Ett år efter Climategate – Nature fortsätter sin desinformation

jones
Dagens Nature har en Editorial om Climategate, och en lång artikel baserad på intervju med Phil Jones.  Det verkar som båda artiklarna är fritt läsbara. Innehållet är förutsägbart – givetvis har inga oegentligheter förekommit, och nu kan man lägga allt bakom sig. Nature har ju varit en av de tyngre stödmedia för klimatbubblan, och söker väl också rädda sitt ansikte.  Läsarkommentarerna är intressanta – man har faktiskt släppt igenom flera kritiska sådana genom sitt UI-liknande censurfilter. Notabelt kommer den första läsarkommentaren till Editorial-artikeln från Gavin Schmidt.  Jovisst.

Kommentarer

Kommentera längst ner på sidan.

  1. Inge

    Kanske Phil Jones börjar bli så stark nu att han orkar böja några kurvor till?   🙁

  2. Bim

    Inge!
    Det ante mig att Jones egentligen är kurvböjare!
    Han har väl jobbat ihop men järnvägsingenjören Pachauri. 😀

  3. Svempa

    Jones har ett rynkmönster i pannan som liknar ICA-Stigs.Både vertikala och horisontella linjer som bildare ett luffarschackspassande rutmönster. Men så är de ju både två i krängarbranschen, fast Ica-Stigs produkter är mer smakliga.

  4. Labbibia

    Svempa
    När ICA-Stigs kollega råkade “scanna” honom i pannan dök det ju upp “torkade tomater” i prisfrågedispayen 🙂
    Undrar vad som blir resultatet om man gör likadant med Jones panna?
    “Het Gubbröra” kanske?
    Å andra sidan är hans “bäst före” passerat redan för ett år sedan, lika bra att kassera den gamle geten?

  5. Mr. G.

    Det här PR-programmet har inte Phil Jones totat ihop. Han har hjälp av andra krafter som inte vill framstå som avsändare.

  6. Ann L-H

  7. Peter Stilbs

    Mr. G. #5 – jovisst är det så. 
    Labbibia & Svempa – minns ni att “Ica-Stig” hade en av de ledande rollerna i den ganska obehagliga svenska långfilmen S.Y. Glädjen, från 1989 – jag tror den går då och då på TV4 Film ?
    ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098241/)
    Den båt han byggt går det inte så bra för – och inte för andra medverkande heller.

  8. Michelangelo

    Pedagogiskt rätt , betydligt intressantare och riktad till en intelligent publik.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_514046&feature=iv&v=0Nc8Y8FWle0

  9. Peter Stilbs

    Ann L-H #6 – jo den är ju i maggie’s inlägg i dag
    Global uppvärmning = lokal avkylning

  10. Labbibia

    Peter S
    Nej, jag har inte sett den. Trodde det var en sån där typisk svensk “relationstjafsfilm” 😉 
    Jag föredrar komedier….ju mera utflippade, desto roligare. “The naked gun” “Titta vi flyger”, Monthy Pytons “Holy graal” etc etc… 
    Att skratta sägs ju vara bra för hälsan! 🙂

  11. Peter Stilbs

    Labbibia – jo – visst är det mycket “relationer” i denna film – inte riktigt min typ av film – och jag brukar inte gilla nutida svenska filmer heller. Men just denna gjorde bestående intryck på mig.
    Annars har jag nog samma smak som Du (har hela MP-samlingen bl.a.).
    En film med mer allvarligt innehåll många missat är “Brazil” – kanske värd att tipsa om. Gjord av Terry Gilliam. En av de bästa filmer jag sett.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/
    Vill ni se något riktigt roligt, kolla de 9 halvtimmesavsnitten av “Ripping Yarns”, som gjordes av Michel Palin och Terry Jones, strax efter Monty Python-gänget bröt upp.  Finns att köpa via http://www.amazon.co.uk
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075568/ 
    (se också engelska Wikipedia)

  12. Labbibia

    Pete S # 10
    Stort tack för tipset om ” Ripping Yarns”.
    Jag håller med dig om att “Brazil” är en fantastiskt bra film. Jag såg den när den gick på bio här i Sverige. Någon gång på 80-talet.

