Bemærkelsesværdige citater.....

Boe Carslund-Sørensen skrev:
http://jp.dk/indland/article2630300.ece

Måske de penge var bedre at anvende i DK - men pyt om statens underskud i 2011 er på 85, 95 milliarder eller mere - vi kræver bare nogle flere penge op i skatter og afgifter i 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 ...... ja fortsæt selv årstalsrækken, for den ender aldrig, når lille Danmark vil vise sig overfor resten af kloden lande.

RockyRoad says:
December 19, 2011 at 7:50 am
Mann is really a pirate, not some space ace–he takes people's money for his "efforts" but hides his "jewels" where only he can find them. At the same time, he boasts he's a know-it-all "climate scientist". Time for the his "paste" to be exposed for what it really is.

The religious quality of climate denialism

[Denialists] are uniformly emotional as they give me one of several common denialist arguments: the medieval warming period, for example, in which they claim that it was so warm 1,000 years ago that Greenland was green.....

Or they argue that increased solar radiation is causing the warming. This too is false. Satellite measurements taken since the 1970s show that solar radiation has actually slightly declined since then.

As one argument is debunked they move on to any of several other bits of disinformation that have been neatly packaged out of context to fool otherwise smart people....

I often ask these emotional deniers "how many papers would it take to convince you that the scientific consensus is right?" The answer -- which hangs in their silence for all to see -- is that nothing will convince them because their contrarianism isn't driven by data -- it's driven by belief.

The main lesson I took away from the conference was this: there is no consistent contrarian science, and there is no defining contrarian ideology or motivation. Some are sincere. Others are angry at their lack of funding. Some appear to be envious of the IPCC scientists' success, and others have found a niche that gets them attention they would not otherwise get. Only a few appear to be motivated by politics. No single label applies to them, and I found myself referring to them as "contrarians/skeptics/deniers/enablers/provocateurs/publicity-seekers".

The one common thread I found among them was the fervent belief that "Climategate" was a conspiracy and that the IPCC is rigged. This faith-based belief seems to be unshakable, and is the antithesis of true skepticism. Those I met were uniformly cynical about the honesty and motivations of mainstream scientists. If I were forced to use a single label, I would be inclined to call them "science cynics".

Alamisten Lindegaard er godt igang igen...

Kosmos skrev:

Alamisten Lindegaard er godt igang igen...

- nu må du huske at udvise passende respekt for vor ex-kolumnist: Han hedder altså Lidegaard!

Joel,

.. You are right re Lindzen. ..(he is a very clever person with a top reputation outside of the global warming area) he gets higher priority. Just as an
example, I've been involved in some published criticisms of work
by Scafetta and West -- one example of the idea that the Sun is
the dominant forcing, and this is only one of the skeptics ideas.
..
Tom.

[Bjørn Lomborg] sagde: "Jeg vil meget gerne vise dig, hvorfor Copenhagen Consensus er en god idé".
[Helle Thorning] så på mig og sagde: "Det er sikkert rigtigt, Bjørn, men jeg får bare så meget mere ud af at kritisere dig,"

"I for one never bought the hoax..."

Gingrich, speaking before Santorum at the Colorado Energy Summit, said he regretted a television commercial he shot with Democrat Nancy Pelosi that addressed climate change. He called it "the dumbest single thing I've done in five or six years. ... It was stupid."

Gingrich said he would abolish the EPA and replace it with something he calls the Environmental Solutions Agency.

[Climate change] is an absolute travesty of scientific research

...men jeg kan desværre ikke huske, hvor jeg læste det

Slettet bruger 3 skrev:
Jeg læste for et par år siden, at nogle russiske forskere havde fundet ud af, at vi faktisk var på vej mod en lille istid, og at deres opfattelse var, at det ville modvirke de klimaforandringer med varmere vejr, som vi har set de sidste mange år, men jeg kan desværre ikke huske, hvor jeg læste det.

The comparison between climate denialists and other denialists should come from the fact that they argue the exact same way, and it should end there.


Climate change denialism shares all of these features. Denialists like Inhofe (Morano's boss) allege a global warming "hoax". This conspiracy theory suggests that thousands of scientists worldwide are all operating from the same playbook (the Protocols of the Al Gore), falsifying data for the purpose of creating regulations to restrict business, and secretly working to create one world government. Or that somehow peer-review and grant rewards only go to those who back the consensus, the classic "grantsmanship" conspiracy theory that is contradicted by the fact that scientists encourage and reward revolutionary results as long as they are well-grounded in data. It sounds ridiculous, but these are their arguments. How one could possibly manage to make thousands of people fabricate evidence for peer reviewed journals all to say the same thing and not be detected is beyond belief. And before the cranks show up and suggest the East Anglia emails are of any significance, let's move on to number two:

The cherry picking of papers, often from journals that are overrun by cranks like Energy and Environment, and even the cherry-picking of individual data points or time periods is rampant.

Global warming denialism is rife with fake experts. The Oregon petition and various other lists generated by climate change denialists are full of MDs, meteorologists, and the occasional AC repair man. These are not climate experts....

Global warming denialists are excellent at moving goalposts, they're still arguing about the damn hockey stick graph after all.....

Finally, logical fallacies are rife. From the appellation "warmist", to crowing that Al Gore is fat and has a big energy wasting house, fallacies are not rare with this movement. The holocaust denier comparison itself is a straw-man argument, as most of us who are attacking their tactics emphasize that the similarity is in their actions, not their motivations

The reason these arguments are denialist isn't because they disagree with theory, and it isn't because they disagree with scientific consensus. It's because they're challenging scientific theories and consensus with conspiracy theories, quote-mining, crank experts, and rhetorical tricks. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree, it's when you use these tactics to disagree that you're engaging in denialism, and these tactics are indefensible.

Citat_
Carsten Bjerg, koncernchef for Grundfos, Sebastian H. Mernild, klima- og polarforsker, Los Alamos National Laboratory USA

- Menneskene påvirker klimaet, men det er ikke sikkert det er så stor andel av klimaendringene som skyldes utslippene. Klimaet har naturlige variasjoner over tid på grunn av kosmisk stråling. Det kan påvirke sterkere enn de menneskelige utslippene. Vi har ikke kjørt bil så lenge på kloden

En grøn og gylden mulighed
AF Villy Søvndal, udenrigsminister (SF), og Sebastian H. Mernild, klima- og polarforsker, Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA

Asien smelter den såkaldt tredje pol – Himalayas gletsjere – generelt set hastigt som følge af klimaforandringer. Det giver f.eks. uvante mængder smeltevand, som i kombination med træfældningen og den deraf følgende stigende jorderosion skaber udfordringer for befolkningen, da oversvømmelser og mudderskred driver millioner af mennesker på flugt. Det sker samtidig med, at Asiens vandreservoir til en femtedel af verdens befolkning er presset af bl.a. klimaforandringer og overforbrug. Også i Arktis ses forandringer på grund af klimaændringer, hvor tundraområderne, der tidligere havde permafrost, nu tør og afgiver store mængder methan til atmosfæren. I Grønland og rundt om i Arktis betyder de højere temperaturer, at mængden af smeltevand, der strømmer ud i verdenshavene, er dramatisk forøget i takt med indlandsisens og gletsjernes afsmeltning. Det betyder, at verdenshavene vil stige med frygt for oversvømmelse af utallige kystnære millionbyer til følge. Nogle af disse ildevarslende konsekvenser af klimaudfordringen kan vi ikke fuldstændig afværge, men kun forsøge at afbøde for at undgå de værste scenarier.

