Dagens klima link

[Jostemikk]

Her er en person som er i stand til å se oppover for å finne helheten i hva som har styrt oss inn i blant annet klimasvindelen.

WUWT - Should we be worried?

Gail Combs says:
January 29, 2014 at 10:07 am

RichardLH says: @ January 29, 2014 at 6:05 am

Alternatively.

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
Napoleon Bonaparte
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I really really wish I could agree it was just incompetence, but there is just too much evidence out there that this is part of a long term plan. As WTO director-General, Pascal Lamy bluntly stated:

The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence. Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?

That says there is a Grand Plan and the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system (World Bank and IMF), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (World Trade Organization) are all working in accordance with that plan and have been for close to a century.

I strongly suggest reading "Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations," International Security, Vol. 20, no.4 (Spring 1996) it explains the reasoning behind the Grand Plan.

Believe me incompetence is much much better than fanatics with a Grand Plan, especially fanatics with lots of money and reasoning that maybe completely incorrect.

Once you understand the Grand Plan and 'Interdependence' then Clinton's actions with regard to China makes a lot of more sense:
Chasing the Dragon: Clinton's China Policy
(Back up info)
NY times: Clinton Approves Technology Transfer to China

NY times: The Nation: Open Arms; Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes

I tiår etter tiår har denne konspirasjonen fått lov til å vokse som en ondartet svulst i samfunnet, og vanlige mennesker, altså folk flest, har gjennom å tie, samtykket til demokratiets dødsdom.

For å styre alt som har med samfunnsdebatt bort fra de reelle årsakssammenhenger, benytter de samme enhver mulighet til å oppfordre til å følge de spillereglene konspiratørene har skrevet. Et ferskt eksempel på hva jeg mener er saken om Tallbloke, Mørner, Humlum et al og hvordan redaktøren i et "forsknings"magasin slo hardt ned på klimakjetteri. Ikke at dette skjedde, for det er enkel Lysenkoisme. Styggedommen lot seg ikke spore før vi så hvordan Anthony Watts kastet seg inn i kampen. Som alle nå har fått med seg, valgte han å stille seg side ved side med bokbrennerne.

Andre har gjort alt de kan for å kaste vann på bålet som disse antidemokratiske kreftene bevisste valgte å tenne. Han oppfordrer selv alle å spre hans brev til den bokbrennende redaktøren. Derfor gjengir jeg det i sin helhet.

[attachimg=1]

Dear Mr. Rasmussen,

Closure and reopening of the learned journal Pattern Recognition in Physics

My kind friend Professor Niklas Mörner of Stockholm, who in close to 50 years has
published approaching 600 papers in the reviewed and general scientific literature, is an
internationally-renowned expert on sea level and is one of the most gifted instructors of
students I have ever had the pleasure to work with, has copied me in on your sad and,
indeed, bizarre decision to bring to an end the excellent learned journal Pattern Recognition
in Physics, less than a year after its first publication in March 2013.


Professor Mörner, who is usually the most genial and even-tempered of scientists, is plainly
furious not so much at your decision to axe this promising journal, which was already
galloping towards the forward frontiers of research in the physical sciences, as at the
extraordinary reason you have given for your decision.

The Professor, who is highly active in the worldwide scientific community, attended the Fifth
Space Climate Conference in Oulu in June 2013 and realized that the hypothesis that the
relative positions of the major planets of the solar system influence solar activity in
accordance with a detectable pattern was now ready to be elevated to a theory. In his own
specialism, sea-level rise, the question was of more than purely academic significance, since
the influence of the major planets not only influences the Sun but causes perceptible
variations in the period of the Earth's rotation (i.e. the length of the day) and hence, via the
Coriolis force over time, in global sea level.