  13. Peter Stilbs

    Lite OT – men relevant ändå:
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-doomsday-messages-global-backfire.html
    Doomsday messages about global warming can backfire, new study shows
    … Jaha – behöver man forska om det ?

  14. Thomas

    Att ni bara orkar. Climategate var inget att bråka om och resten av världen har insett det.

  15. L

    Thomas, resten av din lilla värld hoppas åtminstone det… 🙂

  16. Thomas, hur kommer det sig då att precis samtliga ‘Undersökningar’ nogsamt har undvikit varenda heta potatis som öht omämnts?
    Vet du tex varför Phil Jones uppmanade en massa personer att radera alla mail Re: AR4? Och sa att han och Briffa själv skulle göra det?
    Lite roligt att du påstår dig tala för ‘resten av världen’ också, och tom vad dessa insett. Personligen tycker jag att ‘förnekartendenserna’ bara blir starkare på AGW-sidan.
    Det var oerhört länge sedan jag såg någon som öht försökte argumentera själva AGW-hots-case:t. Istället handlar det om precis allt annat, mestadels UI-style. Fast det vore orättvist. Det är ju dom som kopierar vad andra säger och hävdar och tror att det är vetenskap dom pratar om.

  17. Labbibia

  18. Christopher E

    Thomas, jag förstår mycket väl att du vill att Climategate ska försvinna, men du hoppas förgäves…

  19. ThomasJ

    Här tips för de som befinner sig i närheten att lyssna till en annan som totar/låter sig totas/ ihop en massa trams, dyrbart sådant!
    http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/13715/a/155964
    Mvh/TJ

  20. Thomas #14:
    Om Climategate inte var något att bråka om, hur kan då Phil Jones ha fått sitt liv förstört av det? Är det bara på grund av illvilliga konspiratoriker, avlönade av oljeindustrin? Och om denna lilla, onda grupp kunna påverka media så mycket att det förstört Jones liv, vad säger det om hur mycket vi kan lita på det vi läser i andra sammanhang?
    Nej, nu måste jag sluta. Jag ska till banken och lösa in checken jag fick från Shell, innan jag går till UFO-föreningens möte (detta var ironi, om de troende inte förstår det – bäst att lägga till det).

  21. Lejeune

    Sevärt från igår:
    “The House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment heard from a dozen witnesses about how the public and private sectors are approaching climate change.”
     
    http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/11/17/HP/A/40918/House+Science+Technology+Subcommittee+Hearing+on+Climate+Change+Science.aspx

  22. Lennart Paulson

    #14 Thomas
    Nä Climategate är inget att bråka om längre, sanningen kom fram vilket var bra. Så nu går vi vidare.

  23. Ann L-H

    Peter S – #6 och #9 Talar vi om samma rapporter?

  24. Peter Stilbs

    Lejeune #21 – högintressant – men just nu har jag inte tid – det är nästan 4 timmar.  Men det gick att snabbspola.  Intressant att se skojaren Ben Santer mot slutet – jag visste inte hur han såg ut. 

  25. Peter Stilbs

    Ann L-H – jag tyckte det såg ut som detsamma, när jag snabbtittade (?)

  26. Lite Off Topic, men läsvärt:
    BBC bidrog till vilseledande (om) klimatet
    Bland annat läser man att PR-bolaget Futerra gav följande råd till Blairs nyinrättade propagandaoegfan CCWG 2004:
    Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.
    To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken
    Känns inte detta snack igen från alla möjliga håll?

  27. Labbibia

    Jonas N # 26
    tack!
    Jo det känns igen, och det är nog ingen slump.
    Eller hur Thomas P?

