Dennis Prager er fantastisk til at finde kompetente forelæsere
og Bjørn Lomborg er fatastisk til at splitte venstrefløjens miljøløgne af – og det på perfekt engelsk. Ham kan vi danskere være stolte af.
og Bjørn Lomborg er fatastisk til at splitte venstrefløjens miljøløgne af – og det på perfekt engelsk. Ham kan vi danskere være stolte af.
Den har titlen “Lies, Damned Lies, and Global Warming Statistics”
Sådan skulle New York se ud den 12 juni 2015:
Vi skal nok IKKE regnge med at ABC korrigerer deres van(d)vittige klima-påstande …
Her er et “råd” til ABC : check denne sten inden næste hysteriske påstand:
Taget herfra
In his important new book, The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse: Save the Earth, Punish Human Beings, French intellectual gadfly Pascal Bruckner does the most thorough job yet of explaining the climate movement as a secular religion, an odd combination of deformed Christianity and reconstructed Marxism. (You can find Bruckner’s excellent article based on the book here.) Bruckner describes a historical process wherein “the long list of emblematic victims — Jews, blacks, slaves, proletarians, colonized peoples — was replaced, little by little, with the Planet.” The planet, says Bruckner, “has become the new proletariat that must be saved from exploitation.”
Og “En miljøforkæmpers rejse til klimaskepsis.” Jim Steele: Landscapes & Cycles.
“The more I researched the causes of change in wildlife populations and local climates, the more I became appalled by the amount of bad science that was too easily published simply because it agreed with the prevailing bias of climate catastrophes,” Steele said. “Every other chapter of the book highlights different species whose decline was mistakenly blamed on rising CO2.”
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.
Fra The Guardians miljøblog: Why climate change needs higher energy bills
So the environment movement needs to perform a difficult balancing act. On the one hand it must defend environmental policies economically and show that it cares about rising bills. On the other, it needs to avoid adding yet more weight to the cultural expectation for – and political prioritisation of – cheaper energy. If that expectation is too great, then green policies will come under increasing stress in the coming decade as their costs increase, and anything that boosts gas supplies in the meantime (such as the EU’s plan to support gas as a low-carbon fuel) will be easier to justify politically.
Of course, whatever happens we’re going to need much more effort to combat fuel poverty. For as long as vulnerable people are suffering in freezing homes, we’re failing as a society. But solving that problem means targeted anti-poverty assistance – not lower bills for everyone, which would tend to incentivise more consumption across the board.
DDR har sendt 2 journalister (Gitte Hansen og Eva-Marie Møller) til Vietnam for at beskrive de ikke-eksisterende ‘klima-forandringers’ indvirkning på vietnamesiske risbønder.
DDR journalisterne udsender hver (2006 tal) 9,9 ton CO2/år herhjemme og bruger tilsammen 9 ton CO2 på rejsen til Vietnam (fly alene, ikke medregnet taxi, hotel m. air-conditioning, transport ud i rismarken etc), og en vietnameser bruger gennemsnitligt 1,3 ton CO2/år.
Som vi tidligere har påvist, gælder den såkaldte klimabevidsthed kun for almindelige danskere – ikke for DDR-journalister.
But it is dying a quiet death. In a little reported move, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on Oct. 21 that it will be ending carbon trading — the only purpose for which it was founded — this year.
[…]
The European Climate Exchange (ECX) may soon follow the CCX into oblivion, however — the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. No new international treaty is anywhere in sight.
[…]
Incredibly (but not surprisingly), although thousands of news articles have been published about CCX by the lamestream media over the years, a Nexis search conducted a week after CCX’s announcement revealed no news articles published about its demise.
[…]
Despite this good news, opponents of carbon regulation will need to remain vigilant. While radical greens and the rent-seeking “clean energy” industry are down, they are not out.
Though they will never again dare utter the term “cap and trade,” they will reformulate and rebrand carbon regulation in the form of a national “renewable electricity standard” (RES), a “carbon tax,” or perhaps something even more innocent and cuddly — like “free cotton candy for everyone (FCCE).”
Og fra norske E24: KLIMAKOLLAPS: Ingen kjøper klimakvoter.
SALGSFLOPP: Salget av klimakvoter synker både for Regjeringens egen butikk og «Mitt Klima».
Dette er klimavirkeligheten regjeringen ikke vil se.
The lawsuits ask the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review EPA’s determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. That finding — released in December in response to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling — allows the agency to regulate the heat-trapping emissions under the Clean Air Act. Observers expect the court to consolidate the petitions.