Accordingly, Professor Mörner, on learning that the hypothesis about the connection
between variations in the positions of the major planets and in solar activity was gaining
recognition, realized that the topic was an ideal instance of pattern recognition in
astrophysics. He proposed to the editor of the new Copernicus journal Pattern Recognition
in Physics that a special issue should be devoted to the subject so that a collection of papers
could examine the issue from every angle and, as the ancient Chinese philosophers used to
say, "in the round". The editor, understandably, leapt at the opportunity with expressions of
delight, and invited Professor Mörner to edit the special issue. No one more competent or
suitable guest editor could have been chosen.

The Professor considered that a 2013 publication date would be valuable, though that would
leave him just a few months to produce the special issue. What he describes as "a very, very
intensive editorial work" started at once. To save time, the 19 authors of the 12 papers – all of
them pre-eminent in their various fields – reviewed each other's contributions, though
additional reviewers were also consulted. The process of peer review was thorough and
meticulous.

The special issue, justifiably described by the Professor as a "breakthrough", was published
by Copernicus in 2013. An image of the front cover is below. In the Professor's view – and he
has had more experience than almost anyone – the quality of the 12 papers was excellent.
Professor Mörner tells me that the key general conclusion, co-authored by the 19 researchers
of undoubted eminence, was to the effect that the planetary beat indeed influences solar
variability, whereupon two further conclusions followed: first, the central conclusion that the
long-considered hypothesis had now been elevated to a firm theory and perhaps even to a
paradigm, and secondly, a subsidiary conclusion that extrapolation of the thus-explained
pattern of solar variability over the coming century "sheds serious doubts on the issue of a
continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project".

Professor Mörner's professional opinion – with which one may legitimately agree or
disagree, but only on scientific grounds – is that this last conclusion is a logical, necessary
and scientific result properly following from all 12 papers published in the special issue,
though in the context of the overall finding it was a subsidiary conclusion, and was expressed
as such.

With this necessary background, I now turn to your stated reasons for attempting to bring
Pattern Recognition in Physics to an end. Aside from your suggestion that inviting as many
as 19 pre-eminent researchers with varying opinions and in widely different fields to review
each other's papers was "nepotism" (which is such obvious, desperate nonsense that I shall
speak no more of it), the reasons you give for your shameful decision are merely
restatements of a single, monstrous pretext in varying forms.

I quote you verbatim, enumerating six passages selected from your two emails of 17 January
2014 to Professor Mörner, arranged in accordance with the sequence of events you describe:

1. "Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in
Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus' attention
and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated
Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate
skeptics." And why should taking part in scientific debate debar an editor?

2. "Before the journal was launched, we had a long discussion regarding its topics. The
aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full
spectrum of physical disciplines. PRP was never meant to be a platform for
climate sceptics." It should be a platform for science, wherever it leads.

3. "Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled "Pattern in solar variability, their
planetary origin and terrestrial impacts". Besides papers dealing with the observed
patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their
conclusions in which they "doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming
as claimed by the IPCC project" (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013)." On
what scientific ground, if any, do you dare to dispute their scientific conclusion?

4. "While processing the press release for the special issue "Patterns in solar variability,
their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts", we read through the general
conclusions paper published on 16 December 2013. We were alarmed by the
authors' second implication stating "This sheds serious doubts on the
issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC
project". And why were you alarmed? What scientific reason for alarm was there?

5. "Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions
which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent
developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to
this drastic decision." How dare you censor a legitimate scientific conclusion?

6. "We therefore wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the
originally agreed aims & scope of PRP and decided today to cease the
publication. This decision must come as a surprise for you, but under the given
circumstances we were forced to react." On what scientific ground do you "distance
yourselves" from the scientific conclusion that the IPCC's predictions should be
doubted? What scientific reviewers did you consult? Did you put your reviewers'
concerns to the authors of the conclusion you presume to dispute? If not, why not?

There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the above passages, all taken from
your two emails of 17 January 2014 to Professor Mörner.
It must be concluded that personally you have – for whatever reason – adopted so fervent a
position on the catastrophist side of the climate science debate that you (or, more probably,
the shadowy figures behind you) are regrettably intolerant even of the mildest, passing
question – however well supported scientifically by the very latest evidence from outside the
climate sciences – as to whether the IPCC's previous predictions of very rapid and potentially
catastrophic global warming may perhaps be incorrect.