  28. Slabadang

    Jonas N!
    Speciellt sista stycket är instruktionen SVTs vetenskapsredaktion tagot som en order smällt ihop klackarna gjort honnör till och verkställt.Bjerströms produktioner har ju haft fokus på den delen av bedrägeriet genom att framställa helt naturliga variationer som bevis på AGW.
    Det borde vara straffbart med ett fängelse straff på tio år att sytsematiskt missbruka och kidnappa den intitution som skall vara en viktig del av vår demokratiska trygghet till ren och skär propaganda och indoktrinering.Straffskalan kan börja med böter för att tydligt försvar och uttrycka värdet av en opartisk saklig och oberoende. Dert skulle innbära en risk för de som infiltrerar och agerar i särintressets tjänst inom public service.Nu har ju vetenskräpsredaktionen utan risk genom Anna Schytts försorg förskingrat licensbetalarnas  TV genom att medvetet rekrytera och bemanna hela vetenskräpsredaktionen med små politruker från miljörörelsen.WWF gjorde ett verkligt klipp när de rekryterade Fru Schytt.
    This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken

  29. Slabadang … Jo, visst ser det ut så. Men att någon skall ställas till ansvar för inkompetens kan du glömma! Normalt är det extra synd om inkompetenta skattemedelsförslösare (de är ju inte bara odugliga, utan behöver ustå offentlig kritik för detta också), så att de behöver lite mer skattemedel som tröst …
    Dessbättre har sjunker förtroendet för SvT, för journalister, självupptagna politiker, för PK-aktivister, för miljöaktivister mm kontinuerligt. Samma sak gäller för klimathotslobbyn (överallt bland ovanstående). Och de kommer således påskynda varandras minskade tilltro.
    Folk är inte dumma, utan oftast bara inte så informerade …

  30. Amaze

    Ur “editorial”angående climategate: “Never mind that almost all of the accusations thrown at the researchers involved have been proven baseless.”
    Haha, de behagar skämta.

  31. Slabadang

    Tänk om …..
    Man startat på rätt fot med problemet med oljeberoendet
    och låtit det stå för sig själv utan dessa miljömuppars inflytande.Miljörörelsen har inga som helst hållbara alternativ som substitut.För att lösa energiproduktionen så har politikerna skaffat sig fel kompisar.
    Uppfinningrikedom och ny energiteknik är liksom inte AGWkyrkans kompetens.
    Hade man tagit rätt grepp på problemet vilket fortfarande inte är för sent och ser ev klimateffekter som bonus.Då skuölle satsningarna hamna på rätt ställe och bla skulle man hårdsatsa på kärnkraften, bänsleceller och annan ny teknik istället för att slösa bortmiljarder utan någon effekt på vare sig oljeberoende ellr klimat. Att sätta upp en nationellt oberoende produktion av el och drivmedel är både hållbart och en smart strategi som alla skulle kunna ställa sig bakom.Miljörörelsen med dess klimagalenskap och domedagsprofetior harblivit hindret för utveckling istället för tvärtom.

  32. Mats Frick

    Peter Stilbs, jag saknar dina kommentarer i fälten under texterna i Nature. Har de blivit censurerade eller finns det någon annan anledning till din tystnad?

  33. Peter Stilbs

    Mats Frick  #32 – denna gång har jag inte sökt kommentera. Tidigare försök för ca 10 månader sedan censurerades.

  34. ThomasJ

  35. Ingemar

    Anthony Watts skriver om kongressförhören:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/judith-curry-climate-change-can-be-categorized-as-a-%E2%80%9Cwicked-problem-%E2%80%9D-praises-blogosphere-and-cites-a-need-for-acknowledgement/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/profess-richard-lindzens-congressional-testimony/
    Lindzen: Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

  36. ThomasJ #34
    Den var häftig!!  Tack för den
    World Governance eller World Goverment run by bureucrats

  37. ThomasJ

    Ingemar #35: Det ÄR deFacto intressant att kolla in hela – suck! – 3 timmar + 47 minuter återgivning/videon på C-span… Fy ph**n sicken låda av BS – speciellt från the Chair.
    Positivt att vid tillfället var åtminstone 1 mot 6 vid denna ‘hearing’. Men fy 17:singen om framtidens evtl. utveckling ska baseras på dessa s.k. ‘förhör’. Brrrr… 🙁
    Mvh/TJ

  38. Mats Frick

    Peter #33, att idka någon form av censur skapar ett tankeläge som straffar sig i längden. Det är svårt att gå tillbaka till ruta ett efter det.

  39. http://www.prisonplanet.com/german-scientist-co2-not-the-cause-of-climate-change-–-cold-period-is-anticipated.html
    German Scientist: CO2 Not The Cause of Climate Change – Cold Period Is Anticipated 
    P Gosselin
    NoTricksZone
    Nov 18, 2010
    The European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) released a paper today written by German physicist Dr. Horst Borchert. The paper reveals a clear relation between solar activity and ocean cycles, and thus act as the main climate drivers. Measured data shows no CO2 impact on climate.
    Paper as pdf here.
    Unfortunately, the paper is only in German. But the abstract is in English. Here it is (I made a couple of grammatical corrections for clarity):
    It was found that the South Pacific Oscillation (SO) is influenced by solar activity, similar to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Especially during the warming period from 1980 to 2009 the oscillation of solar wind – Index “aa“ – was in good resonance with the delayed South Pacific Oscillation. The same observation was found between the oscillation of cosmic radiation, which is controlled by Forbush– reduction by the magnetic fields of the sun protons of the solar wind and the delayed SO (K=0.8). The consequence of these observations is the postulation that the increase of global temperature in the Southern Hemisphere was caused by solar activity with strong emissions of proton-rays in the Earth ‘s direction during the 22nd and 23rd sunspot-periods, reducing cosmic rays. This led to a reduction of cloudiness, increased solar rays and warming up the lower atmosphere (Svensmark –Effect). As a consequence, dissolved CO2 was continuously emitted by the slowly warming ocean, providing fertilizer for the flora of the world. A relevance of CO2 concerning climate change could not be found. With the end of solar activity in 2006, a cold weather period has also started in the Southern Hemisphere.
    In the paper’s conclusion, if I understand correctly, Bochert writes that the southern hemispheric temperature has followed the long-term average of the Southern Oscillation (SO) since 1980. During this warm period, the SO was enhanced by an additional especially strong solar-controlled heat source, which ended with the 23rd cycle.
    As a consequence the global temperature of the Southern Hemisphere, like the Northern Hemisphere, shows a stagnation and has a downward trend since about 2009.
    Borchert writes:
    Temperature increases also in the southern hemisphere from 1980 until 2009 are not caused by man, but by unusual solar activity. A control of the warmth development in the South Pacific region by increasing CO2 concentrations during this warming period is not discernible from the measured data.
    And:
    CO2 is not climate-relevant; from ground-based measurements, climate change and warming cannot be shown to be caused by increasing Co2 .
    And for the future:  
    The weather on the earth will be characterised on average over the long-term by increased cloud cover and thus less solar radiation as a result of the slightly reduced cosmic radiation. Over the long term, a cold period is anticipated.
    Borchert ends with:
    There’s no reason to expect or fear an anthropogenically caused climate catastrophe. All climate changes are due to natural causes. It does make sense to adapt to them.
    I’m going to have to spend more time looking deeper into this paper. Above, I merely presented the conclusions Borchert has drawn.

