Usaglig argumentation

John Niclasen skrev:
Tak for den vurdering!

Emeritussen skrev:
... politisk korrekte ...

Jeg tænker også, at hvis man vil opretholde den fejlopfattelse hos andre, at klimavidenskaben handler om og er velfunderet i videnskab og ikke politik, så vil man angribe alt, som påviser, at det i høj grad handler om og er funderet i politik.

Det er vel sådan, en politisk aktivist camoufleret som videnskabelig forsker vil agere.

Søren R Nielsen skrev:

Søren R Nielsen skrev:
Lille tillæg til min post: Ang. Thatcher. Den væltede regering(kons) var fra energikrisens tid i '74 (Edward Heath PM).

-Tak for en interessant artikel, John.

-Søren.

Min rettelse/tillæg til væltet regering, -postet lige efter jeg opdagede manglen.

-Vær dog lidt vågen..!

Thatcher skriver:
The doomsters' favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.

Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method.

Indeed, the lack of any sense of proportion is what characterizes many pronouncements on the matter by otherwise sensible people. Thus President Clinton on a visit to China, which poses a serious strategic challenge to the US, confided to his host, President Jiang Zemin, that his greatest concern was the prospect that "your people may get rich like our people, and instead of riding bicycles, they will drive automobiles, and the increase in greenhouse gases will make the planet more dangerous for all."

It would, though, be difficult to beat for apocalyptic hyperbole former Vice President Gore. Mr Gore believes: 'The cleavage in the modern world between mind and body, man and nature, has created a new kind of addiction: I believe that our civilisation is, in effect, addicted to the consumption of the earth itself.'

And he warns: "Unless we find a way to dramatically change our civilisation and our way of thinking about the relationship between humankind and the earth, our children will inherit a wasteland."

But why pick on the Americans? Britain's then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has observed: "There is no greater national duty than the defense of our shoreline. But the most immediate threat to it today is the encroaching sea." Britain has found, it seems, a worthy successor to King Canute.

The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things – and get away with it – illustrates the degree to which the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes....

Søren R Nielsen skrev:
Re. Gavin Schmidt.
Han er slet ikke klimaforsker! Han er uddannet matematiker..

Søren R Nielsen skrev:
Re. Gavin Schmidt ikke klimaforsker matematiker modeller der aldrig har virket!
2017 tiden indhentet ham modellerne divergerer aktuelle data og realiteter Al Gore er fed fup snyd skolelærer Manns hockey-stick tal-jonglør charlatan data-manipulation Jehova-snak blablablalalalalajegkanikkehøredig.......

-[Gavin Schmidt] er kendt for at forsvare sin ven Hr. Manns hockey-stick... (-siger en del om ham!)

Døm selv. Fra CNN, 2009 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S1unDve-M

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators".

The contested principal component analysis methodology [...] had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.

NRC panellists said they found no evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as data manipulation, or "anything other than an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure".

John Niclasen skrev:
Der er menneskeskabt global opvarmning. Den er skabt af en lille gruppe svindlere hos bl.a. GISS, NOAA og CRU. Disse svindlere er kendt fra ClimateGate emails.

kfl skrev:
Kære John Niclasen

Hvorfor giver du ikke fulde billede af vandstands stigningerne omkring Danmark, men vælger en station, hvor landhævninger er af betydning ?

På den kort bane er der ikke de stor problemer med vandstands stigningerne i Danmark, men på 100 år sigt taler man om 35-50 centermeter.

Det er manipulation fra din side.

Kan du virkelig ikke bedre ?

kfl skriver:
Du er simpelhen en bindegal ...

Med vores viden(fra 2009) climate-gate emails, var sagen klokkeklar for næsten alle.

Spencer: "[Phil Jones] says he's not very organised. I'm not very organised myself," said Professor Spencer. "If you asked me to find original data from 20 years ago I'd have great difficulty too.

"We just didn't realise in those days how important and controversial this would all become - now it would just all be stored on computer. Phil Jones has been looking at climate records for a very long time. Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all making the same mistake we're not likely to find out anything new from the data anyway."

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Da Revelle sidst i 80'erne, kunne se det var løbet af sporet, og tallene ikke passede, fosøgte han af gøre opmærksom på dette. -Gore havde ikke brug for den slags, så han erklærede offentligt at hans gamle ven var blevet senil, og sagde skøre ting..

Roger's daughter, Carolyn Revelle, wrote:

Contrary to George Will's "Al Gore's Green Guilt" Roger Revelle—our father and the "father" of the greenhouse effect—remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore's professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense—measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate. [...] Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming.

Justin Lancaster, Revelle's graduate student and teaching assistant at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography from 1981 until Revelle's death, says that Revelle was "hoodwinked" by Singer into adding his name to the article and that Revelle was "intensely embarrassed that his name was associated" with it.

Her, et meget spændende syn på historien, fra en samtidig mand ITB (in the business). 60 år som metrolog, alle hædrer ham, -John Coleman.

After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, [Coleman] became the weather anchor for WCIA's sister station WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois.

Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:
Og angående Hockeystaven er her en sammenligning af den nyeste og mest omfattende temperaturrekonstruktion, PAGES2K, som bla. har to af Michael Manns hårdeste kritikere, finnen Atte Korhola og tyskeren Eduardo Zorita, blandt forfatterne, med Mann, Bradley og Hughes oprindelige Hockeystav fra 1999:



- som selv du kan se, er kendsgerningerne, at det grundlæggende i Manns forskning i dag er alment anerkendt selv af hans argeste modstandere. (og derudover er der dusinvis af andre rekonstruktioner lavet af andre end Mann, der også grundlæggende viser det samme).

Søren R Nielsen: Her, 11min. klip med Gavin, hvor han yderst pinligt, nægter at tale med en forsker [Roy Spencer, CBH] under et TV-interview.. (næsten 200.000 visninger på YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA

Søren R Nielsen: @CBH
Du bruger "gudhjælpemig" den skøre Roy Spencer (kreationist) til at vurdere Phil Jones rod.
-Hallo, -Roy er ikke rask! Hans ord kan vist ikke vaske Phil Jones et al rene. Lad være med at bruge skøre folks udtalelser(Roy Spencer) til at forsvare uhæderlighed.

Find hellere nogen ordentlige forskere, der vil hjælpe/forsvare den misforståede Phil Jones climate-gate rod.

The assessment panel today released a report concluding that CRU's research was honest and fair, even though the statistical methods and bookkeeping skills employed by the scientists there could have been improved. "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever," panel Chair Ron Oxburgh, a former geologist and Shell chair, said at a media briefing this morning.

-Revelle skrev til flere politikere i 1988 ang. hysteriet. Han døde pludseligt, tre år senere(1991)

Revelle: We're clearly going to have a rise in temperature in the next 100 years because of ... greenhouse gasses ... {but} we don't know how big it is going to be," We can't say whether the temperature rise will be 2 or 10 degrees. [...] [the long-term effect of the predicted warming] would be quite serious because of the effect on water resources. ... We're likely to get a large continental area, particularly in the interior of the North American continent, where it gets drier and drier and drier.

-Dødsleje... -Kender du overhovedet historien? Blot endnu et offer for smæde-kampagnerne fra alarmisternes side. Han er dog efterfølgende blevet kanoniseret til helgen (skytshelgen) for CO2-bevægelsen... Tal til mig om vendekåber og historieforvridning..

CHB, tror du selv på alt hvad du hører ? (Specielt fra Gores mund?)
Din kritiske sans er sært selekteret.

