Al Gore áhrifin á veðurfar og snjórinn í London í gærmorgun

Eins og allir vita þá ferðast Al Gore um heiminn á einkaþotu og boðar fagnaðaerindið. Fáir vita þó að veðurfarið andar oft köldu þar sem hann ber niður. Svo rammt kveður að þessu að farið er að nefna þessi áhrif Al Gore Effect.

 

Þegar Gore var í Boston og New York árið 2004 skall á mesta kuldatíð í 50 ár.

Þegar hann fór til Queensland í Ástralíu árið 2006 snjóaði þar í fyrsta skipti í 65 ár.

Í Kanada var verið að selja miða á fyrirlestur Al Gore 7. febrúar 2007 þegar mesti kuldi sem mælst hefur í Toronto hrelldi borgarbúa.

13. febrúar 2007 aflýsti House Committee on Energy and Commerce fundi um hnatthlýnum vegna snjókomu.

Um svipað leyti aflýsti Maryville háskólinn sýningu á "An Inconvenient Truth" vegna snjóstorms.

Þetta er varla einleikið

 

• January 2004—Gore brings coldest temperatures in 50 years to aid his speech in Boston

• January 15, 2004—Al Gore gives global warming speech in NYC, which was experiencing some of the coldest temperatures in decades.

• November 2006—With summer 2 weeks away, Al Gore visits Australia, and brings enough cooling to reopen the ski resorts

• February 13, 2007—Almost 2 weeks after the ground hog declared an early spring, the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce's subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality's hearing on global warming scheduled for Feb. 14 is canceled due to an inch of snow, sleet, and hail. Also, Maryville University in St. Louis canceled their presentation of "An Inconvenient Truth" due to snowstorms.

Nú er Al Gore væntanlegur til Íslands næstu daga. Getur það verið að hann ætli að hafa viðkomu í London?  Hvers vegna, jú þessi mynd var tekin í Richmond Park í London í gærmorgun 6. apríl 2008. Hnatthlýnunaráhrif eða hvað? Eða bara Gore Effect?

Sem betur fer kom blessuð sólin og fjarlægði snjóinn.  Ekki er þó víst að börnin hafi verið ánægð þegar snjókallarnir urðu sólargeislunum að bráð.

 

 

 

Í Richmond Park 6. apríl. 

 

 

 

Í garðinum hjá Betu drottningu. 

 

Það er annars umhugsunarvert hvers vegna Al Gore er að halda fyrirlestur um loftslagsbreytingar á Íslandi. Hann er ekki loftslagsfræðingur heldur lögfræðingur. Þekking hans á eðlisfræði lofthjúps jarðar er auðvitað samkvæmt því. Hann hlaut að vísu hálf friðarverðlaun Nóbels, en þau koma vísindum nákvæmlega ekkert við.  Amen.

 

Sem betur fer eru til alvöru fagmenn sem láta í sér heyra. Á ráðstefnunni The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change voru flutt fjölmörg erindi. Meðal þeirra er erindi prófessors Bob Carter. Hægt er að horfa á flutninginn hér og sækja hann í DVD gæðum hér.  Smækkuð útgáfa er hér fyrir neðan. Vissullega er ekkert  Hollywood yfirbragð á myndinni eins og í "An Inconvenient Truth", ekki er verið að plata neinn og ekki heldur verið að hræða almenning. Þessi mjög fróðlegi fyrirlestur kemur væntanlega mörgum á óvart. Hér talar alvöru vísindamaður um efni sem hann gjörþekkir.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Krækjur:

35 villur í kvikmyndinni "An Inconvenient Truth". Christopher Monckton of Brenchley: 35 Inconvenient Truths

Bloggpistill: High Court í London fellir dóm um kvikmynd Al Gore: Níu villur í myndinni.

Bloggpistill: Al Gore og undrabarnið

AOL Video: Snow in London 05 April 200

Telegraph:

• Parts of UK colder than Antarctica

 

 

Úr gömlu ævintýri: ... Enginn vildi láta á því bera, að hann sæi ekkert, því þá hefði hann verið óhæfur til að vera í embætti sínu, eða fram úr lagi heimskur. Aldrei hafði keisarinn eignast föt, sem jafnmikið þótti til koma. "Nú, hann er þá ekki í neinu!", sagði lítið barn. "O, sér er nú hvað! Heyrið hvað sakleysinginn segir!" mælti faðir barnsins, og hvíslaði svo í eyra þess sama, sem barnið sagði. "Hann er ekki í neinu", sagði barnunginn, "hann er ekki í neinu". "Hann er ekki í neinu", kallaði að lokum allt fólkið. Og keisaranum rann kalt vatn milli skinns og hörunds......

H.C.Andersen - Nýju fötin keisarans

 

Athugasemdir

[Ásgeir Kristinn Lárusson, 7.4.2008 kl. 10:05]

Mann setur hljóðan eftir þennan fróðlega fyrirlestur hjá Bob Carter og maður spyr sig, hvað eiginlega vaki fyrir mönnum einsog Al Gore og „vísindamönnum“, er stöðugt kyrja þessa Global Warming möntru. Því miður virðist sannleikurinn í formi tundurskeyta frá mönnum einsog Carter ekki geta sökkt þessu flugmóðuskipi lyga og misvísandi upplýsinga um hvað raunverulega er að gerast í loftslagsmálum á Hótel Jörð...Takk f. pistilinn.

[Sæmundur Gunnþórsson (IP-tala skráð) 7.4.2008 kl. 10:52]

Það er ekkert til sem heitir Global Warming.  Það er vitað að veðurfar sveiflast.  Við vitum að það var mun hlýrra t.d. hér á landi í kringum árið 1000 en nú í dag.  Á þjóðveldisöld var t.d. Vatnajökull tvískiptur og hét þá Klofajökull.

Vonandi fær Al Gore norðanhret þegar hann kemur hingað. 

[Gunnar (IP-tala skráð) 7.4.2008 kl. 11:45]

Ekki þekki ég sannleikann en fátt kemur mér undarlegar fyrir sjónir en menn sem hrópa upp „það er ekkert að hlýna“ þegar sveiflur veðurfarsins slá eitt strik niður á móti óteljandi strikum upp.

- „Hitinn í heiminum er ekkert eða hækka sjáið það kom snjór í London“. Það þarf ekki langa ævi á íslandi eða mikinn þroska til að þekkja að á köldsustu vetrum kemur einn og einn hlýr dagur og á hlýjustu sumrum koma nokkrir óboðlega kaldir dagar. - Hversvegna skyldi íslending þykja það sönnunarmerki um kólnun - eða „ekki hlýnun“ þó einn og einn dagur á einum og einum stað taki sveiflu þvert á tilhneigingar veðursins - eða þess vegna einn og einn vetur eða eitt og ett sumar? - Hvað sanara það fyrir einum eða neinum? - Að hundruðir vísindamanna SÞ sé heimskir? - Að heimskautaísinn sé ekkert að minnka?

[Ljónsmakkinn (IP-tala skráð) 7.4.2008 kl. 12:02]

Þessir hundruð vísindamanna SÞ eru flestir með próf í málvísindum, félagsfræði, sagnfræði og skyldum greinum og hafa því ekkert betri forsendur en flestir aðrir að meta eðlisfræði lofthjúpsins! Þeir eru sem sagt embættismenn ríkisstjórna en ekki sérfræðingar í lofthjúpnum.

Hingað til hefur tveggja vikna hlýindakafli eða eitt flóð dugað til að sanna kenninguna um gróðurhúsaáhrifin og því hlýtur tveggja vikna kuldakafli og stækkandi Grænlandsjökull að duga til að afsanna hana?

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 7.4.2008 kl. 12:04]

Gunnar. Það hefur vissulega hlýnað um rúmlega hálfa gráðu á undanförnum 100 árum. Um það eru menn ekki að deila. Alls ekki. Menn deila aftur á móti um að hve miklu leyti þetta sé af mannavöldum. Menn vita að náttúran hefur oft hagað sér á þennan hátt áður. Hvers vegna ekki núna? Hlustaðu á erindi prófessors Carter.