Heat is the number one weather-related killer in the United States, resulting in hundreds of fatalities each year. In fact, on average, excessive heat claims more lives each year than floods, lightning, tornadoes and hurricanes combined. In the disastrous heat wave of 1980, more than 1,250 people died. In the heat wave of 1995 more than 700 deaths in the Chicago area were attributed to heat. In August 2003, a record heat wave in Europe claimed an estimated 50,000 lives.

rick_uk skrev:
NOAA: Heat Wave: A Major Summer Killer (linket skal måske prøves et par gange):

Heat is the number one weather-related killer in the United States, resulting in hundreds of fatalities each year. In fact, on average, excessive heat claims more lives each year than floods, lightning, tornadoes and hurricanes combined. In the disastrous heat wave of 1980, more than 1,250 people died. In the heat wave of 1995 more than 700 deaths in the Chicago area were attributed to heat. In August 2003, a record heat wave in Europe claimed an estimated 50,000 lives.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-heat-wave-climate-20120629,0,1202636.story

kulden-varmen skrev:
Kan sunde og raske mennesker dø af varme?

Hvis man f.eks. glemmer at drikke og får solstik, så kan man dø af det

Terningen er kastet til en ny, ophedet klimadebat
Skal en klimaforsker kere sig om, hvordan befolkningen 'opfatter' klimaforandringerne? Skal han ikke bare gøre sit arbejde og lade os andre om at opfatte? Det er et spørgsmål, der synes at dele vandene i forbindelse med klimaforskeren James Hansens nyeste artikler.

... When I decided to look closely at the anthropogenic [man-made] global warming crisis claims, I avoided focusing on media reports, and instead, went directly to available raw climate data. The intent was to see if that data might just as reasonably be interpreted differently.

Then, what really drew me into the subject, was when I found that I couldn't obtain the raw data that I was looking for. I was shocked to find that there were actually climate scientists who wouldn't share the raw data, but would only share their conclusions in summary graphs that were used to prove their various theories about planet warming. In fact I began to smell something really bad, and the worse that smell got, the deeper I looked.

Frank Lansner skrev:
Interview med Burt Rutan, central personlighed i NASA´s astronomiprogram i de senere årtier.

Her hans oplevelse med klima-"videnskaben":

... When I decided to look closely at the anthropogenic [man-made] global warming crisis claims, I avoided focusing on media reports, and instead, went directly to available raw climate data. The intent was to see if that data might just as reasonably be interpreted differently.

Then, what really drew me into the subject, was when I found that I couldn't obtain the raw data that I was looking for. I was shocked to find that there were actually climate scientists who wouldn't share the raw data, but would only share their conclusions in summary graphs that were used to prove their various theories about planet warming. In fact I began to smell something really bad, and the worse that smell got, the deeper I looked.

Det virker bekendt....

http://www.cfact.org/a/2169/Globaloney-exposed-from-outer-space

Farv mig ikke-overrasket

Kosmos skrev:

Farv mig ikke-overrasket

- og din ikke-overraskelse omfatter formentligt accept af, at 'rå' klimadata kun må ses af broderskabet!?

"Nope, jeg mener at rådata bør være frit tilgængelige, selvfølgelig "

Frank Lansner skrev:
Kristoffer Haldrup skriver:

"Nope, jeg mener at rådata bør være frit tilgængelige, selvfølgelig "

Godt, så er vi enige.
Hvis man som klima "videnskaben" holder helt fundamentale rå data tilbage, så har man kun sig selv at takke for den voksende skepsis.

Vi havde snakken med SRJ tidligere, som fra det Hollandske meteorologiske institut er blevet oplyst at man "desvææærre" ikke lige kan vise rå temperatur data for de år/stationer man har justeret mest.

Forklaringen var så, at hvis man videre gav rå data, så kunne de jo "misbruges" af skeptikerne.

Problemet med den argumentation er blot at man så reelt erkender at de data man holder tilbage støtter skeptikernes sag. (Ellers kunne de jo ikke "misbruges"...)

" ..at jeg ikke er i klimavidenskab og derfor ville forventes at skulle svare på alle mulige crackpots, der har kigget i de rå data og fundet den ene, den anden... "