Tip: Universalgeniet
Det, det drejer sig om, er, at hvis de grønne ikke kan gennemføre klimapolitikken som klimapolitik, så forsøger de at få begrænsninger på CO2 som forurening, altså som en sundhedsfare – hokus-pokus, så får de deres vilje alligevel.
Fusk, sjusk og skandaler i kø – når ideologi, pseudo-videnskab og særinteresser blandes sammen til en farlig cocktail.
Hvordan kan så mange så anerkendte fortalere for, at det er et helt sikkert faktum, at vi oplever klimaforandringer, og at de er menneskeskabte (og fordrer øjeblikkelige, radikale ændringer) tage så meget fejl så ofte?
Svaret ligger måske i eksistensen af dét, Bjørn Lomborg rammende har kaldt »det klima-industrielle kompleks«.
[…]
Noget lignende kan man sige om klima-industrien. Der er store beløb på spil – faktisk større end forsvarsbudgetterne under Den Kolde Krig – og for de forskere, der kan levere de rette forskningsresultater, eller de virksomheder, der kan lave produkter, der passer ind i miljøpolitikken, kan der være endog ganske store gevinster at hente. Lige så for de politikere, der svinger med folkestemningen. Hertil kan man måske også tilføje medierne, som altid foretrækker en historie om dommedag frem for en om, at verden er, som den er, og har det ok. Til gengæld vil de alle tabe, hvis pludseligt stemningen svinger den anden vej, og måske netop derfor bliver stemningen så intens og næsten hadefuld overfor forskere, der udfordrer den politiske korrekthed.
Så bliver det let at slippe igennem med dårlig videnskab og svært at komme igennem med modargumenter.
2.400 klimaforskere og mange tusinde politikere og direktører er også en slags mennesker, og der er ingen grund til at tro, at de personer, organisationer og virksomheder, der i disse år udgør »det klimaindustrielle kompleks«, er spor mindre egoistiske eller mere altruistiske end f.eks. olie- og kulindustrien er det, eller som deltagerne i det militær-industrielle kompleks var det under Den Kolde Krig. De handler alle målrettet og fornuftigt, og som Storm P. sagde, kræver det god moral at sælge elastik i metermål.
Ifølge forskerne skal en del af forklaringen findes i stratosfæren: den øverste del af atmosfæren. Her viser en række satellitmålinger, at der er omkring 2000 skete en nedgang i koncentrationen af vanddamp på ca. 0,4 ppm eller omkring 10 pct. Målingerne stammer bl.a. fra UARS (Upper Atmosphere Research Satellitte) og SAGE II – eksperimentet (Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II) på Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS).
Artiklen nævner, at der pludselig er mange faktorer (‘aerosoler, naturlige variationer eller lignende’!), der spiller ind og adskillige uafklarede spørgsmål, hvad angår ‘den globale opvarmning’.
James Delingpole skriver på Telegraph:
Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.
Tidsskrifthenvisninger der ikke er peer-reviewed, ‘klimaforskere’ der ikke er forskere, ikke-eksisterende konklusioner. Løgn på løgn på løgn på løgn. Klimavidenskaben en færdig, hvad den ‘Menneskeskabte Globale Opvarmning’ angår.
Påstanden, som optræder i IPCC’s klimarapport ‘Climate Change 2007’, er hentet fra en undersøgelse, som ifølge Times Online hverken er publiceret eller har gennemgået en rutinemæssig videnskabelig kontrol. Tværtimod har videnskabelige rådgivere advaret om, at der foreligger for svage beviser til at kunne drage sådan en konklusion.
Selv forfatteren til undersøgelsen, Robert Muir-Wood, har siden været ud at sige, at sammenhængen ikke kunne bevises statistisk. Dette skulle fremgå tydeligere, da rapport blev udgivet i 2008.
Ventura and his team attempted to track down the key architects of the scheme, a search which led them to Beijing China and the heavily guarded residence of global warming pioneer and billionaire Maurice Strong.
The show lifts the lid on how the very same alarmists pushing the threat of climate change are profiting in the billions from carbon trading systems in which they have a huge personal stake.
The most damning part of the program is when Ben Santer, a climate researcher and lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, admits that he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.
Accusing Santer of altering opinions in the IPCC report that disagreed with the man-made thesis behind climate change, Lord Monckton told the program, “In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature – I’ve seen a copy of this – Santer went through, crossed out all of those and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.”
Læs resten af artiklen på Prison Planet via Greenie Watch.