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 7.4.2008 kl. 12:08]

The Financial Times April 6, 2008:

A foolish overreaction to climate change

Lord Nigel Lawson

Published: April 6 2008 18:49 | Last updated: April 6 2008 18:49

Over the past five years I have become increasingly concerned at the scaremongering of the climate alarmists, which has led the governments of Europe to commit themselves to a drastic reduction in carbon emissions, regardless of the economic cost of doing so. The subject is such a complex one, involving science, economics and politics in almost equal measure, that to do it justice I have written a book, albeit a short one, thoroughly referenced and sourced. But the bare bones are clear.

First, given the so-called greenhouse effect, the marked and largely man-made increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere has no doubt contributed to the modest 20th century warming of the planet. But what remains a matter of unresolved dispute among climate scientists is how great a contribution it has made, compared with the natural factors affecting the earth’s climate.

The majority view among climate scientists, as set out in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is that “most” of the slight (0.5ºC) warming in the last quarter of the 20th century was “very likely” caused by man-made carbon dioxide emissions. On that basis, and relying on computer models, its “best guess” of the likely rise in mean global temperature over the next 100 years is between 1.8ºC and 4ºC.

These projections were made, incidentally, before the recent acknowledgement that so far this century there has been no further global warming at all – in spite of a continuing rapid rise in carbon emissions.

Be that as it may, the IPCC goes on to estimate what the impact of the projected warming would be. It does so on the explicit basis of two assumptions. The first is that, while the developed world can adapt to warming, the developing world lacks the capacity to do so. The second is that, even in the developed world, adaptive capacity is constrained by the limits of existing technology – that is to say, there will be no further technological development over the next 100 years.

The first, distinctly patronising, assumption is almost certainly false. But even it were true it would mean only that, should the need arise, overseas aid programmes would be tailored to ensure that the developing world did acquire the necessary adaptive capacity. The second is self-evidently absurd, not least in the case of food production, given the ongoing developments in bio-engineering and genetic modification.

It is, however, on this flawed basis that the IPCC reckons that, if the rise in global temperature over the next 100 years is as much as 4ºC, it would be likely to cost anything between 1 per cent and 5 per cent of global gross domestic product, albeit much more than this in the developing world and less in the developed world.

Even if that were so, what would it mean? Suppose the loss to the developing world were as much as 10 per cent of GDP, then – given the IPCC’s economic growth assumptions, on which its emissions assumptions, and hence its warming assumptions, are based– it would imply that, by 2100 or thereabouts, people in the developing world, instead of being some 9.5 times as well off as they are today, would be “only” some 8.5 times as well off – which would still leave them better off than people in the developed world today. This, then, is the scale of the alleged threat to the planet – based, to repeat, on the IPCC’s grossly inflated estimate of the likely damage from further warming, arising from its absurdly gloomy view of mankind’s ability to adapt.

Indeed, given that warming produces benefits as well as costs, it is far from clear that for the people of the world as a whole, the currently projected warming, even if it occurs, would cause any net harm at all. By contrast, slowing down world economic growth, by shifting to much more expensive non-carbon sources of energy, would be massively costly, as Dieter Helm, Britain’s foremost energy economist, has recently spelt out.

That is one good reason why the sought-after global agreement to cut back drastically on carbon dioxide emissions, embracing China, India and the other major developing countries, is not going to happen. But two very real dangers remain.

The first is that the European Union, which already has the bit between its teeth on this issue, will severely damage its own economy by deciding to set an example to the world. And the second is that it will seek to limit that damage, as President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and others are already urging, by imposing trade barriers against those countries that are not prepared to accept mandatory cuts in their emissions.

A lurch into protectionism, and the rolling back of globalisation, would do far more damage to the world economy in general and to the developing countries in particular than could conceivably result from the projected resumption of global warming.

It is high time this folly ended.

Lord Lawson was the UK’s chancellor of the exchequer, 1983-89. His book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, will be published by George Duckworth on Thursday

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

[Ásdís Sigurðardóttir, 7.4.2008 kl. 12:28]

Alltaf jafn gaman og fróðlegt að lesa bloggið þitt.  Ekki tóks Gore að komast til Færeyja á réttum tíma, vona bara að hann sé ekki að koma hingað með snjó og skafla, nenni ekki meira af vetri þetta vorið.   Kær kveðja og takk aftur fyrir góðan pistil.

