Derfor bliver man skeptisk!

Question:

If the human [population] continues to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at this rate, or even at an increased rate, what do you predict the effects on the global temperature will be?

Pielke Answer:

Since the CO2 effect is but one of a number of first order climate influences, as discussed above, I have concluded we know much less about the future climate than is claimed by the IPCC and the media. This does not mean we should not be concerned as to how much CO2 we insert into the atmosphere, but the claims that we know its effect on the climate is very much overstated, in my view.

What the Science Says:

Dr. Pielke has failed to even answer the question in this case, which is quite simple. If CO2 emissions continue to rise, their warming effect will continue to rise as well.

Hvordan kan man overhovedet vide om ikke andre faktorer vil overtager ved fx. 2 graders temperaturstigning og om CO2 blot er en bagatel i forhold til øvrige faktorer???

CO2 contribution to the global surface warming over the past century is 0.64 to 1.28°C, with a best estimate of 0.79°C, compared to the observed 0.8°C observed surface warming.

Tak kosmos for den grafiske opfølgning

I øvrigt Kfl

Endnu et citat fra linket:
CO2 contribution to the global surface warming over the past century is 0.64 to 1.28°C, with a best estimate of 0.79°C, compared to the observed 0.8°C observed surface warming.


Skal jeg forstå dette således, at alarmisterne/Skepticalscience mener, at kun CO2 er årsagen til temperaturstigningen de sidste 100 år?!
Det kan i såfald forklare, den manglende interesse i at lede efter andre faktorer!

Helt ærligt Kfl, synes du ikke selv, at de tager munden bare lidt for fuld?

Helt ærligt Kfl, synes du ikke selv, at de tager munden bare lidt for fuld?

Among controversial e-mails in the latest batch, which date from 1995-2009, is one by a scientist who wrote: "What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably."

Peter Thorne of the Met Office wrote: "I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."

På fredag kommer der en interessant IPCC rapport forud for COP 17 i Durban... CO2 er ikke skyld i ekstremvejr, ihvertfald ikke de næste 20-30 år, synes at være rapportens hovedbudskab ud fra 'kladden' der har været lækket

Hej GLAR

Der er to udfordringer i det du skriver.

1) Københavns Universitet fusker i deres udannelse af fysikere. En meget alvorlig anklage fra Bjarne Andresen.

2) Københavns Universitest fuskeri bruges som en antydninger af " at så kan opvarmningen generet af CO2 helle ikke være korrekt."

I øvrigt: Hvor fra har du Bjarne Andresens citat/påstand fra. Det er groft injurerende mode Københavns Universitet.
.

"Time and again he has not only gone after journalists, but also after scientists who have openly expressed views that Rahmstorf didn't like"

The ice under Rahmstorf feet is getting awfully thin, and it's not because of global warming.

Climategate was a scandal, it was terrible what they did, it was shameful the way they hid the data

Most of "An Inconvenient Truth" is either absolutely wrong, exaggerated, or misleading.

The rising tempeture is small 1,6 degree, but it´s real. We are not sure how much are due to humans

kfl skrev:

Kære Steffen Kretz og DR!

Sjældent har jeg set så megen misinformation, som i aftenens indslag om Prof. Richard Muller!
http://www.dr.dk/nu/nyheder#/od/tv-avisen-1830/25133
I (Steffen og DR) skulle nok lige have læst dette debat-indslag først, inden I omdøbte Richard til klimaskeptiker, der nu har ændret mening.

I påstår i indslaget, at Richard Muller lavede BEST-studiet for at gennemhulle IPCC´s påstand om global opvarmning!

Richard Muller er ikke klimaskeptiker snarere tværtimod. Han har dog en fornuftig holdning til videnskab og holder sig ikke tilbage, når der sættes spørgsmålstegn ved fx. tp-målingerne. Han undersøger i stedet for tingene mere dybtgående.

Jeg forundres fortsat over, hvordan I bliver ved med at fremlægge alarmisternes holdninger om os skeptikere, uden at spørge os om hvad det hele handler om. Dette var årsagen til, at jeg startede dette debat-indlæg!

