Klimaskeptikernes hevn?

  25 kommentarer til “Klimaskeptikernes hevn?”

1. Ciceros magasin Klima 03-2010 (20.05.10) understreker næringsinteressene bak klimaskeptikerne:

   “Enda mer interessant er kanskje Steen Nielsens
   beskrivelse av de sterke økonomiske næringsin-
   teressene som finnes i bakgrunnen og som i en
   årrekke har finansiert klimaskeptikerne og «ønsker
   å holde faste ved det fossilt baserte energisystemet
   og den gamle verdensorden». Denne rollen er
   utdypet i James Hoggans bok Climate Cover Up.
   Bransjeorganisasjoner som American Petroleum
   Institute og selskaper som ExxonMobil og Koch
   Industries øver innflytelse blant annet via Heart-
   land Institute, Americans for Prosperity og Insti-
   tute for Energy Research. Og det hjelper ikke at
   en av USAs største tv-kanaler, Fox News, gjentatte
   ganger har avvist klimaproblemet som svindel – og
   at den britiske avisa Daily Express fastslår 100
   årsaker til at klimaendringene er naturlige. Steen
   Nielsen sammenlikner aggressiviteten rettet mot
   klimaforskerne med McCarthy-prosessen i USA
   på 50-tallet da kommunister ble avhørt som sam-
   funnsfiender. ”
   http://www.cicero.uio.no/klima/10/3/klima10-03.pdf

   • Ja, det var jo mange andre enn kommunister som ble slått i hardtkorn med kommunistene under McCarthyismen. Og den amerikanske høyresidens «culture wars» er vel en overlevning etter dette. Det er samme holdning: Tenker du på noen måte alternativt til markedlogikken er du for kommunist å regne. I virkeligheten er det de sannhetsfornektende markedsfundamentalistene som har flest likhetstrekk med de endimensjonale stalinistene. Virkeligheten lar seg ikke underordne en ideologi, uansett hvor mange penger eller militært personnell ideologien måtte ha til rådighet.

   • Det er folk med agendaer på begge sider. Det er egentlig ikke så relevant.

2. Lomborg har etter Gateavisas artikkel, forandret standpunkt og innrømmer nå at menneskeskapt global oppvarming er tilfelle.

   Nå kommer også filmen «Cool it», spunnet på Lomborgs (tidligere?) ideer. Skal bli spennende å se. Trailer ute nå: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZR3gsY98VU&feature=player_embedded
   

3. Det er skuffende å se at min gamle anarkistblekke GA er redusert til et passivt talerør og nyttige idioter for svindlere og forbrytere som Al Gore og bedragerne i FNs klimapanel, som har gjort seg til mangemillionærer på denne enorme SVINDELEN!

   Det er forlengst BEVIST at Al Gore lyver, og at alle de mest fremtredende dommedgsprofetene opererer med gale date og rene løgner i sine »beviser» for klimaendringene.

   Og da bør dere spørre…HVORFOR trenger de å lyve, hvis de har en så god sak? Og HVA ligger bak alt dette?

   Sett dere litt mere inn isakene og kom tilbake…OK?!

   http://poetrixx.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/verdens-st%c3%b8rste-svindel-begynner-a-rakne/#comment-8972

4. »Lomborg har etter Gateavisas artikkel, forandret standpunkt og innrømmer nå at menneskeskapt global oppvarming er tilfelle.»

   Jaså??? Dette skulle jeg gjerne sett en link til…det finnes nemlig ingen som helst beviser for dette…og jeg tviler virkelig på at Lomborg har falt seg selv i ryggen på denne måten.

5. http://poetrixx.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/klimatrusselen-artusenets-st%c3%b8rste-bl%c3%b8ff/

   Mer enn 31.000 amerikanske vitenskapsmenn har skrevet under et opprop der de mener det ikke er vitenskaplig belegg for at karbondioksid og andre drivhusgasser vil skape en overoppheting av jordens atmosfære innen overskuelig framtid.

   Snarere tvert imot.

   – Al Gore og IPCC hevder at det er en vitenskaplig konsensus for at vi står framfor en klimakrise, men de som har skrevet under dette oppropet sier ikke bare at de ikke er overbevist om at det er vitenskaplig belegg for en slik hypotese, de sier at hypotesen er motbevist, sier Arthur Robinson fra Oregon Institute for Science and Health.

   Robinson er biokjemiker og driver til daglig forskning på analysemodeller for proteiner. Han er også utnevnt til medlem av National Academies of Sciences. Grunnen til at han ble ansvarlig for innsamling av underskriftene var at han var oppgitt over at debattantene i klimadebatten hevdet at det var en vitenskaplig konsensus på området som han ikke kunne finne i forskningslitteraturen.

   – Energi er pengeenheten for teknologisk fremgang, og om du skal begrense tilgang til energi bør du ha en utrolig bra årsak, sier Robinson.

   Underskriftskampanjen er begrenset til amerikanske forskere, og på tross av at prosjektet har mottatt signaturer fra utenlandske forskere er disse ikke regnet med i gjennomgangen. Rundt 9.000 av signaturene kommer fra personer med doktorgrad, 2.500 fra personer med medisinske grader, og ytterligere 7.000 fra personer med mastergrad.

   Prosjektet har kun bedt om signaturer fra mennesker som har naturfaglige eller ingeniørgrader med den forståelsen at disse har grundig trening i statistikk og vitenskapelig metode. Underskriftene er samlet inn via brevpost, og inkluderer informasjon om utdanning og hvilket fagområde underskriveren ble uteksaminert i. Den faglige spredningen er omtrent lik som den som finnes blant IPCC forskerne, selv om gruppen av undertegnede er mye større enn antallet forskere involvert i IPCC.

   Robinson publiserte nylig en litteratur gjennomgang publisert i forskningstidskriftet Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Gjennomgangen er blant annet skrevet i samarbeid med Harvard fysikeren Willie Soon og er en oppdatering av en tilsvarende artikkel fra 1998.

   Av de 109 artiklene som de fant i forskningslitteraturen, var 88 enige om at det var en varm periode under middelalderen og at man hadde en liten istid på slutten av det 19. århundre. Bare 7 av de 109 artiklene hevdet at det 20. århundre var det varmeste århundret som er målt.

   Journalen har ikke mottatt noen artikler som bestrider konklusjonen i studien så langt.

   Navnene finner du på hjemmesiden.”

   Er det ikke på tide å innlede etterforskning og straffe de svindlerne som har skodd seg økonomisk og fremdeles tjener millioner og kanskje milliarder av kroner på dette enorme bedraget, som Al Gore, som har aksjer for hundrevis av milloner i firmaer som trader med miljøkvoter … og lever som en greve i palasset sitt, mens han forlanger at alle andre skal spenne inn livreima?!

   NÅR skal denne svindleren stilles til rette for forbrytelsene han har begått mot menneskeheten?!

   Istedet belønnes han av idiotene i Nobelkomiteen med Nobels Fredpris ???? ER DET MULIG … og dette skjedde jo mens alle opplyste mennesker visste at hans film An inconvenient truth var full av løgner og burde omdøpes til A convenient lie!

6. Tips til dere i GA, sett i gang etterforskning og skriv en serie artikler om de nye guruene og dommedagsprofetene som har gjort seg til milliardærer på folks uvitenhet…kyniske skurker og bedragere som Al Gore og michael Moore og flere…

7. In a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages

   By Christopher Booker
   Published: 7:00AM GMT 25 Oct 2009

   Next Thursday marks the first anniversary of one of the most remarkable events ever to take place in the House of Commons. For six hours MPs debated what was far and away the most expensive piece of legislation ever put before Parliament.

   The Climate Change Bill laid down that, by 2050, the British people must cut their emissions of carbon dioxide by well over 80 per cent. Short of some unimaginable technological revolution, such a target could not possibly be achieved without shutting down almost the whole of our industrialised economy, changing our way of life out of recognition.

   Related Articles
   Met Office forecasts mild winter
   Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire
   Give scientists the freedom to be wrong
   Dark energy may not actually exist, scientists claim
   Climate change: The sun and the oceans do not lie
   Polar bear expert barred by global warmistsEven the Government had to concede that the expense of doing this – which it now admits will cost us £18?billion a year for the next 40 years – would be twice the value of its supposed benefits. Yet, astonishingly, although dozens of MPs queued up to speak in favour of the Bill, only two dared to question the need for it. It passed by 463 votes to just three.

   One who voted against it was Peter Lilley who, just before the vote was taken, drew the Speaker’s attention to the fact that, outside the Palace of Westminster, snow was falling, the first October snow recorded in London for 74 years. As I observed at the time: “Who says that God hasn’t got a sense of humour?”

   By any measure, the supposed menace of global warming – and the political response to it – has become one of the overwhelmingly urgent issues of our time. If one accepts the thesis that the planet faces a threat unprecedented in history, the implications are mind-boggling. But equally mind-boggling now are the implications of the price we are being asked to pay by our politicians to meet that threat. More than ever, it is a matter of the highest priority that we should know whether or not the assumptions on which the politicians base their proposals are founded on properly sound science.

   This is why I have been regularly reporting on the issue in my column in The Sunday Telegraph, and this week I publish a book called The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the most costly scientific delusion in history?.

   There are already many books on this subject, but mine is rather different from the rest in that, for the first time, it tries to tell the whole tangled story of how the debate over the threat of climate change has evolved over the past 30 years, interweaving the science with the politicians’ response to it.

   It is a story that has unfolded in three stages. The first began back in the Seventies when a number of scientists noticed that the world’s temperatures had been falling for 30 years, leading them to warn that we might be heading for a new ice age. Then, in the mid-Seventies, temperatures started to rise again, and by the mid-Eighties, a still fairly small number of scientists – including some of those who had been predicting a new ice age – began to warn that we were now facing the opposite problem: a world dangerously heating up, thanks to our pumping out CO? and all those greenhouse gases inseparable from modern civilisation.

   In 1988, a handful of the scientists who passionately believed in this theory won authorisation from the UN to set up the body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was the year when the scare over global warming really exploded into the headlines, thanks above all to the carefully staged testimony given to a US Senate Committee by Dr James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), also already an advocate for the theory that CO? was causing potentially catastrophic warming.

   The disaster-movie scenario that rising levels of CO? could lead to droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves and, above all, that melting of the polar ice caps, which would flood half the world’s major cities, struck a rich chord. The media loved it. The environmentalists loved it. More and more politicians, led by Al Gore in the United States, jumped on the bandwagon. But easily their most influential allies were the scientists running the new IPCC, led by a Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin and Dr John Houghton, head of the UK Met Office.

   The IPCC, through its series of weighty reports, was now to become the central player in the whole story. But rarely has the true nature of any international body been more widely misrepresented. It is commonly believed that the IPCC consists of “1,500 of the world’s top climate scientists”, charged with weighing all the scientific evidence for and against “human-induced climate change” in order to arrive at a “consensus”.

   In fact, the IPCC was never intended to be anything of the kind. The vast majority of its contributors have never been climate scientists. Many are not scientists at all. And from the start, the purpose of the IPCC was not to test the theory, but to provide the most plausible case for promoting it. This was why the computer models it relied on as its chief source of evidence were all programmed to show that, as CO? levels continued to rise, so temperatures must inevitably follow.

   One of the more startling features of the IPCC is just how few scientists have been centrally involved in guiding its findings. They have mainly been British and American, led for a long time by Dr Houghton (knighted in 1991) as chairman of its scientific working group, who in 1990 founded the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for research into climate change. The centre has continued to play a central role in selecting the IPCC’s contributors to this day, and along with the Climate Research Unit run by Professor Philip Jones at the University of East Anglia, controls HadCrut, one of the four official sources of global temperature data (another of the four, GIStemp, is run by the equally committed Dr Hansen and his British-born right-hand man, Dr Gavin Schmidt).

   With remarkable speed, from the time of its first report in 1990, the IPCC and its computer models won over many of the world’s politicians, led by those of the European Union. In 1992, the UN staged its extraordinary Earth Summit in Rio, attended by 108 prime ministers and heads of state, which agreed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and this led in 1997 to the famous Kyoto Protocol, committing the world’s governments to specific targets for reducing CO?.

   Up to this point, the now officially accepted global-warming theory seemed only too plausible. Both CO? levels and world temperatures had continued to rise, exactly as the IPCC’s computer models predicted. We thus entered the second stage of the story, lasting from 1998 to 2006, when the theory seemed to be carrying everything before it.

   The politicians, most notably in the EU, were now beginning to adopt every kind of measure to combat the supposed global-warming menace, from building tens of thousands of wind turbines to creating elaborate schemes for buying and selling the right to emit CO?, the gas every plant in the world needs for life.

   But however persuasive the case seemed to be, there were just beginning to be rather serious doubts about the methods being used to promote it. More and more questions were being asked about the IPCC’s unbalanced approach to evidence – most notably in its promotion of the so-called “hockey stick” graph, produced in time for its 2001 report by a hitherto obscure US scientist Dr Michael Mann, purporting to show how global temperatures had suddenly been shooting up to levels quite unprecedented in history.

   One of the hockey stick’s biggest fans was Al Gore, who in 2006 made it the centrepiece of his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth. But it then turned out that almost every single scientific claim in Gore’s film was either wildly exaggerated or wrong. The statistical methods used to create the hockey-stick graph were so devastatingly exposed by two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (as was confirmed in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress) that the graph has become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.

   The supporters of the hockey stick, highly influential in the IPCC, hit back. Proudly calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, their membership again reflects how small has been the number of closely linked scientists centrally driving the warming scare. They include Philip Jones, in charge of the HadCrut official temperature graph, and Gavin Schmidt, Hansen’s right-hand man at GISS –which itself came under fire for “adjusting” its temperature data to exaggerate the warming trend.

   Then, in 2007, the story suddenly entered its third stage. In a way that had been wholly unpredicted by those IPCC computer models, global temperatures started to drop. Although CO2 levels continued to rise, after 25 years when temperatures had risen, the world’s climate was visibly starting to cool again.

   More and more eminent scientists have been coming out of the woodwork to suggest that the IPCC, with its computer models, had got it all wrong. It isn’t CO? that has been driving the climate, the changes are natural, driven by the activity of the sun and changes in the currents of the world’s oceans.

   The ice caps haven’t been melting as the alarmists and the models predicted they should. The Antarctic, containing nearly 90 per cent of all the ice in the world, has actually been cooling over the past 30 years, not warming. The polar bears are not drowning – there are four times more of them now than there were 40 years ago. In recent decades, the number of hurricanes and droughts have gone markedly down, not up.

   As the world has already been through two of its coldest winters for decades, with all the signs that we may now be entering a third, the scientific case for CO? threatening the world with warming has been crumbling away on an astonishing scale.

   Yet it is at just this point that the world’s politicians, led by Britain, the EU and now President Obama, are poised to impose on us far and away the most costly set of measures that any group of politicians has ever proposed in the history of the world – measures so destructive that even if only half of them were implemented, they would take us back to the dark ages.

   We have “less than 50 days” to save the planet, declared Gordon Brown last week, in yet another desperate bid to save the successor to the Kyoto treaty, which is due to be agreed in Copenhagen in six weeks’ time. But no one has put the reality of the situation more succinctly than Prof Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technolgy, one of the most distinguished climatologists in the world, who has done as much as anyone in the past 20 years to expose the emptiness of the IPCC’s claim that its reports represent a “consensus” of the views of “the world’s top climate scientists”.

   In words quoted on the cover of my new book, Prof Lindzen wrote: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”

   Such is the truly extraordinary position in which we find ourselves.

   Thanks to misreading the significance of a brief period of rising temperatures at the end of the 20th century, the Western world (but not India or China) is now contemplating measures that add up to the most expensive economic suicide note ever written.

   How long will it be before sanity and sound science break in on what begins to look like one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever to grip the human race?

8. I de karismatiske kristne miljøene i USA er det mange svindlere som presenterer seg som pastorer etc. og håver inn svære penger fra troskyldige sjeler som blankt svelger alt det disse bandittene sier. Vel akkurat det samme fenomenet ser man hos den naive venstresiden…der har banditter som M ichael Moore og Al Gore nærmest fritt leide til å fore bevisstheten deres med løgner og ta pengene deres! Sosialisten Moore er steine rik og bor i en svær kåk i kapitalistenes høyborg på denne jord…Manhattan.

   VÅKN OPP FOLKENS…:)

9. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

   Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire

   Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world’s first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.

   Published: 7:00AM GMT 03 Nov 2009

   Al Gore: Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire

   Last year Mr Gore’s venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

   The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

   The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

   Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy as Mr Gore. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

   Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

   Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

   Mr Gore had said that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

   “Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”

10. HVORFOR skriver dere i Gateavisa ikke om dette?

    Er GA kuppet av en bunch med alminnelige tråkige sosialister og klimahysterikere?

    HVORFOR svlger dere så glatt alt dette pisset som hele verden er blitt lurt til å tro på?

