Bemærkelsesværdige citater.....

"It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say its hotting up. "

another UN climate conference in Geneva where one of the UN's own leading climate scientists and computer modellers, Professor Mojib Latif from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Keil University, stated that from recent research he has conducted he has had to conclude that global warning has ceased.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself

Strammerne kan jo ikke tabe, ligesom at spille på både rød og sort på rouletten. Jojo, siger han, menneskeskabt global opvarming medfører jo nedkøling i 10-20 år endnu, det siger min forskning, bare send lidt flere penge, kun indtil jeg skal på pension og ikke mere bringes til ansvar

" a member of the IPCC... stated that from recent research he has conducted he has had to conclude that global warning has ceased."

"Paranoia is in bloom,
...
And all the green belts wrapped around our minds,
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined"

James Delingpole,writer, journalist and broadcaster:
" I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, the Climate Fear Industry isn't a theory."

Brændeovne tegner sig for mere end halvdelen af partikeludslippet i Danmark. Personbilerne står kun for omkring to pct

Altså 25 gange så meget partikelforurening fra brændeovne som fra biler...

Og der er 10 gange flere biler end brændovne

At the centre of this meeting...is a 180-page document of negotiating text. The Kyoto Protocol, by contrast, which the Copenhagen agreement is meant to replace when it expires in 2012, ran to only 30 pages at the equivalent stage.

The most likely outcome may be a political commitment to cut emissions by mid-century and an agreement to keep wrangling over the details.

There is already talk of follow-up meetings next year. Copenhagen may merely mark the start of a long period of uncertainty over global carbon regulation that may take years to resolve.

...the major participants have begun manoeuvring on how to stage-manage failure at Copenhagen and to set a new deadline for a treaty.

George Monbiot on his personal blog:

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Hvem skrev disse ord ?

....global cooling has not occurred even over the past ten years, contrary to claims promoted by lobby groups and picked up in some media. In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 °C warming per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 °C per decade. The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller warming trends (0.11 °C per decade for 1999-2008) primarily due to the fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves out the Arctic, which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years.

Kilde: The Copenhagen Diagnosis side 15

Jeps, fra nu af kan alle klima skeptiker/fornægter (med 'beviserne' om sandheden fra de hackede mails bag sig) møde ALLE argumenter for de menneskerskabte klimaændringer (ACC) med: "Jeg VIL IKKE nære eller tror på hverken deres data eller deres konklusioner"

msraaschou skrev:
"We are talking about changing the profile of risk, not
waiting for absolute truth – because absolute truth
will not happen until the earth performs the experiment
of telling us what we are doing, and by then it is too late
to stop it."

Professor Stephen H. Schneider, klimatolog ved Stanford University


Afskrevet fra et radiointerview, så jeg er lidt usikker på kommateringen. Kan desværre ikke finde link til interviewet, da det er over et år siden jeg skrev det ned.

Professor Stephen H. Schneider, kommer her med flere citat venlige udtalelser

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.I hope that means being both)

rick_uk skrev:

Jeps, fra nu af kan alle klima skeptiker/fornægter (med 'beviserne' om sandheden fra de hackede mails bag sig) møde ALLE argumenter for de menneskerskabte klimaændringer (ACC) med: "Jeg VIL IKKE nære eller tror på hverken deres data eller deres konklusioner"

KILDE

The solar theory apparently has a strong emotional appeal to an important segment of the public...The myth – describing a small group of ingenious scientists, who have arrived at the ultimate truth about climate, who have identified the sun as the mighty culprit, and who are shunned by a stubborn, envious establishment of old, narrow-minded professors – has a strong appeal to many. It is good stuff for an artistic film maker. It can be molded into a moving story – mixing images of lonely heroes, brave, fighting underdogs, with beautiful pictures of the sun and clouds. And it turns out that neither the filmmaker nor the audience can be influenced by being told that the solemnly presented graphs on the screen are rigged.

Peter Laut, Professor (emeritus) of physics at The Technical University of Denmark...

Peter Laut hjalp i løbet af det år med at skrive flere kronikker for Svend Auken, lige som han bistod med at besvare spørgsmål fra Folketinget. Ifølge sin opgørelse til Energistyrelsen brugte han 100 timer til kronikkerne og en række mindre opgaver. Opgaver for Jesper Gundermann og svar til Folketing, minister og offentlighed kostede 400 timer. Sammenlagt løb arbejdet som rådgiver – eller lobbyist – op i 1.100 timer for 1999, men Energistyrelsen blev kun præsenteret for en regning på de aftalte 500 timer. Også de følgende år brugte Laut langt flere end de 500 timer, der var aftalt. I 2000 deltog Peter Laut som forsker sammen med Jesper Gundermann blandt andet i den første europæiske videnskabelige konference om Solen og Jordens klima på Tenerife. Her gik Laut fra talerstolen til frontalangreb på solteoretikerne. En af Danmarks førende forskere på området, professor Eigil Friis-Christensen, blev beskyldt for at vildlede om sammenhængen mellem Solen og Jordens klima, og ifølge Henrik Svensmark, der var til stede, var beskyldningerne »ekstremt pinlige«.
»Det var meget usædvanligt. Tonen var fuldstændig skinger,« siger Henrik Svensmark. Peter Lauts regning til Energistyrelsen lød på i alt 320 timers arbejde med konferencen og en efterfølgende videnskabelig artikel om emnet.

I filmen »Dommedag aflyst« fra 2004 besøgte Lars Mortensen sammen med en forsker Maldiverne, som ifølge den menneskelige drivhusteori er ved at synke i havet. Men ifølge filmen viste det sig, at vandstanden ved Maldiverne ikke er steget, men faldet. To dage før filmen overhovedet blev sendt, blev Lars Mortensen kontaktet på mail af Jesper Gundermann, der nu var embedsmand i Miljøstyrelsen. Gundermann antydede, at Lars Mortensens drivhuskritiske film var blevet betalt af olieindustrien, at journalisten altså var korrumperet, lige som Gundermann som repræsentant for Miljøstyrelsen forudså, at Mortensen ikke ville få nogen stor fremtid som journalist. Enden på dén historie blev en personlig undskyldning til Lars Mogensen fra den da nytiltrådte miljøminister Connie Hedegaard og Miljøstyrelsens direktør, der indledte disciplinære skridt mod Gundermann.

Topmødet vil desværre nok ende med en politisk aftale, hvor alle lover, at de nok skal skære i deres CO2-udledning. Men det vil være det ringest mulige udbytte af konferencen. For det vil få alle til at føle, at nu har man gjort noget rigtig godt for planeten. Men det har vi reelt ikke, for vi vil bare mødes igen i 2019 og sige: Nå, vi fik ikke nedbragt CO2-udslippet, som vi havde lovet. For sådan er det endt efter både Rio i 1992 og Kyoto i 1997

Så man kan argumentere for, at hvis vi får endnu en aftale, der ikke vil virke, så vil verden ikke opdage, at den taktik, vi har brugt de seneste 20 år, er fejlslagen. Og så fortsætter vi endnu 10 år, før vi gør noget, der virker. I den sammenhæng kunne det være en god ting, hvis der kom en fiasko ud af København. Ikke af skadefrohed, men fordi en fiasko kunne få alle til at vågne op og sige: måske skal vi finde en smartere og mere realistisk løsning

The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – "goals" for emission reductions, "offsets" that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual "cap-and-trade" mechanism – must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics as usual.

Governments going to Copenhagen claim to have such goals [se artikelen] for 2050, which they will achieve with the "cap-and-trade" mechanism. They are lying through their teeth.

Are we going to stand up and give global politicians a hard slap in the face, to make them face the truth? It will take a lot of us – probably in the streets. Or are we going to let them continue to kid themselves and us and cheat our children and grandchildren?

If Copenhagen is to have any chance of kick-starting a global movement to stay below the 2 degrees C characterisation of dangerous climate change, it must inspire and instigate a rapid shift away from the current political and economic consensus.

The first challenge, he says, is to get political buy-in to what the science is saying in relation to, at least, a 50:50 chance of not exceeding 2 degrees C.

In brief, wealthy (OECD) nations need to peak emissions by around 2012, achieve at least a 60 per cent reduction in emissions from energy by 2020, and fully decarbonise their energy systems by 2030 at the latest.

Alongside this, the 'industrialising' nations (non-OECD) need to peak their collective emissions by around 2025 and fully decarbonise their energy systems by 2050.

This scale of reductions is presently far removed from that which the negotiators in Copenhagen are intending to consider.

Der er investeret så megen politisk kapital i Københavns-mødet, at jeg da tror, der kommer en tekst med hensigtserklæringer om reduktion af udledninger i i- og u-lande.

De institutionelle mekanismer til at håndhæve, at parterne efterlever målene, er imidlertid yderst svage.

Hertil kommer, at alle reduktionsløfter skal godkendes af hjemlige parlamenter, og mange steder vil det ikke ske. Det australske parlament har allerede afvist forslag til lovgivning én gang, Obama får enorme problemer med at få det gennem Senatet i USA osv. Personligt har jeg ikke meget håb om, at dette bringer klimaforandringerne under kontrol

rick_uk skrev:

KILDE: Information: "'En København- aftale betyder ikke meget for klimaet'"

Han påpeger, at de forskellige klimapåvirkende faktorer er af forskellig karakter, har forskellige kilder og årsager og kræver forskellige løsningsstrategier. Hver drivhusgas forudsætter f.eks. forskellige løsninger. Metan handler om landbrug, CO2 handler om energi, sodpartikler handler om dieselmotorer og brændekomfurer.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

"Climate scientists are losing the fight with the sceptics

The sceptics are so well funded, so well organised. They have nothing else to do. They don't have day jobs so they can put all their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public, whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and [managing publicity] actually isn't one of them."

"Climate scientists are losing the fight with the sceptics

The sceptics are so well funded, so well organised. They have nothing else to do. They don't have day jobs so they can put all their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public, whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and [managing publicity] actually isn't one of them."

Despite the sceptics' best efforts, for example, the basic edifice of global- warming science remains intact. Nothing in the so-called Climategate emails damages it.....

The scientists' disgraceful failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and the Himalayan glacier debacle are much more serious. One was rightly condemned by the Information Commissioner last week; the other reveals sloppiness at the IPCC. But again, neither touches the basic science; the Himalayan howler concerns a predicted effect of global warming, rather than the climate change itself. The obituaries of the science proclaimed daily by sceptics so far are not even premature.

In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame. "Heat-trapping properties can be verified by any undergraduate in any lab," notes climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University. "The detection of climate change, and its attribution to human causes, rests on numerous lines of evidence." They include melting ice sheets, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels and earlier onset of spring, not to mention higher average global temperatures.

Even if the CRU data "were dismissed as tainted, it would not matter," argues IPCC contributor Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University. "CRU is but one source of analysis whose conclusions have been validated by other researchers around the world." Other sources include NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, and even the IPCC, all of which provide access to raw data.