[Sigurður (IP-tala skráð) 7.4.2008 kl. 13:17]

Var ekki á mbl.is að áætlunarflugi hans hefði verið aflýst, engin einkaþota þar.  En það er alveg makalaust hvað menn fara í mikla vörn þegar kemur að þessum málaflokki, þá er ég að tala um báðar hliðar.  Lykilatriðið í þessu er að vísindamenn eru ekki sammála um þetta, en þannig er það með svo margt í vísindaheiminum.  Það þarf bara að fara fram vitsmunaleg umræða, laus við upphrópanir og skítkast sem er svo áberandi í umræðunni í dag.  Hvaða máli skiptir það hvort Gore mengi meira eða minna en aðrir, það leiðir bara fókusinn frá því sem skiptir máli.

[Leifur Þorsteinsson, 7.4.2008 kl. 13:23]

Hvernig væri að krefja Al Gore um skýringu á hvað orsakaði hitan sem

var á landnámsöld og hvað var það í hátterni manna sem var orsökin

eða var hann af náttúrulegum orsökum?

[Lilja Guðrún Þorvaldsdóttir, 7.4.2008 kl. 13:56]

Ágúst þú ert ómetanlegur bloggvinur!   Ég þarf að skoða þetta allt betur, í góðu tómi, í kvöld.  Er ekki von á kappanum til landsins seinnipartinn í dag?

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 7.4.2008 kl. 16:31]

Dr. Roy Spencer er meðal þekktustu loftslagsfræðinga. Hann varpar hér fram nokkrum spurningum til Al Gore.

Questions for Al Gore
By Roy Spencer : BIO 25 May 2006

Dear Mr. Gore:I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.

As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?

3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?

5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?

6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?

7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.

8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view?

Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.

I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.

Your "Good Friend,"
Dr. Roy W. Spencer(aka 'Phil Jones')

--- --- ---

Dr. Roy Spencer:

Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change.

Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.

Areas of Expertise:

• Satellite data temperature
• Hurricanes
• Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
• Evangelical Movement and Global warming
• General climate change issues

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 7.4.2008 kl. 16:58]

         

Sjá grein um Nigel Lawson lávarð í Telegraph í gær.  

 

Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a 'new age of unreason

By Christopher Booker

Smella hér.

[Magnús K. Magnússon (IP-tala skráð) 7.4.2008 kl. 17:14]

Mér þykir það heldur spaugilegt þegar þú segir:

"Sem betur fer eru til alvöru fagmenn sem láta í sér heyra. Á ráðstefnunni The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change voru flutt fjölmörg erindi."

Þessi ráðstefdna hefur einmitt verið nefnd sem dæmi um hversu mikla desperation "efasemdarmennirir" eru komnir í. Þetta var ekki vísindaráðstefna sem lýtur lögmálum vísindaráðsstefna. Hér getur þú m.a. lesið um hana:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/

Þar segir m.a.:

"A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:

• Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:
  

  "The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."

  So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The "official" conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though - evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.)

• At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper.
• At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)
• Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend."

Andy Revkin á NY Times skrifaði einnig um þessa ráðstefnu: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html

Þar segir m.a.

"The meeting was largely framed around science, but after the luncheon, when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so. "

Spaugilegra getur það varla talist Ágúst....

Kveðja,

[Hannes Hólmsteinn Gissurarson, 7.4.2008 kl. 17:25]

Ég er sammála Lawson lávarði, þegar hann segir það dæmi um mannlegan ofmetnað (hybris, eins og Forn-Grikkir kölluðu það), að við getum stjórnað loftslaginu eins og flugstjóri flugvél, ýtt á hnappa og hreyft stýri. Loftslag og veðurfar ráðast af ótal þáttum í óraflóknum samleik.

