Dagens klima link

[seoto]

Det er faktisk mange utenlandske MSM som har tatt opp Bengtsson-saken. Her er noen av dem:

The Times:
'Witch-hunt' forces out climate scientist

Tages Anzeiger:
Der Überläufer

National Review Online:
Science as McCarthyism

GWPF:
DEAR LENNART: A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF PROFESSOR BENGTSSON (fra professor Gee)

Daily Mail/Mail Online:
Climate change scientist claims he has been forced from new job in 'McCarthy'-style witch-hunt by academics across the world

Neue Zürcher Zeitung (oversatt hos GWPF):
LENNART BENGTSSON: THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Nigel Lawson har også en utfyllende artikkel om klimadebatten på Standpoint:
An Essay on Climate Change - Cool it

Jeg antar at GWPF vil følge opp med nye opplysninger. Det blir helt sikkert fulgt opp også på Klimatupplysningen

[attachimg=1]

[Spiren]

Corn biofuels worse than gasoline on global warming in short term – study

Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a new study shows, challenging the Obama administration's conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/20/corn-biofuels-gasoline-global-warming

[seoto]

Dersom verden skal benytte biodrivstoff, hvorfor i all verden dyrkes det da ikke hamp? Hamp er en av de viktigste plantene vi har, og kan brukes til så utrolig mange formål, og er en lettvokst plante. Hvorfor i all verden ble det forbudt å dyrke hamp? Det er også ekstremt vanskelig å ruse seg på industrihamp. Hamp kunne også erstatte mye trevirke, som f.eks. til papir.

[Jostemikk]

Det ser ut til at absolutt alt som kan krype og gå av "skeptiker"blogger rundt om har kastet seg på en hype med å karakterisere det som har skjedd med Bengtsson som McCarthyisme.

Hvordan er det mulig å være så kunnskaps- og historieløse? Er det ingen som vet hva det dreide seg om da McCarthy forsøkte avsløre det som ville vært åpenbart for ethvert menneske uten øyne igjengrodd av snerk?

Det en kan sammenligne Bengtsson-saken med er det seoto har gjort i forbindelse med presentasjonen av denne saken på hjemmesiden til Klimaforskning.com.

Lysenkoisme i våre dager

Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976), russisk biolog, klarte å overtale politikerne, og ikke minst Stalin, til å støtte hans pseudoforskning i ca. 30 år. Først etter at Krustsjov kom til makten i 1953 ble det igjen mulig å kritisere Lysenkos "forskning". I hans glansperiode kunne det til og med være dødelig å være motstander, og man mistet i hvert fall all ære og jobbmuligheter.

I 1964 sa Andrei Sakharov følgende om Lysenko: "He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists."

I dag ser vi at det samme skjer innenfor klimaforskning, et felt hvor det er politisk konsensus som styrer. Dette blir klart bevist gjennom den behandlingen den høyt respekterte svenske klimaforskeren Lennart Bengtsson har blitt møtt med etter at han klart sa fra om at klimaskremslene var sterkt overdrevet. Dessverre er det ingen spøk å gå imot politisk konsensus, da spiller selv ikke reell forskning noen rolle.

[seoto]

Har lest bloggen til Roy Spencer, det var en fryd å se ham så skarp i kantene.
Kanskje det snart bør gå opp for folk flest at vi snakker om global politikk og korrupte forskere når det gjelder klimasaken? Men hvordan i all verden skal man få folk til å forstå det?

The Bullying of Bengtsson and the Coming Climate Disruption Hypocalypse

[...] That climate models do NOT provide good forecasts with demonstrable skill should concern everyone. But as Bengtsson has found out, a scientist advertises this fact at their peril.

Bengtsson has always been a little skeptical, as all good scientists should be. After all, most published science ends up being wrong anyway.

But once he became more outspoken about his skepticism, well...that's just unacceptable for someone of his stature. That his treatment should lead him to worry about his health and his safety tells us a lot about just how politicized global warming research has become.

This bad behavior by the climate science community is nothing new. It's been going on for at least 20 years. [min uth.]

I have talked to established climate scientists who are afraid to say anything about their skepticism. In hushed tones, they admit they have to skew the wording of papers and proposals to not appear to be one of those "denier" types.

At least in the U.S., politicians are the ones who started this mess — Eisenhower predicted "public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite" — and they have the power to put an end to it. [min uth.]

They started it by purposely funding research that had the ultimate goal of increasing the power and influence of government over the private sector by accomplishing favored regulatory goals. Agency heads who are political appointees installed managers under them who would be team players. I've told the story of meeting with V.P. Gore's environmental science adviser in the early 1990s who confided that, now that they had successfully regulated the manufacture of CFCs, carbon dioxide was next. The IPCC was being formed to make that happen, by enlisting scientists who would be guided by politicians and government representatives. [min uth.]

This is no conspiracy theory. This was mostly done out in the open, for all to see. [...]

[Jostemikk]

For ikke å dra det politiske og aktivistiske aspektet inn i Teles nystartede tråd om hva termodynamikk egentlig dreier seg om, siterer jeg AlecMs opprinnelige innlegg i The Telegraph, senere slettet men kopiert inn i et debattforum.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=965368&mid=0&i=8560&nmt=Climate+change+-+the+POLITICAL+debate%2E&mid=0

AlecM said:
This 40+ year scam starting in 1975 at the 'Endangered Atmosphere' conference when old and new Eugenicists, the latter associated with the Club of Rome financed by the Rockefellers, decided to use the CO2 scare to force politics to the stage we are in now.

A quid pro quo was to subvert science. A group of scientists who until then had been forecasting a new ice age, switched to extract federal funds. IPCC co-founder Houghton used an already discredited route to atmospheric physics [based on a mathematical mistake by Milne in 1928] to claim the GHE was lapse rate heating, the compression of all gases by gravity which causes most temperature rise in our atmosphere.

I suspect he did this for two reasons. The first is that it was plausible in the absence of any other explanation of post-ice age warming. The second is that his strong religious views made him want to predict Armageddon: his influence on Thatcher was immense.

For proof see 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf which put this false science into the US literature. Then assuming 33 K present GHE and a ~7 fold increase in IR warming, a perpetual motion machine, Gore and Lay of Enron used Hansen to persuade the politicians there was a serious problem, when the physics had been faked.

Thus climate science has been a commercial scam for 24+ years with the likes of GS using it to create a way to tax the population, a new commodity with absolutely no warming potential.

The science part was to make a totally unwarranted assumption that the Earth emits IR radiation as if a black body in a vacuum, with half the imaginary radiative energy from the perpetual motion machine transferred to increased atmospheric temperature in an iterative process, picking up imaginary water vapour from the oceans, hence imaginary positive feedback. Part of the energy comes from the top because of incorrect IR absorption physics.

Unfortunately for the scammers, in 1997, research overturned the assumption that CO2 followed T at the end of ice ages. So, they decided to use scientific fraud to keep the conspiracy going. It seems Mann strong-armed Briffa in the 1999 IPCC meeting in Tanzania to change tree ring assessment to hide the warming in mediaeval times. However, this made post 1960 temperatures decrease - 'the decline', which was hidden..

In 2004, NASA/GISS switched the accepted aerosol optical physics of Twomey with fake physics to claim the imaginary warming had been hidden by mostly polluted cloud cooling - 'Global Dimming'. They even now claim all the warming is hidden.

To be fair, this bunch of scientific shysters is splitting as some try to restore seriously dented reputations. The CRU people were protected by the fake Oxburgh Report, really to protect the investments of the Mafia who own the windmill corporations. But as they near retirement, reputations are apparently more important – Briffa has recently recreated the MWP.

But the ultimate irony is that all along the hidden mistake these people made was an elementary failure to understand heat transfer which all process engineers immediately see. The Earth cannot emit radiative energy as if it were an isolated black body in a vacuum. This is because basic radiative physics from 1884 means the IR generated thermally in the atmosphere turns off that emission from the surface. Hence the present temperature plateau is because of solar effects and we're heading into a new Little Ice Age.

The large number of CO2 religionists means they are fighting like rats in a sack to protect the grants, aided by governments led by unprincipled politicians doing the bidding of the carbon traders, who include energy companies like Shell wanting to crash economies to earn money from taxing the poor as they freeze.

A truly evil part of the problem has been the conversion of environmental charities like the WWF into corporate troughers. Greenpeace is basically a front for the old Soviet Union which was to enslave Europe by hooking us onto Gazprom natural gas to power the CCGTs that produce virtually all the so-called 'free' windmill power. The FoE and Christian Aid are also deeply compromised.

To counter these disgraceful people we need total openness about the science so the voters can judge for themselves how they have been deceived. Unfortunately, the likes of Cameron and Davey, our privately-educated elite put into power by the carbon traders, are almost totally committed because they were indoctrinated when young. Therefore we need to go to the older generation who are still objective and uncompromised.

[Jostemikk]

Okulars engelskspråklige Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere ...? blir lest av utenlandske gjester hver eneste dag, og nærmer seg med stormskritt 20.000 visninger. Det sier sitt om hvor stort nedslagsfeltet blir med en gang man er i stand til å ordlegge seg på fremmenlandsk, og har interessant stoff å formidle.

Slenger samtidig med en gratulasjon til Gloføken som startet denne tråden. Den har passert 100.000 sidevisninger, og blir tvilsomt slått noen gang.

[Jostemikk]

De statistisk kyndige kan jo ta en titt på denne, laste ned data, og fortelle hva dataene har å fortelle:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2009/to:2015/derivative/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:2009/to:2015/derivative/normalise

[Jostemikk]

Det er i hvert fall konklusjonen til Tamsin Edwards og hennes medforskere da de skulle undersøke om isen på Grønland virkelig var i ferd med å rutsje ut i havet.

http://blogs.plos.org/models/no-need-to-worry-about-greenlands-waterslides/

No need to worry about Greenland's waterslides

We've had a new study published about the slippery slopes of Greenland. If we're right they're not as slippery – and therefore as worrying – as we first thought.

Greenland's ice sheet is not simply a giant ice cube, inert but for gradual erosion from climate change. It's a dynamic, shifting landscape, a place of delicate balance between the forces that create ice and those that destroy it. Under its own immense weight, ice flows continuously towards the coasts and is lost whenever icebergs break off into the sea, or when the surface is warm enough to melt or sublimate. Ice is constantly replaced as falling snow compacts, or rain and meltwater freeze.

...

Dette med at kalvende isbreer har blitt tatt til inntekt for at de forsvinner grunnet menneskeskapt oppvarming må da være et av de dårligste blant alle de dårlige argumenter CAGWerne har funnet på? Det er derfor godt å kunne lese det hun skriver i sitatet over. Det er jo slik alle med snev av logisk sans har påstått hele tiden, at jo mer isbreene legger på seg, jo større masseforskyving i følge tyngdekraften, med imponerende kalvinger utover bratte fjellsider eller ut i havet som resultat.

Klikk linken over som går til Edwards blogg og les hele artikkelen. Det handler om den forsterkende effekten på breenes bevegelse som laget av vann mellom breens bunn og bakken gir. Tamsin Edwards og de andre forskerne bak publikasjonen er ikke i stand til å se den faren for et øyeblikkelig ragnarok tidligere skremme-forskere har gitt uttrykk for.

[bøvelen]

Isen nekter å gi slipp i sommersola ved badestrand

http://www.abcnyheter.no/video/2014/06/02/isen-nekter-gi-slipp-i-sommersola-ved-badestrand?autoplay=1

[Ewer Gladblakk.]

Isen nekter å gi slipp i sommersola ved badestrand

http://www.abcnyheter.no/video/2014/06/02/isen-nekter-gi-slipp-i-sommersola-ved-badestrandautoplay=1

Huffameg!
Hvis dette er sant, så vil jeg bytte badestrand....det får da faanimeg finnes grenser for forhåndsoppmålt pisspreik i reklameøyemed!

[bøvelen]

Obama vil kutte 30%

(og Sundtoft mener USAs nye klimatiltak er et godt tegn)

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Obama-la-frem-ambisios-plan-for-CO2-kutt-i-USA-7589285.html#.U41zAjiKApE

[Spiren]

Giant Of Geology/Glaciology Christian Schlüchter Refutes CO2...Feature Interview Throws Climate Science Into Disarray

This is probably the best interview from a geologist on climate change that I have read for a long while. My highest respect for Prof. Schlüchter." Fritz Vahrenholt calls it "impressive.

See more at:  http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/09/giant-of-geologyglaciology-christian-schluechter-refutes-co2-feature-interview-throws-climate-science-into-disarray/#sthash.FdnY5sXm.dpuf

[Jostemikk]

En god og fortellende link, Spiren. Den er litt trist også. Nok en emeritus som tør si sin mening. Det viser hvor forbannet korrupt dagens system er.

Er det ikke fælt?

[Okular]

Tidligere i dag publiserte Roy Spencer UAH sin globale tlt-anomali for mai på sida si.

Hva jeg fant mer interessant enn selve verdien, var hva doktoren nevnte om den kommende nyversjon 6 av datasettet deres:

As we finish up our new Version 6 of the UAH dataset, it looks like our anomalies in the 2nd half of the satellite record will be slightly cooler, somewhat more like the RSS dataset....but we are talking small adjustments here...hundredths of a deg. C.

(Min utheving.)

Må si jeg er veldig spent på hva han mener med 'somewhat more like the RSS dataset' og antar han er klar over at for at UAH-datasettet skal kunne nærme seg RSS-datasettet, så må førstnevntes MIDTseksjon heves snarere enn at siste halvdel må senkes. Og, ja, han har rett, det hele dreier seg bare om hundredels grader: