Formanden for FN’s klimapanel IPCC, inderen Rajendra Pachauri, trækker sig fra posten, meddeler organisationen til nyhedsbureauet Reuters.
Det sker angiveligt efter beskyldninger om, at Pachauri har krænket en medarbejder seksuelt.
Det sker angiveligt efter beskyldninger om, at Pachauri har krænket en medarbejder seksuelt.
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.
In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote:
“The ocean is not rising significantly. “The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. “Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). “I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”
Det var iøvrigt morsomt at høre DDR P1 her til morgen, hvor Helle Thorning-Schmidt udtalte:
“EU går forrest i at mindske sin CO2-reduktion!”
Se denne 15 min lange video og bliv bedre orienteret om den positive udvikling, som er sket.
Jeg kan ikke embedde videoen, så du bliver nødt til at dobbeltklikke her
læs mere her
The publisher appears to be shocked that in a recent special issue the scientists expressed doubt about the accelerated warming predicted by the IPCC. For the crime of not bowing before the sacred tabernacle, apparently the publishers suddenly felt the need to distance themselves, and in the most over-the-top way. The reasons they gave had nothing to do with the data, the logic, and they cite no errors. There can be no mistake, this is about enforcing a permitted line of thought.
Mere på JoNova
Ifølge forlagsdirektør Martin Rasmussen er Copernicus Publications forskning sponsoreret af EU-kommissionen, så måske har Connie Hedegaard en finger med i spillet for at lukke munden på forskere med forkerte meninger?
Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
…..that for the past five years Mann has unscrupulously touted these false claims to unjustly further his personal, financial and political ambitions. With his saintly mantle shattered he can expect an onslaught of accusations of related scientific misconduct.
CO2 medfører opvarmning af Verdenshavene, der koncentrerer energien op og derefter forsvinder i ‘sorte huller’.
Sidst skyldtes den manglende havvandstigning unaturligt store mængder nedbør i Australiens ørkner, som sugede alt vandet til sig som en stor svamp.
Det næste bliver, at politikere, forskere og medier vil forklare det med, at deres tiltag virker. De vil aldrig indrømme, at de har skræmt befolkningerne fra vid og sans, samtidig med, at de har kostet os enorme summer i fuldstændig unødvendige miljøafgifter, energiomlægninger osv.
The problem is that numerous IPCC personnel have ties to environmental groups, many of which raise funds by hyping the alleged dangers of climate change. This relationship raises a legitimate question about their objectivity.
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.
The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies.
But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat – and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.
In a rebound from 2012’s record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin. Despite the original forecasts, major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997. The changing predictions have led to the UN’s climate change’s body holding a crisis meeting, and the the IPCC is due to report on the situation in October. A pre-summit meeting will be held later this month. But the leaked documents are said to show that the governments who fund the IPCC are demanding 1,500 changes to the Fifth Assessment Report – a three-volume study issued every six or seven years – as they claim its current draft does not properly explain the pause.
Snittprisen på billettene var 28.000 kroner. Miljøverndepartementet opplyser at de fleste av deres 29 delegater fløy business, men vil ikke tallfeste antallet og kostnaden. Tar vi utgangspunkt i UDs priser, får vi en samlet kostnad på cirka 800.000 kroner om alle reiste på dyreste vis. I Miljødirektoratet fløy to av fire delegater business. Den billigste økonomibilletten kostet 7359 kroner tur-retur.
Bemærk avisens vinkling, sjovnalisten bruger en klimaskeptiker og Fremskridtsmand som repræsentant. Sådan slår man 2 fluer med et smæk. Der står iøvrigt i artiklen, at Danmark sendte 42 delegerede til klimatopmødet. Hvad mon deres CO2-regnskab var for den tur? Nå nej – det gælder jo kun for os dødelige.
Det er da pudsigt, for Connie Hedegaard har jo gennem de sidste mange år påstået, at forskningen er afgjort, der er overhovedet ingen tvivl.
Skriver de – dog uden at nævne det med vulkanen, det har jeg tilføjet – og så fortsætter de med det sædvanlige alarm – alarm. Hvorfor skriver de ikke ændringen i % af atmosfæren? Fordi ‘millioner af molekyler’ får de uvidene til at få skrækvisioner! Det, tallet betyder, er, at CO2 indholdet i atmosfæren, der er på 0,038 % i en enkelt måling er målt til 0,04%. Og målingen ser ud til at være snyd: Den er fremkommet ved at manipulere med tidszoner.
De skriver envidere: “Jorden har ikke oplevet så højt et niveau i tre til fem millioner år, længe før mennesket eksisterede.” New York Times skriver: The best available evidence suggest…”
Og det hele hænger garanteret ikke sammen med, at forberedelserne til COP-19 netop er gået i gang?