[Magnús K. Magnússon (IP-tala skráð) 7.4.2008 kl. 17:36]

Hannes segir:

"Loftslag og veðurfar ráðast af ótal þáttum í óraflóknum samleik." Á sama tíma telur hannn sig þess verðan að dæma vísindasamfélagið ekki þess vert að meta það að geta dregið vísindalegar ályktanir og gert sjálft upp við sig takmarkanir eigin rannsókna.

Ég les skýrslur IPCC einmitt sem dæmi um mjög íhaldsama túlkun gagna þar sem ályktanir eru varlega dregnar og einungis ef gögnin eru lítt umdeild. Einnig held ég að stjórnmálafræðiprófessorinn kunni að vera að rugla saman veðurfari og veðri. Það er vissulega ómögulegt að spá fyrir um veður langt fram í tímann en loftlagsvísindamenn geta aftur á móti mun betur spáð fyrir um veðurfar.

[Bjarni (IP-tala skráð) 7.4.2008 kl. 18:50]

Magnús, ég sé ekki alveg hvað skoðun realclimate-manna á þessari "ráðstefnu" hefur nokkuð með málflutning Roberts Carter að gera.

[Algrímur (IP-tala skráð) 7.4.2008 kl. 20:15]

"Það er annars umhugsunarvert hvers vegna Al Gore er að halda fyrirlestur um loftslagsbreytingar á Íslandi. Hann er ekki loftslagsfræðingur heldur lögfræðingur. Þekking hans á eðlisfræði lofthjúps jarðar er auðvitað samkvæmt því." segir verkfræðingurinn Ágúst H. Bjarnason og vitnar meðal annars í Nigel Lawson barón sem er viðskiptamenntaður.

Nú er spurt: a) Er Ágúst H. Bjarnason svona mikill húmoristi, eða b) Les hann ekki það sem hann sjálfur hefur skrifað?

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 7.4.2008 kl. 20:32]

Algrímur (IP-tala: 88.149.118.129). Hvers vegna þorir þú ekki að skrifa undir fullu nafni? Ég skal svara þér hér á blogginu ef þú gefur upp rétt nafn.

[Jón Aðalsteinn Jónsson, 7.4.2008 kl. 20:41]

Þakka stórmerkilegan pistil og mer finnst að folk ætti að hlusta a videoið með fyrirlestrinum áður en það comentar þetta er mjög greinargoð kynning Her er lika froðleikur um global warming

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Warming.html

[Ásdís Sigurðardóttir, 7.4.2008 kl. 21:04]

Var bara að kíkja á það nýjasta, verð að fylgjast með, þetta er gaman.  Er líka að horfa á fimmta og síðasta þáttinn um jörðina.    

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 8.4.2008 kl. 07:14]

Óvenjuleg grein á vef BBC. Hér kemur fram hvernig Gore bregst við óþægilegum spurningum fréttamanns:

The heat and light in global warming 
ANALYSIS
By Roger Harrabin
BBC Environment Analyst

Í byrjun greinarinnar stendur:

"I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change, but when I first watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth I felt a flutter of unease.

Not because the central message - that climate change is happening and almost certainly caused by mankind - is untrue; but because in several points of the film, Mr Gore simply goes too far by asserting or implying facts that are contentious".

Í lok greinarinnar stendur:

"The vice-president cleverly lures the viewer into making the calculation that CO2 drove historical climate change by presenting graphs and asking the audience if they fit.

 
The movie is product of a political debate - as is the court case
Well, the graphs do fit - but what Mr Gore fails to mention in the film is that mainstream scientists believe that historically the temperature shifted due to our changing relationship with the Sun, with warmer climes unlocking CO2 from the oceans, which amplified global temperature rise.

I challenged Mr Gore about this in an interview for the BBC's Newsnight programme in March.

He responded, accurately, that scientists believe that CO2 is now driving climate change - but that was not what his misleading historical graph showed.

And after the interview he and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor.

It is miserable when such a vastly important debate is reduced to this. The film and the High Court row are, though, products of their time.

If the conservative IPPC forecasts are accurate our children may rue the years we spent squabbling over climate change rather than tackling it". 

 ---

Greinin er hér. 

(Scurrilous þýðir skv. orðabók:

1. Given to the use of vulgar, coarse, or abusive language; foul-mouthed.
2. Expressed in vulgar, coarse, and abusive language).

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 8.4.2008 kl. 08:03]

Í Viðtali við Árna Finnsson og Andrés Arnalds á rás 1 RÚV í morgun sagði Árni að aðeins væri ónákvæmni á 2-3 stöðum í kvikmynd Al Gore. Það er full ástæða til að minna á:

35 villur í kvikmyndinni "An Inconvenient Truth". Christopher Monckton of Brenchley: 35 Inconvenient Truths

Bloggpistill: High Court í London fellir dóm um kvikmynd Al Gore: Níu villur í myndinni.

Það er nú það. Ekki 2-3 villur heldur 9 til 35 !

Eins og góðum vísindamanni sæmir talaði Andrés af skynsemi. Hann benti m.a. á hina nýju vá, þ.e. matvælaskort og hungur sem stafar af gerjun matvæla til að framleiða etanol sem síðan er notað sem eldsneyti á bíla. Biofuel á að vera umhverfisvænna en olía, en er það nú alveg víst?

[Magnús K. Magnússon (IP-tala skráð) 8.4.2008 kl. 14:28]

Bjarni beindi eftirfarandi athugasemd til mín:

"Magnús, ég sé ekki alveg hvað skoðun realclimate-manna á þessari "ráðstefnu" hefur nokkuð með málflutning Roberts Carter að gera."

Það má svara þessu á tvennan hátt.

#1. Ágúst Bjarnason sagði að það væru sem betur fer til "til alvöru fagmenn sem láta í sér heyra". RealClimate menn afhjúpa ágætlega að þessi ráðstefna var ekki ráðstefna fagmanna í vísindum. Ég var að benda Ágústi á það. Svona eru ekki vísindarástefnur skipulagðar. Þessi ráðstefna var ekki verk fagmanna í vísindum, miklu frekar fagmanna í lobbýisma. Ef að Ágúst var að vísa til slíkrar fagmennsku þá verð ég að

#2. Þessi s.k. RealClimate menn vill svo til að eru allir vel metnir og virtir vísindamenn á þessu sviði. Bob Carter er það EKKI, svo einfalt er það. Það er auðvelt að villa um fyrir fólki með tilvísunum í þessa og hina fræðilega umræðuna. Hin raunverulega fræðilega umræða á sér stað í það sem kallað er "peer-reviewed" tímaritum. Hin fræðilega umræða fer þannig í gegnum nálarauga gagnrýninnar, málefnalegrar umræðu. Real-Climate-menn eru trúverðugir fulltrúar þessara vönduðu vinnubragða.

[Gunnar (IP-tala skráð) 8.4.2008 kl. 14:40]

Emm, nú spyr einn voða vitlaus;  Losnar ekki mikið af metangasi við gerjun, og er það ekki mikklu verra gas heldur en koltvísýringur, þ.e. í sambandi við "hnattræna hlýnun" ??

Eða er því kannski safnað saman á einhvern hátt? 

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 8.4.2008 kl. 15:01]

Ég þekki nokkuð vel til Real Climate. Kem þar stundum við þó mér finnist umræður einhæfar.

Í áratug hef ég verið meðlimur í lokuðum póstlista um loftslagsfræði. Félagar þar eru í dag 450 víðs vegar að úr heiminum, þar af margir sem starfa við  loftslagsfræði, veðurfræði og önnur náttúruvísindi. Einnig nokkrir áhugamenn.  Allnokkrir vel þekktir. Einn þessara manna er Dr. Gavin Smith módelsmiður hjá NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hann er einn þeirra sem standa að Real Climate. Á póstlistanum okkar eru oft fjörlegar umræður og málin krufin til mergjar. Oftar en ekki er Gavin á öndverðum meiði við flesta :-)
Vissulega hefur það verið mjög fræðandi að fylgjast með spjalli þessara manna svona í návígi.

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 8.4.2008 kl. 15:11]

Er mannkynið á villigötum varðandi lífrænt eldsneyti?

Hér fyrir neðan eru dæmi um þær umræður sem hafa verið í erlendum fjölmiðlum undanfarið.

