Hodjanernes Blog

1 september 2017

Australien: ‘Homogenisering’ af temperaturer

The Daily Caller reports that for the second time in a just a few years the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia has been caught red-handed tampering with climate temperatures as a means to make a “slight cooling trend to one of ‘dramatic warming’ over the past century.”

“Homogenization” is the process that allows climate scientists to correct for anomalies in raw temperature data. How there can be anomalies in raw data is beyond me.

One meteorologist reported watching the BOM data change in real time. Colder temperatures, or temperatures inconvenient to the theory that our planet is warming, either disappeared entirely or were “homogenized” into a warmer temperature.

Mere her.

13 august 2017

New York Times ydmyget: Har ‘lækket’ klimarapport på forsiden ‘undertrykt’ af Trump – den blev offentliggjort for 8 måneder siden

9 august 2017

Hykleren Al Gores ny film “An Inconvenient Sequel” flopper i biograferne

The Washington Times reported Monday that the film, which is a follow-up to the 2006 Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” reached the 15th spot at the box office in its first weekend since being released on July 28.

“Back in June, Paramount abandoned plans to give ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’ a wide release on July 28, choosing instead to release the film in only four screens in New York and Los Angeles on July 28 and only 180 screens nationwide a week later,” he claimed. “However, considering the fact that this is arguably the first major anti-Trump documentary to hit theatres — and considering the public outrage over Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement — Paramount should have stuck to its original plan.”

But earlier this year, the anti-Hillary Clinton documentary, “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” by Dinesh D’Souza, raked in more than $13 million at the box office, according to Box Office Mojo. It was initially only released in three theaters.

Mere her

3 august 2017

Al Gore’s Home Burns 34 Times More Electricity Than Average U.S. Household

According to the report, Gore’s energy use at his 10,070-square-foot Colonial-style home in the upmarket Belle Meade neighborhood of Nashville averages 19,241-kilowatt hours (kWh) a month, compared to the U.S. household average of 901 kWh per month.

Over the past year, Gore has used more energy than the average American family does in 21 years, and has an enormous energy bill of $22,000 a year.

Og det er kun for en af hans 3 boliger.


26 juli 2017

Californien vil måske tillade begravelse ved kemisk opløsning så ‘liget’ kan skylles ud i toilettet

California lawmakers are considering a bill that would legalize “liquid cremation,” an “environmentally-friendly” process of using a chemical base mixture to destroy human remains as an alternative to cremation, which critics say causes pollution and climate change.

If Assembly Bill 967, known as “Human remains disposal: alkaline hydrolysis: licensure and regulation,” passes, Californians could be allowed to dissolve their loved ones’ remains by the year 2020.

Mere her.

25 juli 2017

Hollywood pusher socialisme – også til børn

Actor: Use Animation To Push ‘Progressive Values’ To Kids

Admits Pushing Leftism To Kids

An upcoming animated children’s film will encourage younger audiences to “understand and adopt progressive values,” according to the film’s lead voice actor.

In an interview with HuffPost, voice actor T.J. Miller explained the political agenda embedded within The Emoji Movie; an animated comedy film tailored toward children and slated for release at the end of July.

The Emoji Movie is part of a broader movement in Hollywood to proselytize leftism, said Miller. HuffPost’s Claire Fallon described Hollywood’s political agitation as a means to “resist President Trump.”

Mere på The Daily Wire

17 juli 2017

Klimareligionen for retten

Filed under: Økofascisme, Eksperter, Greenies, IPCC, Istid, Jura, Klima, Politik, Videnskab — Hodja @ 15:08

A little-known court case is taking place in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Vancouver.

This case involves two scientists and two set of graphs. One of the graphs is very famous, and the basis for every man-made climate change believer’s faith, while the other…is not.

Michael Mann is a climatologist and geophysicist working at Penn State University. In 1998, he was the leader of a group using statistical techniques that created a graph showing the earth’s temperature over the last 1,000 years. The graph would gain international fame and become known as the “hockey stick graph.”

The worldwide climate change industry is valued to be worth $1.5 trillion. That’s a lot of money for “research.” Enter Dr. Timothy Ball.

Dr. Ball has a PhD in climatology from Queen Mary University of London, and was a professor at the University of Winnipeg. He is an avid critic of the man-made climate change theory. It is not that he does not believe in climate change, but he does not believe humans are having the impact the church of man-made climate change says they are.

Dr. Ball also created his own version of the “hockey stick graph,” but it looked nothing like Mann’s. Ball’s graph shows what is known as the Medieval Warm Period.

Dr. Ball is enemy number one for the church of man-made climate change. One article he wrote made light of the connection between Mann and the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Mann did not take to kindly to the slight, and decided to sue for libel.

Dr. Ball did not lay down and instead decided to fight the case. The case was filled in Canada and known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation suit. It was filed six years ago, and is going sideways for Mann. The judge in the case has ordered all data used to make both graphs be handed over by all parties. Dr. Ball has cooperated, but Mann has not.

Dr. Ball recently stated, “We believe he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a U.S. court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the U.S. taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the U.S. ruling.”

John O’Sullivan reports on the punishment that Dr. Ball’s lawyers could ask for if Mann is found to be in contempt, “Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have willfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.”

If this holds true, then the basis of the entire Paris climate agreement, IPCC, and every climate change agreement is in jeopardy. If it was all formed from faulty data, it is all at risk. The hockey stick graph is responsible for hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars being spent around the world, and hundreds of job-killing regulations being enacted on the American worker. It is time we find out if it was all fake.

Læs hele artiklen her.

Læs også: Verdenshistoriens største økononomiske svindelnummer.

9 juni 2017

Kompilation: Latterlige klimaforudsigelser

Filed under: Økofascisme, Evidens, FN, Greenies, Historie, IPCC, Klima, Videnskab — Hodja @ 11:03

2 juni 2017

Klunker klovnen er sur på Trump …

EUs semidiktator, Jean-Claude Juncker, mener at han forstår alt

Det er nok snarere Juncker, der ikke forstår amerikansk politik !

Hvis Obama kan underskrive en af hans uduelige og inkompetente aftaler UDEN kongressens godkendelse, så kan præsident Trump uden videre bare melde USA ud,
selv om Juncker, Soros, MSM og tåbelige politikere ( desværre inclusive vores egen statsminister) er sure og mener noget andet

Om Trump så vælger at gøre dette, vil vise sig

Taget herfra

10 maj 2017

Samtidig med Comey rydder Trump op i EPA (USA’s miljøstyrelse)

5 maj 2017

Montana Demokraten Rob Quist opfordrer klimaskeptikere til at begå selvmord

Og samtidig demonstrerer idioten, at han ikke aner, hvad han taler om (på flere måder).

Se fra 1:17

Se hvorfor i kommentaren, hvis du ikke ved det.

24 april 2017

DDR er gået i total Fake News propagandamode med klimaskræmmekampagne denne uge

For eksempel med isbjørnekannibalisme, hockey-stick i Vejrudsigten og klimaflygtninge.

Horisont DR i aften: Øen Isle de Jean Charles i Louisiana er ved at synke i havet.

Som sædvanlig er det hele løgn:

“Recent USGS work indicates that rapid relative sea-level rise is not the primary cause of erosion of the barrier islands.”

All of the news reports about “Resettling the First American ‘Climate Refugees’” exclusively blame AGW and rapid sea level rise for the plight of the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw people of  Isle de Jean Charles, despite the fact that the real causes of their dilemma are Andrew Jackson and geology.  Sea level rise in the vicinity of Isle de Jean Charles has been rather unspectacular…

Læs forklaringen her.

Og lad mig lige minde om denne her:

Steffen Kretz var, som “klima korrespondet” i Grønland, her hvor jeg bor. En af mine venner er fisker og fanger og Steffen Kretz opsøgte ham og forklarede ham at han i et interview gerne ville have ham til at sige: “Man kan ikke længere skyde sæler på isen pga klimaforandringer”, min ven svarede at det ville han ikke, for det ville være en løgn, godtnok forandrer naturen sig, måske menneskeskabt, måske ikke, men sæler kan man altså stadig skyde på isen. Steffen Kretz sagde så: “Men kan du så henvise mig til en fanger der vil sige det?”.

23 april 2017

Steve Milloy fra JunkScience slås videre med EPA (Enviroment Protection Agency) og NAS (National Academy of Sciences)

EPA og NAS prøver på at feje ham ind under gulvtæppet, men han har bidt sig fast.

Scare-Pollution-Cover-Final-122116-300x433Meget kort fortalt drejer det sig om, at EPA påstår, at luftforurening (PM2.5) er øjeblikkeligt dræbende, samtidig med at de har udført medicinske eksperimenter med luftforurening på lungesyge patienter og børn, efter de har informeret forsøgspersonerne om at det var ufarligt. Altså eksperimenter, der ifølge Nürnberlovene er uetiske og ulovlige. NAS har hvidvasket EPA.

Steve Milloy vil tvinge myndighederne til enten at indrømme, at luftforurening med partikler er ufarlig – eller at EPA principielt har udført menneskeeksperimenter etisk på linje med nazisternes forsøg på KZ-fanger. Der er kun de to muligheder.

Hvilken betydning har kampen? Det drejer sig om milliarder i forskningsbevillinger, afgifter og ødelagte industrier over hele verden. Kulindustrien, partikelfiltre på biler. Forbud mod brændeovne etc etc.

Det er forståeligt, at myndighederne kæmper med næb og kløer for at opretholde illusionen om, at luftforurening med partikler er livsfarlig.

Læs bogen – hele argumentationen er der – meget letforståeligt.

Følg med her.

Trump dræber syrere med CO2

The Other Poison Gas Killing Syrians: Carbon Dioxide Emissions


If Trump and his cronies really cared about children killed by noxious gases, they wouldn’t be trying to spew ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.

CO2 is a deadly greenhouse gas that turned Venus into a torrid hellhole hot enough to melt lead.”

Mere gak-gak her. Via Junk-Science.

16 april 2017

Hvorfor alarmisterne ikke vil basere deres klimapolitik på videnskab

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may soon be required by federal law to base its policies on actual science—and of course environmentalists are livid about it.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) reintroduced a bill known as the Secret Science Reform Act that would prohibit the EPA from “proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based on science that is not transparent or reproducible.” The bill was originally introduced in 2014 though it did not clear all congressional hurdles. Barack Obama—our most super-sciencey president ever—vowed to veto it if ever reached his desk.

Don’t believe me? Here’s the opening sentence from an oppositional op-ed by Dianna Wray of Houston Press: “A lot Republicans hate the Environmental Protection Agency, but have left it to San Antonio Republican Representative Lamar Smith to come up with a bill that, if passed, could actually stop the agency from doing just about anything.”

Oh, I see—if it weren’t for secret science, the EPA wouldn’t have any science at all. According to Wray, if they can’t hide their data and refuse to show their calculations they’ll be “crippled.” There’s just one problem with this idea—secret science is a contradiction in terms. Science isn’t science if its results can’t be held up for inspection, judged worthy or unworthy, and accepted, refined, or rejected. If a theory is too delicate to withstand the heat and pressure of scrutiny, it doesn’t deserve anyone’s acceptance.

Legally speaking, the word “science” was defined in McLean v. Arkansas (1982), a famous court case that exiled creation science from public schools. Judge William Overton found that creation science was not science at all because it failed a five-prong test. According to his decision genuine science must:

1)     be guided by natural law;

2)    be explanatory by reference to natural law;

3)    be testable against the empirical world;

4)    have conclusions that are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and

5)    be falsifiable.

Anything that fails even one of these prongs cannot rightly be called science. That’s a high standard. Some might call it too high, though that would depend on whose theory is being put to the test. Nonetheless, the McLean test has value. Ideas that don’t live up it cannot legitimately be called scientific. Whether they’re true or not is another question entirely.

Læs resten af artiklen af Benny Huang

10 april 2017

The EPA Lied — Nobody Died

The EPA human experiments controversy is now over.

As between choosing whether EPA committed multiple felonies vs. lying to the Congress/public about PM2.5 killing people, the National Academy of Sciences has chosen the “lying’ option. Total victory achieved.