11. Men så vil noen innvende…er det nå egentlig så farlig om de har løyet, er det ikke bare bra at vi sparer miljøet og ikke slipper ut så mye forurensning…kan da ikke være noe galt i det?

    Og det er selvfølgelig riktig…i hvert fall for andre miljøgifters vedkommende…mye tyder jo på at økte forekomser av CO2 kan være sunt for klimaet, det fører nemlig til at plantene får næring…i Hammerfestregionen blomstrer visstnok floraen nå pga. hardt tiltrengt gjødning som plantene får fra utslippene fra melkøya…

    Men det som er så farlig her er at disse skruppelløse maktsyke menneskene har bløffet seg til makt over hele verden, gjennom denne storstilte svindelen…de manipulerer oss til å anta deres løgner og til å stole på dem som ledere…og gud vet hvilke planer de har med den makten de har skaffet seg…det snakkes om et verdensomspennende globalt diktatur under en verdensregjering…og det er nettopp det de pønsker på, det er jeg overbevist om…

    Det foreligger planer om å redusere planetens befolkning drastisk..noen av disse geniene har nemlig funnet ut at Jorden ikke kan fø på så mange mennesker som det ventes å bli i fremtiden…det gjenstår å se hvilke metoder de har tenkt å bruke når de setter i gang med programmene sine for reduksjon av befolkningen..

    Her er den beryktede og smakløse videoen rettet mot barn som ble lansert for et par måneder siden, med en dårlig skjult trussel om hva som skjer med dem som nekter å tro på bedraget og innordne seg. Er dette hva som vil skje med kritikerne i fremtiden?:

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSTLDel-G9k&fs=1&hl=nb_NO

    • Når du begynner å argumentere for at økt CO2 er bra for plantene, har du riktignok rett men er likevel nokså langt ute på viddene. Bra for plantene en stakket stund, men jeg føler meg (u)heldigvis ikke som noen plante.

      At Bjørn Lomborg har snudd og nå ikke betviler at global oppvarming i det minste er delvis menneskeskapt, er ingen hemmelighet. «In a 2010 interview with the New Statesman, Lomborg summarized his position on climate change: «Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world.»»

      Du nevner også at «Det foreligger planer om å redusere planetens befolkning drastisk». Da vet du vel sikkert også at Lomborg nettopp ivrer for geo-engineering (værmodifisering)? Svært mange som tror på disse planene du nevner, ser ofte en sammenheng mellom populasjonskontroll og geo-engineering… Du finner forøvrig en blogg om dette på min Fb-side.

      Al Gore kan jeg ikke se at Gateavisa nevner overhodet, så kanskje du burde lære deg å lese før du kommer med disse lange tirader av usaklige utbrudd? Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons er ellers svært så omstridt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons) og underskriftsaksjonen er startet av Frederick Seitz som er nevnt av Gateavisa.

12. Seifert, mens du omtaler deg om kildegransking; kanskje du bør sjekke kildene dine på hvorvidt klimaendringene er menneskeskapt eller ei? Selvfølgelig bidrar vår eksistens marginalt, men vi kan ikke forhindre at liv på Jorden etterhvert vil gå under.

    Hvorfor dette klimahysteriet, hvis det eneste vi kan gjennomføre er at våre etterkommere kan leve på jorden i 2000 år istedenfor 1900 år?

    Det er mye mer hensiktsmessig å heller satse alle pengene som blir sølt på klimaforkjemping på romforskning og emmigrasjon til eksempelvis Mars. Jorden kommer til å bli ulevelig etterhvert, i blant er det bedre å se mot nye fronter enn å være en bastant konservatist.

    • Hva eksakt mener du er feil med mine kilder? Det er ikke primært vår tilstedeværelse, men vår laden som bl.a. bidrar til klimaendringer. Hvorvidt disse er marginale eller ei, er i mine øyne en idiotisk måte å se det på, da det kan vise seg at man når et «point of no return». Liten tue kan velte stort lass. Her burde Føre var-prinsippet burde gjøre seg gjeldende. Dessuten er det vel noe fatalistisk, tildels også hedonistisk, å tro at Jorden vil gå under med det første. Å bruke dette som argument for ikke å gjøre vårt beste, er ikke noe jeg støtter.

