Klimaforskning - hjemmeside
Startet av Jostemikk, februar 24, 2012, 12:00:07 PM
SitatIs catastrophic global warming, like the Millennium Bug, a mistake?By Simon CarrEagle Eye - Breaking views from commentators -Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 10:29 pmAt a public meeting in the Commons, the climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT made a number of declarations that unsettle the claim that global warming is backed by "settled science". They're not new, but some of them were new to me......Lindzen says: "Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man's activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless."He said our natural body temperature varies by eight tenths of a degree.He showed a Boston newspaper weather graphic for a day – it had the actual temperature against a background of the highest and lowest recorded temperature for that day. The difference was as much as 60 degrees F......The Al Gore graph showing CO2 and temperature rising and falling in tandem showed that the release of CO2 from the oceans was prompted by warming, not vice versa.He gave us a slide with a series of familiar alarms – melting ice caps, disappearing icebergs, receding glaciers, rising sea levels. It was published by the US Weather Bureau in 1922.And one further element of the consensus: there's been no increase in temperature for 15 years......And I found myself believing – or accepting the possibility – that warming would reduce rather than increase tropical storms.He also said that the IPCC needs "positive feedback mechanisms" to justify anything above a one degree C increase in their predictions. But: "Observation points to small negative feedbacks."How to explain the procession of eminent opinion leaders – some even in our own Royal Society – who advance the tenets of catastrophic global warming? "It is science in the service of politics," he said.If Lindzen is right, we will never be able to calculate the trillions that have been spent on the advice of "scientists in the service of politics".
Sitat fra: BorisA på februar 24, 2012, 13:02:17 PMUtrolig gledelig.Og samme utviklingen kommer til norske MSM dd.mm.åå ?
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på februar 24, 2012, 13:08:43 PMSitat fra: BorisA på februar 24, 2012, 13:02:17 PMUtrolig gledelig.Og samme utviklingen kommer til norske MSM dd.mm.åå ?Den gode nyheten er at selv mektige BBC vil være kraftløse alene. Richard Black vil bli stående som et skammens symbol utad når det gjelder denne medieskandalen. På den venstre skuldra hans vil det sitte en liten, pjusket WWF-spurv som heter Mathismoen.
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på februar 24, 2012, 13:08:43 PMNorsk MSM og BBC vil aldri opptre ærlig i klimasaken. Til det er de alt for infisert av politikk og grønn aktivisme, samt tunge økonomiske investeringer. BBC har jo satt hele sin økonomiske framtid på kvotehandel, "grønn" kraftproduksjon osv.Den gode nyheten er at selv mektige BBC vil være kraftløse alene. Richard Black vil bli stående som et skammens symbol utad når det gjelder denne medieskandalen. På den venstre skuldra hans vil det sitte en liten, pjusket WWF-spurv som heter Mathismoen.
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på februar 24, 2012, 12:00:07 PMEr det noe IPCC-sirkuset ikke tåler, er det realisme. De tåler rett og slett ikke dagslys. Dette dagslyset er det SMS som har makt til å rette mot IPCC-trollene. Er de rett og slett i ferd med å sprekke?
Sitat fra: ConTrari på februar 24, 2012, 15:58:45 PMKlimasaken trenger ikke mange slike oppslag før alarmistene har spilt fallitt for godt. For klimasaken er ikke en generalforsamling i et borettslag, der klimakrisen kan vedtas med simpelt flertall.
Sitat"When, if ever, is lying justified?"
Sitat"That brings me to the latest scandal to emerge from the debate over global warming. Two weeks ago, an anonymous source distributed internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a conservative organization, to journalists and bloggers. As reported on this site on February 15, the documents revealed, among other facts, that the Heartland Institute, as part of a larger strategy for undermining support for global warming, was supporting prominent skeptics such as physicist Fred Singer and geologist Robert Carter."
Sitat"One way or the other, Gleick's use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I'm sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family). The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the 'rational public debate' that he wrote—correctly–is so desperately needed."
SitatGleick himself sounded contrite. He put it this way: "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts–often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated–to attack climate science and scientistsand prevent this debate , and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. "
SitatWas he acting selfishly, to benefit himself, or selflessly, to help others? By this criterion, Gleick's lie was clearly moral, because he was defending a cause that he passionately views as righteous. Gleick, you might say, is a hero comparable to Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who in 1971 stole and released documents that revealed that U.S. officials lied to justify the war in Vietnam.