A controversy that first appeared in these pages five years ago, came to an end last week. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that human experiments with air pollutants conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were not dangerous — meaning EPA has been lying to the public and Congress for years about the extreme danger of the “pollutants” in question.


So when the first Obama EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, testified to Congress that “Particulate matter causes premature death. It does not make you sick. It is directly causal to dying sooner than you should,” that was a lie, one compounded by her next false claim that particulate matter kills about 570,000 Americans per year.


As it turns out, the only time EPA told the truth about particulate matter was when it told its human guinea pigs that the experiments were harmless. Meanwhile the Obama EPA used the phony killer particulate matter scare — backed by almost $600 million in utterly fraudulent scientific research and fueled with secret scientific data — to virtually wipe out the U.S. coal industry, severely harming coal miners, their families and their communities.

Mere på Junk Science

Hvad siger danske miljømyndigheder? Ingenting! De vil fortsætte med at lade som om PM2.5 er sundhedsskadeligt og indføre alskens begrænsninger på danskerne.

5 april 2017

Norge: Ny undersøgelse påviser indoktrineringen på universiteterne

Hvis medlemmer i Forskerforbundet fikk bestemme, ville partiene på venstresiden fått all makt.

MDG ville vært over syv ganger så store som Frp, som ville blitt utradert.

Kan I se det for jer? Røde journalister ringer til røde forskere for at kunne bringe ‘ekspertudtalelser’ man kan manipulere befolkningerne med!

Tallene er garanteret de samme i Danmark – og resten af Vesten. Præcis som i det gamle Sovjet.

2 marts 2017

Leonardo DiCaprio is a Complete Idiot

24 februar 2017

Interview med Steve Milloy forfatter til ‘Scare Pollution’

EPA er USA’s superaktivistiske miljøagentur Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA står bag junk forskning i bl.a. luftforurening, som er medvirkend51lat5pxpfl-_sx322_bo1204203200_e til enorme unødvendige udgifter for den vestlige verden.

Steve Milloy har stillet myndighederne i USA overfor et kæmpe dilemma. EPA går officielt ud og siger (EPA administrator Lisa Jackson som vidnede overfor en underkommitte fra House Energy and Commerce Committee 22. september 2011):

“Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesen’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should”

Samtidig har Milloy med ihærdigt arbejde gennem flere år påvist, hvordan EPA har fået gennemført illegale forsøg på mennesker (inklusive børn) med udsættelse for meget store doser luftforurening uden at informere forsøgspersonerne om risikoen for bl.a. at dø.

Så systemet har kun 2 muligheder: ENTEN er luftforurening ikke så farlig, som EPA påstår (hvilket er Milloys egentlige ærinde), og så kan myndighederne ikke regulere ‘luftforurening så rigidt, som de gør, ELLER EPA og adskillige amerikanske universiteter (som modtager i 100-vis af millioner dollar fra EPA til forskning) har overtrådt alle medicinske etiske regler for menneskeforsøg, som er blevet indført efter ‘Lægeprocessen’ ved Nürnbergdomstolen efter 2. Verdenskrig. Hertil kommer de læger som har udført forsøgene og de videnskabelige tidsskrifter, der har udgivet dem.

Der findes ikke andre muligheder.

Der er selvfølgelig ingen i Danmark, der har refereret sagen, som naturligvis også har betydning for dansk miljøforskning og -lovgivning. Man er for eksempel i gang med tiltag, der skal lægge afgifter på alle brændeovne i landet, og måske på længere sigt forbyde dem.

Mere om JunkScience

Congress is reading ‘Scare Pollution’… are you?

9 februar 2017

2016 var det varmeste år nogensinde – eller? Fake news?

They say that mathematics is the language of science, which is a way of saying that science is quantitative.

It is moved forward by numbers and measurements, not just by qualitative observations. “It seems hot out” is not science. Giving a specific temperature, measured by a specific process at a specific time, compared to other systematically gathered measurements—that is science.

So when you read an article proclaiming that, for the third year in a row, last year was the hottest year on record, you might expect that right up front you will get numbers, measurements, and a statistical margin of error. You know, science stuff. Numbers. Quantities. Mathematics.

And you would be wrong.

Older Posts »