      Ellers er jeg helt enig i at vi godt kunne sett mer på utenomjordiske alternativer. Dette blir jo forsåvidt også forsket på, men i altfor liten grad. Å se ut i universet er ingen dum idé, men å sette dette opp mot bevaring av vår (hittil) eneste planet, synes jeg blir feil. Derimot kunne det være på sin plass å se ikke minst den teknologiske utviklingen for å komme ut i rommet i et annet lys. Hvor er det størst satsing hva teknologi angår pr. idag? Jeg vil tro det er i krigsindustrien og det militære. Ressurser burde kunne kanaliseres herfra til utvidet romforskning. Våpen har vi uansett nok av.

13. Mange av punktene som blir beskrevet i artikkelen ble også gjentatte ganger nevnt under den 24-timers lange ustream klimakonferansen Climate Reality Project (September 2011).

    Også Environmental skriver i sin leder (May 2011) om hvordan klimaskeptikere blir sponset: «ExxonMobile ‘Linked to 9 of Top 10 Climate Skeptics’» http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/05/09/exxonmobil-linked-to-9-of-top-10-climate-skeptics/

14. «The Earth’s land has warmed by 1.5C over the past 250 years and «humans are almost entirely the cause», according to a scientific study set up to address climate change sceptics’ concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.

    Prof Richard Muller, a physicist and climate change sceptic who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Best) project, said he was surprised by the findings. «We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds.» He added that he now considers himself a «converted sceptic» and his views had undergone a «total turnaround» in a short space of time. (…)

    Muller said his team’s findings went further and were stronger than the latest report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.» https://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

    • The exerstipe shines through. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

15. Lomborg, omtalt i ovenstående artikkel, er idag ute i The Guardian og promoterer fracking (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2013/jul/16/bowland-shale-fracking-uk-economy-co2-emissions, http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/discussion/p/3hbgf?orderby=oldest&per_page=50&commentpage=1#comment-25222551). Her er mitt svar til hans innlegg:

    Fracking is an ecological catastrophe. “New studies suggest injecting water for geothermal power or fracking can lead to larger earthquakes than previously thought”, Guardian July 11, 2013. Fracking use enourmos amount of water, which is said to be our future’s gold as it is a scarce resource. Water used buy fracking is contaminated with about 600 different chemicals. One fracking well use between 3 and 40 million liter of water. Only 30-50% of the water comes up again and can be cleaned. Leakages from fracking well is well known, reported first time by CNN in 2010, showing how nearby household could actually lit their tap water!
    Besides of tar sand, fracking is probably THE most pollutive and less sustainable way of getting energy. Lomborgs cost price is at least very disputable. “Wind will be a very competitive power generation technology in 2020, cheaper than all the fossil fuel technologies” in the European Union, Robert Clover, research director at Aarhus, Denmark-based Make, wrote in the study. In the U.S., “in 2020 wind will be one of the most competitive power generation technologies, cheaper than coal and nuclear technologies and at least comparable to gas.” (Bloomberg, February 27, 2013.)
    Lomborg has been taken for serious fraudulent writing or «objective scientific dishonesty» (Cool it, 2007. Howard Friel responded with the book The Lomborg Deception, Yale University Press, to Lomborgs book) about climate and climate change before, so anything he says should be controlled and checked. Twice.

    Gateavisa har skrevet om Fracking her: http://www.gateavisa.no/2011/11/28/tjaeresand-fracking-og-statoil/

16. Im no expert, but I think you just crafted the best point. You clearly comprehend what youre talking about, and I can really get behind that. Thanks for staying so upfront and so honest.

17. Just do me a favor and keep writing such trnnchaet analyses, OK?

18. And the story continue, from the Guardian:

    A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

    Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.
    Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

19. Er det fortsatt noen som tror at økt CO2 er fordelaktig for menneskeheten? The Guardian hadde en lengre artikkel om dette igår, «Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science», hvor de avslørte hvor enkelt det er å betale professorer og forskere for slike tåpelige påstander.
    «Also, in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal – the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. “I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like,” he wrote.»
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

20. Og nu har vi Frps energi- og klimapolitiske talsmann Per-Willy Amundsen som er blant de som fortsatt tror pa Svensmarks teorier, ikke ulikt Trumps klimarådgivere. Snakk om å være utdatert og snakk om å treffe spikern på hodet her, med henvisninger til hvordan ytre høyre forholder seg til kunnskap!

Kommentarfeltet er stengt for dette innlegget