely assume that emissions and concentration are interchangeable. All of the articles are based on projections from climate models, which also make this false assumption about emissions and concentration, and these models have yet to demonstrate a result that matches physical observation. This is because models use a contrived CO2 forcing parameter that was clearly not designed on any physical basis either experimental or empirical. In fact there is nothing in all the global warming literature, even the articles about polar bears and melting ice, that can refute the anthropogenic global cooling hypothesis.

Even though there is nothing in the literature data base that can refute the hypothesis of anthropogenic global cooling, the hypothesis can be clearly shown to be false by strict adherence to science protocol and the scientific method. There is clear observational evidence that the Earth warmed from 1975 to 1998 as emissions increased, so even though the world cooled for more years than it warmed with increasing CO2 emissions, these 23 years provide observations contrary to the hypothesis that can’t be explained by the hypothesis, and therefore the hypothesis must be abandoned.

Another hypothesis that explains the current global cooling is based on solar cycles and their effect on solar output and changes to the Earth’s albedo from cloud cover. The driving mechanism for this is not fully understood, but to date there is absolutely no contrary evidence to the overall hypothesis. There is in fact clear supportive evidence including observational evidence from a project called Earth Shine which measures the Earth’s albedo by its reflection on the moon. The albedo measurements show reducing albedo concurrent with global warming, changing to increasing albedo concurrent with global cooling in 1998. (Figure 2 page 21). See here (PDF).

This is the way science is supposed to work, and while it is a simple matter to falsify the Anthropogenic Global Cooling hypothesis, it should be far easier to falsify the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, because everything stated in the theory is contrary not only to observation, but contrary to established physical principles and physical laws as well. The fact that AGW still exists as a valid hypothesis seven years after the Earth started to cool in spite of the continued rapid increase in global CO2 emissions, is testament to how easy it is to misinform the public with well executed propaganda and media control.

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

varning-2

The Met Office building is one of the MOST POLLUTING public buildings in the UK

27 augusti, 2009

A £30 million supercomputer, designed to predict climate change, has been named as one of Britain’s worst polluters. Also notice that the Met Office plays an active roll in spreading the Global Warming Hysteria.

There’s an old saying that’s comes to mind: Sweep around your own front door before you try to sweep around others

Story here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6098859/The-Met-Office-super-computer-by-numbers.html

”The Met Office super computer by numbers

A £30 million supercomputer, designed to predict climate change, has been named as one of Britain’s worst polluters in the latest embarrassment for the Met Office.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

Published: 12:11PM BST 27 Aug 2009

Here is a rundown of the Met Office super computer by numbers:

:: The £30 million computer – more powerful than 100,000 standard PCs – was installed in the Met Office’s new £80 million headquarters in May.

:: It is capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second to feed data to 400 scientists.

:: The computer uses 1.2 megawatts of energy to run – enough to power a small town.

:: In terms of pollution the computer produces 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.

:: This makes the Met Office building one of the most polluting public buildings in the UK as 75 per cent of its carbon footprint is produced by the super computer.”

And here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6812355.ece

”Climate change supercomputer makes Met building one of Britain’s most polluted

Jenny Booth

The Met Office’s new supercomputer has scored it’s second own goal since it was unveiled with much fanfare in May.

After tempting the nation into holidaying in Britain by wrongly forecasting a ”barbecue Summer”, it has now earned the Met Office’s Exeter headquarters the shame of being named as one of the most polluting buildings in Britain.

By the time it reaches peak performance in 2011 the £30 million machine’s massive processing power – it can perform 125 trillion calculations per second – will require 1.2 megawatts of power to run, enough energy to power a small town.

As a result it will contribute 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the problem of global warming every year.

That places the Met Office HQ close to the top of the list of carbon emitters103rd out of 28,259 UK public buildings assessed for their carbon footprint by the Department of Communities and Local Government.”

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

varning-2

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

25 augusti, 2009

The politicians have always kept repeating the mantra when they put a new law or regulation in place that limits our freedom, or takes away another piece of our privacy; that they do this to fight terrorism, organised crime, trafficking, currency speculation etc. etc.

Bellow is some interesting statistics about what ALL these new laws and techniques ACTUALLY accomplish in the real world. It’s grotesque how little we, the ordinary people, get in “return” for what we had to sacrifice in loss of freedom and privacy.

And for this our politicians gladly sold out our freedom and privacy rights- all for nothing!

And like a drunken driver they continue on this road in an ever accelerating speed.

The politicians want literally to know EVERYTHING we do: Every cell call you make, where we are when we make these calls and to whom, every SMS you send, every internet website you visit, every card transaction you make, every airline ticket you buy, every book you buy, every bank transaction you make, etc. etc.

To mention JUST A FEW EXAMPLES.

And they want to keep and store this information for as long as they like. To be “used” when they feel like it. Yes there are laws and rules that are supposed to put limits to the time “they” can keep these data and information. But as we have seen time and again from examples all over the world – these rules and laws means nothing in real life. They keep these data as long as they want, and share it with whoever the like regardless of what the laws says.

And this data and information is also “leaked” and outright sold.

Doesn’t it sound like a nice, cosy democratic and free society we all like to live in?

Se more in my posts here:

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

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

 

Stories here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm

”1,000 cameras ‘solve one crime’

Only one crime was solved by each 1,000 CCTV cameras in London last year, a report into the city’s surveillance network has claimed.

The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals. In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers.  David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: ”It should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent.

He added: ”CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness.

”It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security. ”The Metropolitan Police has been extraordinarily slow to act to deal with the ineffectiveness of CCTV.”

Nationwide, the government has spent £500m on CCTV cameras.

But Det Sup Michael Michael McNally, who commissioned the report, conceded more needed to be done to make the most of the investment.

He said: ”CCTV, we recognise, is a really important part of investigation and prevention of crime, so how we retrieve that from the individual CCTV pods is really quite important.  ”There are some concerns, and that’s why we have a number of projects on-going at the moment.”  Among those projects is a pilot scheme by the Met to improve the way CCTV images are used.

A spokesman for the Met said: ”We estimate more than 70% of murder investigations have been solved with the help of CCTV retrievals and most serious crime investigations have a CCTV investigation strategy.”

Officers from 11 boroughs have formed a new unit which collects and labels footage centrally before distributing them across the force and media.

It has led to more than 1,000 identifications out of 5,260 images processed so far.

A Home Office spokeswoman said CCTVs ”help communities feel safer”.

Published: 2009/08/24 18:27:26 GMT
© BBC MMIX

Se also: “The statistics of CCTV”:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm

“One of the most dramatic revelations is that both the Shetland Islands Council and Corby Borough Council – among the smallest local authorities in the UK – have more CCTV cameras than the San Francisco Police Department.”

For your information: Shetland Islands have 21,990 people (2001), San Francisco has 808,976 people (2008)

 “The City of London [borough] has 619 cameras, but a population of only 9,000. This represents 68.7 cameras per 1,000 people.

The borough of Wandsworth has the highest number of CCTV cameras in London, with just under four cameras per 1,000 people. Its total number of cameras – 1,113 – is more than the police departments of Boston [USA], Johannesburg and Dublin City Council combined.

Some more statistics:

The borough of Wandsworth has a population of 260,380 (2001)

Boston has a population of 609,023 (2008), Johannesburg has 3,225,812 (2001) in reality around 7 million and Dublin has 1,187,176 (2006).A combined total of – 5,022,011+.

 Some interesting statistics from Germany – (Vorratsdatenspeicherung):

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorratsdatenspeicherung

“Basierend auf den Zahlen des Bundeskriminalamts würde sich die Aufklärungsquote im besten Fall um 0,006 Prozentpunkte erhöhen[17], siehe Darstellung unter Eingeschränkter Nutzen.”

Yes, at “BEST” this would “increase” the Clearance Rate a whopping 0,006 %!

Se also:

http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=86

http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Informationen_%C3%BCber_die_Vorratsdatenspeicherung

http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Chronik_der_Vorratsdatenspeicherung

http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Chronik_des_%C3%9Cberwachungsstaates

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

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

18 augusti, 2009

A very interesting study by David Douglass, professor of physics and Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Rochester. They have studied the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans and its effects on the global climate.

 “These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth’s climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.

…,the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring ”warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed,”

Se also my posts:

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

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?

Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This

The Press release:

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3420

August 14, 2009

Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies

Physicists at the University of Rochester have combed through data from satellites and ocean buoys and found evidence that in the last 50 years, the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans has changed direction three times.

These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth’s climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.

The physicists also say these changes in ocean heat-flow direction should be taken into account when predicting global climate because the oceans represent 90 percent of the total heat in the earth’s climate system.

The study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Physics Letters A, differs from most previous studies in two ways, the researchers say. First, the physicists look at the overall heat content of the Earth’s climate system, measuring the net balance of radiation from both the sun and Earth. And second, it analyzes more completely the data sets the researchers believe are of the highest quality, and not those that are less robust.

These shifts happened relatively abruptly,” says David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. ”One, for example, happened between 1976 and 1977, right when a number of other climate-related phenomenona were happening, such as significant changes in U. S. precipitation.”

Douglass says the last oceanic shift occurred about 10 years ago, and that the oceans are currently emitting slightly more radiation than they are receiving.

The members of the team, which includes Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University, believe these heat-flux shifts had previously gone unnoticed because no one had analyzed the data as thoroughly as the Rochester team has.

The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat. In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring ”warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed,” says Knox. ”The heat content data we used, gathered by oceanographers, was gleaned from temperature measurements at various ocean depths up to 750 meters.” The team also found that the radiative imbalance was sufficiently small that it was necessary to consider the effect of geothermal heating. Knox believes this is the first time this additional source of heat has been accounted for in such a model.

The team notes that it’s impossible to predict when another shift might occur, but they suspect future shifts might be similar to the three observed. Both Douglass and Knox are continuing to analyze various climate-related data to find any new information or correlations that may have so far gone unnoticed.

 2009-08-18_182553See also

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

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

PDO INDEX Monthly data here 1900-2009:

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/evidence-that-ocean-net-heat-flow-is-connected-with-climate-shifts-co2-not-correlated/

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/the-oceans-as-a-calorimeter/

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

varning-2

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

16 augusti, 2009

The Australian senate voted down the governments Cap and Trade scheme (42 to 30).

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.

If you go through all my posts in this blog you are going to find eminent examples of all these different stages of the Global Warming 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Below is the speech of Senator Nick Minchin, Leader of the Opposition

Se my posts:

Existing measurement methods are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions CO2 trends

Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet! We’re really in a CO2 famine now.

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

The Origin and Life Cycle of Junk Science – OR Global Warming Hysteria

Global Warming Hysteria – It’s all about the money, YOUR money

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

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

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

Want to wreck the environment? Have a baby!

Se also all my many posts on carbon trading:

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

 

Australia: Senators dump emissions scheme

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10590689&ref=rss

It should have been defeated because it’s insane

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/

it_should_have_been_defeated_because_its_insane/

UPDATE

A terrific speech against Rudd’s scheme by Senator Nick Minchin, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who truly does think it’s insane:

“Not only is the timing of this legislative initiative to be condemned, so too should the very name given to this package of legislation be condemned by this parliament… For no more than base political purposes, the government has called its emissions trading scheme a ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’. This is of course the perpetuation of a cruel hoax on the Australian people, childishly simplistic and misleading. The scheme proposed does not deal with carbon. It purports to deal with something quite separate—carbon dioxide emissions—and the scheme does not deal with pollution.

Whatever the climatic role of human induced emissions of CO2, CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant. CO2 is, as we know, a clear, odourless, colourless gas vital to life on earth… Indeed the Rudd government knows it too. Its own environment department’s website has a link to the official Australian National Pollutant Inventory, which lists 93 pollutants. Surprise, surprise, carbon dioxide is not listed among them….

It is also typical of this deceitful and spin-driven government to so cynically misrepresent the nature of carbon dioxide. Of course this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming… The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century…

Australia contributes a little over one per cent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. If we were to completely shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, Australia’s  CO2 emissions would be fully replaced by China within nine months. It is indisputably the case that nothing Australia does on its own can have any impact whatsoever on the earth’s climate. The deceit perpetrated by climate change fanatics that an Australian ETS will save the Barrier Reef is utterly contemptible…

The cruel joke is that all those thousands of jobs to be destroyed by Labor’s CPRS will be in vain, because this scheme will make absolutely no difference to the global climate

At least a quarter of Rudd’s front bench will know every word of this to be true, and yet they do not speak. One day, when this insanity has finally blown itself out, they will have to account – to themselves as much as to the rest of us – for their failure to defend not just reason but the best interests of their country. “

Tuesday, 11 August 2009 THE SENATE 1 CHAMBER SPEECH

Date Tuesday, 11 August 2009 Source Senate

Page 70 Proof Yes

Questioner Responder

Speaker Minchin, Sen Nick Question No.

Senator MINCHIN (South Australia) (7.32 pm)—

The government this week are asking the Senate to support passage of a package of no less than 11 separate bills, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills, to give effect to their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as they call it. This scheme represents one of the most dramatic and far-reaching interventions into the Australian economy ever proposed by an Australian government. Its passage and entry into force would have enormous impacts on the Australian economy and the economic circumstances of millions of Australians.  The government knows there is no Senate majority for this legislation, yet it is determined on what is nothing more than a cynical political exercise.  This legislation should be withdrawn for a number of reasons. Firstly, it proposes a scheme which will not commence operation for another two years. There is absolutely no justification for the government’s insistence that the parliament deal with it now.  Secondly, the government is seeking to legislate an emissions trading scheme for Australia well in advance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen in December, which will determine the extent to which, if any, the world is prepared to act in concert on CO2 emissions.

It is utter folly for Australia to legislate a scheme prior to the Copenhagen conference. And, thirdly, the United States, currently the biggest emitter, is currently considering the issue of an ETS. It is, in our view, cynically irresponsible to propose that the Australian parliament lock in an Australian ETS prior to the US —as I said, the biggest emitter of CO2—before it determines whether or not it will commit to an ETS and, if so, the nature and design of such a scheme.  For these reasons, the opposition condemns the government for its naked political opportunism in forcing the parliament to consider its so-called CPRS at this time. Not only is the timing of this legislative initiative to be condemned, so too should the very name given to this package of legislation be condemned by this parliament. It is regrettably typical of this spindriven government to use such a grotesquely Orwellian approach to the description of this legislation. For no more than base political purposes, the government has called its emissions trading scheme a ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’.

This is of course the perpetuation of a cruel hoax on the Australian people, childishly simplistic and misleading. The scheme proposed does not deal with carbon. It purports to deal with something quite separate—carbon dioxide emissions—and the scheme does not deal with pollution.  Whatever the climatic role of human induced emissions of CO2, CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant. CO2 is, as we know, a clear, odourless, colourless gas vital to life on earth.  Indeed, CO2 is essential to a healthy environment.  One of the most cynical and deceptive manoeuvres of the climate change fanatics is to seek to convince people that CO2 emissions are pollution, to demonise CO2 per se. Anyone with any understanding of science knows this to be a complete falsehood.  Indeed the Rudd government knows it too. Its own environment department’s website has a link to the official Australian National Pollutant Inventory, which lists 93 pollutants. Surprise, surprise, carbon dioxide is not listed among them. Mind you, after this speech, I bet some poor public servant will be bullied into adding CO2 to the list. So even the government’s own official list of pollutants, all 93 of them, does not include carbon dioxide.

It is also typical of this deceitful and spin-driven government to so cynically misrepresent the nature of carbon dioxide. Of course this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming. I want to commend Senator Fielding for his questioning of the government over the causes of global warming. The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century.  No-one, of course, disputes the reality of climate change. Of course the climate is constantly changing —it always has; it always will—but the main drivers of the small degree of warming that occurred in the 20th-century and the extent to which we should be concerned about it are hotly disputed in scientific circles. One of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, Professor Richard Lindzen of Tuesday, 11 August 2009 THE SENATE 2 CHAMBER the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently observed:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.  The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.

That is Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, who I suspect knows a little bit more about this subject than Senator Penny Wong. On Tuesday, June 23, writing in the Australian, Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at Flinders University, in Adelaide, reinforced this:

Repeatedly in science we are reminded that happenings in nature can rarely be ascribed to a single phenomenon. For example, sea levels on our coasts are dependent on winds and astronomical forces as well as atmospheric pressure and, on a different time scale, the temperature profile of the ocean.  Now, with complete abandon, a vociferous body of claimants is insisting that CO2 alone is the root of climatic evil.  I fear that many supporters of this view have become carried away by the euphoria of mass or dominant group psyche.  Scientists are no more immune from being swayed by the pressure of collective enthusiasm than any other member of the human race.

To acknowledge the reality of continuing scientific debate is not to say that Australia should not act in concert with other nations to give the planet the benefit of the doubt and to seek a global agreement to contain CO2 emissions. To the extent that anthropogenic CO2 emissions may be a cause of the limited global warming that has occurred, and to the extent that that warming is considered to be damaging, internationally coordinated measures to contain emissions at the least possible cost may be warranted. Indeed, as someone trained in economics, I proclaim the virtue of an approach based on ensuring the most cost-efficient use of finite resources. The world has not measured up to that standard in relation to its use of energy. But, given the continuing scientific debate, it is especially important that a country like Australia only take steps in relation to CO2 emissions that are in concert with the rest of the world and clearly involve the least cost and most economically efficient means of CO2 containment.

The government’s CPRS clearly fails that test. The case against this scheme was convincingly made by my colleague the member for Goldstein, Mr Robb, in his speech on this bill in the House of Representatives.  I also commend the work of my coalition colleagues on the Economics Legislation Committee in their reports on these bills and of Senator Xenophon on his minority report, which is a well-argued condemnation of this CPRS. I should also make mention of the critical analysis of this CPRS undertaken by the Select Committee on Climate Policy, chaired by my colleague Senator Colbeck, which exposed the CPRS’s many, many flaws.

Not enough is made of the reality of Australia’s circumstances in the consideration of measures to contain anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Australia contributes a little over one per cent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. If we were to completely shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, Australia’s CO2 emissions would be fully replaced by China within nine months. It is indisputably the case that nothing Australia does on its own can have any impact whatsoever on the earth’s climate. The deceit perpetrated by climate change fanatics that an Australian ETS will save the Barrier Reef is utterly contemptible. The manic determination of the government to impose this scheme on Australia also ignores the reality of the Australian economy.  Australia’s economy and our higher standard of living have been built upon our access to relatively cheap and abundant supplies of energy generated by coal-fired power stations. This is regrettably not well understood in this parliament let alone in the wider community. It was my privilege to serve as Minister for Industry, Science and Resources for three years in the Howard government, an experience which reinforced this fundamental reality about Australia: all the great manufacturing and value-added industries of Australia, which this Labor government professes a commitment to, have been built on and are sustained by access to cheap, reliable energy derived from coal. That is why an ETS, essentially an energy tax, is such a threat to this country. As Terry McCrann so accurately said in the Australian of 20-21 June:

an ETS threatens to kill the Australian economy. It is a direct attack on our core comparative advantage: bluntly, the production of CO2.

Power generated from cheap and abundant coal is a, perhaps the, core building block of both our standard of living and our entire economy.

That is a reality which this government wilfully ignores. What we see here is a Labor government sacrificing workers in energy-intensive industries on the altar of green votes. The cruel joke is that all those thousands of jobs to be destroyed by Labor’s CPRS will be in vain, because this scheme will make absolutely no difference to the global climate.

 Tuesday, 11 August 2009 THE SENATE 3 CHAMBER Most Australians clearly do not understand what an emissions trading scheme is, how it would work and what its consequences would be. That is perfectly understandable. I suspect most of the Labor caucus has no idea, either. Essentially it will be a very substantial tax on energy, and that is why Labor’s flawed CPRS is such a threat to our economy, dependent as it is on relatively cheap supplies of energy. Hence the utter folly of Australia designing and implementing this scheme ahead of the rest of the world.  Labor’s CPRS is a serious threat to many regional economies and the jobs they support, and I commend Senator Fiona Nash for her eloquent espousal of their cause. In my own state of South Australia it is estimated that it will cost 2,000 jobs by 2020 in the minerals industry alone. As a senator for South Australia, I do not see how I can possibly vote for this legislation, nor do I see how any government senators representing South Australia can vote for it. While the financial capitals of Melbourne and Sydney may relish the creation of a new financial instrument to be traded by 20-something bankers, the people of a state like mine will pay the price in a higher cost of living, in industries and jobs destroyed and in a reduction in competitiveness—all for zero environmental gain.  

It is also reprehensible that Labor would seek to legislate this serious attack on the Australian economy at a time when, as Mr Rudd constantly reminds us, we face a very serious set of economic circumstances.  Mr Rudd loves to remind us of the seriousness of the so-called GFC and its threat to Australia. Indeed, it is his justification for the most massive explosion in government spending, government deficits and government debt seen since the 1930s. Yet, while talking endlessly about our serious economic situation, he seeks to fit Australia up with a set of concrete boots called his CPRS. As Geoff Carmody, one of Australia’s most eminent economists, wrote in the Financial Review on 23 June this year:

The CPRS is ‘the GST from hell’, delivering negative protection. Why should any country unilaterally tax its exports and effectively subsidise its imports, for no global emissions reduction?

At a time when policy should be wholly directed at maximising the efficiency, productivity and international competitiveness of the Australian economy, Mr Rudd seeks to impose a unilateral massive new tax on Australian industry and consumers which will damage our economy and do nothing to combat global warming. The government’s pursuit of this legislation at this time is nothing more than an act of vanity on the part of Mr Kevin Rudd. This most vain of prime ministers wants to strut the stage at Copenhagen in December with a legislated ETS in his back pocket. He and his government propose to sacrifice Australia’s national interest on the altar of his vain desire for international acclaim from the vast UN bureaucracy being built around climate change policy.  The Australian parliament should not even be considering legislation for an ETS until we know the outcome of the UN’s Copenhagen conference and the US Senate’s consideration of the Waxman- Markey bill. The Australian people agree with this view. An Australian Newspoll conducted on the weekend of 24 to 26 July showed that 53 per cent of Australians wanted their government to either delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme until after the Copenhagen conference or not introduce an emissions trading scheme at all. On that basis, and for the reasons I have outlined to the Senate tonight, I urge the Senate to reject this package of bills.

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

varning-2

Existing measurement methods are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions CO2 trends

10 augusti, 2009

Some interesting conclusions from the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate – National Academy of Sciences regarding monitoring CO2 emissions around the world.

“..current methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions have limitations for monitoring a climate treaty. National emission inventories, required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, are self-reported and are not required regularly for all countries. Verification requires checking these self-reported emissions estimates. However, independent data against which to verify the statistics used to estimate CO2 emissions, such as fossil fuel consumption, are not available. Existing instruments and methods for remote monitoring of atmospheric CO2 are not able, with useful accuracy, to distinguish fossil fuel emissions from natural fluxes or to verify trends in fossil fuel emissions, such as reductions against a baseline.”

“However, estimated changes in atmospheric CO2 abundance due to fossil fuel sources are confounded by errors in the reconstruction of atmospheric transport, by sparse CO2 observations, and by the much larger changes due to biological sources and sinks.4 Because of these complications, the tracer-transport inversion method is currently able to estimate emissions with a useful accuracy only for some large continents.”

“The existing atmospheric CO2 sampling network of ground stations, aircraft, and satellites is not well designed for estimation of emissions from large local sources distributed around the globe.”

“Monitoring urban and power plant emissions from space is challenging and has not been demonstrated.”

“The committee’s analysis suggests that existing measurement methods alone are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions trends.”

Which means that there would be no way to verify that countries around the world are complying with emissions limits that may be set by an international treaty.

You can read the letter here:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12723#toc

You can download the PDF here:

http://cart.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?record_id=12723

Major General Charles F. Bolden, Jr.

Administrator

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

300 E Street, SW

Washington, DC 20546

Dear General Bolden:

A National Research Council committee is conducting a study on how well greenhouse gas emissions can be measured for treaty monitoring and verification. The committee’s analysis suggests that NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), which failed on launch in February 2009, would have provided proof of concept for spaceborne technologies to monitor greenhouse gas emissions, as well as baseline emissions data. This letter focuses on the capabilities of an OCO and currently deployed satellites that measure atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and their potential role in monitoring and verifying a greenhouse gas treaty.1

 The committee’s study is focused on emission estimates of the greenhouse gases resulting from human activities (e.g., fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture) that have the greatest potential to warm the planet and in particular on CO2 (see Attachment B for the committee charge). The committee is currently in the analysis and writing phase, with the expectation that its report will be delivered in December 2009. We are writing you now because a decision on replacing OCO will be made in the coming months,2 before our final report is completed.

Current proposals for an OCO reflight focus on the original scientific objectives of studying natural CO2 sources and sinks.3 In addition, it is important to consider the potential contribution of an OCO-like instrument for treaty monitoring and verification. Such capabilities may be an important consideration in treaty discussions at the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

If a treaty is negotiated in the coming months, monitoring and verification will initially have to rely on current capabilities and on measurement enhancements that can be deployed quickly. As the committee’s final report will describe in more detail, current methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions have limitations for monitoring a climate treaty. National emission inventories, required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, are self-reported and are not required regularly for all countries. Verification requires checking these self-reported emissions estimates. However, independent data against which to verify the statistics used to estimate CO2 emissions, such as fossil fuel consumption, are not available. Existing instruments and methods for remote monitoring of atmospheric CO2 are not able, with useful accuracy, to distinguish fossil fuel emissions from natural fluxes or to verify trends in fossil fuel emissions, such as reductions against a baseline.

Atmospheric CO2 measurements by ground stations, aircraft, and satellites can be combined with atmospheric circulation models to infer emissions from the land surface, a method known as tracer-transport inversion. The principle is that an emission source located between two sites will cause the abundance of the gas to be higher at the downwind site than at the upwind site by an amount proportional to the source strength. However, estimated changes in atmospheric CO2 abundance due to fossil fuel sources are confounded by errors in the reconstruction of atmospheric transport, by sparse CO2 observations, and by the much larger changes due to biological sources and sinks.4 Because of these complications, the tracer-transport inversion method is currently able to estimate emissions with a useful accuracy only for some large continents. The method’s accuracy could be improved by expanding the CO2 sampling network on the ground and from space, and OCO was in fact designed to improve tracer-transport inversions.

 A complementary approach to tracer-transport inversion is to measure the increased atmospheric abundance on top of large local sources such as cities or power plants. The majority of fossil fuel emissions emanate from such sources and would likely be a target of mitigation measures. These large sources increase the local CO2 abundance in the atmosphere by 1-10 ppm, a signal large enough to overwhelm the signal from natural sources and sinks, reducing this source of uncertainty.5 Because the increased abundances are largest over the source of emissions and disperse within a few tens of kilometers, they can usually be attributed unambiguously to their country of origin. Statistical or systematic sampling of CO2 from large local sources would thus support treaty verification by providing independent data against which to compare trends in emissions reported by countries, at least for the fossil fuel emissions from cities and power plants.

 The existing atmospheric CO2 sampling network of ground stations, aircraft, and satellites is not well designed for estimation of emissions from large local sources distributed around the globe. Ground stations and aircraft were purposefully deployed away from large fossil fuel sources to better detect natural sources and sinks, but could be deployed to monitor CO2 emitted from selected cities and power plants. However, this would require international cooperation and such nationally operated stations would still have the verification challenges associated with selfreporting.

 Satellites obviate these problems. As shown in Attachment A, Japan’s GOSAT is the best available spaceborne measurement of CO2, although it is not optimal for monitoring emissions by large fossil fuel sources. It has lower uncertainty and higher spatial resolution than SCIAMACHY, AIRS, or IASI, and it senses near the surface where emission signals are largest, unlike AIRS and IASI. However, the CO2 signal produced by the emissions of a large power plant is typically too small to measure with GOSAT.6 In contrast, OCO would have enabled monitoring of CO2 emissions from such local sources.6 No other satellite has its critical combination of high precision, small footprint, readiness, density of cloud-free measurements, and ability to sense CO2 near the earth’s surface (Attachment A). In particular, its 1- to 2-ppm accuracy and 1.29 × 2.25-km sampling area would have been well matched to the size of a power plant.6

 OCO would have had limitations for monitoring CO2 emissions from large sources in the context of a climate treaty. It would have sampled only 7-12% of the land surface7 with a revisit period of 16 days, and its lifetime would be only 2 years (Attachment A). However, many metropolitan areas are large enough to be sampled by OCO, and OCO would have provided a sample of a few percent of the power plants. Monitoring urban and power plant emissions from space is challenging and has not been demonstrated. A replacement OCO could demonstrate these capabilities. Nevertheless, it would be valuable to explore changes in the orbit and other parameters so that a greater fraction of large sources is sampled. For example, consider a precessing orbit covering ~100% of the surface but with only two measurements per year of each location. With 100-500 large local sources in high-emitting countries, it might be possible to obtain a statistical sample of hundreds of measurements of plumes of CO2 being emitted by the large sources in each of these countries. The trade-offs in optimizing monitoring capabilities while meeting scientific objectives would have to be examined by a technical advisory group.

 Because of its two-year mission life, OCO would not by itself have been able to track emission trends. However, it would have provided the first few years of measurements (a baseline) necessary to verify a decadal trend for the large local sources within its footprint, and served as a pathfinder for successor satellites designed specifically to support treaty monitoring and verification. Even with the data and lessons learned from a replacement OCO, a successor mission is unlikely to be ready for almost a decade.8

Space-based monitoring of emissions to support a greenhouse gas reduction treaty has received little attention by U.S. scientists and the government. The committee’s analysis suggests that existing measurement methods alone are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions trends. Although OCO was not designed for treaty monitoring and verification, it would have provided baseline emission data from large fossil fuel sources as well as essential tests of the engineering designs and measurement concepts required to develop a robust capability for monitoring emissions from space.

The committee hopes this report helps to inform NASA’s upcoming decision on flying a replacement OCO.

Sincerely,

Stephen W. Pacala, Chair

Committee on Methods for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions

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

varning-2

Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet! We’re really in a CO2 famine now.

7 augusti, 2009

Professor Frank J. Tipler:

  “Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere.

Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million.”

Se also my posts:

This is what the Global Warming Hysteria is all about – 0,03%!

The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature

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

The wonderful benefits of CO2!

När CO2 var som störst var temperaturen som lägst!

A CO2 graph that says it all!

Article here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/humans-and-their-co2-save-the-planet/

Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet!

Why opposition to the cap-and-trade bill is not “treason against the planet.”

August 5, 2009 – by Frank J. Tipler

As the Senate considers the fate of the cap-and-trade bill, we should consider what it means for more carbon dioxide to be added to the atmosphere, something the bill intends to prevent.

Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere.

Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million. But the percentage had dropped to a mere 200 parts per million. Plants tried to adapt by evolving a new, more efficient way of using the little remaining CO2. The new mechanism, the C4 pathway, appeared in grasses, including corn and wheat, which enabled these plants to expand into the plains. If the carbon dioxide percentage had stayed low — or worse, had decreased further — the entire biosphere would have been endangered.

Fortunately for the plants and the rest of the biosphere depending on them, a wonderful thing happened about 150,000 years ago: a new animal species, Homo sapiens, evolved. This creature was endowed with a huge brain, enabling it to invent a way to help the plants with their CO2 problem. Gigantic amounts of carbon had been deposited deep underground in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. Not only were these reservoirs of carbon locked away in rock, but they were in forms of carbon that the plants could not use.

These wonderful humans, however, worked hard to help the plants. Not only did the humans dig the coal, oil, and natural gas, bringing it to the surface, but they converted these raw materials into the only form of carbon that plants could use: carbon dioxide. Due to the diligent plant-saving efforts of the humans, the CO2 atmospheric percentage is now at nearly 390 parts per million. Were humans to continue in their biosphere-rescuing efforts at the present rate, the CO2 level will be returned to normal in a mere few hundred years.

The cap-and-trade bill is designed to stop this effort to save the biosphere. This is a profoundly evil act. In the words of the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, anyone who supports the bill, or any measure aimed at reducing the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is “guilty of treason against the planet”!

Those who want to reduce the use of fossil fuels are the mortal enemies of the biosphere. They must be stopped at all costs! Write your senator at once!

The astute reader will have noted that Krugman actually accused those who opposed the cap-and-trade bill of “treason against the planet.” What I have done is use well-known science to show that, from the biosphere’s point of view, it is the cap-and-trade bill that is “treasonable.” Remarkably, Krugman assumes that the climatic conditions of a mere century or so ago are the “natural” ones that must not be changed. A very anthropomorphic point of view is being used to denounce humanity. An ultraconservative reactionary political position is being called “progressive.”

Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press) and the author of The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity both published by Doubleday.

 

Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee.

Prominent Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ 

‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’ 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=AF8F5B20-802A-23AD-49FB-8A2D53F00437

The statement from Happer here:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42

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

varning-2

The hijacking of American Chemical Society by a Global Warming Hysterical editor

7 augusti, 2009

A very good example of how the Global Warming Crowd is trying to “hijack” scientific organisations for there own end.

Noteworthy is the usual derision and hostility towards criticism from scientists. And the claim that there is nothing to discuss and that everything is settled.

An attitude that has nothing to do with what science is about and the methods used in pursuit of the scientific fact.

“Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul.”

“Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

“Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me…his use of ‘climate-change deniers’ to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

But all this is no surprise – The global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science or facts. It’s all about politics and a agenda which is not officially stated.

As I have said before:

“So if the Global Warming Hysterics want to succeed the formula is very simple:

Start civil wars, Support dictators, Oppress ALL political freedoms and rights, and keep the people in TOTAL poverty.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, will you succeed in reducing mankind to enough poverty and slavery to be able to succeed in this “worthy” goal to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

They, the Dictators, are great at reducing EVERYTHING, including CO2 emissions.

And the “best” way to stop the “worst” emitters per capita is to sink all these islands/coastal cities that are so good at spreading the CO2. So all Global Warming Hysterics should “welcome” the rise of sea levels (which is NOT happening).

Notice that all the “best” countries isn’t exactly the ‘Ten Best Places you Want to Live” either to put it middle.

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.”

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

 

“Below is a very good description of the cycle and the forces behind any mass hysteria and junk science.

If you go through all my posts in this blog you are going to find eminent examples of all these different stages of the Global Warming 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.

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

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

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

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

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

The Origin and Life Cycle of Junk Science – OR Global Warming Hysteria

Se also:

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

 

Baums editorial here:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/87/8725editor.html

Protest letters here:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html

Article here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2213/Climate-Revolt-Major-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed

And here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2248/Update-Scientist-Accuses-American-Chemical-Society-Editor-of-censoring-of-articles-and-letters-that-reject-manmade-global-warming-claims

 

Climate Revolt: World’s Largest Science Group ‘Startled’ By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed!  

 Scientists seek to remove climate fear promoting editor and ‘trade him to New York Times or Washington Post’

Wednesday, July 29, 2009By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

 Climate Depot Exclusive

[Update July 31, 2009: Scientist Accuses American Chemical Society Editor of ‘censoring of articles and letters’ that reject man-made global warming claims! Many of the members have not only expressed their disgust, they are contemplating leaving the group’ ]

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the ”consensus” view was growing ”increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is ”startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the ”world’s largest scientific society.”

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”

Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum’s use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum’s editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”

One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: ”When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise.”

Baum ‘startled’ by scientists reaction

Baum wrote on July 27, that he was ”startled” and ”surprised” by the ”contempt” and ”vehemence” of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming ”consensus.”

”Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming,” Baum wrote.

 Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:

“I think it’s time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D’Ambra wrote.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? […] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?”

Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me…his use of ‘climate-change deniers’ to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: ”I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ‘free-market fanatics,’ and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.”

William Tolley: ”I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.”

William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. […] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”

ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board ‘cap’ Baum’s political pen and ‘trade’ him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.” [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum’s editorial go here and see below.]

Physicists Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum’s editorial an ”alarmist screed.”

“Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views,” Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.

 Baum cites discredited Obama Administration Climate Report

To “prove” his assertion that the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama Administration’s U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor’s Note: Baum’s grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: ‘Scaremongering’: Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: ‘This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA’…’Misrepresents the science’ – July 8, 2009 )

Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor’s Note: This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don’t even exist – No detectable climate impact: ‘If we actually faced a man-made ‘climate crisis’, we would all be doomed’ June 20, 2009 ]

 The American Chemical Society’s scientific revolt is the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University’s Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!? – Global Warming could stop ‘for up to 30 years! Warming ‘On Hold?…’Could go into hiding for decades,’ peer-reviewed study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! ‘Nature not man responsible for recent global warming…little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans’ – July 23, 2009 )

A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed ”More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” 2009’s continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks! Global temperatures ‘have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth’ – July 5, 2009

In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ & see full reports here & here – Also see: UN IPCC’s William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

Selected Excerpted Highlights of American Chemical Society Scientist’s Reaction to Baum’s Editorial: (For full letters see here.)

Instead of debate, members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. I think ACS should make an effort to educate its membership about the science of climate change and let them draw their own conclusions. Although under your editorial leadership, I suspect we would be treated to a biased and skewed version of scientific debate. I think its time to find a new editor. […] How about using your position as editor to promote a balanced scientific discussion of the theory behind the link of human activity to global warming? I am not happy that you continue to use the pulpit of your editorials to promote your left-wing opinions.

Thomas E. D’Ambra
Rexford, N.Y.

#

Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded?
Do you refer to ”climate change” instead of ”global warming” because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?


Howard Hayden
Pueblo West, Colo.

#

I was a geochemist doing research on paleoclimates early in my career. I have tried to follow the papers in the scientific literature. […] I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.
The peer-reviewed literature is not unequivocal about causes and effects of global warming. We are still learning about properties of water, for goodness’ sake. There needs to be more true scientific research without politics on both sides and with all scientists being heard. To insult and denigrate those with whom you disagree is not becoming.


R. Everett Langford
The Woodlands,
Texas

#

Your editorial in the June 22 issue of C&EN was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!


Are you planning to write an editorial about the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent suppression of a global warming report that goes against the gospel according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen? Or do you only editorialize on matters in keeping with your biased views on global warming?


Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind’s contribution to climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and ultimately ineffective.


Dennis Malpass
Magnolia
, Texas

#

I can’t accept as facts the reports of federal agencies, because they have become political and are more likely to support the regime in power than not. Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me.


Edward H. Gleason
Ooltewah,
Tenn.

#

Having worked as an atmospheric chemist for many years, I have extensive experience with environmental issues, and I usually agree with Rudy Baum’s editorials. But his use of ”climate-change deniers” to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific. […] Given the climate’s complexity and these and other uncertainties, are we justified in legislating major increases in our energy costs unilaterally guided only by a moral imperative to ”do our part” for Earth’s climate? I am among many environmentally responsible citizen-scientists who think this is stupid, both because our emissions reductions will be dwarfed by increases elsewhere (China and India, for example) and because the models have large uncertainties. […] I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ”free-market fanatics,” and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.

Roger L. Tanner
Muscle Shoals, Ala.

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

varning-2

(more…)

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 15

7 augusti, 2009

Efter en skön semester så tänkte jag börja blogga igen med en säker ”klassiker”: – vindkraften.

Oavsett årstid så kan man ALLTID räkna med att vindkraften är sig lik – dvs. mycket stora svängningar i effekt (vi pratar om 60-80% minskning på en dag) och liten total effekt.

Så här kommer aktuell driftstatistik från de svenska vindkraftverken från de senaste 30 dagarna.

 2009-08-07_144100

De senaste dagarna så ha det varit ihållande vindar på 2-9 m/s i stort sett i hela landet.

Trotts dessa någorlunda IDEALA omständigheter så är den SAMLADE EFFEKTEN FRÅN DE SVENSKA VINDKRAFTVERKEN IDAG 3 %.

Jäpp, HELA 3%.

Och är det INTE FANTASTISKT MED DESSA OTROLIGA STORA VARIATIONER UPP OCH NER!

Den 21/7 så var produktionen DRYGT 9100 MWh per dygn. 1, jag säger 1 dag senare så var den drygt 2400 MWh per dygn!

EN MINSKNING AV PRODUKTIONEN PÅ DRYGT 73 %! PÅ 1DAG!

Och detta är ju på inget sätt unikt – Tvärtom!

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

Ni kan läsa mer om mina inlägg om vindkraft här:

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

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

varning-2

A Nice Global Warming Summer PLEASE!!

26 juni, 2009

The summer is finally here after being the coldest June in 50 years in some places here in Sweden. And I want to wish every one a warm (in the name of Global Warming Hysteria) and nice summer. It will also mean that I will write less and more sporadic posts.

But you have 640 posts and 1421 comments to go through at your leisure.

Sommaren är äntligen här efter att ha varit den kallaste juni på 50 år på många platser. Och jag vill tillönska alla en riktigt varm (i Global Warming Hysterins anda) och skön sommar. Det innebär också att jag kommer att skriva mycket mer sporadiskt under denna period.

Men ni har ju drygt 640 inlägg och 1421 kommentarer att botanisera bland. Om ni använder kategorier och taggar plus sökfunktionen så kommer ni att hitta många intressanta saker.

Så här skrev jag för ett år sedan:

”Jag är hoppfull, vinden har vänt och Global Warming Hysterikerna är på defensiven. Det märks inte minst ute i Europa där man äntligen har insett vansinnet med dessa gigantiska summor som kommer att förslösas på nonsensåtgärder. Och som kommer att ruinera vanligt folk och de nationella ekonomierna.

Märk väl att man fortfarande pratar som om inget har hänt men bakom kulisserna så sker just nu en 180 gradig kursomläggning i många länder. För INGEN kommer på officiellt håll att erkänna denna totala omläggning utan man kommer att säga att man har “anpassat” kursen efter rådande omständigheter etc. Eller andra förskönande omskrivningar.

Det är bara våra intälägänta svenska politiker plus massmedia som inte har förstått det ännu. Och som oförtrutet kör på i denna återvändsgränd och tjatar om att vi skall gå i täten och vara världsledande vad det gäller begränsningar av CO2.

Det är bara det att skall man gå i täten så måste man ha några som följer efter också. Och de senaste 2 månaderna så har skaran bakom glesnat betydligt. Och blir glesare för varje dag.

Den största vetenskapliga och politiska skandalen i modern tid är på god väg att avslöjas. Och jag vill passa på att tacka er andra bloggare som oförtrutet har deltagit i denna kamp för vetenskap och sanning. Vi gör faktiskt en skillnad även om det inte verkar gå så fort ibland.”

Och det är bara att konstatera att denna utveckling har fortsatt och att det har blivit uppenbart för gemene man hur lite med sanningen hela Global Warming Hysterin har.

Det är numera bara våra intälägänta politiker som låtsas som om inget har hänt, (på samma sätt som med FRA lagen, IPRED, datalagringsdirektivet etc.), och upprepar sina inlärda mantran som en drucken papegoja. Ni vet den där Montephyton sketchen.

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

varning-2

NOAA ADMITS temperature ERROR and FAULTY equipment BUT THEY ARE STILL GOING TO KEEP THE FLAWED TEMPERATURE RECORD AND “NEW HIGHS” – 2

20 juni, 2009

And the story is getting even more bizarre. Or how one station close to this faulty one “disappeared” from GISS in 1981 is STILL FUNCTIONING AND ALIVE.  It just changed manger from USGS to NOAA – Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.

And note the HUGE DIFFERENCE IN TEMPERATURE FOR THESE STATIONS. As most 9 degrees (se graph below)

Also note that it was a private person how found this “missing” station and its data. Which the government agency in charge had not managed to do in 28 years! The same agency who decided to keep the faulty data from the other station because “The National Weather Service said that is not significant enough to throw out the data and recent records.”

A difference of 5 to 9 degrees!

And that agency is in “charge” of the “official” temperature data (NCDC)!

As I have said before: This is the “science” that Global Warming Hysteria is made of and which our governments are going to spend trillions of our dollars to “fight”.

“Note also that during the string of record highs from the 10th to the 15th, the two stations diverged mostly by six degrees F, The NWS originally admitted in their TV Interview to two degrees error, and that may be true from the HNL airport location since it is indeed a sea of asphalt.

“ASOS…placed for aviation purposes…not necessarily for  climate purposes.”

Six degrees difference in the Tmax for at least 5 days. Many other days of record were 4 or 5 degrees difference. One day was 9 degrees difference.

But, which station is more representative of Oahu’s climate? The airport, or the observatory in the grove of native ground cover? I don’t think all of Oahu is paved yet.

So the big question to NOAA/NWS Honolulu is:

Do you still think these records are valid and worth keeping in the climatic database and record events database?

The big question for GISS is:

Would you like your lost station back so you can update the data?

2009-06-20_002921

Data of the temperature difference here:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/phnl-ptwc-june09-data.pdf

Story here:

More on NOAA’s FUBAR Honolulu “record highs” ASOS debacle, PLUS finding a long lost GISS station

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/19/more-on-noaas-fubar-honolulu-record-highs-asos-debacle-plus-finding-a-long-lost-giss-station/

This is your Honolulu Temperature. This is your Honolulu Temperature on ASOS. Any questions?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/19/this-is-your-honolulu-temperature-and-this-is-your-honolulu-temperature-on-asos-any-questions/

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

varning-2

NOAA ADMITS temperature ERROR and FAULTY equipment BUT THEY ARE STILL GOING TO KEEP THE FLAWED TEMPERATURE RECORD AND “NEW HIGHS”

18 juni, 2009

”Even though NOAA admits the sensor is in error by as much as 2 degrees, they are going to keep the data and the string of new high temperature records. “BUT” they fixed the recent record rainfall data from the same station. See below. How’s that for science? Fix one broken record due to faulty equipment but leave others?”

“The high in Honolulu Monday was 92 degrees. It was the hottest June 15 since the National Weather Service started keeping track and the 8th straight day we’ve broken or tied a record. But was it really that hot?

That’s what the experts at the NWS have been wondering. They settled their suspicions with a trip to the airport to check Honolulu’s official temperature sensor.

”We had one of our technicians visit the site and they did a side-by-side calibration and found the thermometer at the Honolulu International Airport was reading a little warmer than what his caliberation thermometer was reading,” said Tom Birchard, a meteorologist at the NWS.

It was two degrees warmer. There’s some wiggle room with the accuracy of the temperature sensor.

”Which means, if the reading is 90, the thermometer is only accurate to read within about two degrees so it could be anywhere between 88 degrees and 92 degrees.

Which means our records these past eight days may not be records after all.

”If it turns out, after further investigation of the thermometer the data were skewed,” said Birchard, ”they could be stricken.”

Which they where not.  Hmm… can it be because it raised the temperature record?

This is the “science” that Global Warming Hysteria is made of and which our governments are going to spend trillions of our dollars to “fight”.

Story here:

NOAA: FUBAR high temp/climate records from faulty sensor to remain in place at Honolulu

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/17/noaa-fubar-high-tempclimate-records-from-faulty-sensor-to-remain-in-place-at-honolulu/

and here

How not to measure temperature, part 88 – Honolulu’s Official Temperature ±2

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/16/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-88-honolulus-official-temperature-2/

http://kgmb9.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18378&Itemid=40

http://www.kitv.com/weather/19784145/detail.html

NOAA Site information handbook

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/

X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

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

varning-2

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

24 maj, 2009

Here are some interesting statistics about CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2006.

I am going to show you the 10 “Best” and “Worst” per capita CO2 emissions. And the ones who are increasing and decreasing most.

Plus the top ones in total emissions.

So if the Global Warming Hysterics want to succeed the formula is very simple:

Start civil wars, Support dictators, Oppress ALL political freedoms and rights, and keep the people in TOTAL poverty.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, will you succeed in reducing mankind to enough poverty and slavery to be able to succeed in this “worthy” goal to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

They, the Dictators, are great at reducing EVERYTHING, including CO2 emissions.

And the “best” way to stop the “worst” emitters per capita is to sink all these islands/coastal cities that are so good at spreading the CO2. So all Global Warming Hysterics should “welcome” the rise of sea levels (which is NOT happening).

Notice that all the “best” countries isn’t exactly the ‘Ten Best Places you Want to Live” either to put it middle.

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.

Se also my posts:

This is what the Global Warming Hysteria is all about – 0,03%!,

The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature

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

The wonderful benefits of CO2!,

När CO2 var som störst var temperaturen som lägst!

A CO2 graph that says it all!

Svenska folket – Ni har blivit grundlurade! 500 miljoner år av CO2 data

Climate Change – is CO2 The Cause?

EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!

“Sustainability” and Carbon Taxes runs amok in my town

Poland applies EU climate brakes – the French Presidency is only looking out for itself (as usual)

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

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’- 2

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

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

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

 

Data per capita here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1cco2.xls

Total data here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

The Top 10 “Best”per capita growth of CO2 in Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide 

1. Chad  0,02
2. Afghanistan  0,03
3. Congo (Kinshasa)  0,04
4, Burundi  0,05
5. Cambodia  005
6. Uganda  0,06
7. Mali  0,06
8. Ethiopia  0,07
9. Malawi  0,07
10. Burkina faso  0,07

The Top 10 “Worst”per capita growth of CO2 in Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide

1. Gibraltar  160,22
2. Virgin Islands  118,30
3. Qatar  61,19
4, Netherlands Antilles  49,13
5. Trinidad and Tobago  44,32
6. Bahrain  38,44
7. United Arab Emirates  35,05
8. Singapore  31,41
9. Kuwait  30,92
10. Brunei  26,89

The Top Seven with greatest fall in CO2 emissions:

1. Afghanistan
2. Congo (Kinshasa)
3. Guam
4. Eritrea
5. Gabon
6. Kyrgyzstan
7. Zimbabwe

Among the worst offenders:

1. Maldives
2. Mauritius
3. Seychelles

And most of the other nice islands we dream of ranks around here on the list.

The Top four with greatest total CO2 emissions 2006 in Million Metric Tons of CO2

1. China  6017,69
2. USA 5902,75
3. Russia  1704,36
4. India  1293,17

China has gone from 2966,52 in year 2000 to 6017,69 in year 2006.  AN INCREASE OF 103% IN 6 YEARS!

And they don’t HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ACCORDING TO THE KYOTO AGREMENT. INDIA DON’T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING EITHER.

 USA, not a signatory either, did much “better” than most European states.  Which is intresting when you think of the “hostile” propaganda from EU agianst USA, especially during the Bush years.

The Top four with lowest total CO2 emissions 2006 in Million Metric Tons of CO2

1. Niue  0,005
2. Saint Helena  0,01
3. Turks and Caicos Islands  0,01
4. Kiibati  0,01

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

The Origin and Life Cycle of Junk Science – OR Global Warming Hysteria

23 maj, 2009

Below is a very good description of the cycle and the forces behind any mass hysteria and junk science.

If you go through all my posts in this blog you are going to find eminent examples of all these different stages of the Global Warming 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the dream world according to IPCC, Al Gore and all Global Warming Hysterics: (se the pictures in my post  Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism,)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are just a few posts:

Polish Academy of Sciences position on the Global Warming Hysteria

Global Warming Hysteria – It’s all about the money, YOUR money

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

Why should anyone believe The Global Warming Hysterics?

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

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

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!

The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!

Peer Review – What it actually means

Peer Review – What it actually means 2

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

Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again! 

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

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

Al Gore, James Hansen – Carbon Communists

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

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

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

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS

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

They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything – ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!

The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change

Clearing out the environmental fog

World’s Scariest Words: ‘I’m an Environmentalist and I’m Here to Help’

 

http://dailydollop.blogspot.com/2007/06/life-cycle-of-junk-science.html

Life Cycle of Junk Science

Below is the life cycle of junk science, as best I can figure it by analyzing the history of classic junk science, from diet pills to The Population Bomb. Can you think of any examples today that might fit this life cycle?

Genesis

1) Maverick Scientist has an Idea.

2) Other scientists deride the Idea.

3) SF Writers use Idea as image of bleak future.

4) Academics debate Idea.

5) Politicians begins to discuss the Idea, but don’t understand it.

6) General Public ignores the Idea.

Growth

7) Champion arrives to actively promote and publicize Idea.

8 ) Scientists form a consensus that agrees with Idea.

9) Academics teach Idea as fact.

10) Fast Adapters change lifestyle, ridicule General Public.

11) Hollywood makes disaster movie, sometimes based on SF novel from 3.

12) General Public makes token lifestyle changes.

13) Politicians use Idea to attack political enemies.

Hysteria

14) Scientific consensus begins ruthlessly crushing dissent.

15) Champion is hailed as Messianic Leader.

16) Academics announce society is doomed.

17) General public accepts Idea.

18) Opponents of Idea are cast as wicked and immoral.

19) Music Industry holds benefit, sometimes using film name from 11.

 Critical Mass

20) Dissenting Scientist proposes alternative theory to Idea.

21) Scientific consensus denounces Dissenting Scientist.

22) Messianic Leader begins making ludicrous claims unrelated to Idea.

23) Politicians propose massive social, fiscal, and moral changes to accommodate Idea.

24) Time Magazine puts Maverick Scientist, Messiah, Idea, or all 3 on cover.

Death and Rebirth

25) Dissenting Scientist is proven to be right, nothing happens.

26) Scientists form new consensus, claim they knew all along.

27) Fast Adapters are ridiculed by General Public.

28) Academics continue to teach Idea as “compelling theory”.

29) Politicians raise taxes, just in case.

30) Messiah and Entertainment Industry find new Maverick Scientist.

31) Return to Step 1.

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

varning-2

EU – The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable and unclear AND it can not be understood by ordinary citizens

23 maj, 2009

Som ett komplement till 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. så här inför EU valet, kommer här några officiella citat från de som var direkt inblandade i Lissabon fördraget. (Det finns mycket mer).

Som på ett glasklart sätt visar vad det handlar om. Och hur MEDVETET detta falskspel är.

Där den politiska eliten i Europa AVSIKTLIGT konstruerade Lissabon fördraget så att vanligt folk INTE skall förstå och märka vad som är på gång.

EU ’är ju gubevars ett ”demokrati och fredsprojekt” i den officiella retoriken. När det i själva verket handlar om den största makt överflyttningen i Europas historia från folket och lokala parlament till EU byråkratin. Som är utformat efter den franska byråkratiska modellen som den såg ut på 50 talet. Med en oerhört hierarkisk och centralstyrd förvaltning som inte behöver motivera eller redovisa någonting inför medborgarna.

Och som vanligt har massmedia och våra politiker fullständigt svikit i denna fråga. Det har i och för sig funnits enstaka artiklar i pressen, och enstaka politiker som har beskrivit SMÅ DELAR av detta. Men de är skrivna på ”EU byråkratiska så ingen vanlig människa förstår vad det egentligen handlar om.

Jean Claude Juncker – Prime Minister of Luxembourg

”Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?

There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy, there is an enormous extension in the fields of the EU’s powers,”

– Daily Telegraph 3 July 2007

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556400/Dont-tell-British-about-the-EU-treaty.html

Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister

“The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable…The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”

– Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007.

Jean-Luc Dehaene,  former Belgian prime minister, and former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution

The Economist of 9 August 2007 quoted some revealing remarks by Jean-Luc Dehaene. The Economist said that in an interview in Le Soir, he said it was “dangerous talk” to want “too much transparency and clarity” in the EU. On 17 October 2007 European Voice quoted him as saying, “The paper [the Reform Treaty] is incomprehensible. Good! We need incomprehensible papers if we are to make progress . . . We have to be realistic.”

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9619050

Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and the other former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution.

He said, at a meeting of the Centre for European Reform, recorded by Open Europe, on 12 July 2007 that EU leaders “decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception… . In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]... any Prime Minister – imagine the UK Prime Minister – can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new..”

The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.” – 21 February 2007.

Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, former president of France and president of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution

Writing in Le Monde on 14 June 2007, a few days before the form of the “reform” proposals had been settled: ”A last good idea consists of wanting to preserve part of the Constitution and camouflaging this by distributing it among several texts. The more innovative provisions [of the Constitution] would be simple amendments to the Nice and Maastricht treaties. The technical improvements would be gathered together in a bland and uncontroversial treaty. These texts would be put to Parliaments to vote on them one at a time. Thus public opinion would be led to accept, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly….All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”

http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=993865&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01

On 26 October 2007, writing again in Le Monde he said, “The Lisbon Treaty itself cannot be understood by ordinary citizens since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. . . The institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties. – What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2007/10/26/la-boite-a-outils-du-traite-de-lisbonne-par-valery-giscard-d-estaing_971616_3232.html

Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Prime Minister

”The most striking change (between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.” – Irish Times, 30 June 2007.

Angela Merkel, current Chancellor of Germany and president of the EU from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2007

We have renounced everything that makes people think of a state.” Gone are the words, constitution, flag, anthem and motto.

Speaking to the European Parliament, on 27 June, Angela Merkel was keen to point out, “The agreement reached in Brussels [23 June 2007] enables us to retain the substance of the Constitutional Treaty. ”  “At the same time, the Reform Treaty contains major advances for the European Union’s capacity to act. Indeed, in some areas we even went further than in the Constitutional Treaty.”

“European integration has to be striven for and consolidated time and again.”

http://www.eu2007.de/en/News/Speeches_Interviews/Juni/0628BKinEP.html

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

varning-2

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 135 – IPRED och en Upphovs- och Copyrightlagstiftning som har blivit absurd för konsumenterna

15 maj, 2009

Tyvärr så gäller fortfarande denna varning dag 135 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.

”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.

Se även mina inlägg:

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 109 – IPRED och en Upphovs- och Copyrightlagstiftning som har blivit absurd för konsumenterna

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

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

Artikeln här:

http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/debatt-essa/mats-soderlund-googles-avtal-battre-an-bonniers-1.866727

Mats Söderlund: Googles avtal bättre än Bonniers

Öm Bonnier-tå. Google erbjuder författarna avsevärt högre ersättning. Det skriver Sveriges författarförbunds ordförande Mats Söderlund i ett debattinlägg.

Bonnierförlagen nobbar Googleavtalet, meddelar deras jurist Dag Wetterberg i Dagens Nyheter (8/5 – läs här). De vill ha ett eget avtal, tycker att de fått för lite betalt och jämför plötsligt USA med Kina. Dessutom oroar de sig för att Googles affärsidé inte håller.

Men samtidigt som Bonniers vill förhandla själva med Google nekar de sina egna författare samma rättighet: ”De författare som inte anpassar sig till villkoren kan söka andra förlag” (Svensk Bokhandel 7/09).

Jag gissar att Bonniers ilska bottnar i att Google satt fingret på en öm punkt. Av de 60 000 titlar Dag Wetterberg talar om tillhör en majoritet författarna och Bonniers har låg eller ingen ersättning alls att hämta där.

När de nu lanserar egna e-boksavtal är villkoren betydligt sämre än Googles. En enkel jämförelse:

Googles avtal är inte exklusivt, författaren behåller rätten att göra vad man vill med sina texter. Bonniers kräver ensamrätt.

Författaren kan när som helst begära att Google plockar bort hans eller hennes böcker. Bonniers avtal låser författare på livstid, och författarens arvingar ytterligare en livstid. Google ger författaren 63 procent av intäkterna. Bonniers ”erbjuder” 24 procent.

Sveriges Författarförbund ser inget skäl att avråda sina medlemmar att ingå i förlikningen med Google men uppmanar dem att inte skriva på Bonnieravtalet. 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. SFF vill se en bred branschöverenskommelse som ger läsare tillgång till litteraturskatten och alla parter en rimlig ersättning, även förläggarna där de har legitima intressen.

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

Mats Söderlund

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>

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 14

14 maj, 2009

Som ett komplement till mitt inlägg Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 13  kommer här mera aktuell driftstatistik från de svenska vindkraftverken från de senaste 30 dagarna.

2009-05-14_230041

De senaste dagarna så ha det varit väldigt gynnsammt ”väder” för vindkraften med ihållande vindar på 5-12 m/s i stort sett i hela landet.

Trotts dessa IDEALA omständigheter så är den SAMLADE EFFEKTEN FRÅN DE SVENSKA VINDKRAFTVERKEN IDAG 6 %.

Jäpp, HELA 6% trotts IDEALA OMSTÄNDIGHETER.

Och är det INTE FANTASTISKT MED DESSA OTROLIGA STORA VARIATIONER UPP OCH NER!

Den 10/5 så var produktionen DRYGT 7100 MWh per dygn. 1, jag säger 1 dag senare så var den drygt 2500 MWh per dygn!

EN MINSKNING AV PRODUKTIONEN PÅ DRYGT 65 %! PÅ 1 DAG!

Och en MINSKNING på drygt 79 % på 3 dagar (10-13/5)

Och detta är ju på inget sätt uniktTvärtom!

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

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

varning-2

EU – The inner game and the Corruption that Cost £684 931,5 per hour EVERY hour EVERY day EVERY year. And is increasing.

6 maj, 2009

Så här inför EU valet tänkte jag bidra med lite godbitar om hur det egentligen går till i Europaparlamentet och Europa byråkratin.

Och det har INGENTING att göra med det officiella trams som sprids av våra ministrar och politiker.

Nu senast så har vi ju sett ett mycket illustrativt exempel på hur det går till när det gäller Telekompaketet. Där Europarlamentet i flera omgångar röstat för att inför vissa rättsäkerhetsgarantier och vissa garantier för Internetanvändningen (tillägg 138/46 och 166).

Men där rådet och kommissionen genom trixande och manipulation (ex. röst dagordningen) ser till att det till slut blir som de och Frankrike ville från första början.

Läs här om en del av allt detta fulspel:

http://mp.se/templates/Mct_78.aspx?avdnr=11913&number=169376

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/05/telekompaketet-helvetes-javla-skit.html

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/05/telekompaketet-citizens-rights.html

http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=9

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/telecoms-package-when-rapporteurs-betray-eu-citizens

http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=333&Itemid=9

http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=332&Itemid=9

http://www.erikjosefsson.eu/blogg/2009/04/26/faerdigfoerpackat-internet-packat-och-klart

http://www.fjellner.eu/langre-uppdatering-om-telekompaketet/

http://www.laquadrature.net/fr/victory-for-eu-citizens-amendement-138-was-voted-again

http://www.laquadrature.net/lawtracks/telecoms_package/

http://werebuild.eu/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/05/fragor-om-telekompaketet-till.html

http://scabernestor.blogg.se/2009/may/regeringen-far-med-osanningar-lawful-content.html

Så vad Europas folk och europaparlamentet tycker spelar inte så stor roll. I slutändan är det kommissionen och vissa länder som bestämmer hur det blir (i det här fallet Frankrike).

Det är alltså DETTA GÄNG som regeringen vill ge MERA makt genom Lissabonfördraget.

Det är därför det är SÅDAN ENORM PRESS på Irland att de måste rösta IGEN eftersom folket ”röstade FEL”. På samma sätt som folket i Frankrike, Nederländerna och Danmark tidigare ”röstade FEL”.

På samma sätt som man tvingade Irland att rösta en gång till och ”rösta rätt” efter att folket sagt NEJ till Nice fördraget juni 2001.

Inte för att en ny omröstningen egentligen spelar en så stor roll annat än politiskt. Då EU i det tysta (mycket medvetet) är i full färd med att införa alla dessa ändringar enligt Lissabonfördraget. Som alltså INTE skulle kunna införas om något land sa NEJ. Allt enligt fördraget och vad ALLA regerings chefer sa vid undertecknandet.

”Problemet” var ju Irland där MAN MÅSTE folkomrösta när det gäller viktigare förändringar i konstitutionen (artikel 46). I alla andra EU länder  behöver man inte ta en sådan hänsyn till folkviljan utan där kan politikerna glatt bestämma själva oavsett vad medborgarna tycker.

Visst är det skönt med representativ demokrati där folket får sin vilja igenom.

