Hem / Filmer / Feedback&tips (Sajten mer aktiv från januari 2008 till september 2011 och har haft ca 320 000 sidvisningar.)
Diverse i media:
klimat, klimatforskare, climate, koldioxid, solaktivitet. (Skapa nyhetsbox här.)

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Video: Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case

Denna video var riktigt bra. Gjord av Dr David Evans, men jag hade inte sett den tidigare. (Klippet laddades upp 20 feb 2013 av Stefan Molyneux, och jag tycker mig nästan höra hans röst...)





Kompletterande detaljer:

Först nämns att olika antagen feedback skiljer s a s IPCC-trogna och "skeptiker". Här kan nämnas att varken "skeptiker" eller de som tror på IPCC:s katastrof-prognoser är säkra på exakt storlek av feedback. "Skeptiker" menar dock att den är negativ (dämpande), medan "IPCC-trogna" anser den är positiv (förstärkande).

Klimatet ett kaotiskt system som är svårt att förutspå i datormodeller. IPCC anger de har dålig kunskap om för feedback betydelsefulla moln. De har svårt att modellera dem. De förutsätter ändå en för temperatur positiv feedback, en förstärkning, med avseende på ändringar i CO2-halt (utesluter alltså negativ feedback), men någon hotspot ser vi alltså inte. (I bl a naturens system dominerar med få undantag negativ feedback. Det bör även gälla temperatur i klimatsystemet. Undantag man kan tänka sig för jordens temperatur är när albedo ändras då jorden går in i resp. ut ur istidstillstånd; vatten byter aggregationstillstånd.)


[Post uppdaterad 7 april 18:50]

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Skapade blogglänkande Klimatmyt

Skapade just bloggen Klimatmyt. Detta för att få koll på uppdateringar på området (som jag f ö senaste år inte följt så noga). Lade i tre länkmenyer upp sajter jag anser är riktigt bra. That's it!

Så kolla in Klimatmyt.



Uppdatering: Städade bort en del som slöade ned denna sajt samt tog bort och uppdaterade ej fungerande menylänkar.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Enligt vindkraftargument är landsbygdsvägar massmord...

Noterade en kommentar av Ross McKitrick i en ny bok om vindkraft, Dirty Business: the reality behind Ontario’s rush to wind power:

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance has published claims that Ontario’s coal-fired power plants cause 316 deaths, 440 hospital admissions, 522 emergency room visits and 158,000 minor illnesses each year. Its numbers are based on a 2005 simulation study for the provincial government that focused almost entirely on the effects of PM2.5. (It also considered ground-level ozone, but emphasized that most of the ozone precursors originated in the United States).

“How plausible are these claims? If correct, they imply that wood-burning fireplaces cause 520 deaths per year, etc. But that is nothing compared with the implied effects from people driving on unpaved roads. According to Environment Canada, dust from unpaved roads in Ontario puts a whopping 90,116 tonnes of PM2.5 into our air each year, nearly 130 times the amount from coal-fired power generation. Using the Clean Air Alliance method for computing deaths, particulates from country-road usage kills 40,739 people per year, quite the massacre considering there are only about 90,000 deaths from all causes in Ontario each year. Who knew? That quiet drive up back country roads to the cottage for a weekend of barbecues, cozy fires and marshmallow roasts is a form of genocide.”


Relaterat i media: SvD SvD2 SvD3 GP1 GP2
Andra bloggar om: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 4, 2011

En grön "brighter and more prosperous future"?

Chris Horner om hur nu Obama intervenerar näringslivet under devisen grön energi och gröna jobb, i realiteten jobbslakt. Här info om det avskräckande fallet Spanien, som Horner nämner.




Relaterat i media: SvD1 SvD2 SvD3 SR DN GP1 GP2 GP3 MA1 MA2
Andra bloggar om: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Helt apropå: Lite twitter-aktivism om kosmisk strålning...

Svarade idag på en tweet från någon som verkar ägna sig åt att twittra klimatalarmistiskt. Denne sände mig en länk till en bloggpost om att kosmisk strålning inte påverkar klimatet, visat med några debunkningsförsök vilka dock i sin tur debunkats.

Kom på att man kan återge det här.

Först twittrade jag (utan att rikta det mot någon) en länk till Watts Up With That?...

Klimat. BREAKING NEWS - CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds http://t.co/k1pabkm

...varpå twitter-aktivisten efter några timmar skickade detta...

@magnusorerar Cosmic rays show no trend over last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

...varpå jag svarade ungefär detta...

@AI_AGW Sloan/Wolfendale debunked. Uses a small set of centered data, almost removing the trend http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/applying-monte-carlo-simulation-to-sloans-and-wolfendales-use-of-forbush-decrease-data

...och detta...

@AI_AGW skepticalscience ignores replies to Sloan or Lockwood http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=153 Real data reverses trend http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=131

...och detta...

@AI_AGW The paper by Peter Laut and Paul Damon 2003 is the poorest I've seen, and includes nonsense and slander

...samt detta...

@AI_AGW Btw Laut received a reward by head of IPCC, John Hougton, for the attack on #Svensmark http://www.b.dk/danmark/klimaets-braendpunkt

Det var det hele. Kommentarer eller frågor?


Andra bloggar om: , , , , , , , , ,

"CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action"

´
Nigel Calder igår: CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action

Anthony Watts här och Luboš Motl här.

Vidare en artikel på forskning.no.

Se gärna tidigare poster i kategorin Cosmoclimatology...


Klimatrelaterat i media: SvD DN GP
Andra bloggar om: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Hansen profetia 1988 -- försvann USA:s vintrar?

Opretentiöst från denna solarcycle24-diskussion, där en debattör menar att James Hansen 1988 ska ha sagt att vintrar i USA snart kommer att försvinna. Här USA:s vintertemperaturer (NOAA) sedan 1997/1998 resp. 1987/1988:





Inte globalt? Nej, men Hansens berörde inför USA:s kongress rätt mycket USA. Om han nämnde vintertemperatur vet jag inte. Bloggar ideellt och har inte läst hans vittnesmål nu. Han nämnde dock framtida varma somrar i USA -- t ex "heat wave/drought occurrences in the Southeast and. Midwest United States may be more frequent in the next decade than in climatological (1950-1980) statistics" -- och enligt teorin om kraftigt ökad temperatur pga extra CO2 ökar i synnerhet vintertemperaturer. (Kolla Hansens utlåtande här (pdf).)

Vore komiskt om någon som förordar propagandister informatörer som Uppsalainitiativet eller Real Climate, som ibland anger väder som relevant, menar att detta är irrelevant.

Jag reflekterar enkelt nästan ett kvarts sekel efter Hansens varningar om de tycks besannade eller inte. (Skrev även för tre år sedan en reflektion om det...)

Ämnesrelaterat i media: SvD DN Dagen1 Dagen2
Andra bloggar om: ,

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

CERN ger pekpinnar: "Förklara inte vad resultatet innebär!"

Såg just Nigel Calders senaste bloggpost, “No, you mustn’t say what it means!”, samt gjorde här en snabb översättning av det mesta av innehållet:

Fastän jag fortfarande är mycket upptagen med annat arbete håller jag under uppsikt resultat från CLOUD-experimentet i Geneve, som testar Henrik Svensmarks hypotes att kosmisk strålning bidrar till att bilda moln. De är tänkta att publiceras under sommaren. Allt jag har just nu är en häpnadsväckande anmärkning av Rolf-Dieter Heuer, generaldirektör för CERN, i en intervju av Welt Online för några dagar sedan.

Här är en uppsnyggad Google Translate-version av relevant ordväxling.

Welt Online: Resultatet av det så kallade CLOUD-experimentet, utforskande molnbildning, inväntas med stor spänning. Kan dessa resultat fortfarande vara viktiga för förståelsen av global klimatförändring?

Heuer: Detta handlar verkligen om att bättre förstå hur moln bildas. I naturen finns det många parametrar som inverkar -- inkluderat temperatur, luftfuktighet, föroreningar och även kosmisk strålning. I experimentet undersöker CLOUD kosmisk strålnings inverkan på molnbildning., användande strålning [det vill säga partiklar] utsända från acceleratorn. Och i experimentets kammare kan man under kontrollerade villkor studera hur bildandet av droppar beror på strålningen och vissa ämnen. Resultatet kommer snart att publiceras. Jag har bett kollegorna att presentera resultaten tydligt, men utan att tolka dem. Det skulle leda direkt in på den högst politiska arena debatten om klimatförändring är. Man ska ha klart för sig att kosmisk strålning endast är en av många parametrar.

Calder nämner sedan några slutsatser, där jag inte minst finner den tredje nämnvärd:

3) Det en gång lysande CERN-laboratoriet upphör att vara ett sant vetenskapligt institut när dess generaldirektör förbjuder sina fysiker och besökande forskare att dra de uppenbara vetenskapliga slutsatserna från deras resultat.

Welt Online-intervjun här och post med bl a tidigare Calder-länkar här.

Andra bloggar om: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Hammarby Sjöstad Blues -- Totte Wallin

Kultur.

Totte Wallin -- "svensk underhållningshistoria" som ännu skriver och lirar -- spelade in och lade denna låt på Youtube. Handlar väl om ett sammanhang och natur han föddes till och ...koketteri i ömmande av natur. För Totte typisk kommentar till samtiden med skön bluesrock.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Pedagog kritiserar skolans dystopiska propaganda

Apropå förra posten, om skadligt deprimerande miljö- och vetenskapsundervisning, här ett programinslag med den inspirerande vetenskapspedagogen Johnny Ball.


Antar att t ex de 4 procent mänsklig CO2 som Ball nämner lär kritiseras [1], men i och med att en mängd forskarrön visar på modest eller marginell temperaturökning vid dubbel CO2-halt är ändå en positiv grundhållning rimlig.

(Påståendet att 97-98 procent av forskarna är eniga om att vi är på väg mot en klimatkatastrof, vilket brukar upprepas i media, är felaktigt -- förklaras exvis här.)

-
[1] Endast ca 4 procent av atmosfärens CO2-molekyler från fossil förbränning, men fossil förbränning måste antas stå för åtminstone merparten av CO2-haltens ökning.


Fann även denna intervju med Ball på Russia Today.


Ämesrelaterat i media: SvD SvD2 HD DN DN2 GP GP2 LTÖ Dagen
Andra bloggar om: , , , , , , , , ,

Forskare: Skolundervisning skrämmer och ger ohälsa


Klipper rakt av en artikel i australiska The Daily Telegraph häromdagen.

PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.
On the eve of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax package announcement, psychologists and scientists said the lessons were alarmist, created unneeded anxiety among school children and endangered their mental health.
Climate change as a "Doomsday scenario" is being taught in classrooms across Australia.
Resource material produced by the Gillard government for primary school teachers and students states climate change will cause "devastating disasters".
"As well as their terrible impact on people, animals and ecosystems they cause billions of dollars worth of damage to homes and other buildings," the material says.
Australian National University's Centre for the Public Awareness of Science director Dr Sue Stocklmayer said climate change had been portrayed as "Doomsday scenarios with no way out".
Dr Stocklmayer said she was not a climate-change sceptic but worried that "too much time was spent presenting scary scenarios, especially to young people".
"(Children) feel incredibly despondent and helpless in the face of all this negative information," she said. "To put all of this before our children ... is one of the most appalling things we can do to (them).
"The public is suffering from enormous fatigue on negative information ... rather than say polar bears are going to die, we have to look locally at addressing solutions."
Child psychologist Kimberley O'Brien also said the language of climate change should be "toned down".
"Kids are naturally interested in cyclones and volcanoes but (educators) should stick to the facts," she said.
"They should be aware that kids do have nightmares."
Psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg called on educators to be "more circumspect and present both sides (of the climate-change debate)".
"When you repeat things over and over to young people who don't have the cognitive maturity and emotional maturity to process this stuff, you end up creating unnecessary anxiety," he said.
Federal Schools Minister Peter Garrett said the government would not stop the teaching of climate science, despite moves in Britain for the subject to be withdrawn.
In a video on climate change funded by the state government, one teacher from a public school in Sydney's southwest explained: "Students are being bombarded from all sides about climate change ... it can be a very scary thing (for) a child."
The school activities are championed by the Federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.


I nästa post förordas en undervisning som inte är innehållsmässigt dystopisk.


Andra bloggar om: , , , , ,

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Uppsalainitiativets kommentarspolicy -- exempel

Igår morse kommenterade jag på denna bildpost hos Uppsalainitiativet följande:

"Redin och andra. Världens främste expert på orkaner säger: "We're seeing no trend at all. Same number of storms now as a hundred years ago. And when you put that in the context of the modell ... climate models that we use -- the computer techniques -- they suggest about the same. The number of storm should stay about the same, or perhaps even decrease slightly".

youtube.com/watch?v=uFJpRp1-dNU

Tycker f ö att denna post blandar väder och klimat, men är gjord efter diskursen att klimatförändring orsakas av människan och på alla vis är katastrofal. Det kan man inte ta ifrån e... ska ni kritiseras för. :)"

En annan kommentar publicerades senare under dagen medan min ännu inte publicerats.

Den regel de möjligen ansett jag bröt mot är "förolämpningar" i den avvisande "[s]vordomar, förolämpningar, och andra olämpliga uttryck".

Å andra sidan borde den ha uppfyllt kriteriet "kortfattade och sakliga kommentarer som direkt berör viktiga punkter inom ämnet för inlägget" eller "[bidra] på ett konstruktivt sätt", möjligen även "glada (eller kritiska) tillrop som inte tarvar något svar från vår sida"...

Men naturligtvis har de rätt att moderera sin blogg som de vill.


Uppdatering den 12/7: Nu har Uppsalainitiativet publicerat min kommentar, efter att de publicerade en annan persons kommentar (som skrevs efter min) och denna post. Svar på min kommentar har inte getts.


Ämnesrelaterat i media: SvD
Andra bloggar om: ,

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Nytt om Svensmarks teori -- och Jasper Kirkby-föreläsning

I torsdags publicerade Henrik Svensmark en studie som bekräftar hans teori om hur kondensationskärnor skapas vid joniserande strålning, de resultat man får i CLOUD. Detta informerade Nigel Calder om i fredags och i lördags, och bloggades även av Anthony Watts och, igår, Ingemar Nordin

Aarhus universitet om experimentet här.

Fick nys om detta efter att ha fått syn på följande föreläsning med Jasper Kirkby, "The Cloud Experiment at CERN", som hölls 23 mars på IRMACS Centre vid Simon Fraser University i Kanada.

Föreläsningens abstract:

"Understanding the causes of climate change is one of the most important challenges facing science today. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attributes more than 90% of the observed warming during the last century to anthropogenic causes, especially the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. However, during the last ten thousand years since the end of the last ice age, and prior to industrialisation, the climate has frequently changed on 100-year time scales by amounts comparable to the current warming. At present there is no established mechanism to explain these natural climate changes, but associations are frequently found with solar variability, which is recorded in archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. This raises the intriguing question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and the initial results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN which is investigating and quantifying the physical mechanisms that may link cosmic rays with aerosols, clouds and climate."




(Har ännu inte sett och satt mig in i den nya studien eller denna föreläsning, men det talas om en stor effekt. Kan parentetiskt nämna två studier av solfysiker som analyserat storlek av solens del i klimatförändring senaste århundraden och var för sig kom de fram till ca 40 procent påverkan från solen. Som jämförelse har IPCC angett under 10 procent. Nämnde dem här och här.)


För introduktion om teorin om kosmisk strålning, spåna t ex i bloggkategorin cosmoclimatology eller läs t ex tredje och sista delen i Nir Shavivs lilla presentation "20th century global warming - "There is nothing new under the Sun".


Andra bloggar om: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Notis om opinon internationellt och i Sverige

CNS News skriver om en Gallupundersökning 2010, där globalt...

...only 42 percent told Gallup they believed global warming was either a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat.
Andel svenskar som anser att hotet från global uppvärmning är mycket eller något allvarligt har senaste åren (sedan 2007-2008) minskat från 56% till 47%. Fem länder med minst orolig befolkning i Europa är Tjeckien (28%), Danmark (32%), Finland (41%), Polen (47%) och Sverige (47%). De för global uppvärmning mest oroliga européerna finns i Grekland (87%), Portugal (73%), Moldavien (72%), Ungern (72%) och Italien (66%).


Hittade även en undersökning av RSA av sju länder under 2010, som bl a visar att Sverige har näst mest orolig befolkning samt att befolkningarna rangordnar hoten så här:

opinion_klimat_trygghansa_ringat


Gallup och RSA divergerar, så vem i hela världen ska man lita på? Får bli Gallup! ;)


Enligt senaste Eurobarometern om klimat 2009, var dock svenskar mest oroliga. 75% såg klimatförändring som största hot i världen.


Andra bloggar om: , , ,

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Lindzen talar klarspråk

Atmosfärforskaren och MIT-professorn Richard Lindzen säger i en intervju med Chris Smith den 6:e april bl a att koldioxidskatter inte har några fördelar, bara nackdelar.



Chris introduktion av Lindzen:

"...one of the most esteemed climate scientists in the world. His name is professor Richard Lindzen. He’s been described by professor Tim Flannery as extremely credible, one of the reputable scientists around the world. A distinguished scientist in his field. And he has a string of qualifications, awards, and appointments to his name. He’s specialized in atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He’s published over 200 scientific papers, and importantly professor Lindzen was a lead author in the IPCC third assessment report on climate change. Now, recently he made a presentation about global warming, and how to approach the science. It was presented in Tel Aviv, and made some key points. At the heart of his presentation was an uneasiness about widely used terms such as global warming and climate change. You see, professor Lindzen is a true scientist and questions why science’s definitions of these basic terms haven’t yet been formulated. In simple terms he asks what do terms like these mean? And he goes further, being highly critical of clichés, such as settled science, and so on. He says that much of this is alarmist, and when you wade through all of this to the basic science the changes we are all panicking about are quite small."

Transkript av intervjun:

CS:Professor Lindzen’s at odds with a speech made by our Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Adelaide a fortnight ago -- and you’ll recall that, it was the Dunstan lecture. She said every credible scientist believes in climate change. She presented her case with a sense of urgency and panic saying "we have to act now!" She used this as the justification for her carbon dioxide tax, and the reason to go back on a core election promise.

Professor Richard Lindzen, welcome to the program!


RL: Thank you! Nice to be with you.

CS: It’s very interesting. We came across you because after the Prime Minister said that every reputable scientist agreed that man was warming the planet and we had to act now, our own professor -- our own climate commissioner -- Tim Flannery said that professor Richard Lindzen was indeed a reputable scientist but didn’t concur with what he was advocating, that is immediate change and a carbon tax in this country. So we found the reputable scientist that seems to fly in the face of what the Prime Minister is saying. What are your thoughts of what our Prime Minister has asserted there?

RL: Well, she’s, you know, played what I refer to as a [...] switch. There are some things that scientists, the most part, agree on. There’s not too much disagreement that there has been a very small increasing temperature -- and by temperature one usually refer to something called global mean temperature anomaly; you don’t average temperatures over the globe, you average the changes from their mean values somehow defined -- and this is pretty tiny, it’s a fraction of a degree. And there’s also a lot of agreement that increase in CO2, which has been measured, should contribute something to this. None of that is alarming.

CS: Okay, let’s go back a little bit. So therefore you say scientists agree that there is a slight warming of the planet, and that man contributes to that because of CO2 output. But let’s quantify that.

RL: Okay. If nothing else changed adding the amount of CO2 that we have added thus far should account for maybe a quarter of what we have seen. We’ve added some other greenhouse gases, methane, fluorocarbons -- Freon --, this sort of thing, and that should bring one to perhaps half a degree. If we double CO2 it’s well accepted that you should get about one degree warming, if nothing else happened.

CS: One degree warming over how long period?

RL: It depends on how long it would take to double the CO2, and that we don’t know. That depends on the technology, the economy, and so on. But one degree is reckoned as not very significant. The question then is if what we have seen so far suggesting that you have more than that. And the answer is no. In fact the models do say you should have seen 2 to 5 times more than you’ve already seen. You know, you have to then accept, if you believe the models, that you’re actually should have gotten far more warming that you have seen but some mysterious processes cancelled part of it.

CS: But hold on a second. We have had politicians and so-called scientists in this country alarming us, and making us feel guilty about our CO2 output and saying "we must act now" because sometimes it would take 1000 years for CO2 to break down and saying we need a carbon tax right away. We can’t even wait for an election for this. So are these alarmist steps that they have taken?

RL: Oh sure! I mean these people are being grotesquely dishonest. I mean I think that even Flannery acknowledged that Australia doing this would have no discernible impact for virtually a millennium, even if Australia’s output during that millennium was increasing exponentially. For Australia to act now is a bit bizarre and certainly cannot be justified by any impact it would have on Australia or anyone.

CS: Can I just get you to repeat that, professor? So for Australia to act now …it is foolish?

RL: Oh sure! I mean it’s a heavy cost with no benefit. And it’s no benefit for you, no benefit for your children, no benefit for your grandchildren, no benefit for your great great great grandchildren. I mean, what’s the point of that?

CS: For Australia to affect world temperatures on its own, because there’s an argument that we need to go down this path on our own, we would make no difference to global warming?

RL: Absolutely! The evidence is pretty good that even if everyone did it in the whole world that wouldn’t make a lot of difference.

CS: What difference would it make if everyone went along and stopped the production of CO2 at the moment?

RL: Oh, that would be a moral disaster, because it would mean that much of the world would preclude development, and so they’d be more vulnerable to the disasters that occur regardless of man, I mean earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, all these things occur naturally and one’s vulnerability to this decreases as your wealth increases, or your vulnerability increases as your wealth decreases.

CS: So, if the world went along down the path of stopping the emission of CO2 tomorrow, what benefit would that make to the world? Our Tim Flannery says it would take a thousand years for any change at all.

RL: Again, the crucial thing is sensitivity. What do you expect that doubling of CO2 to do? If it’s only a degree then you could go through at least two doublings, and probably exhaust much of your fossil fuel before you would do anything that would bother anyone.

CS: So why are we being inundated with the guilt trip? Why are we being told by our own Prime Minister here that we need to act now, and we can’t wait -- we’ve got to save the planet for future generations. How would you describe words like that from our Prime Minister?

RL: Oh, I think either it’s ignorance or cynicism. I mean, you know I understand that your Prime Minister is heading a minority government and depends on the greens for her coalition. You know, for them it’s a power trip.

CS: It’s a fear campaign too? Would you agree?

RL: Well, you know fear is a mechanism for prompting people to do things that are irrational.

CS: We keep getting told the polar caps are melting. What’s the true evidence connected to that?

RL: None. You know it’s again an issue of defining what you’re talking about. In the North Pole you don’t have a cap. You have sea ice. It’s very variable, and as far as Greenland and Antarctica go there’s no evidence of any significant change -- or, you know, again, your measurement aren’t that great but any report you hear are, again, focusing on tiny changes that would have no implication. If you look at a certain time period you might have hit two warmings and one cooling, so the net is a warming, but it’s, you know, no difference from flipping a coin three times. You gonna get two heads or two tails.

CS: Very good. You‘d be very good at the game we play in Australia called "Two Up" I think!

RL: [Laugh]

CS: Can I ask you about carbon dioxide and how it differentiates itself from carbon. Quite often the media here in Australia like to talk about carbon taxes and the impact it’s having on the warming of this planet by showing wonderful pictures of dark plumes of smoke coming out of coal fired power stations. This is not necessarily the CO2 that warms the planet -- right? -- on its own?

RL: CO2 is invisible. If you have dark smoke coming out of a smoke stack you really need a scrubber. I mean, you getting soot out of it, and so on. You’re not burning very well. If you burnt completely you wouldn’t have any of that junk. You just have clear CO2.

CS: What do you think we’ll be saying in 40 years time and looking back at this period of alarm?

RL: Oh, I think it’ll definitely fall into, you know, the category of popular delusions. People will look in wonder at this age, and wonder how science broke down, and in a period of technological advance that the public could be swayed by arguments that make no sense and get hysterical over it.

CS: It’s hard for normal lay people like ourselves to believe that scientists in the world could be prone to hysterics, but you’re saying that that’s the case?

RL: Well you know, you have to remember this is an issue where what most scientists agree on has nothing to do with the alarm. I think the real problem is so many scientists have gone along with it without pointing out that what is established reasonably well has nothing to do with the urgency that’s being promoted, which is largely a political matter. For a lot of people it’s also something I call the quest for cheap virtue. People need a cause, and they sort of feel puffed up by having a cause like saving the earth, and they don’t really care that they hurting people -- that they may be involved in an immoral cause, and so on. They’re perfectly happy to just go along with it, because they were told it’s virtuous.

CS: I think you’ve just nailed the number one reason for the alarm in the world, and in particular right here in Australia with people that like to be seen as noble and saving the planet, and that is ego driven, not science driven. I thank you so much for your time!

RL: Okay! Well listen …good luck. [Laugh] I hope you’re spared the policies that are being proposed.

CS: We can only protest and trying to put the facts on the table for people. Professor, thank you very much for your time.

RL: Good luck. Bye-bye.


Ge gärna ett bidrag till bloggen via Paypal!


Relaterat i media: SvD 1 2 3 Norrt SVT 1 2 ST 1 2 HD 1 2 DN 1 2 GP SkD BLT
Andra bloggar om: , , , , ,


 
´´´´´