Havde i f.eks her blot spurgt Richard Muller om, hvad han egentlig mente, så havde i fået følgende svar:

(Dette link har jeg tidligere lagt her på siden)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VDMGw0_9nbE#!

Her forklarer Richard bl.a.


Climategate was a scandal, it was terrible what they did, it was shameful the way they hid the data



Most of "An Inconvenient Truth" is either absolutely wrong, exaggerated, or misleading.



The rising tempeture is small 1,6 degree, but it´s real. We are not sure how much are due to humans


I (DR) kommer mere og mere til at ligne BBC jvf. CLimategate II
Er kritisk journalistik virkelig så vanskelig i 2011???

Er der virkelig ingen derude, som kan se, hvor slemt det egentlig står til, når Dem det hele omhandler ikke kommer til orde i National-TVét.
Har DR en skjult agenda?
Det ligner mere og mere en DR-gate!

Ovenstående er nu mailet til DR-nyhederne, så må vi jo se, om de gider svare denne gang?!

Kritisk jourmalistik?

...et ukendt begreb i DR, 'tihvertifald' dersom emnet er klima(politik)?:

I holder begejstret og ukritisk mikrofon for hr. Kaas, hr. Jørgensen mfl. uden at mæle så møj som bare ét kritisk spørgsmål, hvor man ellers skulle synes, at mulighederne herfor er legio. I stedet vælger studieværterne at heppe på gæsterne med hyppige tilskyndelser (ledsaget af små begejstrede hvin?) til maling af en vis herre på væggen!

Eigil Kaas kunne eksempelvis tilspørges, om han havde kommentarer til den kendsgerning, at vi nu har oplevet mere end et decennium uden stigende global temperatur - men med kraftigt øgende atmosfærisk CO2-koncentration, jf. vedhæftede grafer.

Dan Jørgensen kunne bedes om at antyde, hvem han tror vil betale store 'klimakompenserende' pekuniære overførsler til ulandene osv.

Sjovt nok forekom den eneste i studiet tilstedværende med nogenlunde realistiske/afbalancerede synspunkter af være DRs klimaredaktør!
Som før skrevet håber jeg ikke, at DR på klimaområdet er for meget inspireret af 'storebror BBC' - dét kan gi' bagslag, jf. fx.:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music--game-shows.html

Jeg har boet i Cambodja i næsten 10 år

Stadigt forekommer disse klima(/vejr)indslag a være en ekstremt tynd kop the - søndag aftens ingen undtagelse!:

Først et par banaliteter om vejret i Kongeriget anno 2011, efterfulgt af den noget vidtløftige påstand, at 'sådan har det såmænd osse været i resten af verden'! {Man kommer uvilkårligt til at mindes Storm P.: "Fransk er meget nemt - Hest hedder cheval, og saadan er det hele vejen igennem"!

}

Cambodianske oversvømmelser/tørkeperioder synes iøvrigt at forekomme regelmæssigt, jf.:

"Cambodia experiences extended periods of flooding and drought which lead to low crop and animal production, destruction of infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and contamination of clean water sources. A series of almost consecutive annual disasters in recent years has been particularly devastating. The 2000 floods, which were thought to be the worst in 40 years, caused extensive damage and food shortages. A total of 760,000 families (3.4 million people) were affected, with over 84,000 families (400,000 people) evacuated. Droughts are considered to be even more devastating as they affect larger geographical areas and greater numbers of people. The last major drought occurred in 2002, affecting eight provinces and over two million people. According to a study by WFP and the National Committee for Disaster Management (NCDM), around 270 communes out of total 1,621 communes in Cambodia are prone to drought and around 260 communes are prone to flood. Provinces such as Prey Veng may even be hit by both floods and drought in the same year. However, only about 40,000 out of the 310,000 hectares of cultivated land in Prey Veng are estimated to have irrigation systems, meaning that over 80 percent of cultivation depends completely on seasonal rainfall and weather[1] . Therefore, most farming households bear the full brunt of floods, droughts, and pest infestations..."

Kilde:
http://www.foodsecurityatlas.org/khm/country/vulnerability/history-of-shocks

Vedr. historisk hyppighed af tornadoer - og deres skadevirkninger - i USA vil jeg blot henvise til vedhæftede to søjlediagrammer.

Præmissen om, at stigende HAVtemperaturer skulle være roden til det (postulerede) 'vilde vejr' negeres som omtalt i mail af 28. nov af historiske data vedr. oceanisk varmeindhold, ligesom der siden 1998 har været tale om generelt faldende lufttemperatur, globalt set (jf. 'HadCRUT3').

kfl skrev:

Mit tilbud står stadigvæk ved magt:

Udvælg 10 centrale emner for /eller imod den globale opvarmning og lad os diskuterer disse.

Kom nu ud af busken og sæt mig på plads og overbevis mig til en klimaskeptiker.

Nu har du chancen.

Jeg har selv skrevet til DR's klimaredaktør om Steffen Kretz indlæg om oversvømmelserne i Cambodja

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has a duty of impartiality, as we all know. But what exactly does 'impartiality' mean? If it simply means giving equal time to Labour and Conservative politicians on matters of party contention, the BBC fulfils its duty fairly well. But if it means not having, or at least never revealing, any views of its own on any subject of public debate, well, that is quite another matter...

For at vi kan forstå det, har JHC et helt afsnit, hvori han forklarer den videnskabelige forskningsproces. Desværre for argumentationen er det jo netop den manglende kritiske videnskabelighed i IPCC's arbejde, som kritikken rettes imod, og de manipulerede rapporter, som udarbejdes til politikerne.

"It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic -- only a scientific skeptic," he told The Huffington Post's Tom Zeller Jr. in a recent email exchange. "Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller 'Physics for Future Presidents' I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth.' But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic."

He encouraged climate skeptics to evaluate his research critically and acknowledge the earth is getting warmer, adding, "I think we need to listen to the skeptics and see when they are raising good issues."

The "human component is somewhat uncertain," Muller cautioned of climate change science, and it is an area "worth some additional scientific addressing."

Jeg håber fortsat på dette samlende projekt, men der er absolut kommet ridser i lakken. Endelig ser jeg frem til en forklaring fra Richard Muller´s side om de divergerende udsagn. Der kan jo være ting, som er taget ud af kontekst eller kræver en dyberegående forklaring - total idiot er han jo ikke!

Writing in the aftermath of BEST, climate skeptic David Whitehouse described the Muller study as "one of the strangest episodes in climate science, a subject where the science, politics and PR often mix in an unedifying mixture." With the way things go on the climate change issue, however, it's likely that assessment too would have both proponents and detractors.

The BEST affair was largely a misunderstanding, combined with some unfortunate press articles. BEST was and is still supported by many sceptics as the way forward for climate science.

BEST emerged from the aftermath of Climategate, and the attention this brought to the temperature reconstructions that had long been criticised by sceptics. One of the standard criticisms was that whether or not you believed in global warming, as a scientist you ought to be outraged at the shoddy, careless, statistical incompetence behind many of the major temperature reconstructions, and they way these lapses had escaped notice. Most climate scientists preferred – and still prefer – to keep quiet about that.

Richard Muller and Judith Curry were prominent exceptions. They were – and still are – believers in the consensus. They are definitely not climate sceptics! But when they saw what had been going on behind the scenes they recognised it to be a serious problem, and said so publicly. Even if you're right, you can't do science that way, and it strikes at the credibility of the subject to do it so sloppily, then get caught, then continue to deny that there's anything wrong.

So they said that the way to fix the credibility problems was to fix the genuine problems the climate sceptics had highlighted. They would re-do the science, only they would be totally transparent about their data and methods, they would listen to criticisms, they would use the world's best statistical experts to check the methods, they would avoid the ad hoc fudges and adjustments other methods use, and they wouldn't do "science by press release", where some dramatic conclusion was wheeled out to media fanfare before the data or the methods had been seen or could be scrutinised, so that when the problems surfaced a few weeks later the media had already moved on.

The climate sceptics applauded that as exactly the right response, and what all the rest of climate science ought to be doing to fix the damage.

The recent release by BEST I think was supposed to be the first part of that. The data and the associated papers are a work in progress – the analysis is incomplete, the data is of variable quality, with many problems and errors yet to be cleaned up, the methods in the papers are part-developed and have a number of errors and uncertainties. However, it was seen as valuable to get the data out there, so that other people could start working on it, criticising the methods, offering suggestions and improvements, writing software to start to analyse it. The data was marked with caveats that it was not to be used for further research, as its quality was questionable and poorly understood as yet. Again, this is a good approach, and if it had been presented in those terms, I'm sure sceptics would have been impressed.

Unfortunately, the first thing sceptics knew about it was the blaring headlines in the newspapers that climate sceptics had been proved wrong, by one of their own, the world was warming, it hadn't slowed down in the last ten years, and BEST was the last word on the subject and should finally shut them all up. The data and submitted papers came out at the same time as the press releases.

After all that talk, they'd done it again! It's not clear whether it was the journalists, or the press office, or Muller himself – but apparently by reflex they'd used the standard "global warming science announcement" pattern, complete with overblown statements in support of the consensus narrative. They just can't help it! But in this case, doing so totally blew the entire purpose of the exercise out of the water.

Instead of mollifying the sceptics and repairing some of the damage, they instead managed to offend them with a series of crowing press interviews packed with untruths and distortions, based on a set of half-done interim results. Utter disaster! Then when Judith saw what had happened, she distanced herself rapidly, leading to another round of media back-and-forth. Finally, they all talked it out in private and decided it had been a big misunderstanding, and kept quiet while the fuss blew over. Hopefully they'll have another go later, where they'll learn the lessons from this one.

Sceptics do not dispute that there has been 20th century warming (although the accuracy of its measurement is uncertain). They'll talk for ages at the drop of a hat about the medieval warm period and the little ice age and the Roman warm period and the Minoan warm period and the holocene optimum and all the other variations of our climate past. The idea that the climate might change is not controversial. The idea that the global climate had been totally flat up to the start of the 20th century, when it suddenly took off like a rocket is what is controversial. Showing a rise over the 20th century does not in any way prove sceptics wrong.

The last ten years is an argument about terminology . When you say "global warming" do you mean the increase in temperature, or do you mean CO2&#last ten years is an argument about terminology8242;s positive contribution to temperature? When you say "global warming in the last ten years" do you mean the trend in the last ten years' data, or do you mean the last ten years of the trend in the last forty years' data? They're different. As is the question of what it means.

(The 10-year problem was made worse here by an error in one of the papers, in which the trend was calculated but an outlying point in January 2007 pulled the trend artificially high. You can see it in the figure above. Because it doesn't fit the Normal distribution, the trend calculation method used is invalid. Muller had initially thought the data showed no slowdown in the last 10 years even as the sceptics defined it, and said so in his initial interviews, but on seeing the data plotted agreed that it had.)

It's a complicated story, not easily condensed into headlines and soundbites. But as a matter of public interest it would be worth the effort.

Det kan være lidt svært at forstå detaljerne, hvis man ikke har hørt selve indslaget, men jeg tror, tendensen fremgår ret klart(?)

(DRs klimaredaktør er Claus Kaae Nielsen, som denne morgen forekom at være den eneste i studiet med en nogenlunde objektiv/realistisk 'approach').

Det er vel overflødigt at oplyse, at jeg ingen tilbagemelding har modtaget fra DR?

Tak for din mail.

På P1 Morgen tilstræber vi at være fair og kritiske i vores dækning af såvel klimaet som andre relevante samfundsemner. Derfor dækker vi emnet med mange forskellige kilder.

AMA-funded MJA propaganda

Submitted by Richard Peason (not verified) on 11 October 2011 - 6:28pm.


Copy to the President of the AMA - Dr Steven Hambleton.

10 October 2011
The Editor
Medical Journal of Australia

Dear Dr Katelaris
As an AMA member and stakeholder whose subscription finances the MJA one finds the presentation of the MJA 16 September 2011 edition disappointing.
The front cover has a bold heading referring to 'climate debate' - yet there is no debate in the journal. There is a propaganda article about wealth re-distribution claiming carbon pricing somehow helps poor people; there is a non-peer-reviewed but AMA/MJA-commissioned article by a journalist from Byron Bay spruiking WHO propaganda about 'climate change'; and, there is an article about coal mining that implies cheap and abundant electricity is a detriment to civilisation.
The front cover features a picture no doubt meant to imply 'greenhouse gas emissions' of carbon dioxide 'pollution'. But the picture shows cooling towers emitting clouds of water vapour from steam - what a juvenile mistake - what a pathetic confidence trick.
The MJA has drifted far from a science base to now represent cheap partisan propaganda - its reputation will be tarnished.
While the MJA is publishing this propaganda there are many doctors who actually studied physics, chemistry and mathematics at undergraduate university level and beyond who are truly sceptical of the IPCC alarmist 'climate change' science - or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as it was called before the earth stopped warming up around 12 years ago.
Here is an experiment designed by me to test the 'greenhouse effect hypothesis' - that is the theory which underpins everything about AGW. The experiment has been reviewed by experts in climate science and astrophysics who found the results valid. One day I hope the MJA returns to publishing science articles, not propaganda - but I will not hold my breath waiting.
Kitchen Chemistry and the Greenhouse Effect theory

The greenhouse effect theory as it relates to Climate Change science can be stated as a process
whereby back scattered radiative transfer of infrared heat from atmospheric gases and vapors
that have thermal capacity causes additional surface temperature warming of the earth above
that from the effects of insolation from the sun alone. The effect is said to be a 'positive forcing'
factor for the surface temperature of the earth.

Insolation from the sun heats the earth – over time an equilibrium state exists with a balance
between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation. The earth radiates heat back into the
atmosphere and space in the form of infrared radiation. Infra red radiation is invisible unless
the object emitting it is very hot – red or white hot. It is a long wave form of radiation just
outside the visible light spectrum.

John Tyndall's experiments in 1861 demonstrated carbon dioxide is a gas with thermal capacity
–it can absorb radiant heat. In 1896 the original ideas about an atmospheric greenhouse effect
and carbon dioxide (then called carbonic acid) came from Svente Arrhenius in Sweden. These
ideas found little scientific support. Revival of the ideas came from the Swedish climatologist Dr
Bert Bolin in the early 1970's. Activists including Al Gore and the UN IPCC that was founded in
1988 to demonstrate human influence on global warming have reinvigorated interest in the
Greenhouse Effect theory.

An experiment devised to utilise the 'greenhouse gas' properties of carbon dioxide and
demonstrate the Greenhouse Effect theory is described below.

The initial experiment was done at Tewantin, Queensland, Australia on 28 August 2011 from
1.15 pm to 2.30 pm. Temperature was 25 degress Celsius in the boxes before they were sealed
and exposed to insolation. The barometric pressure 1014 hpa. The humidity was 66 %.
Two polystyrene foam 5 kg fish cooler boxes were painted inside with matt black paint. The
black surface absorbs heat from sunlight and causes infrared radiative transfer of heat within
the box. Heat energy is maintained in the box by the plastic wrap creating a 'true' greenhouse
effect whereby convection is prevented from moving the hot air or CO2 away from its
contained space. The heat energy is measured by monitoring the temperature. Infrared
radiation can pass freely through the plastic wrap surface of the boxes.

Type K thermocouples were inserted into the boxes with the sensor tip dangling in the mid
space of the boxes.

One box was sealed up with plastic wrap (Glad Wrap ®) and contained air.
The second box was filled with carbon dioxide before being sealed with plastic wrap (Glad
Wrap®). Carbon dioxide was generated using kitchen ingredients baking soda and white vinegar
to achieve the following chemical reaction with production of CO2.

Na HCO3 + HC2 H3O2 –>Na C2H3O2 + H2O + CO2

Sodium bicarbonate + acetic acid –> Sodium acetate + water + carbon dioxide.

6 heaped teaspoons baking soda + 300mls vinegar –>carbon dioxide to fill the box (12.3L)

The carbon dioxide was produced in a bowl in the box in a closed room with little air
movement. The bowl was then gently removed from the box. A burning taper (long match) was
used to confirm the presence of CO2 by extinguishing the flame just below the rim of the box.
CO2 is retained in the box since it is heavier than air. The box was then sealed with plastic wrap
(Glad Wrap ®).

Both boxes were then placed outside and tilted towards the sun – apart from one containing air
and the other containing carbon dioxide the boxes could be considered identical in makeup and
placement.

The initial temperature before placement outside was 25 degrees Celsius. When placed outside
the temperature in both boxes rose quickly and after a few minutes the temperatures were
around 40 C. The box containing air heated more quickly for around 20 minutes – being about 4
C hotter than the box with the CO2.

After an hour both boxes were observed to have the same temperature – the temperature
fluctuated between 65 C and 70 C with small clouds coming over at times. The temperature was
assumed to have reached its equilibrium state and the experiment was terminated.

To confirm that the CO2 was indeed still in one of the boxes –the box was taken inside a closed
room. Its plastic wrap was slit open and a lighted taper was introduced into the box by an
independent observer on my invitation. The match was extinguished just below the rim of the
box confirming the continued containment of CO2.

Result – this preliminary experiment shows there is no such thing as back-scattered infrared
radiative transfer causing additional temperature rise above that from insolation by solar
radiation. The Greenhouse Effect theory is not confirmed by this experiment and may be
disproved by it.

Further experiments are planned with attention to accurate recording of temperature changes.
The boxes will be dehydrated using calcium chloride as a dessicant to produce dry air. The air
can also be 'sweetened' by Tyndall's method of lining a surface with glycerin to remove
invisible particulates like pollens and bacteria from the air.

Comment – the independent observer mentioned above is my young adult daughter. "But how
can an experiment like this disprove a theory that hundreds of climate scientists around the
world say is true – surely they know far more than you do", she asked. "That my darling is
science", say I.

Yours faithfully

Richard Pearson M.B.,B.S., F.R.A.C.G.P., LL.B.
cc. Dr S Hambleton , President, Australian Medical Association.

What was that again about those cooling towers?

Submitted by Richard Pearson (not verified) on 17 October 2011 - 6:49pm.


cc. Dr Steven Hambleton, President of the AMA

The Editor
Medical Journal of Australia
Dr Annette Katelaris

To me science is all about observation and discussion and verification of results. Reproducibility of the findings of others is absolutely basic to science. Trying to verify or disprove theories and hypotheses is an ongoing task.

This is where 'climate change science' is so different - proponents of 'climate change science' shut down debate, refuse to publish papers not part of the 'consensus' view - even when there is clearly no such consensus among qualified scientists in the particular field or among interested scientifically literate people not involved in the field. They refuse to share data for checking. They conveniently lose data when legitimate requests or legal demands are made to produce it - the IPCC's Phil Jones who lost adjusted British meteorological data after FOI applications and the IPCC's Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University with his 'hockey stick' graph based on questionable tree ring data that he refused to give up for verification - are good examples. The Editor of the MJA on the AMA President's blog says I should submit material for consideration - she might look up these references for previously submitted material : MJA-2011-10657 and MJA-2010-10357.

Those who are scientifically literate might enjoy the CERN CLOUD experiment published recently in Nature and the Supplementary material to it - look particularly at the figures S2 and S4 in the supplementary material. Some are saying they are 'hidden' to reduce their 'eye-popping' importance - what we are seeing here is well on the way to 'proving' Henrik Svensmark's theory that the climate is truly controlled by insolation from the Sun with its fluctuating solar wind causing a magnetic shield for the earth that deflects cosmic rays (from galactic supernovae) which constantly bombard the earth inducing low atmospheric cloud formation - thereby it is the sun and cosmic rays that control global surface temperatures and climate.

By contrast the Greenhouse Effect theory is bunk. There is not a scintilla of science to prove it. If you think there is we are all most interested to see it - please show us and the world. That the Greenhouse Effect theory defies the second law of thermodynamics is easy to demonstrate. This means the theory is unstable and unphysical. My simple experiment demonstrates that fact. That experiment is designed to be reproduced, refined, improved, and tested by interested individuals anywhere anytime - the results will always be the same. Why? Because thermodynamics is known by laws not theories - and that my friends is science not propaganda.

The manuscript of my experiment was submitted to Nature and a kind reply was received on 6 September 2011 from the editor - it stated inter alia;
' In this case, while your simple experiment appears nicely to demonstrate the Greenhouse Effect theory using simple kitchen ingredients and equipment, we [are] unable to conclude that this manuscript contains the sort of significant conceptual advance in understanding that will be of immediate interest to a broad readership of researchers in the climate community. Yours sincerely, Rory Howlett, Editor, Nature Climate Change.'
I take the reply to indicate that 'researchers in the climate community' are already well aware of shortcomings in the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis.

Here's a quote that might seem illogical, philosophical or absurd to some - it will be reproduced many times in the future I think. It is transcribed verbatum from a Henrik Svensmark video record - ' Instead of thinking of clouds as a result of climate - it is actually showing that the climate is a result of the clouds - because the clouds take their orders from the stars.'

Richard Pearson

Kære Palle Miliam,

Tak for din mail. Beklager, at du ikke har fået svar tidligere, men jeg har først modtaget mailen i dag.

Professor Richard Muller skulle have medvirket i et direkte interview med Tv-avisen umiddelbart efter indslaget, og han var på forhånd briefet om indholdet af indslaget og interviewet, hvilket han ikke havde nogen indvendinger i mod. Jeg har talt med ham i telefonen og korresponderet med ham på mail, og han har ikke udtrykt ønske om, at vi ændrede vinklen på indslaget eller det efterfølgende interview.
Når han alligevel ikke var med i udsendelsen, skyldes det, at redaktøren af Tv-avisen på dagen besluttede at prioritere andre nyhedsindslag, og at vores aviser var forkortet tidsmæssigt på grund af en stor sportsbegivenhed.

Du er velkommen til at lægge mit svar ud på din blog, så interesserede kan læse det.

Hvis du ikke er tilfreds med dette svar, kan du klage til Pressenævnet.......


Venlig hilsen,
Steffen Kretz,
Journalist, DR Nyheder

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

"Nobel Prize Winner for Physics in 1973, Ivar Giaever, a fellow of the American Physical Society, declared himself a dissenter in 2008. "I am a skeptic," Giaever announced in June 2008. "Global warming has become a new religion," Giaever added. "I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993," he continued. "Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money," he added."

Jordens temperatur var derfor ca. 15+273=288 K i 1860 og etter 150 år hadde den steget til 288,8 K. Det er fantastisk hvor stabil temperaturen har vært!

Palle Miliam skrev:
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
Bemærk, her taler vi ikke om landsbytosser mm., men folk der igennem tiden har gjort sig fortjent til deres titler.

Læs venligst:...

Over at the Wall Street Journal a group of pedigreed individuals headed by Dr. Kevin Trenberth argue:

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

Wrong answer!!

If you need surgery you DON'T want "a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations." What you want is "a highly experienced expert in the field who has CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HIS OR HER OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL!"

And if before I go to a dentist, I would like evidence that the dentist does not pull the wrong teeth (even on occasion)...

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.

Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused

Trenberth alslører jo inddirekte problemerne med hypotesen ved at bruge computermodeller samt opvarmning i havets dyb i sin forsvarstale