Se även mina inlägg

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

Speech of the President Václav Klaus in the European Parliament

Sverige talar om för Världen hur den borde styras

Och min kommentar: https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/valkommen-till-stasi-och-kgb-land-dag-110-%e2%80%93-nu-far-det-vara-nog-2/#comment-5190

”Vi är många som har fått nog!

Det finns enstaka undantag bland de svenska europarlamentarikerna som gör ett bra arbete därnere. Men det spelar liksom ingen roll i det stora hela. Då det är partiledningar här hemma och partigrupperna därnere som verkligen bestämmer när det verkligen gäller.

Och röstsiffrorna visar just detta.

När sossar, moderater, folkpartister, Kd röstar lika i 89-91% av fallen.

Och när konservativa, liberala och socialdemokratiska ledamöter i 97 procent av alla EU-parlamentets slutomröstningar är överens.

Vad skall vi DÅ med dessa partier till? Och vad tog deras ideologier och partiprogram vägen? Och vad är det för ”parlament” där så officiellt ”motstridiga” ideologier är SÅ eniga

Det påminner lite grann om Nordkorea. Men där är man ju till 99,98% överens

Till detta tillkommer sedan detta intressanta fenomen att man i Bryssel röstar igenom saker som man officiellt i Sverige sagt att man inte stöder. Och som är 180 grader ifrån vad man säger i valmanifest och partiprogram.

Etc. Etc.”

Artikel on EU parlamentarikernas löner och alla förmåner:

http://www.dn.se/fordjupning/europa2009/parlamentarikerna-far-chockhojd-lon-1.849544

Parlamentarikerna får chockhöjd lön

Efter valet får EU-parlamentarikerna höjd lön med 49 procent, från 54.500 kronor i månaden till cirka 81.000 kronor (7.400 euro).

Men parlamentarikerna har också förmåner värda flera miljoner kronor per år:

Pengar för att anställa en eller flera assistenter (max 2,3 miljoner kronor per år).

Traktamente, exempelvis när parlamentet sammanträder (3.278 kronor per dag).

Ersättning för ”allmänna utgifter” (drygt 550.000 kronor per år. Halva denna ersättning fortsätter att betalas tre månader efter mandattiden.)

Reseersättning för deltagande i parlamentets arbete. (Inget maxbelopp).

Reseersättning för arbetsresor i länder utanför Sverige (max 45.600 kr per år).

Ersättning för språk- och datakurser (max 55.000 kr).

Olycksfallsförsäkring (täcker läkarkostnader upp till 82.500 kronor per tillfälle).

Livförsäkring (faller ut vid dödsfall eller vid 60 års ålder, om man suttit minst tio år som ledamot).

Ålderspension: För varje år som parlamentariker får man 3,5 procent av lönen i pension från 63 års ålder (max pension är 70 procent av lönen).

Siffrorna bygger på en eurokurs på 11 kronor.

DN

How many times does the voters have to vote NO before NO is really a NO? Or what part of NO! don’t you understand?

Nigel Farage on who’s who in the EU commission – Interesting “gang” wouldn’t you say:

– Jailed for embezzlement and banned from holding public office for 2 years

– Old communist apparatchik

– Another old communist apparatchik convicted for providing false information and he is in charge of the EU’s (SIC!) Audit and Anti Fraud unit

– Accused of lying to the European Parliament by auditor

– 20 of the commissionaires has said that they intend to IMPLEMENT the constitution EVEN before it is ratified

Expense Allowance Abuse by MEP

€URO-MP Millions Hit the Jackpot with EU

Daniel Hannan MEP: EU double standards on Tibet & Lisbon

On the day before the EU constitution was signed in Lisbon the resistance in Strasbourg demands a referendum across Europe.

As Italian interior minister, Giuliano Amato said at the London School of Economics last February, ”The good thing about not calling it a constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum.

EU Nationalism where you never ever take NO for an answer

Budget Busters!  The auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for 11 years in a row

Kafkesque EU Parliament: Corbett’s Report

European Parliament, Strasbourg, 7 & 9 July 2008. Richard Corbett MEP (PES) presents the Report on the amendments to the rules on the formation of political groups in the European Parliament. The report had not passed the Committee stage, but was nonetheless brought to plenary with ”compromise” amendments and adopted.

END OF NATIONS – EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty  – The Chicken Run in the EU Parliament

The constitution gives EU the ability to amend ITSELF in the future without having to refer to more intergovernmental conferences. It gives EU the ability to legislate over literally every single aspect of our lives.

Thos how oppose this treaty are mentally ill

The EU has become a racket

EU Hypocrisy on Climate Change

The EU and the Myth of Consensus on Climate Change

MEP Exposes The EU Lisbon Treaty!!!

They decided in the council that it’s not allowed FOR ANY institution in the European Union to print a consolidated version THAT CAN BE READ before it has been approved in ALL 27 member states

Van Buitenen’s final battle against EU corruption?

Irregularities in OLAF

The real face of European Union 1/6

The real face of European Union 2/6

The real face of European Union 3/6

The real face of European Union 4/6

“MEP sometimes vote up to 450 times in 80 minutes. I don’t know what is going on half the time. The civil servants draw up the list and if it’s vote nr 58 and the paper says vote YES you vote yes. And if it’s vote nr 59 and the paper says vote NO you vote no. It’s an absolute farce! It is a complete shame masquerading as democracy.”

The scrapping of trial by jury

The scrapping of Habeas Corpus

-The scrapping of innocent until proven guilty

-The scrapping of double jeopardy

-The scrapping of non disclosure

The real face of European Union 5/6

The cost to Britain is 1,3 million £ per hour every hour every day”

“This place is THICK with institutional corruption. You can buy an airlaine ticket to Strasburg for £45 return and be reimbursed £800. This has been going on for the last 20 years. The system is fraudulent an ROTTEN to the core.”

6 000 000 000 £ corruption per year. “They are to busy feathering their own nest.”

“The entire European Commission was forced to resign in disgrace”

The whole system is now so rotten that it is unreformable

“For the first time you are going to be ruled by people you cannot sack

The real face of European Union 6/6

“We have to vote for people who will not allow this continues surrender of sovereignty”

“A police fore with diplomatic immunity is an affront to democracy and highly dangerous”

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

varning-2

North Pole Sea Ice TWICE AS THICK as expected

4 maj, 2009

Anyone seen any giant headlines in the media about this fact? Or some primetime network news about this finding?

I didn’t think so. Hm.. I wonder why??

How are the Global Warming Hysterics going to blame THIS on humans and CO2?

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

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

Why should anyone believe The Global Warming Hysterics?

Overall temperature trend since 1979 for Antarctica is slightly negative.

Glaciers in Norway Growing Again. And Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years

Sunlight has more powerful influence on ocean circulation and climate than ice sheets

Global Warming Appetizer – Sea Surface Temperatures Are 2 to 8 Degrees Celsius Colder

Sea Ice INCREASES Due to Global Warming

Article here:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10662

North Pole Sea Ice twice as thick as expected

By Editor  Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Radio Bremen

The research aircraft “Polar 5” today concluded its Arctic expedition in Canada. During the flight, researchers measured the current ice thickness at the North Pole and in areas that have never before been surveyed. The result: The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is apparently thicker than scientists had suspected. 

Normally, newly formed ice measures some two meters in thickness after two years. “Here, we measured ice thickness up to four meters,” said a spokesperson for Bremerhaven’s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. At present, this result contradicts the warming of the sea water, according to the scientists.

 Apart from measuring ice thickness, the composition of arctic air was also investigated. With the help of a laser, the researchers studied the level of pollution of the atmosphere by emissions from industrialized countries. In the next few weeks the results will be evaluated. Some 20 scientists from the U.S., Canada, Italy and Germany took part in the expedition. [transl. BJP]

German original here:

Überraschendes Ergebnis

Eisdecke am Nordpol ist dicker als erwartet

http://www-origin.radiobremen.de/wissen/nachrichten/wissenawipolararktis100.html

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

varning-2

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 13

3 maj, 2009

Som ett komplement till mitt inlägg  Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 12  kommer här aktuell driftstatistik från de svenska vindkraftverken från de senaste 30 dagarna.

2009-05-03_145719

Är det INTE FANTASTISKT MED DESSA OTROLIGA STORA VARIATIONER UPP OCH NER!

Den 30/4 så var produktionen DRYGT 4200 MWh per dygn. 1, jag säger 1 dag senare så var den drygt 1400 MWh per dygn!

EN MINSKNING AV PRODUKTIONEN PÅ DRYGT 67 %! PÅ 1 DAG!

Och detta är ju på inget sätt uniktTvärtom!

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

MED 50 % PÅ 1 DAG (18/3).

Med 89 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (23-25/1).

Med 98 % PÅ 3 DAGAR (23-26/1).

Med 84 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (12-14/1).

MED 84 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (22-24/12).

MED 67 % PÅ 1 DAG (10/12).

MED 50 % PÅ 1 DAG (11/12).

MED 87 % PÅ 3 DAGAR (27-30/11)

Lägg OCKSÅ märke till att trotts de senaste dagarnas gynnsamma vindar (3-8 M/S) så är den SAMLADE EFFEKTEN FRÅN DE SVENSKA VINDKRAFTVERKEN IDAG 10 %.

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

 Allt enligt våra Global Warming Hysteriker och våra intälägänta inhemska politiker. Som säger att Sverige skall gå i “täten” och “ta ledningen” i kampen mot den mycket ondskedfulla och orsaken till ALLT ELÄNDE PÅ JORDEN – Nämligen CO2.

Se även mina andra inlägg om vindkraft:

Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas. – And emits more CO2 than thought

The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power!

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

All You Need To Know about Denmark and Wind Power

 Who knew a “free” source of energy – Wind Power could be so expensive?Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power!

Carbon Credits Fund Broken Turbine

Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

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

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

varning-2

Polish Academy of Sciences position on the Global Warming Hysteria

26 april, 2009

For a change a very sound and scientific approach which we are not used to see from so many other so called ”scientific” organisations.  Where they instead wholeheartedly take part in spreading the Global Warming Hysteria. And engage in actively censoring and stopping fellow scientist who dare to criticise. Not to mention playing the political game to get more funding and being very politically correct in general.

Yes, it’s VERY scientific as always! 

”8. Detailed monitoring of climate parameters has been carried out for slightly over 200 years; it only covers parts of the continents, which constitute only 28% of the world. Some of the older measuring stations established – as a result of progressive urbanization, in the peripheries of the cities, are now within them. This factor, among other things, is the reason for the rise of the measured values of temperature. The research of the vast areas of the oceans has only been launched 40 years ago. Measurements taken for this kind of short periods of time can not be considered as a firm basis for creating fully reliable models of thermal changes on the surface of the Earth, and their accuracy is difficult to verify. That is why far-reaching restraint needs to be kept regarding blaming, or even giving the biggest credit to man for the increased level of emissions of greenhouse gases, for such a theory has not been proven.”

”10. Experiments in natural science show that one-sided observations, those that take no account of the multiplicity of factors determining certain processes in the geo-system, lead to unwarranted simplifications and wrong conclusions when trying to explain natural phenomena. Thus, politicians who rely on incomplete data may take wrong decisions. It makes room for politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits. It has little to do with what is objective in nature. Taking radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change, may turn out counterproductive.”

English version here:

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/PAS.htm

Polish version here:

http://www.kngeol.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/2.Stanowisko%20KNG%20w%20sprawie%20zmian%20klimatu.pdf

POSITION OF THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCE COMMITTEE OF THE POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ON THE THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING

Geologic Science Committee – Polish Academy of Sciences

The climate change of our planet, which can be observed more frequently in recent years, has become alarming for public opinion. Various methods to remedy the situation are elaborated on the international level by decision makers, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (operating since 1988) and different ecologic organisations. 

Having a part in this significant debate, the Geologic Science Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences wishes to turn to 10 fundamental aspects of the problem closely related to the functioning of geosystem – the complex interdependence of processes occurring in the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere. The knowledge of these factors should be the foundation for any rational and careful decisions, which could interfere in the geosystem.

1. The climate of the Earth depends on the interaction between the surface and the atmosphere, both of which are heated by solar radiation characterized by a cyclical, variable intensity. The climate is influenced by the Earth’s yearly revolution around the Sun, thermics, changes in ocean waters flow, air mass movement, mountain massif position, their uplift and erosion in time perspective as well as changes in the continents’ position as a result of their permanent wandering.

2. Geologic research proves irrefutably that the permanent change is the fundamental characteristic of the Earth’s climate as throughout its entire history, and the changes occur in cycles of varied length – from several thousand to just a few years. Longer climate cycles are provoked by the extraterrestrial factors of astronomic character as well as by the changes of the Earth’s orbital parameters, in brief – by regional and local factors. Not all reasons for climate change or their phenomena are fully known yet.

3. Although in the history of the Earth, a considerably warmer climate than today had dominated, there had been repeated occurrences when the Earth experienced massive global cooling which always resulted in vast ice sheets that sometimes even reached the subtropics.  Therefore, reliable forecasts of changes in the Earth’s climate (not to mentioned efforts to prevent, shape, or act against them) must take into account the results of its research of the Earth’s geological history a time when humanity (and the industry) were not on our planet. 

4. Since twelve thousand years ago, the Earth is in the another phase of cyclical warming and is near the maximum of its intensively. Just in the last 2.5 million years, periods of warming have on several occasions intertwined with ice ages, which have already been well identified.   

5. The current warming is accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: water vapour is dominant among them, and in smaller quantities there are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and ozone. This has always happened because it is an occurrence that accompanies cyclical warming and cooling. The periodic increase in the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, sometimes a value even several times larger than at present, has accompanied previous warming even before man inhabited the Earth.

6. Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar 4 times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times, in total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.

7. After a warm period in the past millennium, by the end of the thirteenth century, a cold period had begun and it lasted up to the mid-nineteenth century, and then a warm period in which we are living had begun. The phenomenon observed today, in particular the temporary rise of global temperature, is the result of the natural rhythm of climate change. Warmer and warmer oceans have a smaller ability to absorb carbon dioxide, and reducing the area of the long term permafrost leads to more rapid decomposition of organic compounds in the soil, and thus to increased emissions of greenhouse gases. For billions of years, Earth’s volcanic activity along the lines of lithosphere plate boundaries, hidden mainly beneath the surface of the oceans, has been constantly providing the atmosphere with CO2 with various levels of intensively.

In the geo-system gas is removed from the atmosphere to the biosphere and from the lithosphere through the process of photosynthesis that is bound in the living organisms – including the shell carbonate marine organisms and after their death it is stored in the huge limestone on the bottom of the seas and the oceans, while on land it is bound in various organic sediments.

8. Detailed monitoring of climate parameters has been carried out for slightly over 200 years; it only covers parts of the continents, which constitute only 28% of the world. Some of the older measuring stations established – as a result of progressive urbanization, in the peripheries of the cities, are now within them. This factor, among other things, is the reason for the rise of the measured values of temperature. The research of the vast areas of the oceans has only been launched 40 years ago. Measurements taken for this kind of short periods of time can not be considered as a firm basis for creating fully reliable models of thermal changes on the surface of the Earth, and their accuracy is difficult to verify. That is why far-reaching restraint needs to be kept regarding blaming, or even giving the biggest credit to man for the increased level of emissions of greenhouse gases, for such a theory has not been proven.

9. There is no doubt that a certain part of the rise of the level of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is associated with human activity therefore, steps should be taken to reduce the amount on the basis of the principles of sustainable development, a cease of extensive deforestation, particularly in tropical regions. It is equally important to take up and pursuit appropriate adapting actions that will mitigate the effects of the current warming trend.

10. Experiments in natural science show that one-sided observations, those that take no account of the multiplicity of factors determining certain processes in the geo-system, lead to unwarranted simplifications and wrong conclusions when trying to explain natural phenomena. Thus, politicians who rely on incomplete data may take wrong decisions. It makes room for politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits. It has little to do with what is objective in nature. Taking radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change, may turn out counterproductive.

The PAN Committee of Geological Sciences believes it necessary to start an interdisciplinary research based on comprehensive monitoring and modelling of the impact of other factors – not just the level of CO2 – on the climate. Only this kind of approach will bring us closer to identifying the causes of climate change.

Wroclaw-Warsaw, 12 February 2009

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

 varning-2

Lord Stern, ‘Scaremonger in chief’, exposed by simple blunders

26 april, 2009

Al Gore is getting competition for the Mr. Gloom and Doom title. As for the title of the most misleading facts. And the ”noble” effort to silence the press and critics.

This is what Dr Richard Tol. (took key part in the IPCC and wrote the UN Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment) had to say about the Stern report:

 ”alarmist and incompetent”, and his doomsday prophecies were simply ”preposterous”.

 Article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5220173/Lord-Stern-Scaremonger-in-chief-exposed-by-simple-blunders.html

Lord Stern, ‘Scaremonger in chief’, exposed by simple blunders

How come ”the world’s leading expert on climate change” doesn’t even know how much carbon dioxide there currently is in the air, wonders Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 10:48PM BST 25 Apr 2009

Confronted last week with the unfolding horror story of the Budget, we might have been grateful for the light relief provided by Lord Stern of Brentford, who told us how, unless we halt global warming, we can look forward to the sight of alligators gambolling at the North Pole, and Florida and Bangladesh sinking beneath the sea.

Since he produced the 570-page Stern Review in 2006, which Tony Blair described as ”the most important report on the future ever produced by this Government”, this former Treasury official and chief economist to the World Bank has won extraordinary adulation. In the US Congress he is acclaimed as ”the world’s leading expert on climate change”, vying with Al Gore to be the world’s Scaremonger-in-Chief.

Today Lord Stern is head of the LSE’s Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, launched by a billionaire investment manager to advise on the fast-burgeoning global market in every kind of ”low carbon technology”, ”emissions trading” and all the other growth areas associated with the climate change industry. Last week he was in the news for launching his new book, A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a New Era of Progress and Prosperity.

Unsurprisingly, there is no one for whom Lord Stern has more contempt than those he calls the ”deniers” of man-made global warming. He told The Daily Telegraph last week that they ”look more and more like those who denied the association between HIV and Aids, or smoking and cancer”. In his book, he criticises the media for giving any space at all to such people, when ”the balance of logic and evidence is 99 per cent or more to one”.

But for a man whose whole case rests on the damage supposedly being done to the planet by carbon dioxide, it was somewhat disconcerting to see him quoted as saying that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have now reached ”430 parts per million [ppm]”. He said exactly the same last year in an interview with Prospect. The actual level is 388.97 ppm. It may seem a tiny point, but one might have expected ”the world’s leading expert on climate change” to have a rather surer grasp of a fact so central to his case.

Similarly, one would not expect a man whose institute is claimed to be ”a world-leader in low carbon technologies” to claim, as he does in his book, that by next year wind energy ”is set to account for 8 per cent of electricity generation in the UK”, when the current figure is scarcely 1 per cent; or that ”wind accounted for 35 per cent of total installed power capacity in the US in 2007”, when two minutes on the internet could have shown him that wind power that year generated less electricity in the US than a single large coal-fired power station.

In fact, when the Stern Review came out in 2006, predicting that global warming could soon account for the extinction of 40 per cent of all species of life on earth, far from being universally lauded it was savagely criticised by some of the very people who might have been expected to praise it – his fellow economists. No one was more excoriatory than the man on whose work Lord Stern claimed to have based many of his most scarifying predictions, the noted Dutch economist Dr Richard Tol.

Far from being a global-warming sceptic, Dr Tol has played a key part in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and wrote the UN Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment. But he could not have been more withering about the way the Stern Review went out of its way to cherry pick the most alarming possible predictions about the impacts of climate change and then to exaggerate them still further. Where Tol had, for instance, given a range of costs up to $14 per ton of CO2, while saying that the actual cost was ”likely to be substantially smaller”, Stern had more than doubled his figure, to $29 a ton. Stern’s report, Tol pronounced, could be ”dismissed as alarmist and incompetent”, and his doomsday prophecies were simply ”preposterous”.

Yet this is the man, reverentially treated by the BBC, the media and politicians everywhere as ”the world’s leading expert on climate change” – so lost in his apocalyptic dreams that he doesn’t even know something so basic to his cause as how much CO2 there is in the air we breathe.

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

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

20 april, 2009

Här kommer gårdagens ledare från Financial Times. Det är ord och inga visor över copyright- och upphovsmaffians fasoner.

Kapitalismens högborg har talat. Så vilka ”affärsintressen” är de politikerna säger sig vilja skydda med sina inskränkningar i våra fri- och rättigheter?

Do not enclose the cultural commons

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f435f4d4-2d09-11de-8710-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Published: April 19 2009 19:26 | Last updated: April 19 2009 19:26

The European parliament will next week consider a proposal by the European Commission to extend copyright for performers and producers of recorded music to 95 years from the current 50. Charlie McCreevy, the commissioner in charge, says the extension will help vulnerable ageing performers and promote the cultivation of new artists. It will do neither; this disgraceful proposal only grants the music industry even more power over the already distorted market. The parliament must vote it down.

Copyright is an act of force: it is the means by which states forcibly establish artificial monopolies in cultural works. There are two arguments why governments can legitimately do this. The first is to ensure efficient incentives for cultural production. The second is to ensure that artists get a fair reward for their contribution to our culture’s enrichment. In the absence of copyright, the ease with which cultural works can be reproduced may leave creators with neither efficient incentives nor fair rewards.