  40. http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-1-year-later-networks-barely-cover-scandal-but-defend-and-exonerate-accused-scientists.html
    ClimateGate 1 Year Later: Networks Barely Cover Scandal, But Defend and ‘Exonerate’ Accused Scientists 
    Julia A. Seymour
    Business Insider
    Nov 18, 2010
    Climate controversy shook public’s faith in global warming science, but not network news media’s. Reporters downplayed allegations, defended the science and turned accused into victims.
    It’s been a year since thousands of emails and files were leaked from a prominent climate science group at the University of East Anglia, with startling comments including this one: “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment.”
    Other leaked emails showed potential manipulation of temperature data, a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under the British Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles. The files also indicated that the temperature data was in a “hopeless” state.
    Even though many considered it a huge scandal, the three broadcast networks didn’t think so. They ignored the story for roughly two weeks, and have only mentioned it in a dozen stories in the past year.
    Having A Supply Of Healthy Foods That Last Just Makes Sense (AD)
    In those few stories network reporters often downplayed the allegations against climate scientists by calling them “mistakes” or a “series of gaffes,” others sympathized with the accused scientists or insisted that the science supporting global warming alarmism was solid. Journalists even accepted “whitewash” investigations into the matter that supposedly “exonerated” the climate scientists.
    The scandal over those leaked files was dubbed ClimateGate and dominated headlines – particularly in Britain. But here in the U.S., the three broadcast networks went on as if nothing had happened for nearly 14 days.
    It wasn’t until the evening of the 14th day that one network program, NBC “Nightly News,” finally reported on the climate science controversy. But that first story was not the beginning of a flood of network coverage of ClimateGate. Since Nov. 19, 2009, the broadcast networks have only mentioned the scandal or the University of East Anglia in a paltry 12 stories.
    Twelve stories. Why so little coverage? Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), told the Business & Media Institute, “I think it’s pretty obvious why the networks and major papers have ignored ClimateGate. It’s because they don’t want to consider the possibility that the sort of monolithic [global warming] consensus that they support and are a part of is based on junk science.”
    CBS’s Wyatt Andrews defended alarmist scientists against accusation of “fraud” saying “if that’s true, it’s a fraud adopted by most of the world’s leading scientists …” Similarly, NBC’s Anne Thompson cited “experts” to bolster global warming science on Dec. 6, 2009, saying “They say it doesn’t matter what’s in those emails. The Earth is changing.”
    On May 23, 2010, ABC “World News” presented ClimateGate scientists including Penn State’s Michael Mann as the victims. Dan Harris said the debate about climate had become “increasingly venomous with many prominent climate scientists now saying that they are being severely harassed.”
    According to Ebell, the scientists involved were not making “mistakes” as the media emphasized, but “manipulating data.” The CRU emails revealed “they were adjusting the [weather] stations they were using” to show warmer recent decades and cooler temperatures in the 1930s and ’40s, Ebell said.
    Exonerated by the Media
    The allegations of tampering with data, hiding “the decline,” evading FOI laws or trying to keep skeptics from being published didn’t matter to the networks, which had been airing stories about the threat of climate change for years. Reporters were adamant that the science was valid and the threat was real.
    Anne Thompson told NBC viewers Dec. 7, 2009, “But does the controversy change the science? A team of explorers will present findings on Arctic ice melt in Copenhagen, findings that have nothing to do with the emails.”
    Over on CBS, Wyatt Andrews listed a number of scientific groups that accept manmade global warming as fact “To most of them, ClimateGate is a sideshow compared to one overwhelming fact.”
    As the findings of so-called “independent” investigations came out in 2010, many in the news media claimed the climate scientists had been “exonerated.”
    Dan Harris used that word on May 23, 2010 saying: “Senator Inhofe’s report was referring to an incident late last year known as ClimateGate, where stolen emails gave the impression that climate scientists may have been trying to hide flaws in their research, although several subsequent investigations have exonerated the scientists.”
    USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and many other U.S. and international media outlets reported that the most recent British inquiry (the Muir Russell inquiry) “cleared scientists of any misconduct.”
    But the Post and many other outlets didn’t mention crucial indications that the so-called “independent” investigations were a “whitewash.” Cato Institute Senior Fellow Pat Michaels wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal July 12 cautioning people, “Don’t believe the ‘independent’ reviews.”
    Michaels, who was a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia (UVA) from 1980 to 2007, pointed out that Muir Russell’s panel named “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review” was in fact “commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia (UEA), the same university whose climate department was under investigation.”
    That would be like BP handpicking and paying a panel of experts to investigate its handling of the oil spill. Would the news media take that panel seriously if it “exonerated” BP? Not likely.
    Public Perception of Climate Change Shifts after Climate Scandal
    Despite very little network coverage, and claims from some media outlets that the scientists in question had been cleared, public faith in the threat of global warming has been dropping since the email scandal erupted.
    Rasmussen reported on Nov. 15, 2010 that only 61 percent of people think global warming is a “somewhat serious problem.” “These findings have steadily dropped since last November when the so-called ‘Climategate’ scandal broke,” Rasmussen said. The polling group also found 45 percent of people attributed warming to “long-term planetary trends.”
    In March 2010, Gallup found that 48 percent of Americans thought the threat of global warming was “generally exaggerated.” That was the highest in 13 years, according to Gallup.
    In the wake of ClimateGate (and other subsequent climate science scandals), British journalist James Delingpole wrote that, “AGW theory is toast. So’s Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. So’s the Stern Review. So’s the credibility of the IPCC. But if you think I’m cheered by this you’re very much mistaken. I’m trying to write a Climategate book but the way things are going by the time I’m finished there won’t be anything left to say: the battle will already have been won and the only people left who still believe in Man Made Global Warming will be the eco-loon equivalents of those wartime Japanese soldiers left abandoned and forgotten on remote Pacific atolls.”
    Networks Hide Climate Scandals
    Around Earth Day 2010, the Business & Media Institute released a Special Report about network bias surrounding the ClimateGate scandal and other related scandals.
    BMI found that not only did the networks ignore the story for nearly two weeks, they buried allegations against climate scientists with six times as many global warming alarmism reports (86 to 13).
    In those stories, reporters warned about the potential end of French wines, the threat of rising sea levels, melting Andes glaciers, worsening allergies, floods, droughts, dengue fever and the danger posed to animals from the Arctic Fox to Atlantic salmon.

  41. Pär Green

    Jimmy # 40
    Vad är det du vill säga?
     

  42. Pär Green

    Jimmy # 40
    Har du mer “intressanta” länkar så lägg dom i papperskorgen!

  43. http://www.prisonplanet.com/november-20-2009-the-day-global-warming-ended.html
    November 20, 2009: The Day “Global Warming” Ended 
    Alan Caruba
    Thursday, November 18, 2010
    November 20, 2009 is an important date because it was the day that “global warming” ended. It was the day that a total fabrication, a hoax, was revealed to be the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aided and abetted by a vast network of governmental and business leaders, a compliant media, and scientists who sold their souls for grants and other funding.
    It was the day that Al Gore was shown to be unworthy to share a Nobel Peace Prize with the iniquitous IPCC, nor an Oscar for his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
    It was the day that Cap-and-Trade legislation, the largest tax ever on energy use, was eviscerated as lacking any basis in science. The legislation proposed to establish a “carbon credits” trade that would have enriched the Chicago Climate Exchange created by investors that included Goldman Sachs. Following the “global warming” hoax revelations, the Exchange would close its doors within a year.
    November 20 was the day that three thousand emails between the meteorologists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, specifically its director, Phil Jones, and Penn State’s Michael Mann, as well as others involved in the hoax were made available on the Internet.
    The Washington Times reported that “Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner rejected the revelations in the email exchanges, saying “I’m sticking with the 2,500,” referring to the IPCC climate science members. “These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real.” This, like all the other assertions about “global warming” was a lie.
    It must be noted that President Barack Obama continues to talk about “climate change”, the term used to replace “global warming”. His administration has many “global warming” advocates including his science advisor, Dr. John Holden, and Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. The Environmental Protection Agency is engaged in securing authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas emissions” as this is being written.
    The administration’s funding through subsidies and mandates for “renewable energy” sources such as solar and wind energy is entirely based on the assertion that the generation of energy by coal-fired plants, is causing “global warming.” Neither solar, nor wind can even begin to provide sufficient energy for the nation, now or in the future. Support for ethanol, a biofuel, is equally without merit.
    The primary assertion behind “global warming” was that it was “anthropogenic”, created by human activity, primarily the burning of “fossil fuels” by utilities to generate electricity and by industrial users. Similarly the use of oil derivatives, gasoline and diesel for transportation is blamed.
    A segment of IPCC members did not support the global warming hoax and tried for years to marshall opposition to the Panel’s findings, published in reports shot through with baseless distortions and assertions that the Earth was heating to an extraordinary degree. Over time, they came forth and publicly disputed the IPCC for spreading the “global warming” hoax.
    Having A Supply Of Healthy Foods That Last Just Makes Sense (AD)
    A year earlier in 2008, testifying before a congressional committee, Dr. Roy Spencer, the principal research scientist of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said, “Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
    “The warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural,” said Dr. Spencer, adding that whatever warming had occurred had since been replaced by satellite data documenting that the Earth had “not warmed for at least seven years now.”
    A “little ice age” from about 1300 to 1850 was well known to meteorologists and climate scientists.. Dennis T. Avery, the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, noted in April 2008 that “The Earth’s warming since 1850 totals about 0.7 degrees C. Most of this occurred before 1940.” The global warming hoax went into high gear in the late 1980s when no significant warming was occurring. Avery, too, noted that “The Earth has experienced no discernible temperature increase since 1998, nearly nine years ago.”
    Following the leaked emails, on November 26, 2009, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal concluded that “the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.”
    By then, however, the lies put forth by the IPCC had been debunked by a series of international conferences on climate change sponsored by The Heartland Institute. Participants represented many internationally respected climate scientists.
    How profitable was it for those involved? Al Gore and others are alleged to have made millions from the now defunct Chicago-based Climate Change Exchange. The emails revealed that CRU director Phil Jones had, since 1990, collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds (about #22.6 million US) in grants.
    In the United States, an estimated $50 to $60 billion in government grants for climate research had been squandered since the late 1980s when James E. Hansen, a NASA employee, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), testified before a congressional committee claiming that a massive heating of the Earth was occurring.
    Drs. Mann and Jones have both been exonerated by the universities for their work, but there has been a seismic shift in the scientific community as institutions such as the Royal Society in England have begun to back off from their support of the “global warming” hoax.
    The “global warming” hoax was supported vociferously by the mainstream media in the U.S. and around the world. The worst offenders have been The New York Times, Newsweek and Time magazines, but there are others too numerous to list, including leading scientific publications.
    On November 20, 2009, the world began to awake from a totally fictitious nightmare called “global warming.” It persists among those desperate to keep the truth from reaching a world that has been duped by the largest collection of governmental leaders, politicians, scientists, and media collaborators ever to engage in such a Big Lie.