You must appreciate the gravity of what you have done. You have killed a learned journal in a
field only peripherally connected with the climate because you have decided – or you have
cravenly obeyed others unknown who have decided – to take a lamentably unscientific and
aprioristic stance on the global warming question, a stance so uncompromising that you will
not countenance even a single, passing question about whether the IPCC's previous
predictions are likely to prove correct, and you will not – indeed, cannot – offer a single
shred of scientific justification for your viewpoint.

Your challenge to a surely temperately-expressed but serious and by no means illegitimate
doubt about the IPCC's predictions is not itself expressed in the usual scientific manner by a
reviewed paper or comment responding to the scientific conclusion that – on no stated
ground – you purport to dispute, but by a petulant decision to shut the entire journal down.
This decision of yours, taken without the slightest regard for the scientific method or for the
usual canons of disciplined enquiry, logical discourse or peer review, is one too many of its
kind. It is not acceptable. I do not propose to accept it or to tolerate it.

Let me tell you, therefore, what will happen next.

First, I shall give Copernicus seven days to reconsider its ludicrous decision to abort the
journal for a nakedly political reason and without offering anything that even makes a
serious pretense at being a scientific justification.

Secondly, if after seven days I shall not have heard from you that the journal is to continue, I
shall invite all of the contributors to the special edition to participate with me in a relaunch
of Pattern Recognition in Physics, to take effect immediately. If you or Copernicus object to
this course of action on copyright or any other ground, you will no doubt be sure to let me
know within the next seven days. Otherwise, you will be presumed to have forfeited all
interest in producing scientific journals and you will leave the journal to me. I shall invite
Professor Mörner to be the lead editor. The journal will be published online and, I hope, will
also be taken under the wing of one of the scientific publishing houses with which I have
connections. For the sake of avoiding a public humiliation of you until you have had an
opportunity to rethink your position, I am not contacting any other scientific publishing
houses until the seven days have passed.

Thirdly, the first editorial in the relaunched journal will perforce have to address the reasons
why Copernicus decided to try (unsuccessfully, as you will by now have realized) to kill the
journal. You will come in for some justifiably severe personal criticism in this editorial, for
on any view you have not behaved as a senior executive of a reputable scientific publishing
house should have behaved. You have taken a corrupt, anti-scientific decision.

Fourthly, as the editorial and the press release relaunching the journal will have to point out,
you have also, through ignorance, put yourself outside the emerging mainstream of climate
science. For that mainstream is now flowing in a far less catastrophist direction than ever
before.

The IPCC itself, after many strongly-worded representations from expert reviewers such as
me, has been forced to abandon its former naïve and imprudent faith in the expensive
computer models that have so relentlessly failed to predict global temperature with sufficient
conservatism since the 1980s.

Between the pre-final draft reviewed by us and the final draft, the IPCC cut its best estimate
of global warming by almost half, from 0.7 Cº over the next 30 years to about 0.4 Cº. That
rate is equivalent to 0.13 Cº/decade, or little more than a third of the 0.3 Cº/decade near-
term warming predicted by the IPCC in 1990.

In the past 30 years, 0.14 Cº global warming per decade was measured, so the IPCC's new
prediction of 0.13 Cº/decade entails no acceleration in global warming over the next 30
years. And that, as you will no doubt realize, is in line with the scientific conclusion to which
you object so strongly on partisan grounds that you have attempted (and failed) to shut down
this promising new journal of rational thought.

That blameless conclusion expressed "serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even
accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project". The IPCC itself, though it still predicts
a "continued" warming, is now, in effect, no longer predicting an "accelerated" warming for
at least the next 30 years.

[attachimg=2]

[attachimg=3]

The IPCC's graph from the pre-final draft of the Fifth Assessment Report comparing its
predictions with those of the models is shown above, together with its heavily-revised graph
from the final, published draft, where you will see that it has abjectly climbed down and
substituted its "expert judgment" for the models' extravagant and discredited predictions.
You will see just how drastic has been the IPCC's downward revision of its previous
projections: indeed, its current best estimate of near-term warming, at 0.13 Cº/decade, is its
lowest ever, by a comfortable margin. Inch by inch, the skeptics against whom you show such
hateful prejudice are being shown to have been correct all along. For they, unlike the canting
profiteers of doom, have no financial or other vested interest in maintaining and peddling a
lie.

Fifthly, if you are determined to allow a disgracefully narrow-minded and rankly partisan
political view to dominate the editorial decision-making at Copernicus, I shall send out
worldwide a warning that Copernicus is not henceforth to be regarded as a scientific
publishing house at all, but merely as a malodorous joke: a putrid arm of the international
political and environmental-extremist academic cabal, unworthy to be considered a truly
scientific publishing house at all. Copernicus will henceforth be boycotted by all serious
scientists, who will snigger at it behind their hands, and will regard it as a publisher not of
science but of children's comics.

Sixthly, if within seven days you have not notified Professor Mörner that your decision to
attempt to stop the journal – a decision that is the modern equivalent of book-burning – has
been rethought and withdrawn, copies of this letter will be circulated widely. This is not the
early Middle Ages: it is the 21st century. Your failed attempt at shoddy, Soviet-era scientific
censorship will, therefore, be widely publicized and universally condemned.

For the time being, to spare your blushes, I am not circulating this letter beyond the
recipients of Professor Mörner's email to me. After seven days, however, I shall without
hesitation circulate it widely. Furthermore, I shall then be entitled to assume that neither
you nor Copernicus have any objection to my taking over the journal without fee, whereupon
it will be administered and edited on scientific principles only, and not on the basis of any
mere superstitious, anti-scientific, catastrophist, Druidical credo.

Whether you like it or not, this is not the Dark Ages: it is the Age of Enlightenment and
Reason. Get used to it, and withdraw your silly and intellectually immature decision to shut
down Pattern Recognition in Physics on the most fatuously insubstantial ground ever
advanced by even the most vicious of dictators for suppressing the freedom to think.
You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Yours faithfully,

[attachimg=4]

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

[Jostemikk]

Steven Goddard - Mann-Made Global Warming Arrives In Florida

[Jostemikk]

Dagens soleklare anbefaling går til den forholdsvis nye bloggen Klimagrasrota. Det er allerede interessant og velskrevet stoff på plass, så her er det bare å kjenne sin besøkelsestid!

Et spørsmål/tips. Så vidt jeg kan se finnes intet navn man kan henvende seg til hvis man ønsker kommentere artiklene? I så fall anbefaler jeg å legge inn slit i funksjonene slik at det står Skrevet av ...... Det er enklere å henvende seg til noen enn noe.

Fra dagens innlegg Chandler, Hygen og fortellingens dynamikk siterer jeg:

Så i stedet for å innrømme at de tidligere spådommene om «varmere og våtere» kort og godt kan vise seg å være for skråsikre, bruker Hygen «Marlowe-trickset», det berømte rådet fra Raymond Chandler til verdens krimforfattere:

When in doubt, let a man come through a door with a pistol in his hand.

[Bebben]

Dagens soleklare anbefaling går til den forholdsvis nye bloggen Klimagrasrota. Det er allerede interessant og velskrevet stoff på plass, så her er det bare å kjenne sin besøkelsestid!

Et spørsmål/tips. Så vidt jeg kan se finnes intet navn man kan henvende seg til hvis man ønsker kommentere artiklene? I så fall anbefaler jeg å legge inn slit i funksjonene slik at det står Skrevet av ...... Det er enklere å henvende seg til noen enn noe.

Fra dagens innlegg Chandler, Hygen og fortellingens dynamikk siterer jeg:

Så i stedet for å innrømme at de tidligere spådommene om «varmere og våtere» kort og godt kan vise seg å være for skråsikre, bruker Hygen «Marlowe-trickset», det berømte rådet fra Raymond Chandler til verdens krimforfattere:

When in doubt, let a man come through a door with a pistol in his hand.