[My father] continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate.
[...]
All of us remember our father's frustration at the White House award ceremony in November 1990, when he received the National Medal of Science. Told he would sit next to John Sununu, a well known advocate of the "wait and see" approach, he was delighted at the prospect of bending Sununu's ear. When Sununu failed to appear, Revelle was disappointed, saying, "I had hoped to tell him what a dim view I take of the administration's environmental policies."

[Carolyn Revelle] was assisted in the preparation of this article by other members of her family: her mother, Ellen, her sisters, Anne Shumway and Mary Paci, and her brother, William Roger Revelle.

John Coleman, er ikke uddannet meteorolog! Han er meteorolog på TV, som alle ser. Han var 60 år i branchen, og er hædret af alle. Selv AMS (American Meteorological Society) gav en pris til ham. -En bund-ærlig type, der ikke lever fedt af sine overbevisninger. Og med evnen til at se klart.

Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:
Og når man kan se, at alle uafhængige temperaturdataserier stemmer fint overens, og at forskellene mellem rå og justerede temperaturer i øvrigt er ret marginal:

Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:
og påstår, at isen i Arktis vokser.

Mht. at "se klart" - tjah, døm selv:

Søren R Nielsen skrev:
Herunder, NASA opdateret 2/7 -17, grafer Extent, og Areal.

Læg mærke til hvor konstant arealet er v. grafstart 1. jan. -over alle 11 år.

Roy Spencer er dygtig til klima-forskning, og iflg. mange(mig selv inkl.) helt galt på den mht. evolutionsteorien.

Jeg kaldte ham "skør" og "gal" for at behage/følge dine "argumenter", og for at vise din duale opfattelse af hvornår personer er gode nok(forsvarer Phil Jones rod/emails?), men "skøre" i andre sammenhænge(kreationist/AGW-kritiker).

Jeg kan ikke finde ud af om du mener han er troværdig eller ej...

[...]

Så Bugge, synes du Roy Spencer er en komplet "gal professor"? Eller respekterer du hans bidrag til klima-debatten, -og blot "smiler" af hans tro(som Jeg gør) ?
Du tager fra begge sider i din argumentation!
Du virker forvirret.

Er Apple klar over denne energimix?

uden enhver tvivl; men de holder gode miner til slet spil

Der er næppe tvivl om, at de store it-selskaber kan købe certifikater, som viser, at deres centre udelukkende benytter vedvarende energi, for eksempel fra de danske vindmøller eller de norske vandkraftværker.
Problemet med den løsning har været kendt og kritiseret i mange år. Der kommer ikke mere vindenergi, eller norsk vandkraft, af, at Apple og Facebook køber strømmen fra de eksisterende turbiner. Konsekvensen bliver, at alle os, som ikke betaler specifikt for vindenergi, får mere sort strøm fra andre kilder i vores kontakter.
Tværtimod kan det samlede energimiks blive mere belastende, hvis der ikke bliver udbygget mere vedvarende energi, fordi de nuværende vindmøller ikke kan producere mere. Det kan kraftværker, der kører på fossile kilder, derimod...

I forbindelse med Apples datacentre, argumenterer man for, at de vil få 100% grøn energi uden CO2 emission

Alex Epstein skriver:
Unfortunately, under pressure from Greenpeace - a group that has never met a practical source of energy it didn't oppose (it's anti-coal, anti-oil, anti-gas, anti-nuclear, anti-hydro) - some leading technology companies, including Apple and Facebook, have advocated a "clean [coal-free] cloud" and claimed that they themselves are running their data centers on 100% solar and wind.

Since I am about to call Apple and Facebook "liars," let me say that I generally disapprove of using the term "liar" to describe those you disagree with. Disagreements usually stem from differences in thinking methodology rather than pure dishonesty about isolated facts. But the "100% renewable" is so dishonest the only term I can think of for those who make it is "Power Liars."

As I wrote on my public Facebook page in November:

Facebook is the latest Power Liar with its claim of a new data center powered by 100% wind. In fact, they are using energy accounting fraud to count the unreliable wind energy on the grid as theirs, and the fossil fuels that make everything work as other people's. To make this a double-disgrace, they refused to use a nuclear plant, which would have produced reliable, non-CO2 energy, so they could placate the primitives at Greenpeace. Zuckerberg should make a public apology for a) lying and b) smearing as "dirty" the people who work every day to power Facebook and every other aspect of modern life.

If these companies truly believe solar and wind have economic potential - as against PR or cocktail-party-acceptance potential - by all means, go ahead and experiment. But don't condemn the one source of energy that makes everything you do possible. Because then you are condemning everyone who uses coal - including your coal-phones and coal-pads and coal computers and coal media - to make their lives better.

Kosmos skrev:

uden enhver tvivl; men de holder gode miner til slet spil

- 'Ingeniøren' skriver:

Der er næppe tvivl om, at de store it-selskaber kan købe certifikater, som viser, at deres centre udelukkende benytter vedvarende energi, for eksempel fra de danske vindmøller eller de norske vandkraftværker.
Problemet med den løsning har været kendt og kritiseret i mange år. Der kommer ikke mere vindenergi, eller norsk vandkraft, af, at Apple og Facebook køber strømmen fra de eksisterende turbiner. Konsekvensen bliver, at alle os, som ikke betaler specifikt for vindenergi, får mere sort strøm fra andre kilder i vores kontakter.
Tværtimod kan det samlede energimiks blive mere belastende, hvis der ikke bliver udbygget mere vedvarende energi, fordi de nuværende vindmøller ikke kan producere mere. Det kan kraftværker, der kører på fossile kilder, derimod...

Facebook is the latest Power Liar with its claim of a new data center powered by 100% wind

- Samsø i 1997 blev udnævnt til Vedvarende
Energi-ø og på 10 år blev selvforsynende
med vedvarende energi.
- Samsøs elforbrug i dag dækkes
100 % af 11 landbaserede vindmøller,
ligesom 70 % af varmen kommer fra
vedvarende energikilder...

Find hellere nogen ordentlige forskere, der vil hjælpe/forsvare den misforståede Phil Jones climate-gate rod..

The Muir Russell inquiry said it found no evidence that the CRU scientists had done this. Observers were incredulous. The chronology seemed straightforward. British sceptic David Holland submitted an FoI request to the university asking for emails in which CRU scientists discussed their work for the IPCC. Two days later, Jones sent an email to colleagues asking them to delete emails relating to the behind-the-scenes work for IPCC. That email, as Montford points out, carried Holland's FoI number as its subject line.

How did Sir Muir miss this?...

Niels K Sørensen skrev:
Hovedbudskabet er:
Bevar det klima, som vores kultur bygger på : reducer CO2 asap

Niels K Sørensen skrev:
Det er selvfølgeligt sandt, at kompleksiteten er enorm. Det er derfor, det ikke er politikere som Trump, der fastsætter, hvad der sker, men derimod professionelle klimaforskere.

Niels K Sørensen skriver:
videnskab og det, der let kan ses i alperne går fint hånd i hånd

Hvad siger videnskaben så?
Se fx eksempel nedenfor
...

Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:
P.S. Og bare for en ordens skyld: Nej, den arktiske havis er ikke i nærheden af at være konstant over de sidste 11 år[/url]. "It´s the trend, stupid!", som englænderne vist siger:

kulden-varmen skrev:
Hvis der en katastrofal menneskeskabt global opvarmning, så må man kunne finde bedre tegn på den end den kaotiske ustabile havis.

Niels K Sørensen skriver:
Desværre er almindelig dannelse faldende, og i dette tilfælde er årsagen manglende seriøs argumentation ift at tilstanden på verden gletcherere påvirkes negativt af øgede temperaturer.

Niels K Sørensen skriver:
Har ikke tid til at finde dokumentation frem, men der er masser af vidnesbyrd om det på nettet.