Spencer om klimahysteriet

[Okular]

UAHs Dr. Roy Spencer sin seneste bloggpost er god lesning, og summerer på beundringsverdig vis opp galskapen og den sveiseblinde skjevheten i medias rapportering om denne "klimakrisa" vi jo etter sigende befinner oss midt oppi. Her er så mange glimrende og sylskarpt poengterte betraktninger at jeg strengt tatt kunne ha sitert hele teksten i ett, men jeg har like fullt falt ned på uthevelsen av et (dog omfattende) utvalg av høydepunkter:

Det er outrerte skrekkhistorier om Dommedag (!) som selger, ikke om at alt i grunn er ved det gamle:

"An old mantra of the news business is, "if it bleeds, it leads". If someone was murdered, it is news. That virtually no one gets murdered is not news. That, by itself, should tell you that the mainstream media cannot be relied upon as an unbiased source of climate change information.

There are lots of self-proclaimed climate experts now. They don't need a degree in physics or atmospheric science. For credentials, they only need to care and tell others they care. They believe the Earth is being murdered by humans and want the media to spread the word."

Hellig kampsak, forkynnelse og moralsk selvrettferdighet:

"What gets reported by the media about global warming (aka climate change, the climate crisis, and now the climate emergency) is usually greatly exaggerated, half-truths, or just plain nonsense. Just like the economy and economists, it is not difficult to find an expert willing to provide a prediction of gloom and doom. That makes interesting news. But it distorts the public perception of the dangers of climate change. And because it is reported as "science", it is equated with truth.

In the case of climate change news, the predicted effects are almost universally biased toward Armageddon-like outcomes. Severe weather events that have always occurred (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts) are now reported with at least some blame placed on your SUV.

The major media outlets have so convinced themselves of the justness, righteousness, and truthfulness of their cause that they have banded together to make sure the climate emergency is not ignored. As reported by The Guardian, "More than 60 news outlets worldwide have signed on to Covering Climate Now, a project to improve coverage of the emergency"."

Den fossile energiens helt fundamentale rolle i byggingen av blomstrende, velfungerende moderne samfunn, hvor effektiv matproduksjon, infrastruktur, utdannelse, fattigdoms- og sykdomsbekjempelse står sentralt, ignoreres fullstendig til fordel for vestlig skam, avsky og selvpisking:

"Why does it matter? Who cares if the science (or engineering or economics) is exaggerated, if the result is that we stop polluting?

Besides the fact that there is no such thing as a non-polluting energy source, it matters because humanity depends upon abundant, affordable energy to prosper. Just Google life expectancy and per capita energy use. Prosperous societies are healthier and enjoy longer lives. Expensive sources of energy forced upon the masses by governmental fiat kill poor people simply because expensive energy exacerbates poverty, and poverty leads to premature death. As philosopher Alex Epstein writes in his book, 'The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels', if you believe humans have a right to thrive, then you should be supportive of fossil fuels.

We don't use wind and solar energy because it is economically competitive. We use it because governments have decided to force taxpayers to pay the extra costs involved and allowed utilities to pass on the higher costs to consumers. Wind and solar use continue to grow, but global energy demand grows even faster. Barring some new energy technology (or a renewed embrace of nuclear power), wind and solar are unlikely to supply more than 10% of global energy demand in the coming decades. And as some European countries have learned, mandated use of solar and wind comes at a high cost to society."

Utdanningssystemet er overhodet ikke noe bedre; de er så absolutt med på propaganda-kampanjen:

"Not only the media, but the public education system is complicit in this era of sloppy science reporting. I suppose most teachers and journalists believe what they are teaching and reporting on. But they still bear some responsibility for making sure what they report is relatively unbiased and factual.

I would much rather have teachers spending more time teaching students how to think and less time teaching them what to think."

(Min utheving.)


Også "klimaekspertenes" grønne aktivist-agenda skinner igjennom så altfor tydelig:

"Climate scientists are not without blame. They, like everyone else, are biased. Virtually all Earth scientists I know view the Earth as "fragile". Their biases affect their analysis of uncertain data that can be interpreted in multiple ways. Most are relatively clueless about engineering and economics. I've had discussions with climate scientists who tell me, "Well, we need to get away from fossil fuels, anyway".

Det er ikke sannhetsgehalten som er det viktige. Det er BUDSKAPET. Historien. Narrativet:

"[...] to claim that large and damaging changes have already occurred due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is shoddy journalism. Some reporters get around the problem by saying that the latest hurricane might not be blamed on global warming directly, but it represents what we can expect more of in a warming world. Except that, even the UN IPCC is equivocal on the subject."

Selve grunnproblemet:

"There are no human fingerprints of global warming. None. Climate change is simply assumed to be mostly human-caused [...], while our knowledge of natural climate change is almost non-existent.

Computerized climate models are programmed based upon the assumption of human causation. The models produce human-caused climate change because they are forced to produce no warming (be in a state of 'energy balance') unless CO2 is added to them.

As far as we know, no one has ever been killed by human-caused climate change. Weather-related deaths have fallen dramatically - by over 90% - in the last 100 years.

Whose child has been taught that in school? What journalist has been brave enough to report that good news?"

CO₂ "forurensning"? Vet folk i det hele tatt hva CO₂ i atmosfæren gjør for noe ...? Blir de fortalt ...? Indoktrineringen av våre unge:

"In recent years I've had more and more people tell me that their children, grandchildren, or young acquaintances are now thoroughly convinced we are destroying the planet with our carbon dioxide emissions from burning of fossil fuels. They've had this message drilled into their brains through news reporting, movies, their teachers and professors, their favorite celebrities, and a handful of outspoken scientists and politicians whose knowledge of the subject is a mile wide but only inches deep.

In contrast, few people are aware of the science papers showing satellite observations that reveal a global greening phenomenon is occurring as a result of more atmospheric CO2.

Again I ask, whose child has been taught this in school? What journalist dares to report any positive benefits of CO2, without which life on Earth would not exist?

No, if it's climate news, it's all bad news, all the time."

Rene modell-spådommer framstilt som Virkeligheten, som "data":

"BAIT AND SWITCH: MODELS REPLACING OBSERVATIONS

There is an increasing trend toward passing off climate model projections as actual observations in news reports. This came up just a few days ago when I was alerted to a news story that claimed Tuscaloosa, Alabama, is experiencing twice as many 100+ deg. F days as it used to. To his credit, the reporter corrected the story when it was pointed out to him that no such thing has happened, and it was a climate model projection that (erroneously) made such a "prediction".

Another example happened last year with a news report that the 100th Meridian climate boundary in the U.S. was moving east, with gradual drying starting to invade the U.S. Midwest agricultural belt. But, once again, the truth is that no such thing has happened. It was a climate model projection, being passed off as reality."

Og så, sist, men ikke minst, om Greta og seilbåtferden hennes ...:

"GRETA THUNBERG'S SAILBOAT TRIP

The new spokesperson for the world's youth regarding concerns over global warming is 16-year-old Swede Greta Thunberg. Greta is travelling across the Atlantic on what CNN describes as a "zero-emissions yacht" to attend the UN Climate Action Summit on September 23 in New York City.

To begin with, there is no such thing as a zero-emissions yacht. A huge amount of energy was required to manufacture the yacht, and it transports so few people so few miles over its lifetime the yacht is a wonderful example of the energy waste typical of the lifestyles of the wealthy elite. Four (!) people will need to fly from Europe to the U.S. to support the return of the yacht to Europe after Greta is delivered there.

The trip is nothing more than a publicity stunt, and it leads to further disinformation regarding global energy use. In fact, it works much better as satire. Imagine if everyone who traveled across the ocean used yachts rather than jet airplanes. More energy would be required, not less, due to the manufacture of tens of thousands of extra yachts which inefficiently carry few passengers on relatively few, very slow trips."

[Telehiv]

Okular,
Takk for fin intro til Spencers tankevekkende kritikk av klimaindustriens framdriving av stadig mer bekymringsverdige hysteriutslag.
Jeg tenker: Galskapen og skakkjøringen av samfunnet som dette klimapeset medfører (i stedet for en høyst nødvendig miljøsatsing) er nå så åpenbart på vidotta at folk som fortsatt tror på at dette kan ha noe med vitenskap eller fornuft å gjøre, må enten være lite begavet, eller ha betydelige "vested interests", det være seg fagpolitisk, karrierepolitisk, økonomisk, eller rent maktopportunistisk.

[Emeritus]

Okular, takk for at du stedet for å bare linke inn til Spencers blogginnlegg fant det nødvendig å plukke ut deler av det han sier.

Hvorfor skal dere klimagenier alltid la en vitenskapelig artikkel eller - som i dette tilfellet - et blogginnlegg -  bli filtrert gjennom en annen person, hvorfor er det ikke bare tilstrekkelig med en link slik at alle kan danne sin egen oppfatning av hva som faktisk står å lese?

La meg innlede med å si at Spencer er en av mine yndlingskilder. Jeg oppfatter Spencer som dønn ærlig i det han skriver. I motsetning til hva de fleste her på bloggen mener, tror jeg ikke at verken Spencer eller andre klimaforskere bruker tiden sin på å hevde noe annet enn det de virkelig mener. Men hvorfor er Okular og Telehviv aldeles taus om Spencers paradigmeskifte?

Roy har for all del hatt sine utfall i denne debatten. Han har ikke skrevet mindre enn fire bøker ment for den gemene hop om temaet. Dette er bl.a:

"Climate Confusion", 2008:
"Dr. Spencer explains in simple terms how the climate system really works, why man's role in global warming is MORE A MYTH THAN SCIENCE, and how the global warming hype has corrupted Washington and the scientific community."

"The Great Global Warming Blunder. How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists, 2010.

"The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda"

Når så den samme Roy i sitt blogginnlegg for en dag siden skriver;

The UN consensus is that most of that warming is probably due to increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel use (but we really don't know for sure).

For now, I tend to agree with this consensus.

And still I am widely considered a climate denier.   

Hva er det han ber om? Tilgivelse for at han har tatt feil i 20 år? Han tenderer riktignok bare til å være enig med IPCC, men dette er jo et Paradigmeskifte fra "The Great Global Warming Blunder. How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists."