Al Gore hrifin veurfar og snjrinn London grmorgun

al-goreEins og allir vita ferast Al Gore um heiminn einkaotu og boar fagnaaerindi. Fir vita a veurfari andar oft kldu ar sem hann ber niur. Svo rammt kveur a essu a fari er a nefna essi hrif Al Gore Effect.

egar Gore var Boston og New York ri 2004 skall mesta kuldat 50 r.

egar hann fr til Queensland stralu ri 2006 snjai ar fyrsta skipti 65 r.

Kanada var veri a selja mia fyrirlestur Al Gore 7. febrar 2007 egar mesti kuldi sem mlst hefur Toronto hrelldi borgarba.

13. febrar 2007 aflsti House Committee on Energy and Commerce fundi um hnatthlnum vegna snjkomu.

Um svipa leyti aflsti Maryville hsklinn sningu "An Inconvenient Truth" vegna snjstorms.

etta er varla einleiki Wink

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


N er Al Gore vntanlegur til slands nstu daga. Getur a veri a hann tli a hafa vikomu London? Hvers vegna, j essi mynd var tekin Richmond Park London grmorgun 6. aprl 2008. Hnatthlnunarhrif ea hva? Ea bara Gore Effect?

Sem betur fer kom blessu slin og fjarlgi snjinn. Ekki er vst a brnin hafi veri ng egar snjkallarnir uru slargeislunum a br.

IMG_4357.JPG
IMG_4369.JPG
Richmond Park 6. aprl.
Buckingham hll
garinum hj Betu drottningu.

a er annars umhugsunarvert hvers vegna Al Gore er a halda fyrirlestur um loftslagsbreytingar slandi. Hann er ekki loftslagsfringur heldur lgfringur. ekking hans elisfri lofthjps jarar er auvita samkvmt v. Hann hlaut a vsu hlf friarverlaun Nbels, en au koma vsindum nkvmlega ekkert vi. Amen.

Sem betur fer eru til alvru fagmenn sem lta sr heyra. rstefnunni The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change voru flutt fjlmrg erindi. Meal eirra er erindi prfessors Bob Carter. Hgt er a horfa flutninginn hr og skja hann DVD gum hr. Smkku tgfa er hr fyrir nean. Vissullega er ekkert Hollywood yfirbrag myndinni eins og "An Inconvenient Truth", ekki er veri a plata neinn og ekki heldur veri a hra almenning. essi mjg frlegi fyrirlestur kemur vntanlega mrgum vart. Hr talar alvru vsindamaur um efni sem hann gjrekkir.

Krkjur:

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

Bloggpistill: High Court London fellir dm um kvikmynd Al Gore: Nu villur myndinni.

Bloggpistill: Al Gore og undrabarni

AOL Video: Snow in London 05 April 200

Telegraph:

r gmlu vintri: ... Enginn vildi lta v bera, a hann si ekkert, v hefi hann veri hfur til a vera embtti snu, ea fram r lagi heimskur. Aldrei hafi keisarinn eignast ft, sem jafnmiki tti til koma. "N, hann er ekki neinu!", sagi lti barn. "O, sr er n hva! Heyri hva sakleysinginn segir!" mlti fair barnsins, og hvslai svo eyra ess sama, sem barni sagi. "Hann er ekki neinu", sagi barnunginn, "hann er ekki neinu". "Hann er ekki neinu", kallai a lokum allt flki. Og keisaranum rann kalt vatn milli skinns og hrunds......

H.C.Andersen - Nju ftin keisarans


Sasta frsla | Nsta frsla

Athugasemdir

1 Smmynd: sgeir Kristinn Lrusson

Mann setur hljan eftir ennan frlega fyrirlestur hj Bob Carter og maur spyr sig, hva eiginlega vaki fyrir mnnum einsog Al Gore og „vsindamnnum“, er stugt kyrja essa Global Warming mntru. v miur virist sannleikurinn formi tundurskeyta fr mnnum einsog Carter ekki geta skkt essu flugmuskipi lyga og misvsandi upplsinga um hva raunverulega er a gerast loftslagsmlum Htel Jr...Takk f. pistilinn.

sgeir Kristinn Lrusson, 7.4.2008 kl. 10:05

2 identicon

a er ekkert til sem heitir Global Warming. a er vita a veurfar sveiflast. Vi vitum a a var mun hlrra t.d. hr landi kringum ri 1000 en n dag. jveldisld var t.d. Vatnajkull tvskiptur og ht Klofajkull.

Vonandi fr Al Gore noranhret egar hann kemur hinga.

Smundur Gunnrsson (IP-tala skr) 7.4.2008 kl. 10:52

3 identicon

Ekki ekki g sannleikann en ftt kemur mr undarlegar fyrir sjnir en menn sem hrpa upp „a er ekkert a hlna“ egar sveiflur veurfarsins sl eitt strik niur mti teljandi strikum upp.

- „Hitinn heiminum er ekkert ea hkka sji a kom snjr London“. a arf ekki langa vi slandi ea mikinn roska til a ekkja a kldsustu vetrum kemur einn og einn hlr dagur og hljustu sumrum koma nokkrir bolega kaldir dagar. - Hversvegna skyldi slending ykja a snnunarmerki um klnun - ea „ekki hlnun“ einn og einn dagur einum og einum sta taki sveiflu vert tilhneigingar veursins - ea ess vegna einn og einn vetur ea eitt og ett sumar? - Hva sanara a fyrir einum ea neinum? - A hundruir vsindamanna S s heimskir? - A heimskautasinn s ekkert a minnka?

Gunnar (IP-tala skr) 7.4.2008 kl. 11:45

4 identicon

essir hundru vsindamanna S eru flestir me prf mlvsindum, flagsfri, sagnfri og skyldum greinum og hafa v ekkert betri forsendur en flestir arir a meta elisfri lofthjpsins! eir eru sem sagt embttismenn rkisstjrna en ekki srfringar lofthjpnum.

Hinga til hefur tveggja vikna hlindakafli ea eitt fl duga til a sanna kenninguna um grurhsahrifin og v hltur tveggja vikna kuldakafli og stkkandi Grnlandsjkull a duga til a afsanna hana?

Ljnsmakkinn (IP-tala skr) 7.4.2008 kl. 12:02

5 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

Gunnar. a hefur vissulega hlna um rmlega hlfa gru undanfrnum 100 rum. Um a eru menn ekki a deila. Alls ekki. Menn deila aftur mti um a hve miklu leyti etta s af mannavldum. Menn vita a nttran hefur oft haga sr ennan htt ur. Hvers vegna ekki nna? Hlustau erindi prfessors Carter.

gst H Bjarnason, 7.4.2008 kl. 12:04

6 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

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 (0.5C) 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 1.8C and 4C.

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 4C, 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

gst H Bjarnason, 7.4.2008 kl. 12:08

7 Smmynd: sds Sigurardttir

Alltaf jafn gaman og frlegt a lesa bloggi itt. Ekki tks Gore a komast til Freyja rttum tma, vona bara a hann s ekki a koma hinga me snj og skafla, nenni ekki meira af vetri etta vori. Kr kveja og takk aftur fyrir gan pistil.

sds Sigurardttir, 7.4.2008 kl. 12:28

8 identicon

Var ekki mbl.is a tlunarflugi hans hefi veri aflst, engin einkaota ar. En a er alveg makalaust hva menn fara mikla vrn egar kemur a essum mlaflokki, er g a tala um bar hliar. Lykilatrii essu er a vsindamenn eru ekki sammla um etta, en annig er a me svo margt vsindaheiminum. a arf bara a fara fram vitsmunaleg umra, laus vi upphrpanir og sktkast sem er svo berandi umrunni dag. Hvaa mli skiptir a hvort Gore mengi meira ea minna en arir, a leiir bara fkusinn fr v sem skiptir mli.

