Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Diskusjon om generelle politiske temaer, som ikke passer inn under innenriks/utenriks.

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Evans 23 Jan 2015, 12:17

Som jeg presiserte; 2014 var det varmeste året siden 1880. At det har vært en avkjølende trend de siste 15 årene er helt feil. Et slikt utsagn kan bare bety at artikkelforfatteren enten ikje vet hva han snakker om eller at han feilinformerer med vilje. Det kan naturlig nok ikke bli varmere hvert år, pga flere faktorer. De viktigste er el nino og la nina. Det er viktig å få med seg at 2014 var et rekordår uten El Nino.
Innlegg: 142
Registrert: 05 Sep 2005, 10:19

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 25 Jan 2015, 18:08

Evans skrev:Som jeg presiserte; 2014 var det varmeste året siden 1880.

Endringer i klima bør måles over et lengre tidsrom enn ca 130 år for å gi mening.

At det har vært en avkjølende trend de siste 15 årene er helt feil.

Det er vel riktigere å si at det ikke har vært noen oppvarming de siste ca 18 - 20 år.
Vegard Martinsen
Innlegg: 7868
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Evans 26 Jan 2015, 06:58

Hva får du hvis du tar middeltemperaturen for de siste 18 årene og sammenligner den med de 18 årene før der igjen? Da vil du se at temperaturen har stabilisert seg på et høyere nivå. Som nevnt; 2014 er det varmeste året siden målingene startet. Og hvis du ser på trenden, så er det helt tydelig at den har vært stigende, selv om det ikke blir rekord hvert år. Nå har det lenge vært snakket om at det ikke har vært noen oppvarming siden 98, men 98 var spesielt varmt pga el nino. Likevel hadde 2010 rekorden, som også var et el nino-år. 2014 har den nye rekorden; uten el nino. Det skal bli spennende å se hvordan temperaturen blir neste gang det er el-nino-år.
Innlegg: 142
Registrert: 05 Sep 2005, 10:19

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 26 Jan 2015, 07:30

Ja, det skal bli spennende å se utviklingen fremover.

Men du Evans er vel ikke uenig i at klimamodellenes spådommer ikke har truffet så veldig godt?

Vegard Martinsen
Innlegg: 7868
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 26 Jan 2015, 14:53

2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 years?

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

We were told in October, before 2014 was over, that it was heading toward being the warmest year on record (Figure 1). The visual link of Polar Bears underscored the message. In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.

We know the headline referred to NOAA’s projection, but the public only remember “warmest year”. It is a routine of manipulation of headlines practiced by bureaucrats and supporters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), from the start. The claim was not surprising, because NOAA was pushing 2014 as warm beginning in January with this headline “NOAA: January 2014 fourth-warmest on record.” Various months were identified during the year, for example, “NOAA: August 2014 Was The Warmest On Record,” noting August was the warmest by a fraction. But they had already reported,

The summer of 2014 is officially the hottest since the modern instrumental record began more than 130 years ago, according to the latest state of the climate report from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

By October they were summarizing the year.

“This makes the first ten months of 2014 the warmest January to October period on record and puts 2014 on track to be the warmest year recorded in the NOAA archive, which dates back to 1880.”

Bob Tisdale provided an excellent summary of the “Anticipation” for two surface records from GISS and NCDC. He was not surprised when these records appeared, showing 2014 was the warmest, according to them, by 0.02°C. Remember, this is from a record that is restricted by the historic record to measurements of 0.5°C. We also know the two satellite records, RSS and UAH, both show it was not the warmest year.

To counteract the headline you need something very dramatic, because there is nothing significant about the 2014 temperature as Tisdale plans to identify in an upcoming article titled, The Uptick in Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 Doesn’t Help the Growing Difference between Climate Models and Reality. He is interested in seeing how Gavin Schmidt, who replaced James Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is carrying the torch. History shows that GISS readings are consistently higher than all other sources. It is just one indicator of the temperature adjustments made so the AGW hypothesis fits the political agenda.

Challenges and IPCC Fixes

How valid is the 2014 claim? In the 10,000 – year context, it is significant because it is among the 3 percent coldest years, which is far more significant than the 100-year warm alarmists proclaim. There are two major reasons: Highest readings occur in the most recent years of a rising temperature record. Every alteration, adjustment amendment and abridgment of the record so far, was done to create and emphasize increasingly higher temperatures. ....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/21/2 ... 000-years/
Vegard Martinsen
Innlegg: 7868
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Erik 31 Jan 2015, 11:07

Climate change as a political process

''All this talk about climate change has misled us collectively. It has made us search for a mega solution to a mega problem: it has created the impression that if we solve the problem of climate change, all other problems would also be solved. This is not the case.'' – Eija-Riitta Korhola

Om Eija-Riitta Korhola:
''Eija-Riitta Korhola is a rare politician. She was a long-serving member of the European Parliament from Finland as a member of the European People’s Party, the largest block in the legislature. She has also recently completed an academic dissertation for a PhD in a policy field that she specializes in – climate policy. I can’t recall ever hearing of another politician completing a PhD while in office. Rare indeed.''

Hennes avhandling:

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/han ... sequence=1

Mer om Climate change as a political process:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/26/clima ... l-process/
Innlegg: 301
Registrert: 02 Mai 2004, 15:38
Bosted: Bergen

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 05 Feb 2015, 00:56

Et så vanvittig og tragikomisk eksempel på sammensmeltning av politisk korrekthetene kulturmarxisme og gaiaisme, at jeg vurderte å poste dette i Humor-tråden:

No Joke: Global Warming Causes Crime

No, really: We can stop our search for the greatest editorial in the history of editorial writing. It has been revealed unto us in Minneapolis.

But before we open the envelope and reveal this Real Work of Genius, a bit of background: The Twin Cities are sites of regular and frequent and serious episodes of black mob violence and black-on-white crime. Often on video.

All ignored with an enthusiasm normally reserved for jeering the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers.

In downtown Minneapolis recently, large groups of black people were beating up dozens of people over a several month period. During the requisite round-up story, the local crime reporter was just unable to figure out “the pattern,” he said.

Black predators? White victims? Ring a bell? Nothing from that fearless pursuer of the truth. And it just kept happening while the paper just kept pretending it was not.

On and around the University of Minnesota, students have the same problem: Dozens and dozens of episodes of black on white crime, all unacknowledged in the local media. But the school is in a different position. Because of the mandates of the Clery Act, the school must post all the details of crime on campus, including race.

Of the dozens of cases of assault and robbery over the last two years, only one of the suspects was not identified as black.

Black students and staff at the university said all this material identifying black people as the culprits in almost all of these violent crimes was disturbing their collective consciousness. Not a word about how much they detested the predators or worried about the victims.

Campus police figured it out: White students drinking too much caused the violence against them.

Don’t worry, we’ll get to the editorial in a minute.

Last year in St. Paul, free spirited white guy Ray Widstrand decided to move into a black neighborhood. A few weeks later he was taking a late night stroll to check out his new neighbors. They beat him, almost to death, leaving him with brain damage.

A few days later, a car full of black people stopped and beat a white woman in the middle of the day on a busy street in St. Paul. They urinated on her, laughed, and left.

The most recent bit of argy bargy happened a few nights ago in downtown St. Paul: A large group of black people roaming through the downtown beat up a 21-year-old and a 56-year-old in separate attacks. One had his teeth broken, another broke his arm.

And oh yeah, the local TV reporter reminded us, that happens a lot there.

When the local media asked the young man if he thought he was the victim of a hate crime, he replied “he was just in the wrong place in the wrong time.” Which just goes to show that just because you get punched in the face does not guarantee you will also receive a compensatory amount of wisdom about patterns of racial violence.

Also on the news this week, a group of black people entered a restaurant, surrounded a table of diners, picked up a glass of beer and threw it — glass and all — at a white woman. This episode, like lots of others, is on video.

Many are covered in that scintillating best seller, White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence to America and how the media ignore it. As well as at a YouTube channel of the same name.

Whew: That was a long introduction. Let’s get to the winning editorial.

The local papers may not want anything to do with the whole idea of black on white violent crime and how it is astronomically out of proportion. But this week the editorial giants of the Star-Tribune, after giving it their full consideration for the several years this violence has plagued this town, came up with answer: A cause. As well as a solution.

Global warming.

Yes, I checked, this did not come from the Onion.

A much more troubling change in human behavior is an anticipated rise in violent crime rates due to heat. The biggest projected jump in the region is in the Twin Cities metro area, where violent crime could rise 6.4 percent by the end of the century.

Global warming causes violent crime.This all comes because a couple of big shots from the Risky Business Project stopped by the offices of the Star-Tribune to regale the editorial writers with their recent report: “HEAT IN THE HEARTLAND: Climate Change and Economic Risk in the Midwest.”

In the 53-page warning about how global warming is going to ruin everything over the next 85 years, crime is mentioned 43 times: “Rising heat is also one factor in higher violent crime rates, with as much as a 6.4% increase in crime likely (and a 1-in-20 chance of more than a 8.1% increase) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area by the end of the century.”

The study made similar predictions for Indianapolis, Dayton, St. Louis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Chicago, and lots of other places. And the editorial board ate it up like the townspeople in the movie Music Man.

They say they took much of their information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Maybe so. But that does conflict with another increasingly popular and powerful explanation for urban violent crime.

Black crime.

From the President and Attorney General all the way down to freshman editorial writers and community activists, they have their own, newer, explanation for crime. They are pretty much over blaming it on family, poverty, education, health care and the 996 other excuses for the black crime that is astronomically out of proportion.

Today, they are all about racism: That is the only cause of all the crime that results in so many black people being arrested, convicted and sentenced at much, much higher rates than those darn white criminals who somehow seem to get away with it all.

And if you throw Asians into that mix, the disparity grows by a factor of ten.

Damn Asians: The greater the disparity, the greater the racism, right?

The editorial board is pretty sure about the weather 85 years from now: But you don’t need a weatherman to know that violent crime in the Twin Cities today is a Black Thing. And you wouldn’t understand. At least that is what folks said up until a few days ago, before they learned about crime, and the Twin Cities and global warming.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/colin-flaherty/no-joke-global-warming-causes-crime/ (med hyperlenker)
Innlegg: 168
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Erik 08 Feb 2015, 00:09

Seafloor Volcano Pulses May Alter Climate

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/ ... /view/3231
Innlegg: 301
Registrert: 02 Mai 2004, 15:38
Bosted: Bergen

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 09 Feb 2015, 17:19

The Repellant and Arrogant Statism of Global Warming Fanatics

I’m a firm believer in climate change. Heck, there have been several ice ages and warming periods, so it’s obvious that temperatures shift over time.

And while I’m not particularly qualified to assess such matters, I’m also willing to believe that human activity has an effect on climate.

Moreover, even though I much prefer warm weather, I’m also open to the idea that global warming might be a bad thing that requires some action.

But here’s the catch. I don’t trust radical environmentalists. Simply stated, too many of these people are nuts. ....

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2 ... -fanatics/

Innlegg: 168
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Erik 28 Feb 2015, 12:12

http://www.klimarealistene.com/2015/02/ ... l-gizouli/

Dharma – Klimapanelets religiøse forankring
For observatører har Klimapanelets religiøse forankring lenge vært tydelig og dette ble utrolig nok direkte bekreftet i gårsdagens avskjedsbrev fra Dr. Pachauri:
“For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”
Dharma er i religiøs sammenheng læren om den underliggende sannhet, men kan også oversettes med «doktrine», «filosofi» eller «trosretning». Dharma er en religiøs naturlov som bestemmer alle regler i naturen og kom fra Hinduismen.
Tatt i betraktning at Dr Pachauri i en årrekke – nærmere bestemt 13 år – har vært den sentrale rådgiver for all verdens regjeringer i klima- og energispørsmål, så er dette relativt oppsiktsvekkende. I den samme perioden har vi opplevd at den frie akademiske meningsutveksling har opphørt i klimaspørsmål ved de aller fleste universitetene i Vesten, vi har fått mer militante miljøgrupper med et nidkjært fokus på en irrasjonell energipolitikk og vi opplever stadig flere rådyre og meningsløse klimatiltak. Klimadoktrinen som praktisert av de mer eller mindre troende inkluderer en demonisering av all opposisjon. Det siste eksemplifisert nylig ved denne overskriften i Dagens Næringsliv: «Klimafornekter fikk betalt millioner for på skrive falske rapporter.». Ordet «falske» ble etterhvert fjernet, men en navngitt vitenskapsmann betegnes som klimafornekter, en assosiasjon med holocaustfornekterne, ergo er kritikere av klimapanelet minst like onde som nazistene. Tillitsvekkende?

Innlegg: 301
Registrert: 02 Mai 2004, 15:38
Bosted: Bergen

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Erik 07 Mai 2015, 07:29

Innlegg: 301
Registrert: 02 Mai 2004, 15:38
Bosted: Bergen

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Erik 07 Mai 2015, 07:38

Seafloor Volcano Pulses May Alter Climate

''Vast ranges of volcanoes hidden under the oceans are presumed by scientists to be the gentle giants of the planet, oozing lava at slow, steady rates along mid-ocean ridges. But a new study shows that they flare up on strikingly regular cycles, ranging from two weeks to 100,000 years—and, that they erupt almost exclusively during the first six months of each year. The pulses—apparently tied to short- and long-term changes in earth’s orbit, and to sea levels--may help trigger natural climate swings. Scientists have already speculated that volcanic cycles on land emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide might influence climate; but up to now there was no evidence from submarine volcanoes. The findings suggest that models of earth’s natural climate dynamics, and by extension human-influenced climate change, may have to be adjusted. The study appears this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.''

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-event ... er-climate
Innlegg: 301
Registrert: 02 Mai 2004, 15:38
Bosted: Bergen

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 15 Mai 2015, 01:36

Evans skrev:Som jeg presiserte; 2014 var det varmeste året siden 1880.

The Most Dishonest Year on Record
by Robert Tracinski

Last week, according to our crackerjack mainstream media, NASA announced that 2014 was the hottest year, like, ever.

No, really. The New York Times began its report with: “Last year was the hottest in earth’s recorded history.”

Well, not really. As we’re about to see, this is a claim that dissolves on contact with actual science. But that didn’t stop the press from running with it.

If you follow the link I gave to the New York Times piece, you will see that this opening sentence has since been rewritten, for reasons which will soon become clear. But the Times wasn’t the only paper to start with that claim, and most of the headlines are still up. The Washington Post has: “2014 Was the Hottest Year in Recorded History.” The Boston Globe: “2014 Was Earth’s Hottest Year in Recorded History.” And so on.

You can see how misleading this is. When you read the phrase “in recorded history,” you think we’re talking about a really long time—the time dating back to the first historical records in Sumeria, circa 3500 BC. (That’s what you’ll find if you look up the phrase “recorded history.”) That’s a time frame of 5,000 to 6,000 years. But in the case of the temperature record, it actually means only 135 years. Accurate, systematic, global thermometer measurements of surface temperatures go back only to 1880. That’s why the Times report, presumably after getting whacked for a wildly misleading opening sentence, changed it to: “Last year was the hottest on earth since record-keeping began in 1880.” Which is a whole lot less impressive.

That “recorded history” gaffe is even worse when you consider that during “recorded history,” in the 5,000-year sense of the phrase, there’s good evidence that the Earth has been warmer than it is today.

We don’t have thermometer measurements going back that far, but scientists can use “proxies”—things they can measure that tend to vary with temperature, such as the composition of ancient deposits of seashells, or the thickness of the rings in ancient, slow-growing trees—to get very rough estimates. These have usually shown warmer temperatures during Roman times and the Middle Ages, when “recorded history” describes wine grapes growing in Northern England and Newfoundland.

There have been a few attempts to write these warm periods out of existence—one of them being Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph, which implausibly asserts that global temperatures remained totally flat in every century except the 20th—but these claims have been controversial to say the least.

That’s why the implication that this is the warmest year ever in all of human history should never have gotten by a reporter who knows the first thing about the science on this issue. It implies a claim that we’re pretty sure just isn’t true.

Now let’s move on to the corrected statement, that this is the hottest year since the thermometer record began in 1880. But this a very short time for gathering data about the climate and distinguishing new trends from natural variation. For example, about half of the warming that occurs in that time happens prior to 1940, before it could have been caused by human activity. This warming was probably a natural rebound from the Little Ice Age, a cool period that ended in the middle of the 19th century.

