begins today in the UK back to school, including the new subject "Climate Change". Fits to publish the Daily Telegraph , one of the major British newspapers, an article that could change everything. Wake up, you German media!
The "consensus" on climate change is itself a disaster
by Christopher Booker
With more and more into the skyrocketing cost of the measures proposed by politicians to "combat global warming" - as the 45 trillion of U.S. International Energy Council - the "climate change" the most expensive single-issue of the global political agenda.
by the rivalry of Senators Obama and McCain save the leaders of the EU in the promise of 50, 60 and even 80% of CO2 emissions, it is clear that there is a dramatic change in the way we live and a dramatic reduction our standard of living need to achieve even half their imaginary targets.
makes all of this is to know quite important, as our Politicians came to believe that global warming is the greatest challenge facing humanity, and how reliable the evidence for the theory is based on their policies.
By far the greatest importance to the fact that it has made climate change at the top of the global agenda, was the IPCC of the United Nations, established in 1988, not least on the initiative of the Thatcher government. (For this reason, was Sir John Houghton, then the head of the UK Meteorological Office, the first chairman.)
Through a series of reports and international conferences, it was the IPCC which led to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which soon an even more ambitious successor will get the next year will be agreed in Copenhagen.
The general opinion of the IPCC is that 2,500 of the leading scientists in the world after they have weighed all the evidence carefully against each other, come to the "consensus" that temperatures will rise catastrophically in the world, and that the only plausible reason the increase of CO2 discharged and others, man-made greenhouse gas content.
In reality, as was in the last 20 years and more obvious - not least because of evidence of a series of scientists who participated in the IPCC itself - what will the reality of this curious Facility not be more of it.
It is not so much a scientific as a political institution. Their task was never to take a sober look at all the evidence for man-made global warming: It has always accepted as an accepted fact.
deals Indeed, in general only a relatively small number of reports with the science of global warming. The majority has to begin to accept the official line, and deals exclusively with the assessment of the impact of global warming and what should be done about it.
In fact, the agenda of the IPCC always strictly by a small group of official controls at its peak. A recent study has shown, of the 53 participants of the key Chapter 9 of the last report, which deals with the simple science (most of them British and Americans, of whom 10 with the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Meteorological Office is the name) are 37 part of a tightly knit network of academics who are all supporters of the official theory of global warming.
says on the basis of their computer models of the IPCC, the warming in the future before.
The last step of the process, before any report is published, the production of a "summary for Policymakers "by the head of the IPCC, to contact the governments.
That's what makes the headlines in the media and what is too often the more cautious and more qualified findings of the contributors to the report itself, pushing the sidelines.
The idea that the IPCC any kind of real, scientific consensus is reflected, is a total invention. Time and time again, there were examples of how evidence was manipulated to support the official line, the infamous "hockey stick" the best known.
had a beginning, the defenders of global warming huge problem. Evidence reported from anywhere in the world to the fact that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today. It was generally accepted, so the first two world climate reports included a graph based on work by Sir John Houghton himself, and shows that the temperatures were during soganannten "Mediaeval Warming Period" [Warm phase of the Middle Ages] higher than in the 90s. The problem was that this is a mighty hole in the thesis of the heating only by the recently released CO2 from man broke. Then in 1999 came
an obscure, young physicist from the U.S. named Michael Mann, with a new graph like he was never even had seen before. Instead of the familiar of the rise and fall of temperatures during the last 1000 years, this line ran virtually flat, increasing dramatically only in recent decades, so that a hockey stick-like form emerged, the last decades simply as the hottest on record auswies.
This was exactly what did the IPCC, the medieval warm period had simply disappeared from the records. appeared
When the next report in 2001, Mann's graph was a top position in part, at the top of the front page of the Summary for Policymakers and five more times in the report itself, but then began
two Canadian computer analysts, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, find out how man had come to this graph. As a man after she brought great difficulties to give them the data, it turned out that he had built into his program an algorithm that produces a hockey stick graph, no matter what the data you enter. Even numbers from a phone book would produce a hockey stick.
the time of his last report, the IPCC had an even bigger problem. Far away, to rise in step with the CO2 levels, such as his computer models had predicted, global temperatures commuted to the abnormally hot 1998 on a lower level, and indeed fell - a trend that was confirmed by the satellite data for NASA during the past 18 months.
The whole thing was so clear that conclude that even scientists who support global warming, now that we can expect through changes in ocean currents, a decade or more of the "cooling off" before the "underlying warming trend" again makes its appearance .
The point is that none of the computer models on which the IPCC relies, was predicted.
In the ever-growing, well-informed criticism in the methods of the IPCC, is a detailed study of the Australian analyst John McLean (found via Google "Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings"), such as incestuous most members of the core group of academics whose models underpin everything that the Intergovernmental Panel on wants to make believe global warming are interconnected.
The importance of the past year is not just that the vaunted "consensus" about the forces that control our climate, so far has been pushed into the distance like never before, but that even a new "counter-consensus" among thousands has emerged from scientists around the world the last March in the Manhattan Declaration by the so-called "Non-Governmental Penal on Climate Change" was expressed.
has this process of the IPCC back completely, showing how its computer models are biased hopeless on unreliable data are based and are programmed to ignore many of the actual drivers of climate change, from variations in solar activity to cyclical changes in ocean currents.
As Roger Cohen, a physicist who was once involved in the IPCC, and had long accepted his final, is expressed: "I was shocked at how thin the reasoning is. I was also shocked by the behavior of many who had participated in the production of world climate reports, and many who helped to spread it. The special I mean the arrogance, the activities that were intended to prevent discussion, the obvious inventions, and the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the scientific process itself "happens
Nevertheless, right now, that while the house of cards wobbles of the IPCC, the politicians of the Western world use it to propose steps that can only damage our way of life beyond any imagination. It
is really time that the "counter-consensus" is taken seriously.
0 comments:
Post a Comment