Sigurur (IP-tala skr) 7.4.2008 kl. 13:17

9 Smmynd: Leifur orsteinsson

Hvernig vri a krefja Al Gore um skringu hva orsakai hitan sem

var landnmsld og hva var a htterni manna sem var orskin

ea var hann af nttrulegum orskum?

Leifur orsteinsson, 7.4.2008 kl. 13:23

10 Smmynd: Lilja Gurn orvaldsdttir

gst ert metanlegur bloggvinur! g arf a skoa etta allt betur, gu tmi, kvld. Er ekki von kappanum til landsins seinnipartinn dag?

Lilja Gurn orvaldsdttir, 7.4.2008 kl. 13:56

11 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

Dr. Roy Spencer er meal ekktustu loftslagsfringa. Hann varpar hr fram nokkrum spurningum til Al Gore.

Questions for Al Gore
By Roy Spencer : BIOhttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.24/t.gif 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

gst H Bjarnason, 7.4.2008 kl. 16:31

12 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

Sj grein um Nigel Lawson lvar Telegraph gr.

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

By Christopher Booker

Smella hr.

gst H Bjarnason, 7.4.2008 kl. 16:58

13 identicon

Mr ykir a heldur spaugilegt egar segir:

"Sem betur fer eru til alvru fagmenn sem lta sr heyra. rstefnunni The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change voru flutt fjlmrg erindi."

essi rstefdna hefur einmitt veri nefnd sem dmi um hversu mikla desperation "efasemdarmennirir" eru komnir . etta var ekki vsindarstefna sem ltur lgmlum vsindarsstefna. Hr getur m.a. lesi um hana:

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

ar 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 NY Times skrifai einnig um essa rstefnu: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html

ar 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 a varla talist gst....

Kveja,

Magns K. Magnsson (IP-tala skr) 7.4.2008 kl. 17:14

14 Smmynd: Hannes Hlmsteinn Gissurarson

g er sammla Lawson lvari, egar hann segir a dmi um mannlegan ofmetna (hybris, eins og Forn-Grikkir klluu a), a vi getum stjrna loftslaginu eins og flugstjri flugvl, tt hnappa og hreyft stri. Loftslag og veurfar rast af tal ttum raflknum samleik.

Hannes Hlmsteinn Gissurarson, 7.4.2008 kl. 17:25

15 identicon

Hannes segir:

"Loftslag og veurfar rast af tal ttum raflknum samleik." sama tma telur hannn sig ess veran a dma vsindasamflagi ekki ess vert a meta a a geta dregivsindalegar lyktanir og gert sjlft upp vi sig takmarkanir eigin rannskna.

g les skrslur IPCC einmitt sem dmi um mjg haldsama tlkun gagna ar sem lyktanir eru varlega dregnar og einungis ef ggnin eru ltt umdeild. Einnig held g a stjrnmlafriprfessorinn kunni a vera a rugla saman veurfari og veri. a er vissulega mgulegt a sp fyrir um veur langt fram tmann en loftlagsvsindamenn geta aftur mti mun betur sp fyrir um veurfar.

Magns K. Magnsson (IP-tala skr) 7.4.2008 kl. 17:36

16 identicon

Magns, g s ekki alveg hva skoun realclimate-manna essari "rstefnu" hefur nokku me mlflutning Roberts Carter a gera.

Bjarni (IP-tala skr) 7.4.2008 kl. 18:50

17 identicon

"a er annars umhugsunarvert hvers vegna Al Gore er a halda fyrirlestur um loftslagsbreytingar slandi. Hann er ekki loftslagsfringur heldur lgfringur. ekking hans elisfri lofthjps jarar er auvita samkvmt v." segir verkfringurinn gst H. Bjarnason og vitnar meal annars Nigel Lawson barn sem er viskiptamenntaur.