More broadly, all changes in temperature that we observe today are relatively small variations within a much larger trend on a geological time scale. We know that the earth is going through a series of freezing and warming cycles on a scale of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. And it has mostly been freezing. We’re fortunate enough to live in a cozy, warm “interglacial” period between ice ages. So we’re all staring down the barrel of the next ice age, yet we’re spending our time worrying about global warming.

But let’s say we take this hyperventilation about a few relatively warm decades seriously. Even by that standard, this latest claim is ridiculously over-hyped.

If 2014 is supposed to be “hotter” than previous years, it’s important to ask: by how much?

You can spend a long time searching through press reports to get an actual number on this—which is a scandal unto itself. Just saying one year was “hotter” or “the hottest” is a vague qualitative description. It isn’t science. Science runs on numbers. You haven’t said anything that is scientifically meaningful until you state how much warmer this year was compared to previous years—and until you give the margin of error of that measurement.

The original NASA press release did not give those figures—and most press reports just ran with it anyway. This in itself says a lot. When it comes to global warming, “journalism” has come to mean: “copying press releases from government agencies.”

But a few folks decided to do some actual journalism, and Britain’s Daily Mail reports that
the NASA press release failed to mention…that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree—or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C—several times as much.

Pause for a moment to digest that. The margin of error was plus or minus one tenth of a degree. The difference supposedly being measured here is two hundredths of a degree—five times smaller than the margin of error. The Daily Mail continues:
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted NASA thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.

This is not exactly a high point in the employment of the scientific method.

If we take into account this margin of error, the most we can say is that 2014 was, so far as we know, just as warm as 2005 and 2010. There is no significant difference between these years. And that gives the lie to claims of runaway global warming. As the redoubtable Judith Curry recently pointed out:
The real issue that is of concern to me is the growing divergence between the observed global temperature anomalies and what was predicted by climate models. Even if 2014 is somehow unambiguously the warmest year on record, this won’t do much to alleviate the growing discrepancy between climate model predictions and the observations.

She links to this graph which shows that observed temperatures are falling at or below the low end of the range predicted by the climate models. With every year that passes, the models predict a greater and greater increase in temperature—but the actual observations remain stubbornly flat. Curry concludes that “ranking 1998, 2005, 2010, and 2014 as the ‘warmest years’ seems very consistent with a plateau in surface temperatures since 1998.”

So allow me to suggest a more accurate first sentence to sum up this story: “In the tiny little blip of geological time for which we have accurate surface temperature records, last year was pretty much the same as 2005 and 2010, continuing a plateau of global temperatures that has lasted nearly 20 years.”

What remains of the original description of this news? Nothing but bluff, spin, and the uncritical press-release journalism that dominates mainstream reporting on the climate. It may or may not be the hottest year ever, but this is definitely in the running for the most dishonest year on record.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/19/glo ... on-record/ (med hyperlenker)
Innlegg: 168
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 15 Mai 2015, 01:52

The Original Sin of Global Warming
by Robert Tracinski

It might seem strange to say it, but I am a global warming skeptic because of Carl Sagan.

This might seem strange because Sagan was an early promoter of the theory that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are going to fry the globe. But it’s not so strange when you consider the larger message that made Sagan famous.

As with many people my age, Sagan’s 1980 series “Cosmos,” which aired on public television when I was eleven years old, was my introduction to science, and it changed my life. “Cosmos” shared the latest developments in the sciences of evolution, astronomy, and astrophysics, but its real heart was Sagan’s overview of the history of science and the distinctive ethos behind the scientific method. Sagan returned again and again to one central theme: that the first rule of science is to follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of one’s wishes or preconceptions. He spoke eloquently about the Ancient Greek Pythagoreans and their attempt to suppress the facts about “irrational numbers” that didn’t fit their theory. And he spoke admiringly about the 17th-century astronomer Johannes Kepler, who started out pursuing a theory in which the planets move in circular orbits reflecting the ratios of the perfect Pythagorean solids—and ended up being driven by the evidence to reject this theory and discover completely new laws of planetary motion.

I didn’t end up becoming a scientist, but I absorbed Sagan’s basic lesson and have tried my best to adhere to it in my own field: follow the evidence wherever it leads.

