Stockholmsinitiativets blogg
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Posts from — december 2009

Intressant på Newsmill

Missa inte Gösta Walins utmärkta avlivning av överbefolkningsmyten. Vi är inte för många och de som tror det har bara råkat fastna i Thomas Malthus och Paul Ehrlichs spår.

Skärmavbild 2009-12-21 kl. 08.11.39

Läs även Roland Granqvist artikel ”Kan man lita på klimatrapporteringen?”.

Citat ur artikeln: ”Man lyfter fram sådant som stärker farhågorna för en framtida klimatkatastrof orsakad av mänskliga utsläpp av växthusgas, men inte i lika hög grad sådant som talar emot detta. Sådan skevhet kan vilseleda människor och därför bli ett demokratiskt problem. I förlängningen kan det också leda till mindre kloka beslut.”

december 21, 2009   93 Comments

AGW är grupptänk

Lars G tipsade mig om en mycket intressant artikel i Wall Street Journal, skriven av Peter Lilley, konservativ MP i Storbritannien.

/utdrag ur artikeln/

”It is easy to mock the thousands of activists, officials and ministers flying to Copenhagen in their jets, driving around in an immense fleet of limousines, and collectively emitting more carbon dioxide than a small African country—all to force the rest of us to reduce our carbon footprints. But it is one thing to accuse them of hypocrisy in not living out their beliefs. Casting doubt on their belief that global warming poses an imminent threat to life on this planet is another.

To question so much scientific expertise and governmental authority seems arrogant or foolhardy—even in the city where Hans Christian Anderson wrote about the little boy who blurted out that the Emperor had no clothes.

Can so many experts be wrong? Well, it is worth remembering that the experts were supposedly united about the apocalyptic dangers of the Y2K millennium bug. Half the world was persuaded to spend an estimated $600 billion to save us from disasters that embarrassingly failed to materialize in the countries and companies that omitted to take any pre-emptive action. Then intelligence agencies around the world were allegedly so convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that we went to war, only to find—zilch. In both cases there was a solid foundation of truth on which enthusiastic professionals and governments constructed an exaggerated scare story that the media lapped up. I was skeptical enough to delve into both those scares and rapidly found the experts were not as unanimous as supposed. But the dissenters were persuaded to keep quiet, bar a handful who were ruthlessly stereotyped as mavericks or worse.”

december 20, 2009   27 Comments

Ledare i Norrbottenskuriren

”Klimatdebatten osar av brunt svammel”, skriver Gustaf Blomberg i Norrbottenskuriren. ”Tvåsiffriga minustal i utomhustemperatur gör det svårare att tänka på ett varmare Norrbotten som en katastrof. Men positiva aspekter av de klimatförändringar som forskarna förutspår hör till de ämnen som helst inte bör diskuteras, för då svär man i den numera heliga klimatkyrkan.”

En intressant artikel som vågar ifrågasätta det politiskt korrekta.

december 19, 2009   111 Comments

Jonny Fagerström om fiaskot i Köpenhamn

Jonny ligger ute på Newsmill med en nyskriven artikel om händelserna i Köpenhamn. Hans nuvarande artikel är en uppföljare på den han skrev på Newsmill den 27 oktober i år. Som vanligt är Jonnys tänder vässade till max.

december 19, 2009   9 Comments

Brokenhagen

Det är inga snälla ord som skrivs om COP15-mötet. DN beskriver det som ”fiaskot i Köpenhamn”. Miljörörelsen går steget längre och menar att det är ”största tänkbara misslyckande” (Miljöförbundet Jordens Vänner) och ”ett monumentalt nederlag för alla aktörer” (Maria Wetterstrand för mp). Ledaren för G77-gruppen, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping säger att icke-avtalet är ”en självmordspakt för Afrika”.

I USA görs vissa försök att släta över Obamas misslyckande. Washington Post skriver på första sidan att världens ledare nått en deal.

NY Times är ärligare. ”The three-page accord that Mr. Obama negotiated with the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa and then presented to the conference did not meet even the modest expectations that leaders set for this meeting, notably by failing to set a 2010 goal for reaching a binding international treaty to seal the provisions of the accord.”

Den s.k. överenskommelsen skrevs i natt under av Kina, USA, Brasilien, Indien och Sydafrika. Men för att bli gällande måste den dessutom godkännas i plenum, något som framstår som högst osäkert.

Enligt Guardian ska Lumumba Di-Aping ha sagt att avtalet är ”nothing short of climate change scepticism in action”.

Vad händer nu? 2010 kommer onekligen att bli ett intressant år.

december 19, 2009   39 Comments

Final i Klimatduellen (18/12)

Nu är det final i Aftonbladets klimatmodell klimatduell ( :) ). Läs, kommentera, gör tummen upp, kritisera och glöm inte att titta in på Anders Emretssons bloggsida. :)

Skärmavbild 2009-12-18 kl. 13.52.53

december 18, 2009   41 Comments

Father Christmas

obama christmas

Just nu landar Barack Obama i Köpenhamn (kl 9.00). Med sig har han, enligt DN en julklapp. Troligen innehåller lådan pengar, men hur mycket vet ingen. Under natten hölls förhandlingar mellan inte bara stats- och regeringschefer, utan även ministrar på lägre nivå. Alla hoppas fortfarande innerst inne att ett mirakel sker och ett avtal går att underteckna.

Stay tuned for more news on Hopenhagen.

Uppdatering 9.01: Enligt Berlingske har världens ledare levererat. Ett historiskt globalt klimatavtal kommer att undertecknas i eftermiddag. Avtalet sägs dock bli mycket mindre ambitiöst än vad som varit avsikten.

Uppdatering 9.04: Frälsaren har landat!

Uppdatering 9.06: Tänk så olika man kan uppfatta en och samma situation. Enligt DN var situationen kl 8.57 desperat. ”Det finns inte ens enighet om vad texten ska kallas – deklaration, uttalande eller något annat.”

Uppdatering 9.29: Här är han! Mannen hela världen väntat på!

APTOPIX_Obama_D_323934a

Foto. AP

Visst ser det kallt ut?

Uppdatering 9.31: Anders Turesson, Sveriges klimatförhandlare, har visst sagt till DN att: ”Det är inte helt uteslutet att det inte blir någonting alls av det här mötet.”

Uppdatering 11.30: Berlingske meddelar att klimatavtalet fortfarande är fullt av hål. Troligen kommer de inte att fyllas förrän under kommande möten nästa år. Det verkar som om länderna är eniga om att begränsa den globala uppvärmningen till 2 grader, men inte hur. Framför allt är det utsläppsbegränsningarna som ställer till det. Frågan man en skeptiker så är det väl högst troligt att uppvärmningen blir max 2 grader och det oavsett vad vi gör.

Texten till avtalsförslaget hittar ni här.

DN meddelar i sin tur att besvikna aktivister rakar sina huvuden i protest. Det låter inte så värst genomtänkt med tanke på det vintriga vädret i Köpenhamn. Men aktivister gillar kanske masochism. Det finns visst en speciell Facebook-grupp för dem som vill raka huvudet.

Och Maldivernas miljöminister är mycket besviken. ”Vi har inte kommit hit ända hit för att sedan inte godkänna någonting”, säger han. Som tröst kan jag säga att det blir nog något att godkänna, men innehållet lär inte tillfredsställa nämnde miljöminister.

Jag gillar även DN:s formulering om att ”Obama har öppen returbiljett”. Fattas bara annat när man flyger med ett eget plan.

Uppdatering 12.40: Obama lovar 100 miljarder dollar fram till 2020 men BARA om det ingår i en bred överenskommelse. Alla måste in. ”There is no time to waste. (…) We are ready to get this done today. But is has to be approvement on all sides. It’s better for us to change future before the past.”

Skärmavbild 2009-12-18 kl. 12.44.15

Lesothos premiärminister: ”Mr President, to say we are disappointed is an understatement.”

Uppdatering: 17.30: Senaste nytt är att regeringscheferna åker hem ikväll, att inga siffror diskuterats och att man befarar att det inte blir något juridiskt bindande avtal ens 2010. ”Däremot kvarstår målsättningen att hålla temperaturökningarna under 2 grader jämfört med förindustriell nivå”, skriver DN. Och vet ni vad, jag tror att det kommer att lyckas.

Och Berlingske skriver att Hopenhagen nu kallas Brokenhagen.

december 18, 2009   118 Comments

Lord Monckton om Mr Rajendra Pachauri

Läs gärna Lord Moncktons redogörelse för Pachauris senaste presentation. Om inte annat så för den festliga engelskan. ;) Men Monckton har faktiskt flera mycket bra poänger.

***

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen

In the Grand Ceremonial Hall of the University of Copenhagen, a splendid Nordic classical space overlooking the Church of our Lady in the heart of the old city, rows of repellent, blue plastic chairs surrounded the podium from which no less a personage than Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was to speak.

I had arrived in good time to take my seat among the dignitaries in the front row. Rapidly, the room filled with enthusiastic Greenies and enviro-zombs waiting to hear the latest from ye Holy Bookes of Ipecac, yea verily.

The official party shambled in and perched on the blue plastic chairs next to me. Pachauri was just a couple of seats away, so I gave him a letter from me and Senator Fielding of Australia, pointing out that the headline graph in the IPCC’s 2007 report, purporting to show that the rate of warming over the past 150 years had itself accelerated, was fraudulent.

Would he use the bogus graph in his lecture? I had seen him do so when he received an honorary doctorate from the University of New South Wales. I watched and waited.

Sure enough, he used the bogus graph. I decided to wait until he had finished, and ask a question then.

Pachauri then produced the now wearisome list of lies, fibs, fabrications and exaggerations that comprise the entire case for alarm about “global warming”. He delivered it in a tired, unenthusiastic voice, knowing that a growing majority of the world’s peoples – particularly in those countries where comment is free – no longer believe a word the IPCC says.

They are right not to believe. Science is not a belief system. But here is what Pachauri invited the audience in Copenhagen to believe.

1. Pachauri asked us to believe that the IPCC’s documents were “peer-reviewed”. Then he revealed the truth by saying that it was the authors of the IPCC’s climate assessments who decided whether the reviewers’ comments were acceptable. That – whatever else it is – is not peer review.

2. Pachauri said that greenhouse gases had increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004. This figure was simply nonsense. I have seen this technique used time and again by climate liars. They insert an outrageous statement early in their presentations, see whether anyone reacts and, if no one reacts, they know they will get away with the rest of the lies. I did my best not to react. I wanted to hear, and write down, the rest of the lies.

3. Next came the bogus graph, which is featured three times, large and in full color, in the IPCC’s 2007 climate assessment report. The graph is bogus not only because it relies on the made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia but also because it is overlain by four separate trend-lines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however – neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it – is that from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975-1998.

4. Pachauri said that there had been an “acceleration” in sea-level rise from 1993. He did not say, however, that in 1993 the method of measuring sea-level rise had switched from tide-gages to satellite altimetry against a reference geoid. The apparent increase in the rate of sea-level rise is purely an artefact of this change in the method of measurement.

5. Pachauri said that Arctic temperatures would rise twice as fast as global temperatures over the next 100 years. However, he failed to point out that the Arctic was actually 1-2 Celsius degrees warmer than the present in the 1930s and early 1940s. It has become substantially cooler than it was then.

6. Pachauri said the frequency of heavy rainfall had increased. The evidence for this proposition is largely anecdotal. Since there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” for 15 years, there is no reason to suppose that any increased rainfall in recent years is attributable to “global warming”.

7. Pachauri said that the proportion of tropical cyclones that are high-intensity storms has increased in the past three decades. However, he was very careful not to point out that the total number of intense tropical cyclones has actually fallen sharply throughout the period.

8. Pachauri said that the activity of intense Atlantic hurricanes had increased since 1970. This is simply not true, but it appears to be true if – as one very bad scientific paper in 2006 did – one takes the data back only as far as that year. Take the data over the whole century, as one should, and no trend whatsoever is evident. Here, Pachauri is again using the same statistical dodge he used with the UN’s bogus “warming-is-getting-worse” graph: he is choosing a short run of data and picking his start-date with care so as falsely to show a trend that, over a longer period, is not significant.

9. Pachauri said small islands like the Maldives were vulnerable to sea-level rise. Not if they’re made of coral, which is more than capable of outgrowing any sea-level rise. Besides, as Professor Morner has established, sea level in the Maldives is no higher now than it was 1250 years ago, and has not risen for half a century.

10. Pachauri said that if the ice-sheets of Greenland or West Antarctica were to melt there would be “meters of sea-level rise”. Yes, but his own climate panel has said that that could not happen for thousands of years, and only then if global mean surface temperatures stayed at least 2 C (3.5 F) warmer than today’s.

11. Pachauri said that if temperatures rose 2 C (3.5 F) 20-30% of all species would become extinct. This, too, is simply nonsense. For most of the past 600 million years, global temperatures have been 7 C (13.5 F) warmer than today, and yet here we all are. One has only to look at the number of species living in the tropics and the number living at the Poles to work out that warmer weather will if anything increase the number and diversity of species on the planet. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for Pachauri’s assertion about mass extinctions. It is simply made up.

12. Pachauri said that “global warming” would mean “lower quantities of water”. Not so. It would mean larger quantities of water vapor in the atmosphere, hence more rain. This is long-settled science – but, then, Pachauri is a railroad engineer.

13. Pachauri said that by 2100 100 million people would be displaced by rising sea levels. Now, where did we hear that figure before? Ah, yes, from the ludicrous Al Gore and his sidekick Bob Corell. There is no truth in it at all. Pachauri said he was presenting the results of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. It is quite plain: the maximum possible rate of sea-level rise is put at just 2 ft, with a best estimate of 1 ft 5 in. Sea level is actually rising at around 1 ft/century. That is all.

14. Pachauri said that he had seen for himself the damage done in Bangladesh by sea-level rise. Just one problem with that. There has been no sea-level rise in Bangladesh. At all. In fact, according to Professor Moerner, who visited it recently and was the only scientist on the trip to calibrate his GPS altimeter properly by taking readings at two elevations at least 10 meters apart, sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen a little, which is why satellite images show 70,000 sq. km more land area there than 30 years ago. Pachauri may well have seen some coastal erosion: but that was caused by the imprudent removal of nine-tenths of the mangroves in the Sunderban archipelago to make way for shrimp-farms.

15. Pachauri said we could not afford to delay reducing carbon emissions even by a year, or disaster would result. So here’s the math. There are 388 ppmv of CO2 in the air today, rising at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade. So an extra year with no action at all would warm the world by just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 C, or less than a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree. And only that much on the assumption that the UN’s sixfold exaggeration of CO2’s true warming potential is accurate, which it is not. Either way, we can afford to wait a couple of decades to see whether anything like the rate of warming predicted by the UN’s climate panel actually occurs.

16. Pachauri said that the cost of mitigating carbon emissions would be less than 3% of gross domestic product by 2030. The only economist who thinks that is Lord Stern, whose laughable report on the economics of climate change, produced for the British Government, used a near-zero discount rate so as artificially to depress the true cost of trying to mitigate “global warming”. To reduce “global warming” to nothing, one must close down the entire global economy. Any lesser reduction is a simple fraction of the entire economy. So cutting back, say, 50% of carbon emissions by 2030, which is what various extremist groups here are advocating, would cost around 50% of GDP, not 3%.

17. Pachauri said that solar and wind power provided more jobs per $1 million invested than coal. Maybe they do, but that is a measure of their relative inefficiency. The correct policy would be to raise the standard of living of the poorest by letting them burn as much fossil fuels as they need to lift them from poverty. Anything else is organized cruelty.

18. Pachauri said we could all demonstrate our commitment to Saving The Planet by eating less meat. The Catholic Church has long extolled the virtues of mortification of the flesh: we generally ate fish on Fridays in the UK, until the European Common Fisheries Policy meant there were no more fish. But the notion that going vegan will make any measurable impact on global temperatures is simply fatuous.

It is time for Railroad Engineer Pachauri to get back to his signal-box. About the climate, as they say in New York’s Jewish quarter, he knows from nothing.

***

december 18, 2009   50 Comments

Tege på Newsmill

Tege meddelar att han också är aktuell med en artikel på Newsmill. Den handlar om Climategate och upphovsrätt. Milla och kommentera! :)

december 17, 2009   11 Comments

Danmark ger upp!

Enligt TT har Danmarks premiärminister Lars Lökke Rasmussen kastat in klimathandduken. Det kommer inte att bli något nytt klimatavtal. Förhandlingarna kommer dock att fortsätta, fast i vilken form är osäkert. Vilken kalldusch för alla delegaterna! Nu kan man verkligen fråga sig om Obama behagar bege sig till Köpenhamn.

Danskarna anklagas dessutom för dålig organisation. Indiens miljöminister Jairam Ramesh säger att förhandlingarna varit dåligt skötta. ”Unfortunately, I feel that this entire conference, the entire process has been very, very badly handled.”

Pinsamt värre för Danmark. Och för Fredrik R.

december 17, 2009   50 Comments