Hodjanernes Blog

13 december 2009

Bevæbnet FN-respons på spørgsmål om ClimateGate

Filed under: FN, Greenies, Hodja — Tags: , , , — Hodja @ 21:57

Journalist Phelim McAleer (‘Mine Your Own Business’, ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’) asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about ‘Climategate’ emails.

McAleer is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider’s assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard.

Mere på BigGovernment

10 december 2009

‘Den Globale opvarmning’: Skeptikerens Håndbog

This booklet has captured attention around the world.

Donors have paid for over 160,000 copies so far in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and soon in Germany. Volunteers have translated it into German, French, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, Turkish, Portuguese, Danish and Japanese. (Versions in Dutch, Spanish, and possibly Italian are on the way). Updates are placed here, along with translations, as well as places to read comments and links to the web-pages where each part of the handbook will be discussed.

Joanne Nova

Tip: GG

9 december 2009

Facaden krakelerer mere og mere

Filed under: Evidens, FN, Greenies, Hodja, UK, Videnskab — Tags: , , , , — Hodja @ 20:06

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled “The Climate Science
isn’t Settled,” for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.

Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

8 december 2009

DDR håner befolkningerne for at være dumme

[Den amerikanske olieindustri] er nu gået til direkte modangreb på alle klima- bestræbelserne i København.

Alle lobbyister er sendt ind i kampen for at overbevise politikere og befolkning om at klimaforandringer er opreklamerede. Og noget tyder på, at det virker:

I dag mener kun 57 procent af amerikanerne mod 77 procent for tre år siden, at kloden bliver varmere.

Skriver DDR. Klimaskeptikere er altså indoktrinerede af den amerikanske olieindustri. Ja hvis man ikke vil diskutere ClimateGate, og argumenterne løber tør, så beskylder man altså folk for at ikke at kunne tage stilling selv.

7 december 2009

Klimafrygten er overdrevet

Selv TV2 begynder at bringe skeptikere.

Tip: JD.

Sarah Palin: Mr. President: Boycott Copenhagen; Investigate Your Climate Change “Experts”

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal.

The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.

Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.

Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”

Sarah Palin

Debatniveauet: Climategate Professor to Skeptic on Live BBC TV: ‘What an Assh*le’

Filed under: Evidens, FN, Greenies, Hodja, Medier DR m.fl., Politisk korrekte, Tonen, UK, Videnskab — Tags: , , — Hodja @ 00:13

Professor in at University in Center of Climategate Loses Cool on Live BBC TV Debate

Læs mere her.

5 december 2009

ClimateGate er også en journalistisk skandale

The Left’s Climategate: A Scandal for Journalism, Too

For Decades, the Media Chose to Champion, Not Scrutinize, Claims of Global Warming Alarmists!

Og det er også derfor, de prøver på at kvæle det.

Saudi Barbarerne accepterer ClimateGate

Filed under: Evidens, Hodja, Penge, Politik, Saudi, Videnskab — Tags: , , , , , — Hodja @ 10:58

Its chief Copenhagen negotiator, Mohammad al-Sabban, suggested in an interview with the BBC yesterday that there was now no longer any point in seeking an agreement to reduce emissions.

“It appears from the details . . . that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change,” he said. “Climate is changing . . . but for natural and not human-induced reasons. So whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate’s natural variability.”

Den britiske regering ønsker ikke at klimadata bliver revurderet – det kunne blive vand på skeptikernes mølle

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

[….]

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

[….]

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

Mere på TimesOnline via GreenieWatch

IPCC skal undersøge IPCC

Filed under: Evidens, FN, Greenies, Hodja, Labaner, Penge, Politik, Politisk korrekte, UK, Videnskab — Tags: , , , — Hodja @ 10:34

FNs klimapanel IPCC vil starte sin egen gransking av de stjålne e-postene som ifølge klimaskeptikere viser at flere klimaforskere jukser.

4 december 2009

Hovedpunkterne i ClimateGate

Christopher Monckton writes the first book(let) on Climategate, the greatest scientific scandal in our lifetime.

The summary:


The whistleblower’s data file revealed, for the first time, the innermost workings of the tiny international clique of climate scientists, centered on the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, that has been the prime mover in telling the world that it is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that humankind is responsible… He had revealed what many had long suspected:

# A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.

# The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.

# The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

# The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

# They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

# They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

# They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.

# They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.

# They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

# They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.

# They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.

# Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.

Stakkels Al Gore :-)

Begge hugget på Greenie Watch

2 december 2009

Klimaforsker trekker seg etter datainnbrudd

Filed under: Evidens, FN, Greenies, Hodja, Penge, UK, Videnskab — Tags: , , , — Hodja @ 16:27

University of East Anglia opplyste tirsdag at det skal igangsettes en etterforskning av omstendighetene rundt datainnbruddet og de omstridte e-postene.

Phil Jones, som leder universitetets avdeling for klimaforskning, trekker seg midlertidig fra sin stilling mens etterforskningen pågår.

1 december 2009

Imagine

“Vi er ikke ‘benægtere’ – vi har bare sund fornuft.”

FN-Toppen benægter alt

Filed under: Evidens, FN, Greenies, Hodja, Labaner, Videnskab — Tags: , , , , — Hodja @ 13:00

Leaked emails won’t harm UN climate body, says chairman.

Rajendra Pachauri says there is ‘virtually no possibility’ of a few scientists biasing IPCC’s advice, after UAE hacking breach.

Artiklen er selvfølgelig fra The Guardian.

Anmeldelse. Ole Humlum: “Det ustyrlige klima – eksperternes vej fra forskere til flagellanter”.

Ole Humlums bog: Det ustyrlige klima – eksperternes vej fra forskere til flagellanter er interessant og aktuel læsning.

Den udkommer nu lige før det meget opreklamerede såkaldte klimatopmøde i København (COP-15). Ole Humlum, der er dansk, er professor i fysisk geografi ved Oslo Universitet. 

Man kan spørge, hvad Trykkefrihedsselskabet dog har med klimadiskussionen at gøre. Men i virkeligheden må dispositionen siges at være ganske passende. For i den årelange debat om den påståede menneskeskabte globale opvarmning på basis af rapporter fra  FN´s klimapanel IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) har skeptikere af teorien herom fået stadig vanskeligere muligheder for at komme til orde. Det gælder forskere i relevante videnskabelige tidsskrifter, det gælder i såvel elektroniske som trykte massemedier i den almindelige offentlige debat. Senest er det jo ved det såkaldte Climategate fra klimaenheden på East Anglia University, der har en central rolle vedrørende beregningen af de af IPCC anvendte globale gennemsnitstemperaturer, kommet frem, hvordan ledelsen her har søgt at miskreditere og udelukke kritiske forskere fra debatten, fuske med data etc.

Læs hele anmeldelsen på Sappho.

30 november 2009

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

29 november 2009

Hvor dårlig er klimaforskernes computermodel over ‘den globale opvarmning’?

Se svaret her.

Leder i Jyllands-Posten om ClimateGate: Rigtige meninger

Der er de gode, og så er der de onde.

De gode er dem med de rigtige meninger. Dem, som uden at stille kritiske spørgsmål accepterer meldingerne fra FN’s klimapanel og stiller sig op i rækken af villige propagandister for at arbejde i den gode sags tjeneste.

[….]

Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten vil i en artikelserie i de kommende dage afdække manipulationer og spin i klimadebatten.

Tip: Rammu

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »