AnonymBruker Skrevet 18. mars 2012 #162 Skrevet 18. mars 2012 Det var heller et dårlig forsøk på brønnpissing.. det er ikke en blogg, det er en bok -> Amazon. Som bruker bloggene som referanse. Det eneste boken demonstrerer er hvor merkelige ting folk uten kildekritiske evner kan få seg til å tro.
AnonymBruker Skrevet 18. mars 2012 #163 Skrevet 18. mars 2012 Hvor skrev jeg "tomt"? Vi vil ALDRI gå tom for hverken olje, kull eller naturgass, for vi vil være nødt til å stanse utvinning når det ikke lenger er øknomisk fornuftig (dvs. når du bruker 1 fat olje på å få ut 1 fat - sannsynligvis før dette også). Irrelevant kverulering. Peak vil si at man er på toppunktet for produksjon, og går løs på et ubarmhjertig, endeløst fall i produksjon. Med 5% fall i oljeproduksjon går verdens produksjon fra 85 millioner fat/dag til 50 på 10 år. Dersom fallet er høyere, si 7%, går vi til 40 millioner fat. Gjenta etter meg: KULL.
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 18. mars 2012 #164 Skrevet 18. mars 2012 Hvor har du det fra, kilder? Dette sier også en avis stemmer.. UN hired 'inexperienced graduate students to write controversial Climate Change reports' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056940/UN-leaves-writing-crucial-climate-change-report-Bible-graduate-students.html#ixzz1pVdg9Cx9
Gjest Koala Skrevet 18. mars 2012 #165 Skrevet 18. mars 2012 Dette dreier seg om en bok som ingen forlag ville utgi så forfatteren måtte utgi på eget forlag. Hun har mellomfag i kvinneforskning og ingen utdannelse utover det. Hun har aldri vært involvert i forskning innen noe fagområde. Boken handler stort sett om hva forfatteren syns om klimaspørsmål noe som egentlig ikke er særlig spennende siden hun ikke kan noen ting om det. Et hovedpoeng for henne er ellers at noen av de 3000 forskerne som er involvert i produksjonen av IPCCs rapporter er under 30 år gamle. Hun mener at de dermed ikke kan være dyktige nok forskere. Det faktum at dette stort sett er svært flinke folk samt at flertallet av IPCCs medlemmer er over 30 tillegger hun ingen vekt. Egentlig er boken typisk for kritikken av klimavitenskapen.
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 18. mars 2012 #166 Skrevet 18. mars 2012 Et hovedpoeng for henne er ellers at noen av de 3000 forskerne som er involvert i produksjonen av IPCCs rapporter er under 30 år gamle. Hun mener at de dermed ikke kan være dyktige nok forskere. Det faktum at dette stort sett er svært flinke folk samt at flertallet av IPCCs medlemmer er over 30 tillegger hun ingen vekt. Svært flinke folk og det skal jeg og verdens regjeringer stole blindt på? Rajendra Pachauri sa følgende: "IPCC studies only peer-review science" dog så er nesten en tredjedel av materialet ikke det og spør en om kilder så får en intet svar. I boken hevdes det at "28% of sources were from magazine articles, press releases, and unpublished papers" IPCC sjekker ikke sine kilder og bruker bare materiale som støtter Deres uriktige modell som f.eks. hva Greenpeace sier, det er da ikke vitenskaplig, men mer politisk. Dog noen får masse penger for dette...
Gjest Koala Skrevet 18. mars 2012 #167 Skrevet 18. mars 2012 Svært flinke folk og det skal jeg og verdens regjeringer stole blindt på? Rajendra Pachauri sa følgende: "IPCC studies only peer-review science" dog så er nesten en tredjedel av materialet ikke det og spør en om kilder så får en intet svar. I boken hevdes det at "28% of sources were from magazine articles, press releases, and unpublished papers" IPCC sjekker ikke sine kilder og bruker bare materiale som støtter Deres uriktige modell som f.eks. hva Greenpeace sier, det er da ikke vitenskaplig, men mer politisk. Dog noen får masse penger for dette... Som nevnt driver ikke IPCC forskning. Klimaforskningen foregår ved universiteter og forskningsinstitusjoner over hele verden.
