Desperate days for the warmists
Warmists may be winning the big grants, but they're not winning the argument, says Christopher Booker
Ever more risibly desperate become the efforts of the believers in global warming to hold the line for their religion, after the battering it was given last winter by all those scandals surrounding the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
One familiar technique they use is to attribute to global warming almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world. Last week, for instance, it was reported that Russia has recently been experiencing its hottest temperatures and longest drought for 130 years. The head of the Russian branch of WWF, the environmental pressure group, was inevitably quick to cite this as evidence of climate change, claiming that in future "such climate abnormalities will only become more frequent". He didn't explain what might have caused the similar hot weather 130 years ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... mists.html
Professori Philip Stott kuvaa osuvasti ilmastoalarmismin alamäkeä:
Philip Stott: Global Warming: the Death of a Grand Narrative
Monday, 26 July 2010 15:24 Philip Stott .Grand narratives - those overarching, dominant systems of socio-political thought so beloved of post-modernists - come and go. Some, such as major religions, can persist, through shape-shifting, for millennia; others last for centuries, while most survive for mere decades.
The death of a grand narrative is often protracted and largely unnoticed, until, one day, its metalanguage, its corpus of words of magic, its ‘points de capiton’, to use the phrase proposed by the Freudian psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan (1901 – 1981), which for so long have kept people sub-consciously in its thrall, eventually lose all of their power and meaning, and prove no longer relevant to the lives of the majority. Such is the fate of mainstream Christianity in Britain today. For other grand narratives, by contrast, the collapse may be unexpectedly swift and dramatic, as with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The work of the ‘mauerspechte’ can thus take centuries, but it may also be accomplished within days or months.
Such is the current fate of global warming, the grand narrative that human greed and profligacy are changing the world’s climate apocalyptically, a sin that can only be appeased through public confession and self-sacrifice to the Goddess, Gaia. Since the farcical conclusion of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference last December, it has been fascinating, as an independent academic, to witness the classical collapse of this grand narrative, as if social and philosophical theories are being played out before our gaze. From Australia to the US, both the public and politicians are rowing back from the dangerous weir of trying to constrain economic growth in the name of achieving a utopian, low-carbon economy. The pursuit of carbon footprints is proving a ‘yomp’ too far.
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-c ... ative.html
Amerikkalailaise kolumnistin näkemys:
Mark Landsbaum: Is it time to end climate alarmism?
Five allegedly independent investigations claim to have cleared U.S. and British climate scientists of chicanery in their global warming research. It's more likely the investigations will be among the final nails in the coffin for the global warming alarmist movement. That's a position shared not only among respected skeptics in the scientific community, but increasingly in the mainstream press and even by some global warming believers
Ja viimeisenä vielä yksi erityisen hyvä uutinen USA:sta. Maan senaatti on jälleen osoittanut hyvää harkintakykyä ilmastoasioissa: Vallassa olevien demokraattien päästökauppalainsäädäntö jäi hyväksymättä
In a city where few people with power ever bow to reality — political or otherwise — the seeming-defeat of “cap and trade” may constitute one of the few victories for sanity in this legislative cycle. And the end — for now — of “cap and trade” is the latest in a series of developments in the realm of environmentalism since the theory of anthropogenic climate change came under widespread public scrutiny during the past year.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... -in-senate
Euroopassa on ruvettu vähentämään järjettömiä "ilmastotukia":
Europe Slashes Low-Carbon Energy Subsidies as Budgets Shrink
LONDON -- What appears to be a bonfire of low-carbon energy subsidies has been lit in Europe as cash-strapped countries grapple with their empty coffers and start to cut back on what many see as over-generous support for industries from wind to solar that has created a green energy bubble.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/07/29 ... 61653.html
Climate of emissions trading cools
WE all know both Labor and the Coalition have jettisoned plans to implement an emissions trading scheme to tame climate change.
But Australia is not alone in failing to put a price on carbon. Global warming fatigue is setting in all over the world.
Canada's cap-and-trade legislation is going nowhere. Japan's weak and divided government has temporarily shelved its ETS in parliament. French President Nicolas Sarkozy's carbon tax is blocked by the Constitutional Council. Public opinion polls show higher climate scepticism in Britain than in western Europe, North America and the Antipodes. Even when an ETS has been implemented, as in the case of the European Union, the policy has been a debacle: a collapsed carbon price, higher energy prices, and increased emissions during the first three years in operation.
China's leaders, far from leading the world to a low-carbon future, won't sign a legally binding global deal, because they want to grow their economy and reduce poverty on the back of the cheapest form of (carbon) energy.
Senior Indian politicians, meanwhile, criticise US officials when they push for Delhi to adopt binding emissions targets.
Nowhere is the changing climate more evident than in the US. Last month, congress could not even agree to a climate bill to debate on the Senate floor before a vote. Nor was it simply conservative Republicans who opposed what is called "cap and tax". Democrats from states heavily dependent on coal, oil and manufacturing are overwhelmingly opposed to Al Gore's agenda. When the House passed a climate bill a year ago, one in five Democrats opposed the legislation.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 5901288813
Climate change has become a loser topic. And Angela Merkel wants nothing to do with it.
Suomessa poliitikot perinteisesti mielellään noudattavat Saksan viitoittamaa linjaa. Toivottavasti näin tehdään myös käytännön ilmastopolitiikassa!
http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/15/clim ... ser-topic/
By 2050, the world population is likely to be 9.1 billion, the CO2 concentration 550 ppm, the ozone concentration 60 ppb and the climate warmer by ca 2°C. In these conditions, what contribution can increased crop yield make to feeding the world?
CO2 enrichment is likely to increase yields of most crops by approximately 13 per cent but leave yields of C4 crops unchanged. It will tend to reduce water consumption by all crops, but this effect will be approximately cancelled out by the effect of the increased temperature on evaporation rates. In many places increased temperature will provide opportunities to manipulate agronomy to improve crop performance.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 5.abstract
Tronic kirjoitti:Ainoa tapa millä keksin tuon hyväksi uutiseksi on jos lähdetään siitä että IPCC on oikeassa CO2:n ihmisperäisyydestä ja sen lämmittävästä vaikutuksesta ja jos lisäksi oletetaan ettei ilmastonmuutoksen torjumiseksi tehdä mitään, niin hyvä uutinen on että ainakin saadaan edes ruokaa riittävästi... Olet ymmärtääkseni kuitenkin ilmastoskeptikko, joten miten mielestäsi tuo on hyvä uutinen?
Lisääntyvä CO2-määrä - on se sitten ihmisperäista tai muuta - on hyvä asia.
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.as ... itemid=225
Toinen asia on, etten usko IPCC:n arvioihin ihmisperäisestä lämpenemisestä.
Global warming will make cities in northern countries like Canada and Scandinavia the next big global economic powers, a senior academic has predicted.
Rising temperatures will mean that previously frozen natural resources like gas, oil and water will be unlocked just as the rest of the world is facing dramatic shortages.
Professor Laurence Smith, a UCLA professor of geography and of earth and space sciences, claims that sparsely populated parts of world like the northern US, Greenland and Russia will become 'migration magnets' as people flock to the new centres of global power.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ds-newsxml
"I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the f***ing weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the f***ing global temperatures will be in 100 years' time. It's horse shit."
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com ... horse-shit
Tuohon tuskin on paljon lisättävää!
All but one of the 48 Republican hopefuls for the Senate mid-term elections in November deny the existence of climate change or oppose action on global warming, according to a report released today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/se ... al-warming
The closer it comes, the worse it looks. The best outcome anyone now expects from December's climate summit in Mexico is that some delegates might stay awake during the meetings. When talks fail once, as they did in Copenhagen, governments lose interest. They don't want to be associated with failure, they don't want to pour time and energy into a broken process. Nine years after the world trade negotiations moved to Mexico after failing in Qatar, they remain in diplomatic limbo. Nothing in the preparations for the climate talks suggests any other outcome.
Hyvältä siis näyttää. Kuitenkin tuhannet delegaatit ja toimittajat - Suomestakin varmasti melkoinen määrä - ovat lähdössä Cancunin lomanviettoparatiisiin kokemaan kokouksen turhuuden. Nekin rahat voitaisiin käyttää todellisten ongelmien ratkaisemiseen ....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ns-failure
Eräs osuva kommentti Monbiotille, juttuun liittyen:
Never mind, George, I'm sure there'll be another bandwagon along in a moment, and some new scare for you to fret about
"Plenty of nations – like Britain – have produced what appear to be robust national plans for cutting greenhouse gases.
Even so, none of them are real. Missing from the proposed cuts are the net greenhouse gas emissions we have outsourced to other countries and now import in the form of manufactured goods. Were these included in the UK's accounts, alongside the aviation, shipping and tourism gases excluded from official figures, Britain's emissions would rise by 48%. Rather than cutting our contribution to global warming by 19% since 1990, as the government boasts, we have increased it by about 29%. It's the same story in most developed nations. Our apparent success results entirely from failures elsewhere...."
Jokainen energia-alaa seurannut on varmaan jo kauan miettinyt millä tavalla mm. Britannia voisi saavuttaa sitoumustaan nostaa uusiutuvien osuutta alle 3 %:sta n. 15% tasolle vuoteen 2020 mennessä. En ymmärrä miten se voisi onnistua. Mutta en olisi yllättynyt jos he keksisivät että ydinvoima voidaan määritellä uusiutuvaksi (heidän tapauksessa!). Suomen lisäydinvoima sen sijaan nostaa uusiutuvien tarvetta koska prosenttiosuus lasketaan koko sähköntuotannosta. Oikein ja kohtuullista? No jaa, onhan Britannia iso, ja Suomi pieni.... sitä paitsi Suomihan tekee aina kaikkensa suoriutuakseen sitoumuksistaan. Eikä meidän poliitikkoja ainakaan voida syyttää siitä että he vetäisivät kotiinpäin...
The next few years are going to be very interesting. Watch the global power elite squirming to reposition itself as it slowly distances itself from Anthropogenic Global Warming (”Who? Us? No. We never thought of it as more than a quaint theory…”), and tries to find new ways of justifying green taxation and control. (Ocean acidification; biodiversity; et al). You’ll notice sly shifts in policy spin. In Britain, for example, Chris “Chicken Little” Huhne’s suicidal “dash for wind” will be re-invented as a vital step towards “energy security.” There will be less talk of “combatting climate change” and more talk of “mitigation”. You’ll hear enviro-Nazis like Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren avoid reference to “global warming” like the plague, preferring the more reliably vague phrase “global climate disruption.”
And you know what the worst thing is? If we allow them to, they’re going to get away with it.
Our duty as free citizens over the next few years is to make sure that they don’t.
Al Gore, George Soros, Bill Gates, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Barack Obama, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Tim Yeo, Michael Mann, Ted Turner, Robert Redford, Phil Jones, Chris Huhne, John Howard (yes really, he was supposed to be a conservative, but he was the man who kicked off Australia’s ETS), Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Yvo de Boer, Rajendra Pachauri….The list of the guilty goes on and on. Each in his own way – and whether through ignorance, naivety idealism or cynicism, it really doesn’t matter for the result has been the same – has done his bit to push the greatest con-trick in the history of science, forcing on global consumers the biggest bill in the history taxation, using “global warming” as an excuse to extend the reach of government further than it has ever gone before.
It is time we put a stop to this. In the US, the Tea Party movement is showing us the way. We need to punish these dodgy politicians at the ballot box. We need to ensure that those scientists guilty of malfeasance are, at the very least thrown out of the jobs which we taxpayers have been funding these last decades. We need to ensure that corporatist profiteers are no longer able to benefit from the distortion and corruption of the markets which result from green regulation.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... rld-order/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/b ... yet-again/
juakola kirjoitti:James Hansen pidätetty
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/b ... yet-again/
Onkos tämä nyt se kundi, joka on alarmistien kirkkainta tiedekärkeä ja pitäisi ottaa oikeasti vakavasti
Tsiisus. Oikeasti kaveri on täysi puunhalaajahörhö, jolta ei todellakaan voi odottaa tasapuolista tieteellistä lähestymistä aiheeseen. Tämän olemme toki täällä tienneet jo aiemminkin