Achterhouden van cruciale informatie houdt maar niet op.
Op verschillende plaatsen in de wereld wordt weer gewerkt aan het aanwakkeren van de klimaathype, ten einde het succes van de komend klimaattop aan het eind van dit jaar in Parijs te verzekeren.
Ik pik er een aantal elementen uit.
Onlangs werd na zeven dagen van onderhandelingen een klimaatvergadering in Genève onder leiding van Christiana Figueres afgerond. Het resultaat?
‘A key milestone towards a new, universal agreement on climate change was reached in Geneva Friday, following seven days of negotiations. 190 Nations concluded the Geneva Climate Change Talks by successfully preparing the negotiating text for the 2015 agreement.’
Dit zijn holle frasen. Gegeven de weerstand van landen als China, India, Rusland, Japan, Australië, Canada enz. is deze top gedoemd te mislukken. Maar onze klimaatflagellanten geven niet op.
Bishop Hill berichtte dat Cameron, Miliband en Clegg op initiatief van groene NGO’s binnenkort een verklaring zullen ondertekenen over klimaatverandering.
There will be much happiness in UKIP circles today, with the announcement that Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg are to sign a joint declaration on climate change, a move which has been brokered by green NGOs.
The prime minister, deputy prime minister and leader of the opposition have all clashed over green issues, but the joint declaration states: “Climate change is one of the most serious threats facing the world today. It is not just a threat to the environment, but also to our national and global security, to poverty eradication and economic prosperity.”
“Acting on climate change is also an opportunity for the UK to grow a stronger economy, which is more efficient and more resilient to the risks ahead,” the joint statement says. “It is in our national interest to act and ensure others act with us.” A senior UK military commander has warned previously that climate change poses as grave a threat to the UK’s security and economic resilience as terrorism.
A better way of making their parties look as if they are completely out of touch and/or working to NGOs’ agendas is hard to imagine. That said, one of the pledges they make is to do away with coal-fired electricity generation. This may actually mean that the underlying message is “frack baby, frack”.
Lees verder hier.
Ook in Australië zitten de klimaatalarmisten niet stil. Bishop Hill rapporteert:
In the wake of the Royal Society’s recent quick guide to climate change, the Australian Academy has produced their own newbies’ guide which can be seen here.
It contains some interesting bits and bobs, for example this bit on extreme rainfall.
Heavy rainfall events have intensified over most land areas and will likely continue to do so, but changes are expected to vary by region. ….
I’m also amused by the handling of the pause:
Two main factors have contributed to the most recent period of slowed surface warming. First, decadal variability in the ocean-atmosphere system has redistributed heat in the ocean, especially in the eastern and central Pacific [85, 87, 88]. This has caused warming at depth and cooling of surface waters and the lower atmosphere in this region. Second, several temporary global cooling influences have come into play including unusually weak solar activity (Box 3.1, see page 15), increased aerosol production, and volcanic activity [95–98].
I love the way they present pure hypothesis as settled scientific fact. This technique really is such a giveaway that the document is propaganda rather than education.
Lees verder hier.
De kritiek van Joanne Nova op hetzelfde rapport was misschien nog scherper.
The Australian Academy of Science (AAAS) updated their “Science of Climate Change” document. It’s more glossy unscientific propaganda.
Garth Paltridge wonders in The Australian if the Academy will come to regret it. As usual, it’s what they don’t say that matters. They don’t mention how badly the current models have failed, and they hide that climate models give contradictory rainfall projections and just cherry pick one that gives the answer they want. They repeat the meaningless argument that their models don’t “work” without CO2. Perhaps they should let the taxpaying voters know that their models don’t “work” with CO2 either? None of the models can explain what caused the Medieval or Roman warming when CO2 was “ideal”. They conceal that the model forecasts rely on assumptions of feedbacks that the empirical evidence shows are wrong.
“Basically the Academy has fallen into the trap of being no more than a conduit for a massive international political campaign.”
Lees verder hier.
Als men wetenschappers al niet meer kan vertrouwen, wie dan nog wel?
Voor mijn eerdere DDS–bijdragen zie hier.