N er spurt: a) Er gst H. Bjarnason svona mikill hmoristi, ea b) Les hann ekki a sem hann sjlfur hefur skrifa?

Algrmur (IP-tala skr) 7.4.2008 kl. 20:15

18 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

Algrmur (IP-tala: 88.149.118.129). Hvers vegna orir ekki a skrifa undir fullu nafni? g skal svara r hr blogginu ef gefur upp rtt nafn.

gst H Bjarnason, 7.4.2008 kl. 20:32

19 Smmynd: Jn Aalsteinn Jnsson

akka strmerkilegan pistil og mer finnst a folk tti a hlusta a videoi me fyrirlestrinum ur en a comentar etta er mjg greinargo kynning Her er lika froleikur um global warming

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

Jn Aalsteinn Jnsson, 7.4.2008 kl. 20:41

20 Smmynd: sds Sigurardttir

Var bara a kkja a njasta, ver a fylgjast me, etta er gaman. Er lka a horfa fimmta og sasta ttinn um jrina.Earth Day

sds Sigurardttir, 7.4.2008 kl. 21:04

21 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

BBC News

venjuleg grein vef BBC. Hr kemur fram hvernig Gore bregst vi gilegum spurningum frttamanns:

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

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".

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 hr.

(Scurrilous ir skv. orabk:

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

gst H Bjarnason, 8.4.2008 kl. 07:14

22 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

Vitali vi rna Finnsson og Andrs Arnalds rs 1 RV morgun sagi rni a aeins vri nkvmni 2-3 stum kvikmynd Al Gore. a er full sta til a minna :

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

Bloggpistill: High Court London fellir dm um kvikmynd Al Gore: Nu villur myndinni.

a er n a. Ekki 2-3 villur heldur 9 til 35 !

Eins og gum vsindamanni smir talai Andrs af skynsemi. Hann benti m.a. hina nju v, .e. matvlaskort og hungur sem stafar af gerjun matvla til a framleia etanol sem san er nota sem eldsneyti bla. Biofuel a vera umhverfisvnna en ola, en er a n alveg vst?

gst H Bjarnason, 8.4.2008 kl. 08:03

23 identicon

Bjarni beindi eftirfarandi athugasemd til mn:

"Magns, g s ekki alveg hva skoun realclimate-manna essari "rstefnu" hefur nokku me mlflutning Roberts Carter a gera."

a m svara essu tvennan htt.

#1. gst Bjarnason sagi a a vru sem betur fer til "til alvru fagmenn sem lta sr heyra". RealClimate menn afhjpa gtlega a essi rstefna var ekki rstefna fagmanna vsindum. g var a benda gsti a. Svona eru ekki vsindarstefnur skipulagar. essi rstefna var ekki verk fagmanna vsindum, miklu frekar fagmanna lobbisma. Ef a gst var a vsa til slkrar fagmennsku ver g a

#2. essi s.k. RealClimate menn vill svo til a eru allir vel metnir og virtir vsindamenn essu svii. Bob Carter er a EKKI, svo einfalt er a. a er auvelt a villa um fyrir flki me tilvsunum essa og hina frilega umruna. Hin raunverulega frilega umra sr sta a sem kalla er "peer-reviewed" tmaritum. Hin frilega umra fer annig gegnum nlarauga gagnrninnar, mlefnalegrarumru. Real-Climate-menn eru trverugir fulltrar essara vnduu vinnubraga.

Magns K. Magnsson (IP-tala skr) 8.4.2008 kl. 14:28

24 identicon

Emm, n spyr einn voa vitlaus; Losnar ekki miki af metangasi vi gerjun, og er a ekki mikklu verra gas heldur en koltvsringur, .e. sambandi vi "hnattrna hlnun" ??

Ea er v kannski safna saman einhvern htt?

Gunnar (IP-tala skr) 8.4.2008 kl. 14:40

25 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

g ekki nokku vel til Real Climate. Kem ar stundum vi mr finnist umrur einhfar.

ratug hef g veri melimur lokuum pstlista um loftslagsfri. Flagar ar eru dag 450 vs vegar a r heiminum, ar af margir sem starfa vi loftslagsfri, veurfri og nnur nttruvsindi. Einnig nokkrir hugamenn. Allnokkrir vel ekktir. Einn essara manna er Dr. Gavin Smith mdelsmiur hj NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hann er einn eirra sem standa a Real Climate. pstlistanum okkar eru oft fjrlegar umrur og mlin krufin til mergjar. Oftar en ekki er Gavin ndverum meii vi flesta :-)
Vissulega hefur a veri mjg frandi a fylgjast me spjalli essara manna svona nvgi.

gst H Bjarnason, 8.4.2008 kl. 15:01

26 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

Er mannkyni villigtum varandi lfrnt eldsneyti?

Hr fyrir nean eru dmi um r umrur sem hafa veri erlendum fjlmilum undanfari.

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…

gst H Bjarnason, 8.4.2008 kl. 15:11

27 Smmynd: Halldr Jnsson

a snjai lka hr Reykjavk ur en Goredagurinn var ti. a mtti alveg hlna eitthva hr slandi ur en g fri a kvarta.

Vibrg rna Finnssonar vi SilfriEgils voru dmiger fyri alla essa Kyotofasista sem hr ra hsum. eir segja einfaldlega : Niur me allar arar skoanir en rttu sem vi er handhafar a. Minnir etta ekki kalsku kirkjuna mildum ?

Halldr Jnsson, 8.4.2008 kl. 22:50

28 Smmynd: Hannes Hlmsteinn Gissurarson

Gore-hrifin komu fram kvld: a fr a snja!

Hannes Hlmsteinn Gissurarson, 9.4.2008 kl. 00:17

29 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

The Australian

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.

gst H Bjarnason, 9.4.2008 kl. 10:57

30 identicon

Verulega uppfrandi essi fyrirlestur Bobs Carters. a vri betra ef menn gagnrndu r stareyndir sem hann birtir en a gagnrna hvernig rstefnu r voru birtar. Vil nota tkifri og akka r gst fyrir frbra pistla um essi ml.

rur Magnsson (IP-tala skr) 15.4.2008 kl. 23:15

Bta vi athugasemd

Ekki er lengur hgt a skrifa athugasemdir vi frsluna, ar sem tmamrk athugasemdir eru liin.

Höfundur

Ágúst H Bjarnason
Ágúst H Bjarnason

Verkfr. hjá Verkís.
agbjarn-hjá-gmail.com

Audiatur et altera pars

Aðeins málefnalegar athugasemdir, sem eiga ótvíætt við efni viðkomandi pistils, og skrifaðar án skætings og neikvæðni í garð annarra, og að jafnaði undir fullu nafni, verða birtar. 

Um bloggi

Ginnungagap

mislegt

Loftslag

Click to get your own widget

Teljari

free counters

lver

http://metalprices.com/PubCharts/PublicCharts.aspx?metal=al&type=L&weight=t&days=12&size=M&bg=&cs=1011&cid=0

Slin dag:

(Smella mynd)

.

Vinnan mn:

Oluveri dag:

Heimsknir

Flettingar

  • dag (26.2.): 17
  • Sl. slarhring: 22
  • Sl. viku: 173
  • Fr upphafi: 740642

Anna

  • Innlit dag: 13
  • Innlit sl. viku: 116
  • Gestir dag: 13
  • IP-tlur dag: 13

Uppfrt 3 mn. fresti.
Skringar

Feb. 2021
S M M F F L
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            

Innskrning

Ath. Vinsamlegast kveiki Javascript til a hefja innskrningu.

Hafu samband