 

 

GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS EXPECTED TO PRODUCE SOCIAL UNREST

CNS News, 3 April 2008
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200804/NAT20080403c.html

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) - World Bank President Robert Zoellick says a global food crisis demands the immediate attention of world leaders….

CORN PRICES JUMP TO RECORD LEVELS, DRIVING UP COSTS FOR FOOD

Associated Press, 3 April 2008
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080403/corn_at_6.html?.v=6

By Stevenson Jacobs, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Corn prices jumped to a record $6 a bushel Thursday, driven up by an expected supply shortfall that will only add to Americans' growing grocery bill and further squeeze struggling ethanol producers….

FOOD CRISIS PUTS POOR AT RISK OF STARVING

Nation Media News, 4 April 2008
http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=2&newsid=120449

Instability and the anxiety over the formation of a new coalition Cabinet are a threat to food security in Kenya, a UN official warned Thursday….

 GROWING FOOD CRISIS AS BIO FUEL SUBSIDIES UNDERMINE FREE MARKETS

UPI, 27 February 2008
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Growing_Food_Crisis_As_Bio_Fuel_Subsidies_Undermine_Free_Markets_999.html

by Martin Walker

The announcement by Josette Sheeran, executive director of the U.N. World Food Program, that the globe's main provider of food aid may have to start rationing is not just bad news for countries like Afghanistan and Ethiopia that depend on its supplies.

GERMANY SCRAPS BIOFUEL POLICY

Bloomberg, 4 April 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aJvzmToS1jF4&refer=germany

By Jeremy van Loon

April 4 (Bloomberg) -- The German government reversed a decision to double the ethanol and renewable additives content of gasoline and diesel to 10 percent, a plan that threatened to boost fuel prices for millions of car drivers….

FUEL OR FOLLY? ETHANOL AND THE LAW OF UNINTED CONSEQUENCES

San Francisco Chronicle, 2 April 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/04/02/cstillwell.DTL

Cinnamon Stillwell

In the pantheon of well-intentioned governmental policies gone awry, massive ethanol biofuel production may go down as one of the biggest blunders in history. An unholy alliance of environmentalists, agribusiness, biofuel corporations and politicians has been touting ethanol as the cure to all our environmental ills, when in fact it may be doing more harm than good. An array of unintended consequences is wreaking havoc on the economy, food production and, perhaps most ironically, the environment….

.

TIME FOR SECOND THOUGHTS ON THE ETHANOL MANDATE

The Heritage Foundation, 2 April 2008
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1879.cfm

by Ben Lieberman

America's energy policy has been on an ethanol binge, and now the hangover has begun. The federal renewable fuels mandate is an unfolding failure, and more Members of Congress are taking notice. If repeal of the mandate is not yet possible, Congress should at least freeze ethanol use at current levels while the nation reassesses its renewable fuels policy. [...]

Higher Costs of Food…

[Halldór Jónsson, 8.4.2008 kl. 22:50]

Það snjóaði líka hér í Reykjavík áður en Goredagurinn var úti. Það mætti alveg hlýna eitthvað hér á Íslandi áður en ég færi að kvarta.  

Viðbrögð Árna Finnssonar við Silfri Egils voru dæmigerð fyri alla þessa Kyotofasista sem hér ríða húsum. Þeir segja einfaldlega :  Niður með allar aðrar skoðanir en þá réttu sem við er handhafar að. Minnir þetta ekki á kaþólsku kirkjuna á miðöldum ? 

[Hannes Hólmsteinn Gissurarson, 9.4.2008 kl. 00:17]

Gore-áhrifin komu fram í kvöld: Það fór að snjóa!

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 9.4.2008 kl. 10:57]

Academic cool on warming

Brad Norington | April 09, 2008

RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin has seen the ugly side of the climate change debate after being warned he faced demonisation if he challenged the accepted wisdom that global warming poses a danger to humanity.

Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was "out of his mind" by some in the media after writing that the science of global warming "doesn't seem to stack up".

Declaring global warming might not be such an important issue, Professor Aitkin argued in a speech to the Planning Insitute of Australia this month that counter measures such as carbon trading were likely to be unnecessary, expensive and futile without stronger evidence of a crisis.

The eminent historian and political scientist said in a speech called A Cool Look at Global Warming, which has received little public attention, that he was urged not to express his contrary views to orthodox thinking because he would be demonised.

He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly ignored or attacked because "scientist activists" from a quasi-religious movement have spread a flawed message that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over".

Professor Aitkin is a former vice-chancellor at the University of Canberra, foundation chairman of the Australian Research Council and a distinguished researcher at the Australian National University and Macquarie University.

Although not a scientist, he has brought his critical approach as an experienced academic accustomed to testing theories to a debate he says so far lacks clear evidence.

Professor Aitkin's speech cast strong doubt on the Rudd Government's plan to impose significant limits on carbon emissions as the key to combating climate change, while the developing economies of China and India become the world's biggest polluters. "I doubt the proposed extraordinary policies will actually happen," he said. "China and India will not reduce their own use of carbon."

According to Professor Aitkin, attempts to set carbon-use levels in Europe, to be emulated by Australia, have been laughable because of absurd errors involved in allocating quotas and the potential for fraud. He believes carbon trading will lead to rorts, and that the "bubble will burst" on enthusiasm for urgently containing the carbon-producing effects of burning coal and oil.

The story of the human impact on climate change, which Professor Aitkin calls Anthropogenic Global Warming, "doesn't seem to stack up as the best science", according to his own research.

Despite thousands of scientists allegedly having "consensus" on global warming, he says there is an absence of convincing data: "Put simply, despite all the hype and models and the catastrophic predictions, it seems to me that we human beings barely understand 'climate'. It is too vast a domain."

Much of the evidence of global warming, he says, is based on computer modelling that does not take account of variables, and does not cover the whole planet.

Professor Aitkin calls himself a global warming "agnostic", and his comments are a direct challenge to the orthodoxy successfully promoted by influential figures such as former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery, whose scientific expertise is paleontology, despite his popular writings on climate change.

The basis of the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the Rudd Government, is unvalidated models that cannot provide evidence of anything, Professor Aitkin argues. But he says the Rudd Government is among policy-makers trapped, willingly or unwillingly, by the world view of climate change campaigners who take a "quasi-religious view" that the dangers of global warming cannot be doubted.

Professor Aitkin told The Australian last night that Kevin Rudd's climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, was "a captive" because of the riding instructions he had been given to provide solutions that accepted global warming as fact.

In his speech, he says: "The hard-heads may not buy the story, but they do want to be elected or re-elected.

"Democratic governments facing elections are sensitive to popular movements that could have an electoral effect. I am sure that it was this electoral perception that caused the Howard government at the end to move significantly towards Kyoto and indicate a preparedness to go down the Kyoto path, as indeed the Labor Party had done earlier, and Kevin Rudd did as soon as he was elected."

Professor Aitkin says the earth's atmosphere may be warming but, if so, not by much and not in an alarming and unprecedented way.

"It is possible that the warming has a 'significant human influence', to use the (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's) term, and I do not dismiss the possibility.

"But there are other powerful possible causes that have nothing to do with us."

He says an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide over the past century is agreed, some of it due to fossil fuels, cement-making and agriculture. However, normal production of CO2 is not known, and it makes up only a tiny part of the atmosphere. "How does a small increase in a very small component have such a large apparent effect? The truth is that no one has yet shown that itdoes."

According to the professor, much of the inadequate policy-making on climate change is based on "over-certainty in the absence of convincing argument and data" and "over-reliance on computer models".

"While governments can never ignore what they see as popular feeling, good policy cannot be based on moods," he says.

[Þórður Magnússon (IP-tala skráð) 15.4.2008 kl. 23:15]

Verulega uppfræðandi þessi fyrirlestur Bobs Carters.  Það væri betra ef menn gagnrýndu þær staðreyndir sem hann birtir en að gagnrýna á hvernig ráðstefnu þær voru birtar.  Vil nota tækifærið og þakka þér Ágúst fyrir frábæra pistla um þessi mál.