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 19. mars 2012 #168 Skrevet 19. mars 2012 Ja, da er vi enig i at IPCC = politikk og ikke vitenskap. UN panel is in bed with green lobbies The improper relationship between activists and the IPCC is illustrated by a 2007 Greenpeace publication. The foreword to that document was written by none other than Rajendra Pachauri. At the end of his remarks, beside his photograph, he is identified not as a private individual expressing private opinions but as the chairman of the IPCC. The following year Pachauri wrote another foreword for another Greenpeace publication. Think about this for a moment. The IPCC’s role is similar to that of a trial judge. It examines the scientific evidence and decides whether or not human-produced carbon dioxide is guilty of triggering climate change. How much faith would you have in the impartiality of a murder trial if the judge was hearing evidence during the day and partying with the prosecution team during the evening? But that’s just the beginning. The fact that Richard Klein, now a Dutch geography professor, worked as a Greenpeace campaigner at age 23 was no impediment to the IPCC appointing him a lead author in 1994 – at the tender age 25. In 1997, six year prior to Klein’s completion of his 2003 doctorate, the IPCC promoted him to coordinating lead author – its most senior rank. Bill Hare has been a Greenpeace spokesperson since 1992 and served as its ‘chief climate negotiator’ in 2007. A Greenpeace blog post describes him as a legend in that organization. When the 2007 edition of the Climate Bible was released, we learned that Hare had served as a lead author, that he’d been an expert reviewer for two out of three sections of the report, and that he was one of only 40 people on the “core writing team” for the overall, big-picture summary known as the Synthesis Report. In 2009 an activist think-tank observed that Hare and a person named Malte have “long been key members of the Greenpeace International climate team.” Malte’s surname is Meinshausen. In 2001 he and Hare co-authored an analysis of the Kyoto Protocol. During 2002 and 2003 he was a Greenpeace spokesperson. But these facts didn’t prevent him from being recruited as a contributing author to not one, not two, but three chapters of the 2007 Climate Bible – including one that evaluated the reliability of climate models. Like Klein, Meinshausen’s participation demonstrates that many IPCC authors are hardly elder scholars. He only received his doctorate in 2005. A number of passages in the 2007 Climate Bible blandly cite research papers authored by Hare and Meinshausen as though it’s immaterial that they are Greenpeace personnel. Indeed, the IPCC goes so far as to reprint a graph that appears in a paper for which these two men are the sole authors. Nor does the Greenpeace connection end there. Australian marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is often described as a “world renowned reef expert.” Nine chapters of the 2007 Climate Bible base their conclusions partly on his work. He was a contributing author to that report’s “Australia and New Zealand” section and is currently in charge of the “Open Oceans” chapter. The problem is that Hoegh-Guldberg has had close ties to activist organizations for the past 17 years. Between 1994 and 2000 he wrote four reports about coral reefs and climate change that were funded, vetted, and published by Greenpeace. Since then he has written two more for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Someone who has spent 17 years working closely with activist groups is thoroughly tainted. By no stretch of the imagination can he be considered a disinterested party who will carefully weigh the pros and cons and then write a scrupulously objective account of the situation. Speaking of the WWF, allow me to introduce Richard Moss, a gentleman whose advanced degrees are in Public and International Affairs rather than science. He has been involved with the IPCC for nearly 20 years. During part of that time he was employed by the WWF as one of its vice-presidents. Similarly, Jennifer Morgan spent several years as the WWF’s chief spokesperson on climate change. She led its global climate change program and headed its delegation to the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Prior to that, she worked for the Climate Action Network. Like Moss, Morgan is not one of the world finest scientific minds. She is a professional activist. Yet in 2010 the IPCC appointed her to work on the “International Cooperation” chapter of a report it describes as objective, rigorous, and balanced. Beginning in 2004 – around the time that work was beginning on what would become the 2007 edition of the Climate Bible – the WWF systematically began recruiting scientists to sit on its own, parallel panel. By late 2008 it says it had persuaded 130 “leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from” the IPCC to join its Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel. An internal WWF document explains that the purpose of the Climate Witness program is to increase the public’s “sense of urgency” about climate change. Governments around the world tell us the individuals involved in the IPCC are the world’s best experts and top scientists, that they have impeccable credentials and sound judgment. In fact, large numbers of them suffer from impaired judgment. These people chose to link their scientific reputations to an activist organization that believes “It is nearly impossible to overstate the threat of climate change.” They chose to muddy the water by aligning themselves with lobbyists at the same time that they were examining some of the world’s most important questions. Rather than remaining aloof, rather than striving for impartiality (and an appearance of impartiality), they chose to fraternize with the lynch mob outside the jailhouse door – with the folks who have no doubt that a crime has been committed and that the person in custody is the guilty party. An examination of the current members of the WWF’s panel reveals that it includes 23 IPCC coordinating lead authors – those the IPCC placed in charge of an entire chapter. It also includes Argentine meteorologist Osvaldo Canziani. Having served as co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group 2 for both the 2001 and 2007 reports, he is one of its most senior officials. How thoroughly has the IPCC been infiltrated? Twenty-eight out of 44 chapters in the 2007 Climate Bible (two thirds) contained at least one member who currently belongs to the WWF’s panel. Fully one third of the 44 chapters were led by WWF-affiliated scientists. In three instances, chapters were led by two WWF-affiliated coordinating lead authors. The dramatic claim that 20-30% of the planet’s species are at risk of extinction due to climate change comes from the “Ecosystems” chapter of the IPCC’s 2007 report. Eight of that chapter’s authors are affiliated with the WWF. Similarly, the “Africa” chapter was written by seven WWF-affiliated personnel. The section of the IPCC report that explored assessment methods is in a category all its own. First, it was led by Roger Jones – a WWF-affiliated scientist. Second, Greenpeace-linked Meinshausen, discussed above, was a contributing author. Third, so was Michael Oppenheimer – who spent more than two decades in the employ of the wealthy, US-based lobby group known as the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). In a single IPCC chapter, therefore, we find the WWF, Greenpeace, and the EDF. This is not a trivial matter. Research findings are rarely clear-cut. Data is collected, selected, discarded, adjusted, and interpreted by human beings. At every juncture there is the risk of going astray, of dismissing information that is actually important. The bits and pieces that get left on the cutting-room floor might add up to a different story. When the public hears the term ‘scientist’ we think of someone who is above the fray – who’s disinterested and dispassionate and who goes wherever the scientific results happen to lead. This implied neutrality is what gives scientists their authority. But in the 1970s a new kind of scientist began to emerge – the activist scientist. Nowadays these people occupy impressive positions at universities and are employed by respectable government bodies. This disguises the fact that their activist worldviews can influence their scientific judgment. We’ve been told that the reason we should believe in human-caused climate change is because the IPCC has examined the matter carefully and determined that it’s a genuine threat. We’ve been told this organization is rigorous and objective – that its reports are produced by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire. But these claims are no more than marketing spin. The Climate Bible is actually being written by a self-absorbed, delinquent teenager. Universally praised and admired, this teen has trouble distinguishing right from wrong. 30% Of The IPCC Are Greenpeace & WWF Activists Professor Vahrenholt was interviewed by Die Welt on line: Welt Online: You have supported the IPCC’s paradigm for many years. Now you are publishing a book in which you questioned the doctrine of global climate change. How did this change of heart happen? Vahrenholt: Yes, I was an active supporter of the CO2 theory. But then I had two pivotal moments that have inspired me to reassess my position. First, I was invited in February 2010 as a scientific reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy in Washington. There, I realized that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report is littered with errors. At the end, representatives of Greenpeace edited the final version. The result was the nonsensical claim that 80 percent of total world energy needs can be met with renewable energy. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too. Of the 34 members of the IPCC Secretariat, the bulk are from the global South – such as Cuba, Sudan, Madagascar, Iran or China. These countries all have an interest in transfer payments. Until then, I had thought researchers would meet and discuss. No, in fact these are delegates representing nation states – and not always democratic ones. They represent interests and exert influence. Welt Online: And the second key experience? Vahrenholt: At RWE Innogy, we were confronted with the fact that the wind and the corresponding power generation were dipping by an appreciable extent. I investigated this phenomenon scientifically and found that it has nothing to do with CO2 and global warming, but that natural climate processes are responsible for it. The activity of the sun plays a major role. I have been working on the subject matter and then worked a year on this book. Welt Online: You talked about delegates who meet at UN meetings. But scientists in Germany and elsewhere are still mostly convinced that mankind is largely responsible for climate change trough the emission of CO2. Vahrenholt: But these scientists are not asked what the final report text looks like. They are merely quoted. And there is tremendous pressure on scientists to conform to the mainstream. If you fail to do so, then you will no longer receive any funding or you will be excluded from conferences and talks. This happened to myself. The University of Osnabrück has excluded me from an invited lecture because I have written this book. Dissenting opinions are no longer allowed. Welt Online: On what scientific basis does your criticism of the majority opinion rest? Vahrenholt: I am not a climatologist, of course, but I work in the same way as the IPCC. I look at thousands of scientific publications on the topic. In my book I also provide a forum to those whose publications that have been removed by the shortening of the IPCC’s final report. The so-called Core Writing Team of the IPCC, which selects the material according to policy objectives, is made up to 30 percent of people who are affiliated with Greenpeace and the WWF. I had not known that fact previously. So much for peer reviewed science that the warming alarmists harp on about endlessly, the Glaciergate debacle was caused by an inexperienced and obscure Indian Scientist talking to an activist from a Green NGO.
Gjest Koala Skrevet 19. mars 2012 #169 Skrevet 19. mars 2012 Nei vi er ikke enige i at Fns internasjonale klimapanel driver politikk. Panelet oppsummerer klimaforskningen med jevne mellomrom. At dette er politisk ubehagelig for bl.a energibransjen er neppe noe nytt, men slikt trenger ikke forskere ta stilling til.
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 19. mars 2012 #170 Skrevet 19. mars 2012 Gjenta etter meg: KULL. Gjenta etter meg: Coal to liquids vil ikke kunne klare å kompensere for fallet i oljeproduksjon. Dessuten er det mange ganger mer miljøfiendtlig. Bli kvitt skylappene, forstå at vår livsstil er helt og holdent basert på tilgang på 85 millioner fat olje hver dag. Hadde vi bare kommet oss bort fra bilen kunne det vært 40 i stedet.
AnonymBruker Skrevet 19. mars 2012 #171 Skrevet 19. mars 2012 Gjenta etter meg: Coal to liquids vil ikke kunne klare å kompensere for fallet i oljeproduksjon. Dessuten er det mange ganger mer miljøfiendtlig. Bli kvitt skylappene, forstå at vår livsstil er helt og holdent basert på tilgang på 85 millioner fat olje hver dag. http://forum.kvinneguiden.no/index.php?showtopic=526756&view=findpost&p=10654124
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #172 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 The Greens Against The Sun – Vahrenholt And Lüning Rebut Warmists’ Absurdities It’s been 6 weeks since Professor Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s bestselling skeptic book ”Die kalte Sonne” was released. The Greens have been attacking the book – but their arguments have been astonishingly weak. Some Greens wrote a paper listing their arguments against the book. Vahrenholt and Lüning have since posted here a list of the most common arguments and their rebuttals (which I have paraphrased) as follows.................... IPCC = politikk.
Gjest Koala Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #173 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 The Greens Against The Sun – Vahrenholt And Lüning Rebut Warmists’ Absurdities IPCC = politikk. Nei, FNs klimapanel driver ikke med politikk. Selv om en tilfeldig blogger mener det. Når det gjelder kull som noen er inne på her er det nok mulig å løse deler av verdens energiproblem med det. Kull har likevel to problemer: - Det forurenser svært mye - Det er ikke fornybart.
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #174 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 Deler av IPCC er grønne ekstremister ettersom de kaller skeptikere som er mer nøktern for virus. Leftist German TAZ Daily Article On Vahrenholt: “Climate Skeptics Are Like Viruses” TAZ’s message is clear: In climate science, scientific scrutiny and enquiry are mental disorders coming from viruses. We all know what needs to be done with viruses. Boka til disse tyskerene er ikke de eneste innvendingene, det finnes andre mer garva folk som har blitt skivset ut ettersom de ikke er enig i politikken som IPCC fronter, altså den grønne politikken som jeg mener det er... skremmselspropaganda som fungerer nesten som å skyte seg i foten.. skulle nesten tro energi-industrien sponset IPCC ettersom hårreisende gale prognoser vil etterhvert gjøre politikere skeptisk. President no longer worried about CO2: focus on alternative energy is economic says Obama, no mention of climate Obama’s silence on climate is a testament to how thoroughly the alarmists have lost the climate debate in the eyes of the voting public. Obama can’t even mention climate change (never mind global warming), even in a speech about his own climate-driven policies.
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #175 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 Synes du virkelig vitenskapen skal ta hensyn til hva denne bloggeren syns ? Det er en journal.. som er publisert av det internasjonale meteorologiske instituttet i Stockholm.
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #176 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 Nei, FNs klimapanel driver ikke med politikk. Selv om en tilfeldig blogger mener det. Det er en tidligere IPCC-medlem som sier dette, nærmere bestemt Fritz Vahrenholt: Breaking Global Warming Taboos 'I Feel Duped on Climate Change' It would then become clear that the simple equation that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases are almost exclusively responsible for climate change is unsustainable. It hasn't gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years, despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. Established climate science has to come up with an answer to that. In my experience as an energy expert, I learned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a political than a scientific body. As a rapporteur on renewable energy, I witnessed how thin the factual basis is for predictions that are made at the IPCC. In one case, a Greenpeace activist's absurd claim that 80 percent of the world's energy supply could soon be coming from renewable sources was assumed without scrutiny. This prompted me to examine the IPCC report more carefully. The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents. But they no longer appear in the summary for politicians. They were simply edited out. To this day, many decision-makers don't know that new studies have seriously questioned the dominance of CO2. CO2 alone will never cause a warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. Only with the help of supposed amplification effects, especially water vapor, do the computers arrive at a drastic temperature increase. I say that global warming will remain below two degrees by the end of the century. This is an eminently political message, but it's also good news.
AnonymBruker Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #177 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 Det sammendraget er for min del uriktig, IPCC underdriver også klimaeffekten av biologiske aerosol partikler -> lenke. Alltid fascinerende å se folk bruke vitenskaplige artikler de åpenbart ikke forstår som argument for sitt syn.
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #178 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 A successful troll will only take one message to start a fight that will go on for months Biological Aerosol Particles Are A Larger Climate Forcing Than Considered By The IPCC It presents evidence of yet another climate forcing which has not been adequately examined in the IPCC reports. It makes understanding climate processes even more difficult.
AnonymBruker Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #179 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 A successful troll will only take one message to start a fight that will go on for months Biological Aerosol Particles Are A Larger Climate Forcing Than Considered By The IPCC Du skjønner åpenbart ikke at de ikke sier noe om hvordan dette kan påvirke klimaet, hvis det gjør det, bare at det er et felt som bør forskes mer på.
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #180 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 So what? Ikke nok med blunderen Climategate.. en har også... GlaciergatePachaurigateHurricanegateWWFgate osv.
Anbefalte innlegg