But this can be a difficult rule to follow. It is easy to spot the unexamined assumptions of others, but harder to root out your own prejudices. A few years ago, while watching “Cosmos” again for the first time in 25 years, I was reminded that Sagan did not always practice what he preached, and his error sheds light on the global warming theory’s original sin against science. It is a sin that has only gotten worse and which explains the scandalous state of today’s debate over global warming.

In the third episode of “Cosmos,” Sagan presents our nearest planetary neighbors, Venus and Mars, as cautionary tales of what happens when a potentially Earth-like planet goes wrong and become inhospitable to life. In his telling, Venus is a warning about how a runaway greenhouse effect can turn a planet’s surface into an acidic furnace, while Mars is a cautionary tale about how an inadequate greenhouse affect can leave a planet cold, dry, and barren. He proceeds to apply these lessons to Earth, predicting two possible doomsday scenarios: one in which deforestation causes the Earth to cool, and one in which fossil fuels cause it to warm. (You can hear some of the audio here, but without Sagan’s original visuals.)
Human activities brighten our landscape and our atmosphere. Might this ultimately make an ice age here? At the same time we are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect…. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth’s climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the Cosmos, into a kind of hell.

This is a bit of a cultural time capsule, preserving the precise moment at which scientific alarmists were switching from warning about a new ice age, in the 1970s, to warning about runaway warming.

Much of the planetary science behind these claims, by the way, turned out to be speculative and premature. In the 1990s, detailed satellite maps of Venus revealed the remains of enormous volcanoes and vast rivers of lava, implying that the planet had been entirely resurfaced by a volcanic apocalypse as recently as 100 million years ago—which strikes me as a much more reasonable explanation for why Venus has a surface temperature of 900 degrees and an atmosphere full of sulfuric acid. As for Mars, its much smaller size and lack of a planetary magnetic field, which allows its atmosphere to be stripped off by the solar wind, are adequate explanations for its cold, thin air and the absence of surface water. So Venusian SUVs and overenthusiastic Martian loggers are probably off the hook.

To his credit, Sagan admits that the science on this subject is still in its early stages—but then he makes a disastrous error.
And yet we ravage the Earth at an accelerated pace, as if it belonged to this one generation, as if it were ours to do with as we please…. Our generation must choose. Which do we value more: short-term profits or the long-term habitability of our planetary home?…

The study of the global climate, the sun’s influence, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, these are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are funded poorly and grudgingly, and meanwhile we continue to load the Earth’s atmosphere with materials about whose long-term influence we are almost entirely ignorant.

Can you see the error? Sagan enters this topic with a clear animus against the profit motive and a pre-established belief that industrial civilization is “ravaging the earth.” These are the obvious cultural biases of a late-20th-century modern liberal. So he considers two alternative theories—that we are destroying the planet by cooling it down, or we are destroying the planet by heating it up—and calls for more government funding to figure out which is correct. But his bias prevents him from seriously considering the obvious third option: that our effect on the Earth’s climate is negligible, any heating or cooling is within the normal range of natural variation, and the benefits of industrial civilization far outweigh any negative effects. But if we don’t treat this as an option, much less as an equally likely option, no government funding is likely to be devoted to pursuing that theory.

This is the original sin of the global warming theory: that it was founded in a presumption of guilt against industrial civilization. All of the billions of dollars in government research funding and the entire cultural establishment that has been built up around global warming were founded on the presumption that we already knew the conclusion—we’re “ravaging the planet”—and we’re only interested in evidence that supports that conclusion.

That brings us to where we are today. The establishment’s approach to the scientific debate over global warming is to declare that no such debate exists—and to ruthlessly stamp it out if anyone tries to start one.

That’s how we get the Los Angeles Times loftily declaring that it won’t even publish letters to the editor that question global warming. That’s how we get Michael Mann’s lawsuit attempting to make it a legally punishable offense to “question his intellect and reasoning.”

That’s how we get the appalling petition to spike Charles Krauthammer’s Washington Post‘s column for expressing mere agnosticism about global warming.

It’s how we get the New York Times casually suggesting that global warming “deniers” should be stabbed.

And then there is this doozy, from my own backyard: at the University of Virginia, Thomas Forman II declares in the student newspaper that global warming skeptics shouldn’t even be allowed to speak on campus, because “we should keep our debates out of our science classes.”

This, at the university founded by Thomas Jefferson, who said, “here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” He also said, “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

Forman is the president of the UVA Environmental Sciences Organization, which “provides a link between the Environmental Sciences Department and the students of the University,” “mainly geared toward undergraduate majors and minors in the department.” So the guy who believes in keeping debate out of our science classes has appointed himself as a guide for every undergraduate who wants to enter the field of climate science.

This puts a whole new light on the claim that a “consensus” of climate scientists backs global warming. It’s easy to manufacture such a consensus when you decree ahead of time that no contrary opinion may be heard. When I saw the recent claim that 97% of climate scientists endorse the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming, it struck me that this is the same margin by which dictators typically claim they have won re-election—and for the same reason. These are both systems in which voting for the “wrong” result is not tolerated.

To see how fanatical this atmosphere of intolerance has become, consider the case of Bjorn Lomborg, who does not even question whether man-made global warming is occurring, but merely argues that it would cost the world far more to stop carbon dioxide emissions than it would to ameliorate the effects of global warming. For this heresy, he had his funding specifically cut off by the Danish government and has had to move into a kind of voluntary exile in Prague. A long profile of Lomborg describes how he has been ostracized merely for questioning the economic and political policies for dealing with global warming. Which is revealing in itself, because it implies that it is the political end result, the campaign to impose massive taxes and restrictions on fossil fuels, that is the fixed assumption to which science must bend.

This is why I treat scientific claims about global warming with such skepticism: I would give them a lot more credence if I thought anyone was allowed to come up with a different answer. As I observed in the Mann vs. Steyn case, if it is a sin to doubt, then there is no science.

That’s a lesson I learned from Carl Sagan, and while he had some role in launching the current global warming orthodoxy, I suspect he would be appalled at the unscientific fanaticism with which it is now enforced. Consider Sagan’s treatment of Immanuel Velikovsky, whose crackpot theories about the development of the solar system enjoyed a brief vogue in the middle of the 20th century. After dissecting the various absurdities of Velikovsky’s theory, Sagan offered this conclusion:
The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his idea were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky’s ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science.

Let this serve as an answer—and a rebuke—to today’s global warming establishment.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/26/the ... l-warming/ (med hyperlenker)
Innlegg: 168
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 15 Mai 2015, 08:05

Maurice Newman skrev fredag 8/5-15 følgende i The Australian:

Maurice Newman er former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, former chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, and currently chairman of the Australian Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council.

The UN Is Using Climate Change As A Tool, Not An Issue

It's a well-kept secret, but 95 percent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It's not surprising.

We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years.

In January 1970, Life magazine, based on "solid scientific evidence," claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: "If I were a gambler I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

Fast forward to March 2000 (in England) and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, "Snowfalls are now a thing of the past." In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, "Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain."

We've had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery's 2005 observation: "If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia." Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We've swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction.

What's more, the (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for misrepresentation and shoddy methods.

Weather bureaus appear to have "homogenized" data to suit narratives. NASA's claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.

Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework on Climate Change has the answer?

In Brussels last February she said, "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution."

In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

This is not about facts or logic. It's about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom, and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, "This is a centralized transformation that is taking place." She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as "very detrimental." Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or disagreement.

Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travelers. As (former US Senator, D-CO) Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: "Even if the climate change theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won't let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House.

They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media -- the ABC and Fairfax in Australia -- to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.

They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is "extremely likely" to be the dominant cause of global warming. ("Extremely likely" is a scientific term?)

And they will keep mobilizing public opinion using fear and appeals to morality. UN support will be assured through promised wealth redistribution from the West, even though its anti-growth policy prescriptions will needlessly prolong poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy for the world's poorest.

Figueres said at a climate summit in Melbourne recently that she was "truly counting on Australia's leadership" to ensure most coal stayed in the ground.

Hopefully, like India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tony Abbott isn't listening. India knows the importance of cheap energy and is set to overtake China as the world's leading importer of coal. Even Germany is about to commission the most coal-fired power stations in 20 years.

There is a real chance Figueres and those who share her centralized power ambitions will succeed. As the UN's December climate change conference in Paris approaches, Australia will be pressed to sign even more futile job-destroying climate change treaties.

Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough.

Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council.
Vegard Martinsen
Innlegg: 7868
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07


Gå til Generell politikk

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 4 gjester