Takk for det Joste. En lett satirisk kommentar til "the narrative of climate change" fra et litterært perspektiv. Man må jo ha en "vinkling", som kjent. 

Innvendingen om forfatternavn tas til etterretning - skal se om jeg klarer å få lagt det inn. Prøvde å kalle meg Bebben men fikk ikke lov - der heller. Jeg er super-amatør og kløn og har dårlig tid om dagen, så når jeg klarer å blogge klarer nok alle det. Før dette hadde jeg bare blogget fisk...

[Jostemikk]

Jeg er super-amatør og kløn og har dårlig tid om dagen, så når jeg klarer å blogge klarer nok alle det. Før dette hadde jeg bare blogget fisk...

Hehe! Jeg var der for ikke så lenge siden. Første bloggen jeg startet slet jeg så fælt med at hadde noen nevnt ordet dashboard høyt etter at jeg i ei uke med stadig mer desperate forsøk på å lære meg, fortsatt ikke forsto wordpress-systemet, er det mulig jeg hadde endt opp på kavringbakken.

[Okular]

Jeg vet ikke hvor mange her som fulgte med på tråden til Willis Eschenbach på WUWT for en ukes tid siden om UAHs temputvikling med jorda delt inn i brede latitudinale soner. Noe liknende så vi på her på forumet allerede for lenge siden.

Nå på en annen tråd på samme blogg, om den såkalte 'arktiske amplifikasjonen' gjør Richard S. Courtney en interessant betraktning nettopp basert på hva Eschenbach poengterte i den andre tråden, nemlig i hvilken grad det vi ser overhodet dreier seg om en 'arktisk amplifikasjon' av globale temperaturer:

At issue is whether there is any detectable 'Arctic amplification'. The measurements (i.e. data) indicate the truth of that. Imaginings of climastrologists do not.

And – as happens – the data has recently been the subject of debate here on WUWT.

Wills Eschenbach recently posted and assessed data for the satellite era as the UAH Lower Troposphere Temperature by zonal bands. His article has the title "Should We Be Worried?" and is here. He presents the data graphically and correctly says of the Arctic

Now, that leaves the 4% of the planet north of the Arctic Circle. It cooled slightly over the first decade and a half. Then it warmed for a decade, and it has stayed even for a decade

That is NOT discernible Arctic amplification.

Til dette svarte jeg:

That seems indeed to be true and very interesting (the RSS data BTW shows the exact same thing), because it clearly shows that the Arctic does not follow the evident 'two-steps-up' (one post 1987 and one post 1997) evolution in global temperatures that we've seen since 1978/79. Instead the Arctic quite clearly suddenly responded to something in 1995, almost like a heat gate opening, and then stabilising again after the peak in early 2005. One decade of massive warming (about one degree in the lower troposphere) and that's it.

It's hard to justify this as being just a slavish amplifying response of global temperature rise, I agree.

So what happened in 1995?

og

Also, like B. Tisdale has shown before, the OHC of the northern part of our globe follows much the same peculiar pattern:



Nothing of significance seems to be happening until around 1995, when the OHC suddenly surges up for about a decade. And that's it. (Caveat added: data quality and coverage.)

Jeg synes dette er en svært interessant påpekning av Courtney (basert i de rene data tilgjengelig), som jeg jo har 'sett' lenge, men som jeg tydeligvis ikke har bitt meg ordentlig merke i (eller trukket konsekvensen av) ...

Tanker?

[Okular]

All ære, Bebben, for å startet egen blogg. Mange går med drømmen, men kommer liksom ikke i gang ...

Skal definitivt følge den. Du yter gode bidrag både her på forumet og ikke minst på vgd, hvor du stadig makter å holde den tørre, lett sarkastiske, men alltid rolige tonen som en fornuftens røst i havet av frådende alarmisttroll. Alltid interessant å lese innleggene dine

[Jostemikk]

Jeg vet ikke hvor mange her som fulgte med på tråden til Willis Eschenbach på WUWT for en ukes tid siden om UAHs temputvikling med jorda delt inn i brede latitudinale soner. Noe liknende så vi på her på forumet allerede for lenge siden.

Nå på en annen tråd på samme blogg, om den såkalte 'arktiske amplifikasjonen' gjør Richard S. Courtney en interessant betraktning nettopp basert på hva Eschenbach poengterte i den andre tråden, nemlig i hvilken grad det vi ser overhodet dreier seg om en 'arktisk amplifikasjon' av globale temperaturer:

At issue is whether there is any detectable 'Arctic amplification'. The measurements (i.e. data) indicate the truth of that. Imaginings of climastrologists do not.

And – as happens – the data has recently been the subject of debate here on WUWT.

Wills Eschenbach recently posted and assessed data for the satellite era as the UAH Lower Troposphere Temperature by zonal bands. His article has the title "Should We Be Worried?" and is here. He presents the data graphically and correctly says of the Arctic

Now, that leaves the 4% of the planet north of the Arctic Circle. It cooled slightly over the first decade and a half. Then it warmed for a decade, and it has stayed even for a decade

That is NOT discernible Arctic amplification.

Til dette svarte jeg:

That seems indeed to be true and very interesting (the RSS data BTW shows the exact same thing), because it clearly shows that the Arctic does not follow the evident 'two-steps-up' (one post 1987 and one post 1997) evolution in global temperatures that we've seen since 1978/79. Instead the Arctic quite clearly suddenly responded to something in 1995, almost like a heat gate opening, and then stabilising again after the peak in early 2005. One decade of massive warming (about one degree in the lower troposphere) and that's it.

It's hard to justify this as being just a slavish amplifying response of global temperature rise, I agree.

So what happened in 1995?

og

Also, like B. Tisdale has shown before, the OHC of the northern part of our globe follows much the same peculiar pattern:



Nothing of significance seems to be happening until around 1995, when the OHC suddenly surges up for about a decade. And that's it. (Caveat added: data quality and coverage.)

Jeg synes dette er en svært interessant påpekning av Courtney (basert i de rene data tilgjengelig), som jeg jo har 'sett' lenge, men som jeg tydeligvis ikke har bitt meg ordentlig merke i (eller trukket konsekvensen av) ...

Tanker?

I farta har jeg tankene både på inn- og utsiden, Okular, men jeg skal lese gjennom dette grundig etter en tur ut i friskluft. Blir første turen med behagelig aktivitet etter snømåking hver eneste dag i 5 uker, som til dels har vært så tungt at jeg har spydd, bokstavelig talt.

Albert Einstein sa No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Dette ene eksperimentet, vil det spille noen rolle i klimasaken? Vil det bli gjenkjent og akseptert? Det finnes mange av dem slik jeg ser det. Dels i stoff du selv har presentert så godt at det burde vært reist bauta over deg mens du fortsatt levde. En annen ting er naturens eget eksperiment. Naturen selv ser ikke ut til å bry seg det minste over modellene som er selve bærebjelken i AGW-alarmismen. Resultatet er at vi nå ser phd-er forsøke idioterklære naturen. Det er den det er noe galt med, ikke modellene. Dette har forsåvidt vært kommentert lenge. Folk har brukt eksempelet med at i mainstream klimaforskning er det virkeligheten det er noe feil med når kartet ikke stemmer.

[Jostemikk]

Opptrer AMO med byks på samme måte som ENSO ser ut til å gjøre etter solsyklusene? Der ENSO har El Nino som påfører global temperatur et byks i de trinnene du har vist oss så ofte rett etter minimum, ser AMO ut til å reagere rett før minimum.

Alt dette med sola kan jo bare være svada, men jeg har ikke annen mulighet eller kunnskap enn å se etter det mest iøynefallende. Innrømmer å ikke ha brukt så mye tid på dette. Vet heller ikke hva den eventuelle fysiske påvirkningen bak fenomenene består i. Har sett en del luftige teorier i det siste om hvilke effekter sola kan ha utenom de rent wattslige, og noen høres spennende ut.

Vi får fortsette å spekulere.

[Telehiv]

Folkens,
har dere lyst å lese dere gjennom det akkurat frigitte dokumentet fra britenes høring i Energy and Climate Change Committee?

Nå er det frigitt!

Oral evidence: IPCC 5th Assessment Review, HC 907
Tuesday 28 January 2014

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 28 January 2014

Written evidence from witnesses:

–       The Grantham Institute for Climate Change

–       Myles Allen

–       Met Office

–       Professor Richard Lindzen

–       Nicholas Lewis

–       Donna Laframboise

Legg merke til slutten, der ordstyrer avbryter bl.a. Donna og Lindzen konsekvent, før de får sagt en halv setning...nesten komisk 

Ellers overlater jeg til dere å danne deres eget inntrykk, men som sosial-politisk drama er dette virkelig interessant!

Link: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/5743

[Telehiv]

På Dagsavisen Nye meninger forsøkes det nå kjørt opp en ny vitenskapsdebatt ("IPCC nær et vitenskapelig sammenbrudd") som klimaforskning.com selvsagt allerede har hatt opp til debatt flere ganger. Men andre/nye lesere trenger også å bli engasjert, tenker jeg....

Målet er å løfte klimadebatten over det trivielle dagsperspektivet og tilhørende banale krangling, og prøve å etablere en mer overordnet forståelse av om et vitenskapelig paradigme har livets rett eller ikke. Denne artikkelen levner ikke mye overlevelse for IPCCs drivhusparadigme basert på AGW/CO2-hypotesen: 

http://www.dagsavisen.no/nyemeninger/alle_meninger/cat1003/subcat1012/thread295692/#post_295692

Skal bli interessant om dette skaper debatt?!

[Spiren]

Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling

Easterbrook – a climate scientist and glacier expert from Washington State who correctly predicted back in 2000 that the Earth was entering a cooling phase – says to expect colder temperatures for at least the next two decades

"And in many respects, I hope that I'm wrong. And the reason I hope that I'm wrong is because it's going to cost several million people their lives if I'm right. In Third World countries where food and water are a problem right now, it's going to get worse. Cold is way worse for humanity than warm is.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global#sthash.MMuZmwub.dpuf

[stjakobs]

Wattsupwihthat ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/cru-produces-something-useful-for-a-change/#more-102723 ) har lagt ut informasjon om at Climate researchers ved University of East Anglia har lagt ut land/surface dataset (CRUTEM4)  på et slikt format at de kan benyttes i GoogleEarth. Er ikke dette ett av de "torturerte" datasettene?

[BorisA]

På Dagsavisen Nye meninger forsøkes det nå kjørt opp en ny vitenskapsdebatt ("IPCC nær et vitenskapelig sammenbrudd") som klimaforskning.com selvsagt allerede har hatt opp til debatt flere ganger. Men andre/nye lesere trenger også å bli engasjert, tenker jeg....

Målet er å løfte klimadebatten over det trivielle dagsperspektivet og tilhørende banale krangling, og prøve å etablere en mer overordnet forståelse av om et vitenskapelig paradigme har livets rett eller ikke. Denne artikkelen levner ikke mye overlevelse for IPCCs drivhusparadigme basert på AGW/CO2-hypotesen: 

http://www.dagsavisen.no/nyemeninger/alle_meninger/cat1003/subcat1012/thread295692/#post_295692

Skal bli interessant om dette skaper debatt?!

Du gjør en fantastisk jobb i Dagsavisens nye meninger 

[Ewer Gladblakk.]

Målet er å løfte klimadebatten over det trivielle dagsperspektivet og tilhørende banale krangling, og prøve å etablere en mer overordnet forståelse av om et vitenskapelig paradigme har livets rett eller ikke. Denne artikkelen levner ikke mye overlevelse for IPCCs drivhusparadigme basert på AGW/CO2-hypotesen: 

?!?!?..?