But neither consideration justifies extension of copyright beyond the current 50 years. If anything, copyright terms are currently too long.

Anyone acquainted with human creativity knows that most artistic work worth having springs not from the expectation of lengthy royalty streams but from the intrinsic motivation to create. Artistic production is simply something humans do: it pervades history, copyright protection or not. Dave Rowntree, drummer with Blur and The Ailerons, put it succinctly to the 2006 Gowers Review on intellectual property in the UK. The review, which was written by a former FT editor and opposed extension, quotes him as saying: ”I have never heard of a single one [band] deciding not to record a song because it will fall out of copyright in ‘only’ 50 years. The idea is laughable.” Quite so.

Even more laughable is Mr McCreevy’s tear-dripping depiction of artists ”at the most vulnerable period of their lives” losing income from recordings they did in the 1960s. By the commissioner’s own admission, most revenues accrue to a few ”superstars” – and of course producers. It is therefore the likes of Sir Cliff Richard and EMI who stand to benefit the most from an extension. (Besides, reduced income at retirement is hardly unique to musicians; one wonders why their predicament is specially worrisome.)

This is not to deny that many artists benefit too little from their work. The solution is not to indulge production companies more, but to shift power from them to artists and performers.

Copyright extension is, in the main, just the well-known strategy of powerful companies: profit-grabbing through lobbying for state protection. That is bad enough. Worse is the chilling effect it can have on creativity: the industry is already on a legal crusade against the sampling of copyrighted material into new original work. This is like the Grimm brothers’ descendants suing Disney for using their fairy tales.

The cultural industries are over-protected. If cultural works were less greedily hoarded, consumers would enjoy more variety – and artists would create more freely.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

 varning-2

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>

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

20 april, 2009

Som ett komplement till mitt tidigare post Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 109 – IPRED och en Upphovs- och Copyrightlagstiftning som har blivit absurd för konsumenterna kommer här mera om en Upphovs- och Copyrightlagstiftning som bara blir mer och mer absurd för konsumenterna.

varning-2 

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!

Här följer tre utmärkta exempel på denna ilska som vi medborgare känner. Och som sagt :

Snart är det EU val och då om inte förr är det dags att skicka en mycket tydlig signal till de etablerade partierna att vi har fått nog av alla dessa lögner och inskränkningar i våra fri- och rättigheter!

 

Partierna måste läsa skriften på väggen

http://blogg.expressen.se/peterj/entry.jsp?messid=495711

Piratpartiet har nu bortåt 30000 medlemmar, visserligen gratismedlemmar och via internet, men i alla fall. Det är ungefär en fördubbling före domen mot Pirate Bay. Och får nog tas som en liten varning till alla etablerade svenska partier. Man ska nog inte försöka bortförklara ilskan eller underskatta den.

På en mailinglista jag är med på gjorde en av deltagarna följande inlägg i dag:

Själv är jag en konservativ medelålders man som aldrig någonsin har ”fildelat”. (Och jag tycker illa om piratkopiering.) Ändå har jag nu för avsikt att gå med i piratpartiet, rösta på dem i EU-valet och ge dem ett penningbidrag till deras valkampanj.

Orsaken till detta är förstås att alla andra partier helt uppenbart är beredda att införa sinnessjukt oproportionerligt repressiva lagar och kontroller för att en ganska oväsentlig näring (nöjesindustrin) under några år till skall kunna klamra sig fast vid en fullständigt obsolet och förlegad affärsmodell.

Det vore ju en sak om det handlade om krig och terrorism, om akut brist på mat eller på rent vatten. Då kunde man ju förstå om situationen vore så fruktansvärt allvarlig att vissa inskränkningar i den personliga integriteten vore nödvändiga.

Men nu handlar det inte om något som är ens det minsta lilla oundgängligt för någons överlevnad eller hälsa, utan om att en i sig ganska oväsentlig industri skall kunna hålla fast vid ett förlegat sätt att tjäna alldeles för mycket pengar, att dagens trubadurer, skådespelare och andra gycklare och deras finansiärer inte skall behöva anpassa sin affärsmodell till utvecklingen.

En total, en helt osannolik, en fullständigt patologisk brist på sinne för alla proportioner. Ungefär som att jämna ett helt samhälle med marken bara för att kejsaren under några veckor skall kunna ta morgonpromenader ostört på just den platsen.

Till sist en fråga: Är det någon på listan (utom riksdagsmän och andra i uppenbar lojalitetskonflikt) som _inte_ har för avsikt att rösta på piratpartiet i EU-valet? Och i så fall: Varför i helvete inte?

Jag skrev och frågade om jag fick citera honom och gav han genast sin tillåtelse och tilla att han tänkte kopiera upp den själv och sprida i sitt villaområde. Så nog finns det en ilska över den hejdlösa repressionen i fildelningsregleringen som går långt bortanför finniga och bleksiktiga hackertonåringar.

 

Läsarförakt, lyssnarförakt, väljarförakt

http://fridholm.net/2009/04/20/lasarforakt-lyssnarforakt-valjarforakt/

måndagen den 20/4 -2009, av Göran Widham

Från Leo Erlandsson fick jag idag veta att Peter Sunde har den goda smaken att citera

Thomas Paine:

What we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly.

I citatet gömmer sig ironin att piratrörelsen konstant anklagas för att vara snåla och ovilliga att betala för sig – dvs cheap. Men det är inte det handlar om. Att göra om frågeställningen till denna förenklade, moralistiska, svartvita bild visar bara på ett monumentalt förakt. Ett förakt för inte bara en hel generation. Nej, vi finns i alla åldrar vi som känner oss misshandlade och missförstådda.

Det handlar om ett förakt för en hel läsekrets, en hel lyssnarskara, en hel väljarkår.

Läsarförakt

De har varit några stycken, representanterna för Sveriges författare och gammelmediala journalister (Jan Guillou, Liza Marklund, Carina Rydberg) som har velat göra sig till tolk för hela sin yrkeskår. De har utan att bry sig om att sätta sig in i vare sig teknik, ekonomi eller spridning av upphovsrättsligt skyddade verk utnämnt en hel rörelse till tjuvar. Spännande nog en hel rörelse som inbegriper många av de kollegor de gör sig till tolk för (Unni Drougge, Anna Troberg, Anders Widén och lustigt nog Carina Rydberg igen).

Senast i raden av träskallar är Dick Harrison som lyckas med konststycket att gråta ut över en utebliven försäljning när han bevisligen inte tillhör de mest nerladdade författarna i Sverige. Han har antagligen större problem med gammaldags xeroxkopiering.

Dick fungerar dessutom som ett utmärkt exempel på det läsarförakt jag talar om. Han anser nämligen inte att han behöver upprätthålla någon annan kontakt med sin läsekrets än böckerna. Det ingår inte i jobbet för en författare. Han ska helt enkelt ha betalt eftersom han skriver.

I de flesta arbeten kan man inte definiera bort behovet av kunder, men det är klart när man anklagar sin läsare för att vara tjuvar, så är det ju uppenbart att man inte ser dom som kunder. Frågan är bara hur länge man har läsare. Jag har i vilket fall läst min sista Dick Harrison-bok.

Ett annat läsarförakt är det som uppvisas av papperstidningarna. DN:s Wolodarski kallar idag självaste Google för parasiter. Jag är övertygad om att jag inte är ensam om att anse att jag har mer nytta av Google än av DN. Varför det är fult av Google men fint av DN att aggregera information har jag redan funderat över idag.

Och det tål verkligen att fundera på. För Wolodarski tycks mena att det är läsekretsens fel att hans tidning inte tjänar pengar. Den läsekrets som upptäckt att den får en lika bra eller i alla fall mer prisvärd nyhetskälla genom att använda gratistidningar och gratistjänster på nätet. Jag tror vi nyhets- och samhällsintresserad är vuxna nog att välja bort dåliga nyhetstjänster, som t ex DN som ju uppenbarligen inte respekterar oss och våra val.

När vi gör det valet ropas på rättsliga eller politiska ingripanden. De som ropar borde minnas att det sällan har varit lyckat att förbjuda eller begränsa användningen av modern teknik för att rädda företag som är fast i den gamla. De som vill överleva måste istället utvecklas med sin tid.

Lyssnarförakt

Om författarna har problem med sina läsare så är det ingenting mot hur arga musikerna är på sina lyssnare. Mångmiljonärerna Björn Ulvaeus och Per Gessle (som dessutom båda varit inblandade i upphovsrättstvister) vill att vi ska tycka så synd om dem för deras uteblivna inkomster (för att de blir bestulna). Fast det de egentligen vill är ju att göra sig till talesmän för de som i framtiden ska kunna sitta på en hög av guld tack vare gamla meriter och gamla royalties.

De tycks inte fatta att dagens begåvade unga artister är på väg någon helt annanstans. En annan typ av musik, en annan yrkesroll och en annan sorts karriär. Och att det sker av nödvändighet. För när dagens unga börjar närma sig pensionen kommer det inte finnas några stora nationella radiostationer och tevekanaler som kan generera fantasisummor i STIM, inte heller några möjligheter till royalties genom att ge ut den tredje sortens plastbit och tvinga alla fans att köpa samma musik för tredje gången.

Ska vi kalla det lyssnarförakt? Om ni tvivlar så kan ni läsa vad Åsa Jinder skriver på sin blogg till en förhållandevis artig läsare som kommenterat:

Ännu en idiot.
Som pratar om SIN INTEGRITET som om den vore viktigare än det faktum att han STJÄL FRÅN ANDRA.
Lägg ner för fan. På allvar.
Lägg ner.
Det går verkligen inte att diskutera med idioter. Tjuvar.
Som buhuuuuuar om sin integritet och buhuuuar om stopp på samhällutvecklingen om inte de får stjäla…buhuuuu.
Vad är det som är så svårt att förstå i meningen – du skall betala- du, skall eller betala?

Leo Erlandsson som skrev kommentaren Jinder svarar på hade på inget sätt antytt att han inte ville betala för musik. Han kunde mycket väl ha varit en framtida köpare av en Åsa Jinder-skiva. De flesta av oss som är mot IPRED och kritiska till TP-domen vill faktiskt inte stjäla musik. Många av oss fildelar inte ens. Jag har betalat för all musik jag äger.

Vad vi däremot är, är förbannade. Arga på en bransch som inte litar på oss, som behandlar oss som tjuvar. Som tvingar oss att köpa samma vara flera gånger. Som inte låter oss spela den musik vi köpt var vi vill. Det betyder i mitt fall att jag kan ha förståelse för de sk tjuvarna, förståelse för att man till slut ledsnar på att det man vill köpa inte går att köpa.

Jag saknar också den gamla skivbutiken där det var självklart att man ville provlyssna innan man köpte. Oerhört mycket av de musik som ligger och skräpar som mp3:or i folks datorer spelas aldrig. Den plockades ner för att provlyssnas och har sedan glömts bort. Är det verkligen upphovsrättsbrott att flytta en bunt ettor och nollor om dessa ettor och nollor aldrig blir omgjorda till musik av en DA-omvandlare? Och om det är det juridiskt, är det rimligt?

Varför är artisterna så arga när det var de och deras representanter som startade krig mot kunderna? Extra underligt blir alltihop när vi talar om ett rättsfall om saker som skedde för fyra år sen, när det idag äntligen börjar dyka upp tekniska och affärmässiga lösningar.

Väljarförakt

Till sist är det dags att döpa om politikerföraktet. Det handlar inte om ett förakt mot politiker. Det handlar om politikernas förakt mot sina väljare. Det är dags att kalla det vid dess rätta namn: Väljarförakt!

Efter Bodströmsamhället, FRA-frågan, stiftandet av IPRED-lagen så är det tydligt att vad väljarna vill tala med sina politiker om är ganska ointressant för politikerna mellan valen. Vi blir fler och fler som ger upp hoppet om partier som inte tycks ha behov av något annat än väljare. Medlemmar vill man väl fortfarande ha, men aktivister, funktionärer och folk som vill vara med och forma politiken, nej tack.

När människor reagerar med att starta nya partier så är detta en av de mest grundläggande politiska rättigheterna. Något som borde högaktas av det politiska systemet, även om det inte håller med om idéerna hos de nya partierna. Om ett nytt parti dessutom lyckas med något som närmast är den moderna politikens heliga Graal, att engagera ungdomar politiskt, så borde ju detta parti väcka en smula intresse. Men det som sker är ett förminskande och förlöjligandet av nya partier. Piratpartiet är knappast det första partiet som råkar ut för detta.

Det är dags för lite respekt och tolerans inte bara mot piratpartiet utan mot läsare, lyssnare och väljare.

 

 

Att få lön för sitt arbete

http://scriptorium.se/josh/2009/04/19/att-fa-lon-for-sitt-arbete/

– Joshua_Tree @ 19:46

Kampen om kulturen eskalerar snabbt just nu. Debatten har varit glödhet sedan Ipred röstades igenom och katalyseras ständigt av nya händelser, som rättegången mot The Pirate Bay, införandet av Ipred och domen mot TPB. Det går knappt en dag utan att någon företrädare för upphovsrättslobbyn, antingen en direktör eller en upphovsman, gråter ut i media, ondgör sig om tjuvar och vädjar om att rätten att få betaaalt för sitt arbete. Jag försökte länge ha överseende och förståelse för åtminstone upphovsmännens känslor och rädslor, men jag har fått nog nu. Tills dess att ni själva börjar använda er av hyfs och visa respekt för era meningsmotståndare, fans och läsare kan ni dra åt helvete för min del.

Med hyfs och respekt menar jag till att börja med att kalla saker för vad det är. Att ständigt kalla saker för stöld när det inte är stöld är intellektuellt ohederligt. Vilselededande. Eller varför inte lögn? Upphovsrättsintrång må vara ett brott, men det är inte stöld, det är inte våldtäkt, det är inte rattfylla, mord, kidnappning, hemfridsbrott eller landsförräderi. Det är upphovsintrång. Och medhjälp till upphovsrättsintrång är givetvis då inte heller stöld, våldtäkt, rattfylla eller något annat. Det är inte ens medhjälp till stöld, våldtäkt eller rattfylla. Det är medhjälp till upphovsrättsintrång.

Vidare vore det fint om man slutade ljuga om hur mycket pengar man förlorar. Vi känner ju alla till den pinsamma historia som Liza Marklund och hennes vän Johan ställde till med nyligen, när han förklarade hur mycket Stockholm Stoner förlorat på fildelning och hon helt okritiskt skrev om det. Det tog svärmen några minuter att göra den research Marklund inte orkade göra, och så var lögnen avslöjad. Historikern Dick Harrison gör samma sak. Han vet minsann något som ingen annan vet – nämligen hur många böcker han borde ha sålt. Det måste han veta, ty han vet hur hårt hans ekonomi drabbats av fildelning. Han är faktiskt en av de som drabbats hårdast av fildelning, enligt Aftonbladet. För övrigt är han en ouppfostrad rövhatt som inte låter sina meningsmotståndare tala till punkt. Att avbryta sina motdebattörer är stöld, våldtäkt och rattfylla!

En intressant detalj när det gäller Dick Harrisson är att om man söker på hans namn på The Pirate Bay så får man… ingenting! Dick jävla Harrison är inte fildelad på The Pirate Bay, men han vet minsann att det är deras fel att han inte har ett fetare bankkonto än han har. Det måste vara så bekvämt att leva i en sådan föreställningsvärld. ”Om inte om vore så vore jag rik som ett troll”. Det finns alldeles säkert en psykologiterm för slikt.1

Och så var det ju det där med att få betalt för sitt arbete. Det är också en intressant inställning, att man har rätt att få betalt för sitt arbete. Vi vanliga löntagare vet att någon sådan naturrätt inte existerar. Lön för sitt arbete får man om arbetet efterfrågas. Annars får man skaffa sig ett annat arbete eller stämpla. Om jag går ut och gräver ett hål i gatan här utanför utför jag ett arbete, men jag är ganska säker på att när jag går till gatukontoret för att kräva lön för mitt arbete kommer jag istället att bli åtalad och bötfälld. Vafalls!? Ska jag betala för mitt arbete? Vad är det för jävla samhälle vi lever i!?

På samma sätt kan jag inte kräva att jag ska få betalt för det jag skriver eller för mitt gitarrspelande. Betalt får jag om någon är villig att anlita mina tjänster eller köpa vad jag skapar. Om jag kysser en Opel på skiva kommer jag inte att få en spänn för det, men är det verkligen fildelningens fel? Om Stockholm Stoner kysser en Opel på skiva får inte de heller betalt för det, men i Liza Marklunds och Dick Harrisons verkligheter är det givet att det beror på fildelningen.

Om Per Gessle däremot kysser en Opel på skiva så kommer han att tjäna pengar på det. Där har vi den verkliga ”stölden” – det faktum att det finns en gräddfil i kulturbranschen som gör att om du blivit tillräckligt känd är du garanterad att dra in pengar oavsett vad du släpper för skit. Aktörerna i gräddfilen stjäl från alla andra upphovsmän. Fildelning kan ändra på det. Alla dessa upphovsmän som aldrig får någon som helst hjälp med marknadsföring men ändå bör avstå större delen av intäkterna för sitt arbete till ett bolag enbart för ynnesten att bli utgivna har en möjlighet att bli sedda, upptäckta, älskade, genom fildelning. Klart som fan att gräddfilen bävar!

Tillbaka till det där med rätten att få lön för sitt arbete. När Anna Troberg försökte debattera med Dick Harrison uttryckte han att det där med kontakt med sina läsare inte var något som roade honom. Han var inte intresserad av att ägna sig åt dylikt. Liksom Anna tycker jag att det är märkligt att just författare ska ha privilegiet att bara syssla med sådant de tycker är kul, och naturligtvis få betalt för det. Tror du att jag står på ett fabriksgolv för att jag tycker att det är kul, Dick? Är du dum i hela huvudet?

För större delen av befolkningen är det faktiskt så att man får betalt för att göra saker som inte är så roliga, men som behöver göras. Saker som är roliga gör man gärna gratis. För en klar minoritet existerar förhållandet att man faktiskt får betalt för att göra något man tycker är roligt att göra, som att skriva böcker eller spela musik, lira hockey eller meka med bilar. Eller vad det nu må vara. Det finns givetvis en hel del knegare som verkligen älskar sitt jobb, det måste inte vara ett kreativt yrke, och jag gläds med alla som har den ynnesten, men att det skulle vara en självklarhet att tjäna pengar på att ha kul är världsfrånvänt.

Det är här problemet uppstår för just upphovsmännen, för de är faktiskt beroende av människors betalningsvilja. Visserligen har upphovsrättindustrin skapat en del fiffiga insamlingstjänster som gör att upphovsmännen får betalt även om ingen köper skiten, genom offentligt framförande i radio och tv till exempel, men i längden räcker inte det. Säljer man inte så framförs man till slut inte heller offentligt. Man kan bara kyssa en Opel på skiva så många gånger innan folk vänder en ryggen, även om det kan vara svårt att tro.

Betalningsviljan är heller inte enbart upphängd på huruvida människor är beredda att betala för det man skapat. Det räcker inte att folk älskar det du skapar. De måste också älska dig. Du är ditt varumärke. Om du inte är intresserad av dina fans är de inte intresserade av dig. Om du kallar dem tjuvar kommer de att be dig dra åt helvete och gå vidare. Det är tämligen enkel psykologi och det är obegripligt att somliga inte förstår det. Fråga vilken näringsidkare som helst och de kommer att berätta att a och o är att hålla sig väl med sina kunder. Det finns en anledning till att man säger kunden har alltid rätt. Vad tror ni händer med Sibas kundunderlag om deras personal står utanför entrén och skriker ”tjyv!” efter alla som går förbi och istället besöker Elgiganten?

Vill ni ha betalt för ert arbete? Skapa något som människor är beredda att betala för. Sätt ett pris som människor är beredda att betala. Och, framför allt, var rädd om era kunder. Utan kunder har ni ingenting.

Slutligen hoppas jag att alla de upphovsmän som nu sjunger upphovsrättsindustrins lov får duktigt betalt för sitt lobbyarbete. Det är nämligen de sista betalningarna ni kommer att få. Era fans vänder er ryggen för att ni spottar på dem, och när de slutar köpa era verk, när pengarna slutar ramla in, då kommer bolagen också att dumpa er.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

– ur The Shining.

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>

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 109 – IPRED och en Upphovs- och Copyrightlagstiftning som har blivit absurd för konsumenterna

19 april, 2009

Tyvärr så gäller fortfarande denna varning dag 109 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.

Och här kommer mera om hur våra intälägänta politiker oförtrutet fortsätter att inskränka våra fri- och rättigheter. Och gör ALLT för att inskränka det där ”hemska och demokratiska” internet där de INTE kan styra och ställa som de är vana vid. Och där de blir avslöjade med byxorna nere när de kommer med osanningar och fakta fel. Eller inte vet vad de pratar om.

Jag menar, vad är det här? Skall våra medborgare VERKLIGEN kunna ifrågasätta va VI (de ”folkvalda” och regeringen) säger och påstå att vi ljuger när vi ljuger!

Vad är det för medborgare! Och det här skall kalas demokrati! När vi inte får bestämma själva utan en massa onödigt tjafs från våra undersåtar!

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!

Hur du kan skydda dig på ett någorlunda enkelt sätt mot STASI:S och KGB:S arvtagare:

(OBS. Passa på NU INNAN det är för sent att skydda dig. Våra intälägänta politiker pratar redan nu om att förbjuda en del av dessa skyddsmekanismer. Det hela blir mer och mer som i Kina eller Nord Korea. Eller Sovjet och Öst Tyskland när det begav sig. Dvs. som vanlig enkel, hederlig medborgare så måste du leva ett dubbelliv med en massa säkerhetsåtgärder och skydd för att freda dig mot statens och privata affärsintressens övervakning.)

http://frapedia.se/wiki/Hur_man_skyddar_sig_mot_avlyssning

http://www.digitalidag.se/wiki/Portal:FRA/Skydd

http://www.fraskydd.se/

Se även mina inlägg 

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

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

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

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 35

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 25 

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 10

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 9

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 5 forts.

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 5

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 3

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 2

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 1

Med flera

Piratchock: Ett halv folkparti på 36 timmar!

http://swartz.typepad.com/texplorer/2009/04/piratchock-ett-halv-folkparti-p%C3%A5-36-timmar.html

Mellan klockan 18:41 och 18:42 igår den 17 april 2009 passerade Piratpartiet (pp) medlemsantalet för Folkpartiet (fp), 17.799 medlemmar. Fp har funnits i sin nuvarande form sedan åtminstone 1934. Piratpartiet sedan 2006.

Idag mellan kl 22:04 och 22:05 passerade Piratpartiet Kristdemokraterna (kd), som har 22.919 medlemmar. Under den minuten tillkom 32 medlemmar till (pp).

Sedan Pirate Bay-domens kungörande, hade Piratpartiet lagt mer än ett halvt Folkparti till medlemsantalet kl 23:25 den 18 april 2009 (23.610 medlemmar totalt).

På 36 timmar och 25 minuter hade man adderat 50 % av Folkpartiets medlemsskara.

Vad händer??

Kommer Sverige 2009 att bli motsvarigheten till Summer of Love i San Francisco 1967 ?? En motkultur som då bestod av ”sex, drugs and rock’n roll”, anti-kommersialism, ”sharing”, motstånd mot kriget (Vietnam). Sånt där som alla talar om i framtiden och ser nostalgiskt tillbaks på? Det där epokgörande skiftet när nya värderingar bröt igenom? Kanske!

Med finanskrisens flopp och den äldre generationens attack på de nya gemenskaper som uppstår genom nätet finns förutsättningarna. Med krig som inte leder framåt. Motkulturen behöver inte se ut på samma sätt och inte ens manifesteras fysiskt i form av en massa människor som dras samman på en plats som i Haight-Ashbury/San Francisco. Nu kanske samlingarna sker virtuellt? Om man i den fysiska världen får ihop 1000 personer med en dags varsel är det stort idag.

Alla kan sprida sina idéer och påverka andra. Jag fick ett anonymt mejl idag som jag blev glad över. Jag vet inte vem det är. Personen skrev: ”hej oscar, det är nu dryga 3 år sedan jag började följa vad du skrev på din blogg och började intressera mig, idag förstår jag… i går blev jag piratpartist och idag var jag på medborgarplatsen..det låter ju inte så mycket..men ditt skribentjobb har givit mig mycket..och idag är jag en mycket klokare människa..”

Jag kan ha fel. Men jag misstänker att de som inte hängde med under nätgenerationens revolution 2009 kommer att ångra sig. Det är upp till oss alla vad som sker nu. Let it rock!!

Jag gillar alltså Piratbyråns Tobias Anderssons Facebookstatus igår och är nyfiken framåt: är imponerad och jävligt peppad av alla 1000 gräsrotsprojekt som växer ur det här jävla spektaklet. snart alla flottiga direktörer kommer ni bittert ångra att ni försökte stöpa om vårt internet till en kabeltvkanal!”

VIi älskar nätet. Bara fantasin sätter gränser. Kom ihåg det!

 

Det fattas några ord i SvDs rubrik

http://rickfalkvinge.se/2009/04/19/det-fattas-nagra-ord-i-svds-rubrik/

”Piratpartiet har fått fler nya medlemmar de senaste 48 timmarna än MP har sammanlagt.”

 

Här kan ni se piratpatiets medlemsutveckling i REALTID:

https://pirateweb.net/Pages/Public/Data/MemberCountHistory.aspx

När detta skrivs så har Piratpartiet 29212 medlemmar:

Alltså på morgonen den 17 april så hade man ca 14.700 medlemmar: Nu 2 dygn senare så har man mer än fördubblat detta och är nu STÖRRE än MP och VPK  TILLSAMMANS. Och större än FP och KD.

Deras ungdomsförbund är LIKA STOR som Grön ungdom, CUF,  KDU och SSU är TILLSAMMANS.

Och då skall man komma ihåg allt det fusk som har förekommit bland de etablerade partierna för att blåsa upp sina medlemssiffror för att MAXIMERA bidrag på ALLA nivåer.

Snart är det EU val och då om inte förr är det dags att skick en mycket tydlig signal till de etablerade partierna att vi har fått nog av alla dessa lögner och inskränkningar i våra fri- och rättigheter!

Här kommer ett litet urval av artiklar och inlägg som behandlar frågan:

 

Pirate Bay: Anakatas kommentar till världen.

http://swartz.typepad.com/texplorer/2009/04/pirate-bay-anakatas-kommentar-till-v%C3%A4rlden.html

”Det är alltså Gottfrids kommentar: ”Som en hund!”.

Det är en bra kommentar. Processen handlar ju just om den obönhörliga och svårbegripliga byråkratin som mal på utan självreflexion. Man förstår aldrig vad poängen är.

Faktum är att några av Sveriges främsta entreprenörer just blivit dömda till fängelse. De har skapat något stort: En community som attraherar mängder av människor som vill dela med sig av digital information. Alla kunde ha gjort detta. Skivbolag, Hollywood, avdankade popstjärnor, ja vem som helst. Det gjorde de inte. Google försörjer sig på att sälja annonser på en replikerbar standardtjänst som att söka bland webbsidor. Filmbolag skulle kunna göra samma sak genom att starta ett eget ”Pirate Bay”. Men det vill man inte. Man vill ta betalt per exemplar trots att den modellen egentligen är död.

Min gamle affärskollega Jon Karlung, Bahnhofs VD, skrev ungefär så på Newsmill nyligen: Fildelningslagen ekonomisk katastrof för Sverige, som han uttryckte det. Helt korrekt. Vi ligger ju längst fram i Sverige!

 

Upphovsrätt är inte ”viktigast av allt”

http://opassande.se/index.php/2009/04/18/upphovsratt-ar-inte-viktigast-av-allt/

”Numera använder man mobiltelefoner att surfa och chatta med. Ofta åker laptops fram när folk möts – det kan vara för att kolla var saker finns, se en rolig grej, skicka ett mail, informera sig i största allmänhet. Internet är där vi är – hela tiden. Vi är internet.

Det statiska, det planerade försvinner i allt större utsträckning. Nätet finns där hela tiden, likväl som jag träffar folk runt ett fikabord som i en chattkanal, betalar räkningar, läser tidningar, beställer och bokar, handlar… Webben är inte en svårflyttad tv i vardagsrummet, helt enkelt, utan en integrerad del i våra liv.

När vi kämpar för rättigheter online kämpar vi för att ha rättigheter punkt slut. Det handlar inte om att ha ”rätt” att ladda ner gratis. Det handlar inte om att ha ”rätt” att vara elak mot någon online som man emellanåt får intryck av i rapporteringen.

Det handlar om grundläggande rättigheter som att få yttra sig, kommunicera privat och inte bli omyndigförklarad i sitt vardagsliv.

Det är ganska många rättigheter som hamnar på undantag i upphovsrättens namn. Att vilja se över upphovsrättslagstiftningen för att få den i samklang med andra rättigheter är inte anarkistiskt. Det är en förutsättning för samhällets demokratiska utveckling.”

 

Tingsrätten har bestämt – TPB är cheferna över internet och oss alla

http://opassande.se/index.php/2009/04/17/tingsratten-har-bestamt-tpb-ar-cheferna-over-internet-och-oss-alla/

”Svärmen har således fått några ”chefer” utsedda av tingsrätten, amerikanska konglomerat och svenska politiker. Svärmen som består av miljoner människor varav alla hjälpt till att bidra till The Pirate Bays popularitet. Svärmen som skapat deltagarkultur och fört utvecklingen framåt med hjälp av ny teknik för att vi velat det.

För att amerikanska särintressen ska få rätt att monopolisera oss döms killarna för något vi alla varit med om att bygga upp och eftersträva. Fildelning kommer att fortsätta, inte ens The Pirate Bay kommer att stängas ner. De döms för att det ser bra ut (inför vilka kan man ju undra) men har inte någon anknytning till verkligheten.

Det är frestande att be Fredrik, Peter och Gottfrid om ursäkt för att de får klä skott för min och andras önskan om ett utvecklande och öppet samhälle med demokratiska grundprinciper och aktivt tagit del i The Pirate Bays utveckling. Men istället blir det ett stort tack. Tack för att ni envisats, orkat och stått raka i ryggen. Kampen går vidare och jag ska göra vad jag kan för att hjälpa till.

Det lär väl komma in lite analyser om domen, men redan nu är det svårt att inte fundera över konsekvenserna. I vilken utsträckning är länkar till upphovsrättsskyddat material olagligt, undrar man så smått. Frågan är om jag nu gör mig skyldig till ett brott som länkar till det här? Eller det här? Begår jag en olaglighet som söker efter filer via google, rent av, eller är det google som gör fel när de gör information tillgängligt i länkform?

Artister som av olika skäl inte är anknutna till konglomeraten – bryter de mot några lagar som försöker nå människor på egen hand när de använder sig av fildelning? Eller är det okej att de straffas utan att ha gjort något illa? Jag undrar detta eftersom om man bestämmer att The Pirate Bay är olagligt har man sumariskt bestämt att alla länkar på siten till innehåll är olagliga – ett direkt slag mot deltagarkulturen.

De konsekventa attackerna mot tekniken för med sig att möjligheter försvinner. Ett argument som ofta använts av motståndare till deltagarkulturen – ”man kan ju välja själv om man vill bli fildelad”. Nej, det kan man inte om domar av det här slaget är något att utgå från. Förbjuds tekniken förbjuds utveckling och nyskapande. Det handlar om tekniken, att försöka lägga ut dimridåer och påstå motsatsen är nästan larvigt.

Det får konsekvenser i både stort och smått. Väldigt mycket av det som finns på min blogg, t.ex. är länkar till vad andra skapat, sagt eller skrivit. Min kunskap är nästan helt avhängigt av vad jag lärt mig från andra, till och med. Vilken information kommer vara laglig att dela med sig av, vem bestämmer det – amerikanska konglomerat?

Hur långt ner sträcker sig kaninhålet?”

 

Älskade internet

http://www.expressen.se/1.1537699

” Att det skulle bli en fällande dom för de åtalade bakom The Pirate Bay hade nämligen redan läckt ut. Också det en intressant detalj i ett samhälle där vissa desperat försöker kontrollera information och kommunikation.”

”Jag säger inte att det inte finns skäl att vara ledsen. Efter att ha suttit i den där rättssalen i Stockholms tingsrätt och med egna ögon sett nämndemännen slumra till under förhandlingarna bekymrar det mig såklart att de ändå kände sig bortom rimligt tvivel säkra i ett mål som nästan helt saknar bevisning och där själva grundfrågan inte gäller om de åtalade är skyldiga utan om något brott över huvud taget begåtts.

Självfallet finns det också anledning att känna sorg över hur vissa specifika näringslivsintressen försöker döda internet och avskaffa grundläggande medborgerliga rättigheter.”

Det går inte att se Pirate bay-domen skild från upphovsrättslobbyns försök att via EU få stänga av misstänkta fildelare från internet utan rättegång, via ACTA få genomsöka vanliga resenärers datorer på jakt efter fildelat material, eller via Ipred få ta över det jobb som i normala västerländska demokratier utförs av polisen.”

” Som Jan-Hugo Stenbeck en gång sade vinner teknik alltid över politik.

Det här var på den tiden svenska staten ensamt ville bestämma över vad vi fick se på tv. Nu vill underhållningsindustrin bestämma över vad vi får säga och göra på nätet. De vill göra om internet till just kabeltv, med oss som maktlösa konsumenter av deras utvalda produkter.

Där står de inte bara mot tekniken. De måste också kämpa ner miljontals människors kärlek till den revolution som internet innebär. Domen i dag är bara bränsle för elden i våra hjärtan. Det är en strid de aldrig kan vinna.”

 

Alla andra får skylla sig själva när dörren är olåst…

http://minamoderatakarameller.blogspot.com/2009/04/alla-andra-far-skylla-sig-sjalva-nar.html

”Min första tanke när jag hör om domen mot TPB är att romanen Fahrenheit 451 blev verklig den också precis som 1984. Jag såg filmen Fahrenheit när den kom 1966, Truffaut regisserade. Då handlade det om att bränna litteratur och i stället visades underhållning på interaktiva TV-skärmar. Det känns som om det tagits ett steg längre nu och man vill få kontroll över interaktiviteten och skärmarna. Känns oroande och mycket bakåtsträvande. Kolla på bokbränningsscenen från filmen här. Den går inte att bädda in… Ännu en begränsning av internet.

Det blev alltså fängelsestraff för alla fyra i TPB och ett oerhört stort skadestånd. Otroligt. Vad är detta annat än en politisk dom egentligen? Politiken får dessutom numera skötas av särintressen, det är en obehaglig utveckling. För samtidigt är det en dom helt i avsaknad av politisk fingertoppskänsla och framtidsvision. Domen är en skam för politiken tycker jag och ett urtypiskt exempel på när man inte ser skogen för bara träd. Har man väl funnit ett träd så stannar man där och låtsas inte om hur de andra påverkar i omgivning. Det är lite skrämmande. Hur särintressen som film- och musikindustrin kan få så stort inflytande på det politiska arbetet är inget annat oroande.

”Artister som kopplas samman med musikindustrin kommer att få dåligt rykte och vi lyssnar hellre på de andra och i längden så drabbar de det alla. Jag kommer aldrig mer att lägga en spänn på något som passerat via film- och musikindustrin, det får bli en princip att hålla sig till i fortsättningen. Sonyprodukter är sedan länge bannlysta i vårt hem sedan de höll på och installerade rootkit på våra datorer, och det har gått utmärkt att klara sig utan dem, det finns andra märken.”

” Deeped skriver på sin blogg att TPB-domen är ett slag mot demokratin. Man kan inte göra annat än hålla med honom om det. Vem som helst kan bli åtalad genom att särintressen kräver det. Vart tog rättsamhället vägen? Skrämmande ur den synvinkeln. När man sedan får höra av närvarande att nämndemän satt och sov under rättegången så blir man uppbragt av den anledningen. Var det inte intressantare än så det här hörrni? Ni dömer människor till fängelse och stora skadestånd och så sitter ni och sover under rättegången. Vad är det för stil?.”

 

Politiker vs Industri och Lobbyister.

http://farmorgun.blogspot.com/2009/04/politiker-vs-industri-och-lobbyister.html

” Enligt skolboken ska politikernas roll vara att stå upp för medborgerliga intressen när företrädare för företag och lobbyister med uppdrag för olika särintressen tränger sig på. Men, här blir det på nytt tydligt att i avvägningen mellan att slå vakt om medborgarnas fundamentala fri- och rättigheter gentemot industri och lobbyister, så väljer alltför många politiker att gå ärenden åt de senare. Att nyhetsförmedlingen om Telekompaketets innehåll blivit en ”kulturfråga” har sin förklaring i att Frankrikes president Sarkozy jobbar stenhårt för skrivningar i paketet, som ska möjliggöra för honom att stifta egna lagar hemma i Frankrike (DN) för att kunna filtrera/censurera innehållet i kablarna samt se till att telebolag och operatörer binder upp medborgarnas d v s kundernas beteende i civilrättsliga avtal med sanktionsåtgärder. Vad som håller på att hända är att vi medborgare görs till kunder på nätet och därför är det politikernas plikt att skriva in de demokratiska fri- och rättigheterna i direktiven för ett nät där vi verkar som medborgare! Detta borde infrastrukturminister Åsa Torstensson och hennes sakkunnige Henrik Hansson liksom förhandlaren Jörgen Samuelsson i Bryssel inse. Och en hel del andra politiker, som verkar där nere i Bryssel. Triangulering, som förhandlingarna där nere kallas, pågår.”

 

Regeringen: Internet ska regleras med konkurrensrätt

http://www.erikjosefsson.eu/blogg/2009/04/17/regeringen-internet-ska-regleras-med-konkurrensraett

”Där kom det. Rapportören Harbours uppfattning att det är konkurrensrätten som ska användas som verktyg för att reglera Internet delas av regeringen. På frågan om Deutsche Telecom ska få blockera Skype svarar Henrik Hansson:

Men vi tycker givetvis inte att det är en önskvärd utveckling att vissa tjänster medvetet blockeras på nätet. Hur man ska formulera lagtext som tillåter det förra, men inte det sistnämnda vet jag ärligt talat inte. Det är därför som jag lutar åt att det är bättre konkurrensrätten tar hand om det här problemet.

Ett katastrofrecept helt enkelt. Och ett falskt argument. Åtalspunkten ”missbruk av dominerande ställning” kan bara användas om marknaden är definierad. Jämför med browsermarknaden (pressmeddelande från ECIS):

The Commission’s investigation follows a complaint by Opera, the Norwegian browser developer. Despite consistently lower user satisfaction ratings for IE, the Microsoft browser maintains its dominant position as the gateway to the World Wide Web because of illegal bundling with the Windows operating system. Other browsers that are rated superior to IE cannot compete on their merits. Similar tying practices have already been condemned by both the Commission and European Court of First Instance with respect to Windows Media Player.

Skype och T-Mobile är inte konkurrenter på samma marknad. Hur mycket än Torstensson&Co hoppas att Skype och T-Mobile ska vara konkurrenter.

Så här förklarar MEP Roger Helmer hur fint det är tänkt (precis som Hansson):

Many of the amendments he has tabled boost transparency so that consumers will be able to make informed decisions about which services they would like to use

Jättebra, vi får alltså välja vilka tjänster vi vill ha. Vidare:

This would mean that if Internet Service operators decide to restrict access to certain services (which is the current situation, for example, where Skype is currently blocked on some mobile phones), the consumer could then decide not to use that service provider and opt for another one, which does provide Skype.

Torstenssons vision är alltså att vissa interentleverantörer ska konkurrera med att tillåta Skype. Andra kanske med att tillåta Wikipedia, eller bittorrent, eller nåt annat. Om du vill ha Spotify måste du byta interentleverantör. Välkommen Till Internet Med Extra Allt!

Här ett citat från en person som jag ska berätta vem det är i mina memoarer:

I agree entirely that it would be ridiculous to leave this to competition law. It just cannot handle such situations. This would be the same as doing nothing at all.

Torstensson&Co vill alltså se till att Post och telestyrelsen inte kan göra ett skit om vi får en Skype/T-Mobile-situation i Sverige, eller en Comcast v. Vuze. Toppen. Vuze är en ”entertainment platform”. Comcast levererar ”cable services”. Samma marknad? Knappast.

De som vill läsa på kan titta i kapitel 4.2 EU competition law och 5.3 Ideas on
prioritisation regulation här.

Hur var det nu med finanskrisen? Pratar man inte om att man måste reglera finansmarknaderna? Bara en tanke…”

 

TPB: I dag börjar kriget om framtiden på allvar

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/04/tpb-i-dag-borjar-nog-kriget-om.html

” Samtidigt lever vi i en värld med hyperdistribution. I princip all form av information (däribland underhållning) går att sprida blixtsnabbt till en global publik. Så ser det ut. Det kan inga tingsrättsdomar ändra. Så i praktiken innebär domen ingenting.

Grundproblemet finns kvar: Det finns en jätteklyfta mellan tekniken och informationssamhället å ena sidan – och nöjesindustrins förlegade affärsmodeller å den andra.

Detta väcker frågan: Vad tänker politikerna och nöjesindustrin göra nu? Vilka vapen har de att ta till när fildelningen inte försvinner trots speciallagar och trots att de kastar folk i finkan?

Eftersom nöjesindustrin envisas med att se sig själva som distributörer av information i fysisk form i en värld som i övrigt blir allt mer digital – så har den bara en väg att gå.

Det är att driva politikerna att införa nya inskränkningar av internets frihet; att införa mer övervakning; att lagstifta om hårdare straff; att strypa det fria informationsflödet och att börja bekämpa själva tekniken.

Och de kommer ändå inte att lyckas. De kommer att ställa till med svår skada på vägen. Men de kommer inte att lyckas bättre än de som en gång försökte stoppa till exempel tryckpressen eller den mekaniska vävstolen.

 

EU: Fulspel om förlängd upphovsrätt

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/04/eu-fulspel-om-forlangd-upphovsratt.html

 

Bananrepubliken Sverige

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/04/bananrepubliken-sverige.html

” Nu när allas blickar tycks vara riktade mot vårt rättsväsende, kan det vara på sin plats att påpeka en sak som är väldigt orimlig.

I Sverige stiftar politikerna lagarna – sedan sitter det politiker och dömer i våra tingsrätter.

I demokratier brukar man anse att det är bra med maktdelning. Men inte i Sverige. Här har vi en modell som möjliggör politiska domar. Det är synd att grundlagsutredningen inte brydde sig om att ta tag i detta problem.”

 

Kommer TPB-domen att leda till nätcensur?

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/04/kommer-tpb-domen-att-leda-till.html

” Efter domen mot The Pirate Bay vill nöjesindustrin att internetoperatörerna blockerar siten i sina nät. De lutar sig bland annat mot tingsrättens märkliga glidning om att själva bittorrentprotokollet skulle vara något konstigt eller olagligt.

Operatörerna vägrar dock, tack och lov. Än så länge, får man väl tillägga.”

 

Kulturklimatet i Sverige 2009

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/04/kulturklimatet-i-sverige-2009.html

 ”Ett antal författare och musiker hoppar upp och ner av glädje över att människor som hjälpt andra att ta del av deras verk kan komma att kastas i fängelse.

Närmare bestämt ett antal författare och musiker som oftast säger sig vara vänster, går omkring i Che-tröjor, dissar kapitalismen, vill skatta ihjäl företagen och applåderar när Lars Ohly talar om det klasslösa samhället.

Vi lever i intressanta tider.”

 

Ingenting räcker

http://anders.mmmalmo.se/2009/04/17/ingenting-racker/

Två veckor efter Ipred-lagen trädd i kraft hade trafiken på internet gått ner – ordentligt. Antipiratbyråns Henrik Pontén sa då följande till Metro Teknik:

” …effektmässigt var det nog ingen som hade trott att trafikminskningen skulle bli så kraftig. Eller att den skulle hänga kvar så länge”.

Jag tycker att det var ett intressant uttalande. För om Antipiratbyrån inte trodde att lagen skulle påverka användarnas beteende, vad skulle då krävas för att uppnå målet att stoppa den illegala fildelningen?

Sanningen är att det kommer att krävas en snabb följd av strängare lagar, en utbyggd övervakning av människors kommunikation på internet, en flora av integritetskränkande åtgärder och – till sist – ett förbud mot att vara anonym på internet för att ens komma en bit på vägen.

Ja, sanningen är faktiskt att INGENTING RÄCKER.

Det kommer alltid att krävas att vi tar ytterligare ett steg. Puttar ytterligare några principer åt sidan. Anpassar oss ännu mer till en syn på demokrati och yttrandefrihet som liksom bara råkade sig smyga sig in i våra hem och plötsligt en dag bodde där. Och då rättar vi oss efter situationen, vänjer oss och säger saker som att det där med telekommunikation kan väl ändå inte handla om mänskliga rättigheter.

Nu hittar vi inte bara medborgarna på ena sidan, allt mer trängda av lagar som de upplever som integritetskränkande, så utskuffade på kanten att de hamnat i en motsatsposition till staten, utan också operatörerna som även de har börjat att reagera.”

 

Nedlåtande snack från de som vill försvaga internetfriheten

http://lars-ericksblogg.blogspot.com/2009/04/nedlatande-snack-fran-de-som-vill.html

” Några mörkermännskor anser att internets frihet är en slags lyxfråga för de som inte svälter. Att ”svältande barn” inte ser internets frihet som en mänsklig rättighet.

Vad vet de om det?

Jag tycker det är ett tecken på att dessa censurivrare inte inser vad internet står för. Eller så inser de det och vill begränsa denna utomordentliga demokratiska kanal, de vill inte demokrati!

Dessutom är det en nedlåtande människoskyn att tillskriva människor åsikten att den som svälter inte har en önskan efter frihet och demokrati.

Demokrati och demokratiska rättigheter brukar vara en väg bort från svält.

Svält är ett relativt begrepp. Och kan omfatta annat än fysisk svält. Varför ska vi, som anser oss leva i den rika världen, tala om för andra vad som är viktigt för dem?

Internet är faktiskt något av det bästa som hänt yttrandefriheten, det har gett tillgång till information och möjlighet till debatt och tankeutbyte. Allt detta är grundvalar för demokrati.

I länder utan demokrati är internet dynamit! Den som strävar efter spridning av demokratin borde glädja sig över att det finns internetcaféer snart sagt i varje buske även i den del av världen som anses fattig. Som internetanvändare (och resenär) vet jag att så är det.

Är det fel att fattiga vill smaka på den demokratiska frihet som internet är?

Är det rätt att begränsa internets frihet i hittills som demokratiska ansedda länder? Som vårt.”

 

Domen är en fällande dom mot demokratin

http://deepedition.com/2009/04/17/domen-ar-en-fallande-dom-mot-demokratin/

”Konsekvenserna av TPB-domen är så långtgående att det svindlar. Anders Mildner skriver bland annat om det idag.

Idag kan du bli åtalad i åtal som i princip är beställda av företag. I princip handlar om att rättegången tar vid där razzian mot TPB 2006 slutade.

Idag kan du bli fälld utan några som helst vettiga bevis. Uppsåtsbrott är knappast något som är enkelt.

Idag kan du få betala gigantiska summor för att ha skapat en sajt som ger människor möjligheten att dela material – oavsett dess copyrightmässiga status. Oavsett vilken del i kedjan du är. Bye bye bredband.

Idag slutade Sverige att vara en demokratisk rättstat. (Och Dick Harrisson visade sig ha icke-demokratiska, extremt egoistiska åsikter. Precis som att Journalistens ledare uppenbart är ointresserad av saker som rättsäkerhet. Eller att få fakta rätt – TPB rättegången handlar inte om att de fyra åtalade stulit något. Giertta är en sak – hjärna verkar vara en annan.)”

 

Dags att stämma Google och Yahoo.

http://erikhultin.se/04/dags-att-stamma-google-och-yahoo.php

”Detta räcker nästan för att man ska drabbas av andnöd p.g.a. ilska. Jag antar att det är sådant elände som detta som våra folkvalda anser är rättssäkert, och då kan vi bara konstatera att Sverige är mycket, mycket illa ute.

Jag använder inte TPB och jag känner ingen av de dömda. För min del så kan det alltså kvitta ifall TPB finns eller ej. Min reaktion på domen kommer sig helt av att domen är så fullständigt absurd. De åtalade döms alltså skyldiga till något så fantastiskt som ”medhjälp till upphovsrättsbrott”. De har alltså inte själva begått upphovsrättsbrott, utan de har tillhandahållit en sökmotor som länkar till upphovsrättsligt skyddat material.

Jag testade att söka på Google med sökorden britney spears torrent och där fick jag 1.580.000 träffar. Det är kanske inte någon överraskning att mängder av dessa träffar leder direkt till sidor där man med en eller två knapptryckningar kan starta nedladdning via Bittorrent. Jag har inte brytt mig om att undersöka hur det ser ut på Yahoo, utan jag gjorde samma sökning på svenska sökmotorn sesam.se (ägs av Schibsted som även äger bl.a. Aftonbladet) och fick ännu fler träffar där.

Enligt rådmannen Tomas Norström så har de åtalade ”främjat brott mot upphovsrättslagen bland annat genom välutvecklade sökfunktioner”. Ööööööh… Enligt exakt samma parameter så är i princip alla sökmotorer lika skyldiga/brottsliga som The Pirate Bay. Att man har kunnat ladda upp torrent-filer till The Pirate Bay omnämns av denna rådman i någon form av försök att verka initierad. Och??? När blev torrent-filer olagliga???

Undermålig kunskap och insikt samt en övertro på förträffligheten hos musik- och filmindustrins argument är det som ligger bakom denna skandalösa dom.

Går man vidare och tittar på straffet och skadeståndet så kanske följande kan tjäna som en lite jämförelse.

– Ett års fängelse kan man få om man t.ex. döms för rattfylleri, grov misshandel eller våldtäkt av barn. Ett års fängelse dömde tingsrätten för samtliga 4 åtalade i TPB-rättegången.

– Skadestånd vid våldtäkt kan ofta ligga på ca 75.000:-. När det blir riktigt eländigt så kan det bli rekordskadestånd. En 13-årig flicka fick nästan en halv miljon kronor i skadestånd, men hon hade våldtagits av sex män i fyra månader. 30 miljoner kronor dömde tingsrätten ut i skadestånd för de 4 åtalade i TPB-rättegången.

Var finns det någon som helst rim och reson i allt detta och exakt hur godtyckligt har tingsrätten kommit fram till skadeståndsbeloppet?”

 

När är en seger en seger?

http://erikhultin.se/04/nar-ar-en-seger-en-seger.php

IFPI anser att segern är så total så att de nu kräver att The Pirate Bay ska censureras/stängas av från internet av internetoperatörerna. Telia Sonera-juristen Patrik Hiselius konstaterar att någon avstängning inte är aktuell, dels för att domen ännu inte vunnit laga kraft och dels för att domen är en dom mot The Pirate Bay och ingenting annat. Advokaten Monique Wadsted (som själv har begått våld på upphovsrätten på sin hemsida) anser att de svenska internetoperatörerna borde ta sitt ansvar och fundera över vad de tjänar pengar på. Samma sak borde då även gälla datortillverkare, tillverkare av mp3-spelare, mobiltelefoner och allehanda andra möjliga påhitt. Kanske borde även Microsoft se till att stoppa sin mediaspelare, eftersom man ju kan använda den för att lyssna på olagligt nedladdad musik.

Ludvig Werner, styrelseordförande i Ifpi, visar tydligt att han ännu inte har förstått vad en torrent-tracker är när han säger: ”Det är klart att nu finns det bevis från domstol på att den här sajten sprider olagligt kopierade filer”. Hur många gånger man än upprepar detta mantra så innehåller en torrent-tracker inget upphovsrättsligt skyddat material. Det är en sökmotor, vare sig mer eller mindre. Trackern länkar till det skyddade materialet, inget annat.”

”Detta med snedfördelningen av pengar i branschen är en indikation som många politiker bör ta till sig. Vi kan inte lagstifta genom att lyssna ensidigt på kommersiella intressen. Det finns så många andra saker att ta hänsyn till.

Trots att den nuvarande upphovsrättslagstiftningen är klart otidsenlig så tas nu på torsdag frågan om förlängning av upphovsrätten upp i EU. Detta trots att det idag finns många artister som anser att detta enbart leder till högre kostnader och inte gagnar artisten själv. Läs mer om detta på Sound Copyright. Det ÄR INTE upphovsrättsindustrin som äger (eller ska äga) internet. Ett fritt internet är en väg för medborgare att både söka information och använda sin lagstadgade rätt att uttrycka sig. Det är svårt att göra detta via t.ex. kabeltv-nätet, eller hur?”

 

Sociala medier behöver lagskydd

http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_2756153.svd

”Konflikten mellan upphovsrätt och ny teknik är gammal, och det här är långt i från den första rättegången som prövar vilket ansvar en teknikutvecklare har. När videobandspelaren kom i slutet av 1970-talet beklagade sig tv-bolagens jurister över att människor stal tv-material genom att spela in det på videoband.

Att kontrollera vad tv-tittarna gjorde i sina vardagsrum var förstås omöjligt, så upphovsrättsindustrin valde att i stället angripa tekniken.

I en uppmärksammad rättsprocess stämdes elektronikjätten Sony av Universal, Disney och andra stora filmbolag. Sony hade enligt filmindustrin ett medansvar för alla upphovsrättsintrång som gjordes med hjälp av Sony-utrustning. Rättsprocessen pågick fram till mitten av 1980-talet och resulterade i att Sony helt friades i den amerikanska Högsta domstolen.

En princip som domstolen slog fast i Sony-domen var att den som tillverkar kopieringsutrustning som används för omfattande laglig verksamhet inte ansvarar för enskilda användares eventuella upphovsrättsbrott. Tack vare den friande domen kunde teknikutvecklingen fortsätta.

Den fällande domen mot The Pirate Bay får sannolikt inga omedelbara konsekvenser – positiva eller negativa. Fildelningssajten stängs knappast ned och möjligheterna att dela filer på internet kvarstår. Det mesta talar dessutom för att fallet går vidare till ytterligare en eller ett par högre instanser, vilket i så fall innebär att vi får vänta på det slutliga avgörandet. På den tiden kan den i dag dominerande torrent-tekniken bli obsolet.

Domen mot The Pirate Bay kommer inte att skapa bättre förutsättningar för konstnärer att leva på föråldrade affärsmodeller. Däremot har upphovsrättsorganisationer redan meddelat att de efter en fällande dom kommer att vidta åtgärder för att strypa informationsflödet på internet.

Bland annat vill organisationer som Antipiratbyrån och IFPI stänga av fildelare från internet så att de varken kan blogga, läsa nyheterna eller utföra bankärenden. De vill dessutom tvinga internetleverantörer att blockera fildelningssajter. Det skulle bli första gången en internetleverantör tvingas blockera material på nätet, vilket är en modern variant av att förbjuda böcker och tidningar. ”

 

Vad f*n hände med vårt demokratiskta rättsamhälle?!

http://enungman.se/blogg/2009/04/vad-fn-hande-med-vart-demokratiskta-rattsamhalle/

Vi ska inte jaga en hel generation” stod Reinfelt & Co. och sade för inte så länge sen.. under hans mandatperiod har FRA-lagen röstats fram, IPRED nu senast som låter enskilda företag och organisationer (privatpoliser) bedriva brottsbekämpning och dessutom få möjlighet att tvinga bredbandsleverantörer att lämna ut personuppgifterna bakom fildelande IP-nummer (för övrigt en möjlighet som inte ens polisen har i dagsläget!).

Så till det senaste..

Dagens dom i TPB-rättegången där de fyra bakom tjänsten dömdes till fängelse i ett år + ca. 30.000.000 (30 miljoner) i skadestånd till de ”drabbade” bolagen?!

Detta är ett av de högsta skadestånd som någonsin dömt ut i svensk domstol och det är inte utan att man blir förbannad :@

Det är ett hån, inget annat!

Ta som exempel lite andra skadestånd som dömts ut i Sverige senaste åren:

Englas mamma fick 75.000 i skadestånd för sin mördade dotter

Anna Lindhs familj fick totalt 150.000 efter mordet

Våldtäkts- och misshandelsoffer får ett schablonskadestånd på 75.000 (upp till max. 100.000 om brottet anses som särskilt grovt)

Men i Sverige.. där döms man till 30 miljoner för att man skapat och drivit en websida som länkar till andra människor filer (lagliga såväl som olagliga). De fyra männen dömdes alltså för ”medhjälp till upphovsrättsbrott” utan att ens själv inneha filerna!

Vad blir nästa grej? Vem ska nu åtalas?!

Ska vi åtala Volvo och Saab för medhjälp till vållande till annans död när det sker dödsolyckor?

Ska vi låta bilfabrikanterna betala våra fortkörningsböter? (de har ju trots allt byggt bilar som går att köra för fort med, dvs. medhjälp till fortkörning)

Ska vi döma tillverkare av trimsatser och chiptrim till bilar och mopeder för medhjälp till olovlig körning?

Ska vi åtala vapentillverkare för medhjälp till mord?

Ska vi åtala svenska Prince för vållande till annana död? (de tillverkar cigaretter.. cigaretter ger cancer.. folk dör)

Ska vi åtala Google oxå för medhjälp till upphovsrättbrott? (gör en sökning så ser ni ju hur många .torrent-filer de länkar till)

Listan kan göras hur lång som helst efter dagens domslut och än en gång..

Dagens domslut är rättsvidrigt :@

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>

Global Warming Hysteria – It’s all about the money, YOUR money

6 april, 2009

”While a brutal recession costs hundreds of thousands their jobs, the high priests of global warming fly in and out of the world’s exotic locales (generating megatonnes of greenhouse gases), plotting new ways to separate us from our money. ”

”So-called ”green” schemes, aren’t green. Their real purpose is to make it so expensive to use fossil-fuel energy that we’re forced to use less, not because we don’t need it but because we can’t afford it. ”

”Environmental journalist George Monbiot, author of Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, is admirably honest about this. The fight against global warming, he writes, is a campaign for austerity. Precisely.

Article here:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/

2009/04/05/9009661-sun.html

It’s all about the money

Notice how every ‘green’ scheme to ‘save’ us from global warming will end up costing you more?

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Last Updated: 5th April 2009, 4:16am

Have you noticed that when politicians, United Nations diplomats, environmental activists, radical scientists, journalists and even, lately, multinational corporations, talk about ”going green” to save the planet, the only ”green” they’re talking about is the colour of our money?

And about how to separate us from it?

Think about all the ”solutions” we’ve heard, ostensibly to ”fight” man-made climate change.

Carbon taxes? We pay more.

Cap-and-trade? We pay more.

Carbon offsets/credits? We pay more.

Renewable energy? We pay more.

Mandatory energy audits? We pay more.

Waste collection? We pay more.

Plastic !@@#$%#$ bags at the supermarket? We pay more.

While a brutal recession costs hundreds of thousands their jobs, the high priests of global warming fly in and out of the world’s exotic locales (generating megatonnes of greenhouse gases), plotting new ways to separate us from our money.

These efforts will culminate in Copenhagen in December, at a UN-led conference to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Accord, which expires in 2012.

Anyone living in the developed world should understand the real purpose of this meeting will be to compel Western governments to spend billions more of our money ”helping” (bribing) the developing world, led by China, to reduce their emissions, since they weren’t required to under Kyoto.

Obviously, this is not going to be popular during a deep recession among many of those being asked to cough up ever more ”green” booty.

THE DOOMSTERS

Enter the global warming doomsters — the Al Gores, the greenwashed politicians, the environmental radicals, the high-flying diplomats and, sadly, too many politically-motivated scientists, who long ago traded in scientific objectivity for shilling for Armageddon.

The purpose of all this doom-saying, this ”climate porn” as it’s known, is two-fold:

First, to make a complicated issue, man’s influence on climate, sound simple.

Second, to make people in the developed world feel sufficiently guilty and intimidated, that we’ll shut up about having our pockets picked to finance the green schemes noted previously.

Oh, and one more thing. None of them work.

The reason they don’t is we have no way at present to stop greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) for energy.

Solving that problem is the real job one.

As things stand, even if the handful of nations required to reduce emissions under Kyoto were doing it — and many aren’t, including us, because it’s impossible without devastating our economies and resorting to shell games like ”carbon credits” — Kyoto is only about one-thirteenth of what the high priests of global warming insist must be done.

So-called ”green” schemes, aren’t green. Their real purpose is to make it so expensive to use fossil-fuel energy that we’re forced to use less, not because we don’t need it but because we can’t afford it.

Environmental journalist George Monbiot, author of Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, is admirably honest about this. The fight against global warming, he writes, is a campaign for austerity. Precisely.

The high priests of global warming justify this by claiming it poses an existential threat to the planet. At this point climate hysterics — trust me, I hear from them all the time –unload what they think is their ace card: ”Do you or do you not believe in the science of global warming?” they demand, much as Joe McCarthy once infamously thundered: ”Are you or are you not a member of the Communist Party?”

The absurdity of this question is that it isn’t about ”belief.” It’s about whether one acknowledges the scientific evidence that mankind’s burning of fossil fuels affects climate.

What’s rational to say is that there is good reason to believe it does and we can’t afford to do nothing. But what is equally true is the cheerleaders for Armageddon are claiming we know far more about climate change than we actually do.

POLITICAL DECISION

About nature’s impact on climate. About what the long-term impacts of climate change will be — not in terms of generalized ”Doomsday” rants — but about where, when and what will happen, and most important, what we should do about it, which is a political decision, not a scientific one.

Most people are rational. Most care about the planet and the legacy they will leave their children.

Given rational, practical, meaningful ways to improve the environment, they’ll respond.

But simultaneously yelling at people we’re facing Armageddon, while shilling for trivial nonsense like ”Earth Hour” and picking our pockets to pay for pretend ”green” initiatives, isn’t rational.

It’s surrendering to the fortune tellers and witch doctors.

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

varning-2

Fatal Errors in IPCC’S Global Climate Models

5 april, 2009

Here are some more interesting facts about the IPCC:s manipulation of data. And the fatal flaws and errors in their compute models which they use to ”prove” that mankind is behind the rising temperature and CO2.

I have written extensively about IPCC:s manipulation of data and the giant errors of these climate models. And about long term temperature and CO2 data.

By Physicist and engineer Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman, a former Division Chief Scientist for Hughes Aircraft Company, is an expert modeler of microwave and millimeter wave propagation in the atmosphere solar radiation, thermal energy in avionics

And comments by Vincent Gray and the authors response to those.

Se among others my posts:

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!

The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!

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

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

IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!

Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?

IPCC and its bias!

Peer Review – What it actually means

The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature

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

Peer Review – What it actually means 2

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

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’- 2

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models

And

The Globe is Cooling and the temperatures keep going down

GISS Climate Model already wrong after 5 years

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data

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

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

Minus 60 C or not?

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

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

NOAA Cherry Picking on Trend Analyses

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!

The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria

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

And

All Oceans are steadily cooling

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

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

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

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

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

An Eighteen-Hundred-Year Climate Record from China

422 700 år av temperaturdata från Antarktis

Temperaturen för 130 000 år sedan,

Climate Change … Global Warming … Global Cooling

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

Global Warming No Longer Happening – Record cold in Canada

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

New Zealand COOLER in 2008 than 141 years ago

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

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

Article here:

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html

IPCC’S FATAL ERRORS

INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT

TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE

ALBEDO REGULATES CLIMATE, NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

CO2 HAS NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON CLIMATE.

————————————————————

FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC’S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

Some critics of the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) urge that its reliance on a consensus of scientists is false, while others simply point out that regardless, science is never decided by consensus. Some critics rely on fresh analyses of radiosonde and satellite data to conclude that water vapor feedback is negative, contrary to its representation in Global Climate Models (GCMs). Some argue that the AGW model must be false because the climate has cooled over the last decade while atmospheric CO2 continued its rise. Researchers discovered an error in the reduction of data, the widely publicized Hockey Stick Effect, that led to a false conclusion that the Little Ice Age was not global. Some argue that polar ice is not disappearing, that polar bears are thriving, and that sea level is not rising any significant amount.

To the public, these arguments cast a pall over AGW claims. But in a last analysis, they merely weigh indirectly against published positions, weigh against the art of data reduction, or rely on short-term data trends in a long-term forecast. Such charges cannot prevail against the weight of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its network of associated specialists in the field, principally climatologists, should they ever choose to respond categorically. Moreover, these proponents can support their positions with hundreds running into thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers, plus the official IPCC publications, to weigh against tissue-paper-thin arguments, many published online with at best informal and on-going peer review.

On the other hand, what can carry the day are the errors and omissions included in the AGW model with respect to real and demonstrable processes that affect Earth’s climate. Here is a list of eight major modeling faults for which IPCC should be held to account.

1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural background. Because IPCC models are admittedly nonlinear (Third Assessment Report, ¶1.3.2), the response of the models to the sum of manmade and background forces is not equal to the sum of the background response and the response to manmade forces.

A computer run, for example, that assumes the natural forces are in equilibrium, and then calculates the effects of a slug of manmade CO2 that dissolves over the years is not valid. The run needs to be made with the natural outgassing process and anthropogenic emissions entering the atmosphere simultaneously to be circulated and absorbed through the process of the solubility of CO2 in water.

2. IPCC errs to discard on-going natural processes at initialization. IPCC initializes its GCMs to year 1750 in an assumed state of equilibrium. At this time, Earth is warming and CO2, while lagging the warming, is increasing, both at near maximum rates. This initialization causes the models to attribute natural increases in temperature and CO2 to man. The error occurs not because the models fail to reproduce the on-going natural effects. It occurs because subsequent measurements of temperature and CO2 concentration, to which IPCC fits its modeled AGW response, necessarily include both natural and manmade effects.

Earth is currently about 2ºC to 4ºC below the historic peak in temperature seen in the Vostok record covering the four previous warm epochs. IPCC models turn off the natural warming, then calculate a rise attributed to man over the next century of 3.5ºC.

3. IPCC errs to model the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. IPCC models the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. It is not. It is thermally active, absorbing heat from the Sun and exchanging heat as well as water with the atmosphere. It is mixed with vertical and horizontal currents, stirred by winds and waves, roiling with entrained air, active in marine life, and undulating in depth.

This assumption of equilibrium in the surface layer leads IPCC to model CO2 as accumulating in the atmosphere in contradiction to Henry’s Law of solubility. This causes its model of ACO2 uptake by the ocean to slow to the rate of sequestration in deep water, with time constants ranging into many millennia. A consequence of Henry’s Law instead is that the surface ocean is a reservoir of molecular CO2 for atmospheric and ocean processes, and causes it to be in disequilibrium.

Assuming the surface layer to be in equilibrium leads IPCC to conclude that the measured increase in CO2 is from man’s emissions, without increases due to background effects or warming of the ocean. It also supports IPCC’s conclusion that atmospheric CO2 is well-mixed, contradicting its own observations of CO2 gradients in latitude and longitude. This false assumption allows IPCC to use the MLO record to represent global CO2, and falsely calibrate CO2 measurements from other sources to make them all agree.

4. IPCC errs to erase the global pattern of atmospheric CO2 concentration from its model. IPCC admits that East-West CO2 gradients are observable, and that North-South gradients are an order of magnitude greater. IPCC ignores that MLO lies in the high concentration plume from massive CO2 outgassing in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. At the same time, IPCC ignores that ice core data are collected in low CO2 concentrations caused by the polar sinks where the ocean uptakes CO2. These features show that CO2 spirals around the globe, starting at the equator and heading toward the poles, and diminishing in concentration as the surface layer cools. The concentration of CO2 should be maximal at MLO, and minimal at the poles, but IPCC makes them contiguous or overlapping through arbitrary calibrations.

5. IPCC errs to model climate without the full dynamic exchange of OC2 between the atmosphere and the ocean. IPCC ignores the planetary flows of CO2 through the atmosphere and across and through the surface layer of the ocean, and then into and out of the Thermohaline Circulation. CO2 is absorbed near 0ºC at the poles, and returned about one millennium later to the atmosphere at the prevailing tropical temperature. IPCC does not model this temperature-dependent exchange of about 90 gigatons of carbon per year, even though it swamps the anthropogenic emission of about 6 gigatons per year.

The outgassing is a positive feedback that confounds the IPCC model for the carbon cycle.

6. IPCC errs to model different absorption rates for natural and manmade CO2 without justification. IPCC considers the ocean to absorb ACO2 at a few gigatons per year, half its emission rate. It reports natural CO2 outgassed from the ocean as being exchanged with the atmosphere at about 90 gigatons per year, 100% of the emission rate. IPCC offers no explanation for the accumulation of ACO2 but not natural CO2.

Thus IPCC models Earth’s carbon cycle differently according to its source, without its dynamic patterns in the atmosphere and the ocean, without its ready dissolution and accumulation in the surface ocean, and without the feedback of its dynamic outgassing from the ocean.

As a result, IPCC’s conclusions are wrong that CO2 is long-lived, that it is well-mixed, that it accumulates in the atmosphere, and that it is a forcing, meaning that it is not a feedback.

7. IPCC errs to model climate without its first order behavior. IPCC does not model Earth’s climate as it exists, alternating between two stable states, cold as in an ice age and warm much like the present, switched with some regularity by unexplained forces.

In the cold state, the atmosphere is dry, minimizing any greenhouse effect. Extensive ice and snow minimize the absorption of solar radiation, locking the surface at a temperature determined primarily by Earth’s internal heat.

In the warm state, the atmosphere is a humid, partially reflective blanket and Earth’s surface is on average dark and absorbent due primarily to the ocean. The Sun provides the dominant source of heat, with its insolation regulated by the negative feedback of cloud albedo, which varies with cloud cover and surface temperature.

As Earth’s atmosphere is a by-product of the ocean, Earth’s climate is regulated by albedo. These are hydrological processes, dynamic feedbacks not modeled by IPCC but producing the first order climate effects and the natural background which mask any effects due to man. IPCC global climate models do not model the hydrological cycle faithfully. They do reproduce neither dynamic specific humidity nor dynamic cloud cover. They are unable to predict climate reliably, nor to separate natural effects meaningfully from any conjectures about at most second order effects attributed to man.

8. IPCC errs to model climate as regulated by greenhouse gases instead of by albedo. IPCC rejects the published cosmic ray model for cloud cover, preferring to model cloud cover as constant. It does so in spite of the strong correlation of cloud cover to cosmic ray intensity, and the correlation of cosmic ray intensity to global surface temperature. Consequently, IPCC does not model the dominant regulator of Earth’s climate, the negative feedback of cloud albedo, powerful because it shutters the Sun.

By omitting dynamic cloud albedo, IPCC overestimates the greenhouse effect by about an order of magnitude (computation pending publication), and fails to understand that Earth’s climate today is regulated by cloud albedo and not the greenhouse effect, much less by CO2.

© 2009 JAGlassman. All rights reserved. Rev. 4/2/09.

Posted on March 31, 2009 7:50 AM | Permalink

Comments (1)

Vincent Gray wrote:

Dear Fred

Glassman is largely correct, He makes the following points

1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects.

Absolutely right. But they even discount manmade effects like urbanization.

2. IPCC errs to discard on-going natural processes at initialization

This arises from the fallacy of ”equilibrium” which ignores ocean oscillations and solar changes.

3. IPCC errs to model the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium.

This leads to the fallacy that any change must be due to human emissions and never natural

4. IPCC errs to erase the global pattern of atmospheric CO2 concentration from its model.

They do this by suppressing information about CO2 variability

5. IPCC errs to model climate without the full dynamic exchange of OC2 between the atmosphere and the ocean.

Just one of the many deficiencies of models.

6. IPCC errs to model different absorption rates for natural and manmade CO2 without justification.

Yet another deficiency of models.

7. IPCC errs to model climate without its first order behavior.

Glassman believes there are two ”stable states” of the earth and that it oscillates between them. I think this is oversimplified.

[RSJ: This two-stable-state hypothesis is supported by both à posteriori and à priori reasoning. The former is from the Vostok record of glacial epochs, especially the 450,000 year reduction, and what little is known about the major ice ages. The latter may have persisted for ten and perhaps tens of millions of years, supporting stability at the cold end of the spectrum. The warm epochs are the interglacial maxima, which while geologically brief, even instantaneous bearing in mind that the sampling interval is 1.3 millennia, seem to indicate a ceiling. The present epoch is within a few degrees of that ceiling interpreted from the previous four maxima.

[The à priori reasoning is my argument about cloud albedo in the warm state, and surface albedo in the cold.

[I do agree that stability in the warm state is a stretch. The Vostok record suggests that something in the climate switches at the interglacial maxima, causing temperature to plummet. The term oscillation was only meant to refer to a variability between the states, and not some kind of simple harmonic motion.

[Still, I only assert that the hypothesis is a first order effect. We could build a pretty good, first order heat model based on oscillations between two stable states and some hypothetical switching mechanism.]

8. IPCC errs to model climate as regulated by greenhouse gases instead of by albedo.

I do not accept Glassman’s alternative model

[RSJ: The power of the cloud albedo feedback is obvious in that it gates insolation. Cloud albedo is a macroparameter that is not directly and practically measurable with anything less than a large array of synchronous satellites. Therefore, it must be synthesized, and at that it is only known to one significant figure: 0.3 ± 0.03 or 0.04. That value multiplies the solar average incident radiation of 342 Wm-2, so the uncertainty in albedo measurement is equivalent to 10 to 14 Wm-2, four to five times what IPCC attributes to man through year 2000. Consequently huge changes in radiation forcing, changes that swamp man’s supposed contribution, can be due to albedo variations too small to be measured.

[Now we know that cloud cover is dependent on specific humidity, and that albedo is proportional to cloud cover. IPCC admits that specific humidity increases as the surface temperature increases. It uses this fact to speculate that the water vapor greenhouse effect, including that condensed in clouds, is a positive feedback. And this amplification is essential in the IPCC model for CO2 to cause catastrophic warming. It does so not directly by the greenhouse effect of CO2, but by the secondary release of water vapor. Cloud cover is almost certainly a positive feedback based on IPCC modeling, and that makes cloud albedo a negative feedback.

[Coupled with the physics of what the albedo does, cloud albedo is a powerful negative feedback. Elementary calculations show that the climate sensitivity of the greenhouse effect given by IPCC is reduced by 90% when the albedo loop is closed and the albedo sensitivity to temperature is a maximum in the unmeasurable range. IPCC does not close this loop.

[Cloud cover and surface temperature, like albedo, are macroparameters and not directly measurable. Everything is in place à priori for cloud albedo to regulate the climate in the warm state, and for the effect to be too small to be measured in the current state of the art. Until measurement techniques are vastly improved, surface temperature regulation by cloud albedo must remain a hypothesis awaiting validation.]

Posted by Vincent Gray | April 4, 2009 2:57 PM

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

varning-2

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’- 2

2 april, 2009

As a complement to my post Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’ here are some long term graphs of sea level trends from NOAA.

I start with 3 islands (Hawaii, American Samoa and Magueyes Island) which should be most threatened according to this ”sea rise” scare.

First from Honolulu in beautiful Hawaii: Data from 1905

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual.shtml?stnid=1612340&name=Honolulu&state=Hawaii

2009-04-02_193744

The plot shows the monthly mean sea level with the average seasonal cycle and the linear trend removed (thin line) and the 5-month average (thick line). The interannual variation is caused by irregular fluctuations in coastal ocean temperatures, salinities, winds, atmospheric pressures, and ocean currents. The interannual variation for most Pacific stations is closely related to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation.

From Honolulu, Hawaii: Data from 1980

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.shtml?stnid=1612340&name=Honolulu&state=Hawaii

2009-04-02_194458

 Variation of 50-year mean sea level trends Honolulu, Hawaii

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/50yr.shtml?stnid=1612340&name=Honolulu&state=Hawaii

2009-04-02_195355

And then from Pago Pago, American Samoa: Data from 1980

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.shtml?stnid=1770000&name=Pago+Pago&state=American+Samoa

2009-04-02_210626

And then Magueyes Island, Puerto Rico: Data from 1980

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.shtml?stnid=9759110&name=Magueyes+Island&state=Puerto+Rico

2009-04-02_214303

And What about Skagway, Alaska: Data from 1945

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9452400

The mean sea level trend is -17.12 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.65 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1944 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -5.62 feet in 100 years.

2009-04-02_210225

And then from Stockholm in Sweden: Data from 1889

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=050-141

The mean sea level trend is -3.94 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.35 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1889 to 2003 which is equivalent to a change of -1.29 feet in 100 years 

 2009-04-02_205334

From Stockholm, Sweden: Data from 1980

 http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.shtml?stnid=050-141&name=Stockholm&state=Sweden

050-141

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

varning-2

Wind power – what a costly and unreliable joke!

30 mars, 2009

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

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

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

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

A WHOPPING 7%!

Yep! A whole 7%

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

2009-03-30_223534

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

And 80-90% in TWO DAYS.

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

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

OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER???

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

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

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

29 mars, 2009

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

This time about the ”sea rising” scare.

Se also my posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And my posts:

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!

The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!

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

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

IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!

Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?

IPCC and its bias!

Peer Review – What it actually means

The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature

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

Peer Review – What it actually means 2

Article here:

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

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

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

Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 6:31PM GMT 28 Mar 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blown away

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

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

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

varning-2

The Globe is Cooling and the temperatures keep going down

29 mars, 2009

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

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

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models 

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data

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

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

Minus 60 C or not?

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

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

NOAA Cherry Picking on Trend Analyses

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!

The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the oceans are cooling faster than land.

Wasn’t this to be a GLOBAL Warming??

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

Se also my posts: All Oceans are steadily cooling

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models

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

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

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

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

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

An Eighteen-Hundred-Year Climate Record from China

422 700 år av temperaturdata från Antarktis

Temperaturen för 130 000 år sedan,

Climate Change … Global Warming … Global Cooling

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

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS

Global Warming No Longer Happening – Record cold in Canada

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

New Zealand COOLER in 2008 than 141 years ago

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

The Cooling World – Newsweek 1975

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

Annual Mean Temperature Change for Northern and Southern Hemispheres

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

2009-03-28_230859

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

 2009-03-28_231116

Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands

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

 2009-03-29_004232

Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change

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

 2009-03-28_231419

Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States

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

2009-03-28_2316531

Seasonal Mean Temperature Change

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

2009-03-28_231958

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

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

2009-03-28_232818

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

varning-2

Al Gore, James Hansen – Carbon Communists

25 mars, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Se also my posts:

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

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

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

Article here:

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

Carbon Communism

20.03.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gregory Fegel

© 1999-2006. «PRAVDA.Ru». 

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

varning-2

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

21 mars, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any one but me seeing the wonderful irony here?

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

It’s the Al Gore effect!

The face of a person studying ”Global warming”!

2009-03-21-ben-hadow_1370351a 

Article here:

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

Polar Explorers Run Short of Food; Weather Stops Supply Flights

By Alex Morales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last Updated: March 18, 2009 06:07 EDT

And here:

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

The ‘Global Warming Three’ are on thin ice

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

By Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 4:24PM GMT 21 Mar 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An unhealthy moral climate

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

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

varning-2

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 12

21 mars, 2009

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

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

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

EN MINSKNING MED 50 % !

Och detta är ju på inget sätt uniktTvärtom!

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

Med 89 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (23-25/1).

 Med 98 % PÅ 3 DAGAR (23-26/1).

 Med 84 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (12-14/1).

MED 84 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (22-24/12).

MED 67 % PÅ 1 DAG (10/12).

MED 50 % PÅ 1 DAG (11/12).

MED 87 % PÅ 3 DAGAR (27-30/11)

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

2009-03-21_175957

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

varning-2

The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably

21 mars, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Se also my post among many others:

 Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

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

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power!

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

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

Article here:

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

Date: 20/03/09

Scientific Alliance newsletter 20th March 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shell gets back to basics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

varning-2

All Oceans are steadily cooling

21 mars, 2009

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

Graph here (p21-24):

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

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

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

Se also my posts: 

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models

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

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

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data

ABSTRACT

Cooling of the global ocean since 2003

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

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

2009-03-21_161134

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

2009-03-21_162609

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

 varning-2

Global Warming No Longer Happening – Record cold in Canada

15 mars, 2009

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

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

The International’s was exceeded by 12 degrees.”

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

 Same instinct, different wrapper.”

Article here:

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

1391903/story.html

Global warming’s no longer happening

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

By Lorne Gunter, The Edmonton Journal March 15, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same instinct, different wrapper.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

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

varning-2

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

15 mars, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYSGlobal Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalismThey are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything – ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!,  The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change

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

Article here:

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

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

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

James Woudhuysen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

varning-2

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

13 mars, 2009

Article from tomorrows The Australian here:

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

Japanese scientists cool on theories

Peter Alford, Tokyo correspondent | March 14, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

varning-2

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

11 mars, 2009

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

2009-03-11_141131

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

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

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

Se also my posts on carbon trading:

Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals,  Environmental Hysteria by Penn and Teller,  Rajendra Pachauri, The head of IPCC endorses and defends India’s aggressive coal plant building!Carbon quacks and reality denying politicians!A factory that makes 30 TIMES MORE MONEY by selling ”carbon credits” to fight global warming than it makes by selling it’s products.The scariest organization you ever seen – Take your children and run before they tax you to death!,  Billions wasted on UN climate carbon offsetting programme,  GREEN CORRUPTION: UNITED NATIONS CARBON CREDIT SCHEME ACCUSED OF FRAUD,  Russia will not sell it’s emission rights,  Why the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjust,  Green tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’,  A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy,  An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!,  Carbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’,  ”Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”,  Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your Way,  Don’t bother with emissions trading law, the Chambers of Commerce tells MPsEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK -2!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK!,  $ 2,9 Biljoner i sänkt BNP för en sänkning av CO2 på 25 ppm!,  De ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin,

And the debate in USA:

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

Also here:

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

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

varning-2

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

9 mars, 2009

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

The Conference program here:

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

Speech here:

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

No Progress in the Climate Change Debate

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

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

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

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

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

from trading the licenses to emit carbon dioxide;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

varning-2

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

9 mars, 2009

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

Speech here:

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

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

Autor: Václav Klaus | Publikováno: 7.3.2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– the cost-benefit analysis,

– the risk aversion analysis,

– intertemporal analysis based on the idea of discounting,

– standard price theory and microeconomics, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

varning-2

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

9 mars, 2009

From today’s The Boston Globe:

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

2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/

Where’s global warming?

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist  |  March 8, 2009

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

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

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

No doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

varning-2

Peer Review – What it actually means 2

28 februari, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also my posts:

Peer Review – What it actually means

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

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

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!

The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!,

IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!,

Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,

IPCC and its bias! 

Article here:

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

 Peer review

 Published by Briggs at 7:07 am

Here is how peer review roughly works.

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

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

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

Here are two false statements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a sampling of evidence for that claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to visit the first link for more information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————

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

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

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

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

22 februari, 2009

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

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

Jäpp HELA 2, 6 %!

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

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

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

2009-02-22_010338

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

varning-2

GISS Climate Model already wrong after 5 years

21 februari, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graphs here:

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

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

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

GISS E Model here

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

Article here:

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

2009-02-21_2255441

Detail

2009-02-21_225920

Detail

2009-02-21_232308

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

varning-2

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

21 februari, 2009

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

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

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

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

Glookabooka buk buk boo….

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

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

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

varning-2

Speech of the President Václav Klaus in the European Parliament

21 februari, 2009

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

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

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

Talet finns här:

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

19.2.2009 – ENGLISH PAGES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

varning-2

(more…)

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

21 februari, 2009

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

varning-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Se även

Hård FRA-kritik från Töllborg

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

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

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

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

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

Förslag om FRA-domstol avvisas

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

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

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

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

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

Meningslöst att informera

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

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

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

Inlägget här:

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

Förbjud allt

20 februari, 2009 – 15:32 – lholmq42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ledaren här:

http://www.expressen.se/1.1473921

Isobel Hadley-Kamptz: Våra digitala liv är hotade

”Vi vinner oavsett hur det går.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Båda dessa grundförutsättningar hotas nu.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nu får det vara nog.

Alltihop används ändå bara av pirater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historien går igen på alldeles för många sätt.

 Av Isobel Hadley-Kamptz

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

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

20 februari, 2009

Vad skall man säga?

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

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

Det finns TYDLIGEN INGEN SOM HELST BOTTEN PÅ DENNA INKOMPETENS.

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

Varken politikerna eller försvarsledningen.

Och denna LEKSTUGA KOSTAR FORTFARANDE OMKRING 42 MILJARDER Kr.

OCH KAN INTE FÖRSVARA SVERIGE!

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

Arma land och arma folk!

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

Artikeln här:

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

Fienden kan avlyssna Gripenorder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stockholm TT

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

varning-2

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

19 februari, 2009

By Dr. Roy Spencer

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

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

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

varning-2