  44. Håkan Sjögren

    JIMMY # 43 : Lysande! Mvh, Håkan.

  45. ThomasJ

    Mkt bra här oxo:
    (Corbett)
    http://www.corbettreport.com/
    Mvh/TJ

  46. Det finns en del att upplysa mina nukes friends med.
     
    I have long written about why nuclear power is the fastest way to global welfare and why CO2 threat can not be supported by a single scientific argument.
    Only very stupid think that all of a sudden now show up reinforcing effects overcompensate T4 extreme water thermostat and CO2 molecule is strongly declining greenhouse effect.
    With a soil that is 14.5 C everywhere, lit by the sun constantly, but with no CO2 in the atmosphere would suns could reduce its efficacy as follows:
    At 150ppm 9W/sqm 280ppm additional 1.6 W / sqm and 400ppm additional 0.9 W / sqm.
    Moreover, it is just so stupid to threaten heat when we are 2.5 C above the Earth’s absolute coldest temperature and 7.5 C below the temperature that had a life-friendly global environment.
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
    Average temperature is also over with stupid than average wind speed for wind energy, the energy of the wind increases with the velocity squared, but the beam energy development with the temperature raised to power of four.
    Two equally inclined surfaces with 50C and -80C radiate as much energy as if both were 10C not as a means of temperature-15C.
    Therefore Sahara radiated less energy during the more life-friendly climate for the period 4000-7500 ago.
    Then it was much warmer at the poles, which increased water turnover rate, steam energy moved from the surface to condensation altitude where the simpler radiates into space.
    This leads to the retailer for more rain, the Sahara was cooler during the day and warmer at night, full of forests, but radiated less energy.
    Anyone who is a nuclear physicist to understand of course that the CO2 threat is politiskr, lacks any scientific support.
    Do not you, it’s shame on you.
    I’m for nuclear power, but the energy systems can stand on its own, do not deceive citizens.
    Read my blog…. and learn…
    //gunnar
     
    Egentligen så skrev jag kanske för att bli mindre usel på att stava engelska… och den sketna grammatiken… så är det ju kul att leta efter debattmotstånd, då Thomas med vänner lämnat Walk over  😉
     
    Någon som tror att min kommentar släpps fram? jag brukar alltid bli censurerad… he he he men vem tror ni vinner till sist?

Lämna ett svar

E-postadressen publiceras inte. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *