IPCC skjelver: 16 blytunge forskere med opprop mot CO2-hypotesen

[Telehiv]

Hør på den vettuge salven:

Først sier de:

"There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy."

og så klinker de til med dette:

...it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence....

Har dere hørt på maken til fabelaktig statement fra denne blytunge gjengen?

Her er hele setningen:

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Dette er noe som vil få det rådende klimaestablishment til å skjelve i buksene.
Det interessante er at dette kommer i stor grad fra eldre, topp etablerte toppfolk som åpenbart har råd til å gi en blank f.... i videre karriere!

Sjekk denne toppgjengen selv:

1. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;
2. J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;
3. Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
4. Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
5. Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;
6. William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;
7. Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;
8. William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
9. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;
10. James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;
11. Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;
12. Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;
13. Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;
14. Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;
15. Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
16. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Hvor lenge kan IPCC påberope seg konsensus for sin AGW-CO2-hypotese etter dette?

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news


PS: For sikkerhets skyld poster jeg hele teksten her, den er full av sitatverdige elementer og vil garantert bli en klassiker i nettdebatter i lang tid fremover - dette ryker det krutt av!

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
WSJ Opinion

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy..

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Corbis.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.


Dette kommer på toppen av den lenge-løpende "petition"-listen som nå teller over 31.000 underskrifter:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Telehiv]

Denne saken er nå oppe på alle oppdaterte klimanettsteder, og signaturen Don Keiller kommenterer saken på Bishop Hill ved å vise til hvilke metoder som har holdt det feilslåtte IPCC-budskapet ved makten så lenge:

Unfortunately this "shoot the messenger" mentality appears to be standard operating procedure amongst climate "scientists".
Phil Jones (UEA) also tried this one with me when Professor Jonathan Jones (not to be confused with Phil Jones!) and I had the temerity to send a FOI request.
In the recently released email, 1625.txt, we find Jones discussing with senior University staff, the idea of giving Professor Jonathan Jones and I the same treatment as he gave another UK academic.
Phil Jones (1812.txt) asks the Head of Communications at UEA "The thought is whether we should follow the same course with these two?"
Fortunately wiser council prevailed with the Head of Communications replying on the same day
"Do you know the heads of department at (their universities)? Are you sure that they would dissociate themselves from their colleagues who have written? We want to avoid any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you. This (Keiller) chap appears to be deputy head of department and could, I think, cause a huge stir if he got wind of it.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/27/sceptic-letter-in-wsj.html


Jeg må tilstå at jeg grøsser på ryggen når jeg leser hva ærlige forskere har måttet gjennomgå av denne banden?

[Amatør1]

13. Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;

Flott tråd, Tele! Denne gruppen forskere sier som du peker på de rette tingene. Dette bør politikerne bite seg merke til.

Litt info om Harrison Schmitt: Han er verdens hittil nest siste mann på Månen, i 1972 (heldiggrisen). Han er også eneste geolog som har satt sin fot der. Men han har også satt sin fot andre steder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt

Early life and education

Born in Santa Rita, New Mexico, Schmitt grew up in nearby Silver City.[2] He received a B.S. degree in geology from the California Institute of Technology in 1957 and then spent a year for graduate studying geology at the University of Oslo in Norway. He received a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University in 1964, based on his geological field studies in Norway.

[Telehiv]

Jeg tror det nærmer seg det såkalte "Ghandi-stadiet" nå:

"First they ignore you,
then they Laugh at you,
then they Fight you,
Then you Win."

[Bebben]

Vet ikke om dette burde postes her eller i Jon Smit-tråden, men et møte arrangert av Oregon-avdelingen av det amerikanske Metereologselskapet forleden trakk 400 tilskuere.... hvorav 90 prosent var skeptiske og 1, siger og skriver en, varmist grep ordet...

Møtet var en presentasjon av skeptiker-synspunkt, og skulle opprinnelig ha vært holdt i Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, men de avlyste det i november "for lack of balance". I stedet ble det flyttet til et hotell ved flyplasssen.

En video fra møtet skal visstnok postet på hjemmesiden til foreningen her

http://ametsoc.org/chapters/oregon/

men sist jeg sjekket var det ikke kommet noe.

Det er en del "tegn i tiden", tydeligvis - varmistene intensiverer sin propaganda, men klimaet spiller ikke på lag, ikke den vitenskapelige opinionen heller...

Kanskje ikke så rart, når både Gore og Winther reiser til det kaldeste (og kanskje klimamessig mest stabile) stedet på jorden på jakt etter smeltende is eller hva det nå var.

Antarktis er nok ikke det beste stedet å ha Keiserens nye klær på.... 

[BorisA]

Tror det er viktig å informere Aftenposten om dette.
De vil nok gjøre sitt ytterste for å informere leserne om denne saken.

[BaseBallStick]

Jeg er glad du ikke tok et hvileår, Tele.

Aftenposten holder nok forsida klar til dette, ja... Sammen med resten av pressen.

[Telehiv]

Jeg er glad du ikke tok et hvileår, Tele.

Takk for det, BaseBallstick!
Slike små vitaminpiller gjør at man tar seg på tak litt til 

[Amatør1]

Dette var det vi vanlige verdensborgere skulle holde kjeft om, for de dette forsto vi ikke noe av. Det disse forskerne her sier, er esensen av det dere, klimarealistene, og selv jeg, uten akademisk, om en noen utdannels i det hele, har forstått hele tiden. Dette var det som gjorde at jeg i det hele innlot meg på denne kampen, i så bastant form som jeg gjorde. Jeg har ALDRI, et øyeblikk tvilt på at jeg hadde rett i mitt standpunkt. Jeg kjørte et knallhart løp, det har dere her fått merke også, men det kommer av at jeg har måttet bruke den livs stilen for å komme noen sted i livet. Det beste forsvar mot usannheten, er angrep. De holdt på å få plantet løgnen for dypt.
Godnatt fra Bestefar!

Det står respekt av din innsatsvilje og stamina. Du gjør en flott jobb 'ute i felt' på VGD 

Men om jeg skulle med en liten kritisk kommentar til det du sier her, så handler det om at vi også av og til stoppe opp og tvile litt på egne standpunkter. Om ikke annet for å bli sikrere i vår sak 

[zulusierragolf]

Fullt ut i tråd med den ellers så balanserte saksfremstilling vi finner her på klimaforskning.com så har dere "glemt" å publisere at innlegget fra de 16 "blytunge" forskerne har fått et tilsvar:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html

Hva gjelder disse "blytunge" forskerne så kan vi si følgende:

5 av dem har ikke publisert innen klimavitenskap. (de samme fem er klimaskeptiske aktivister)
2 av dem har publisert innen klimavitenskap.
2 av dem har publisert klimavitenskap og er klimaskeptiske aktivister
7 av dem har ikke publisert noe innen klimavitenskap og er ikke klimaskeptiske aktivister

Så av 16 "blytunge" forskere har 12 av dem ikke publisert innen klimavitenskap.

Men for all del - hver gang ungene er syke så tar vi dem med til en klok kone - legene er jo korrupt, det vet jo alle.
Og bilen, den fikser vi hos en rørlegger - det er jo det tryggeste.

[zulusierragolf]

Reperatøren:

1. Hvor en din kilde til kurver som flat eller svakt fallende. ? Her er en kurve som jeg synes er ganske talende: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47   Den hviser tydelig hvordan man velger punkter som gir flate og nedadgående kurver, og hvor langt det er fra sannheten.

2. Trenberth er en av forfatterne i dette tilsvaret - det er ikke en helt urimelig påstand at Trenberth vet hva han tenkte når han skrev eposten.

[ebye]

Reperatøren:

1. Hvor en din kilde til kurver som flat eller svakt fallende. ? Her er en kurve som jeg synes er ganske talende: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47   Den hviser tydelig hvordan man velger punkter som gir flate og nedadgående kurver, og hvor langt det er fra sannheten.

zulu:

Hvorfor er det plutselig plausibelt å bruke trender på ca. 7 år?

Her er en graf som viser nedgang i global temperatur etter år 2000

http://www.climometrics.org/tempco2.gif

Stoler du på HadCrut?

[zulusierragolf]

ebye

Diskusjonen for hånden nå er at 16 personer skrev et leserinnlegg i en amerikansk avis og sa temperaturen var på vei ned. Det får man til ved å blant annet håndplukke temperaturserier på så lite som 7 år.
Velger man en lengre temperaturserie (slik det er anbefalt å gjøre) så blir det stadig vekk varmere.

Eller sagt på en annen måte: dersom grafen som vi viste til var omsetningen i en bedrift  og ikke temperaturer så kan vi anbefale noen å plassere sparepengene sine med utgangspunkt i de korte blå strekene eller den lange røde.....

Poenget er nettopp at det IKKE er plausiblet å håndplukke 7 års serier - men til tross for at det er bred enighet om at det en elendig metode - så er det nettopp det de 16 "blytunge" aktivistene gjør.

Deres påstand: "The lack of warming for more than a decade" er ikke så lett å bevise hvis man tar utgangspunkt i NASA GISS sine temperaturserier hvor 2010 stadig er det varmeste året i målt historie.

Og ebye - dette vet du jo - er det god debattskikk å gjenta en myte flere ganger?

Ja - vi stoler på Hadcrut, men de er jo kjent for å være "kalde"


Stoler du på NASA GISS og BEST ?

[ebye]

Stoler du på NASA GISS og BEST ?

Nei, NASA GISS scorer meget lavt for tiden

http://klimaforskning.com/forum/index.php/topic,500.msg7251.html#msg7251

BEST er ikke vurdert.

[stjakobs]

Wll Street Journal nøyde seg ikke bare med det trykte ord. Her er også et TV-intervju med en av de som undertegnet artikkelen, William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University:


http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/global-warming-hoax-leading-scientists-debunk-climate-alarmism?xg_source=activity