Jeg kom i tanke om en post, jeg skrev i 2006, hvor der stod:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson has filled it.
So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.
“I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.
Now we reveal the official data that’s making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well… what do YOU think?
The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.
The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.
Hvis man læser artiklen, viser det sig, at det eneste faktum, undersøgelserne har vist, er, AT TEMPERATUREN ER FALDET”, resten er ren spekulation.
Vi ved jo som et faktum, at temperaturen ikke er steget de sidste 16 år, men det er som så meget andet gået durk hen over hovedet på JP-sjovnalisten. Hvilket endnu en gang bekræfter, at grænserne for journalisters uvidenhed er uendelige. (Hvor har de egentlig lige de 300 år fra?)
(Han har ikke en gang styr på, at klimapanelet hedder IPCC og IKKE IPPC.)
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
So states the IPCC’s Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 188.8.131.52), p774.
JunkScience debunker hele klimahysteriet i rapporten: Where did they get a crazy idea like that?
Oplægget på JunkScience er her.
IPCC har mange gange brugt kilder fra AGW-lobbyen. En canadisk blogger har nu undersøgt en IPCC-rapport og fundet at den er stammer fra en Greenpeace pampflet !
IPCC plejer ellers altid at prale med deres peer-review (som Climategate 1 og 2 dokumenterer er meget lemfældig).
Det var ikke New York Times eller Washington Post, men en dygtig blogger , der gjorde arbejdet …
Her er Ezra Levants beretning:
Hvis du er interesseret, så klik på Steve McIntyre’s blog her
The proposals are contained in a draft document pieced together for the climate conference in Durban, South Africa. Representatives at the conference are struggling to come up with a compromise that negotiators from 194 nations can agree on.
But the draft document, one of many floating around the conference, gives a glimpse into the long-term vision some nations hold for the creation of an international legal framework on climate change.
In the bowels of the document is a provision calling for “an international climate court of justice.”
The proposal is meant to “guarantee the compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of this decision.”
Annex I countries are mostly developed countries, covering the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and much of Europe — including countries that are struggling financially such as Greece and Portugal.
The rules of the road the court would presumably enforce are based on the view that these developed countries owe developing countries a “debt” over climate change, and must provide financial aid in addition to taking major steps toward cutting emissions.
In one section, the document calls for developed countries to help poorer countries with “finance, technology and capacity building” so they can “adapt to and mitigate climate change” while helping eliminate poverty. Another section provides that developing countries should receive an amount of money equal to the amount “developed countries spend on defense, security and warfare.”
Yet the document also calls for a guaranteed end to warfare altogether — for the sake of curbing climate change.
One section, noting that “conflict-related activities emit significant greenhouse gas emissions,” calls on all parties to “cease destructive activities” like warfare — and then channel the money that would have been spent on war and other defense projects toward “a common enemy: climate change.”
The document also asserts the “rights of mother earth,” a concept that environmental activists have been pushing for.
The draft report, which strings together proposals from various working groups, quickly raised alarm among climate change skeptics.
Marc Morano, a former aide to U.N. agitator and Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, told FoxNews.com the document shows the climate talks are intended to create more “taxing and regulatory authority.”
“This is the true U.N. agenda unmasked in this draft report,” he said. Morano now runs the ClimateDepot blog, which also reported on the draft document.
However, the idea of a climate court anytime soon — particularly one that the United States and other big carbon emitters would agree to — may be far-fetched. One environmental law expert, professor Jonathan Verschuuren at The Netherlands‘ Tilburg University, wrote in an online column that the court “will certainly not materialize.”
Instead, representatives at the Durban conference reportedly are still trying to figure out how and whether to extend the Kyoto protocol, whose emission requirements expire next year. Some industrial nations want a new agreement that would ask more of developing countries.
“Actually, to be honest, nobody over here [at COP 17] is paying any attention to science.”
Since I’m currently sitting here in the dark with the heat off, perhaps they’d grant me the temporary moral authority to offer a few suggestions for their agenda.
Don’t waste any time fiddling with the planet’s thermostat. So the big achievement of the previous summit in Cancun was agreeing that the Earth’s temperature must not be permitted to increase by 2 degrees Celsius? Look, I’ve been in European gyms with air conditioning that can’t even be controlled within the space of a few thousand square feet, despite regular intervention by head-scratching specialists. Usually the excuse is that the “ceiling is too high.” Well, guess what? The Earth’s ceiling is really, really high. Give it up already and move on to something you can realistically control.
Bemærk – y-aksen er i tiendedele grader. Hvis kurven var kalibreret i hele grader, var der ingen udsving. Den vandrette sorte linie er et visuelt trick, den kunne ligge hvorsomhelst – eller fjernes helt.