onsdag 24. mai 2017

Klimafornekter-løgnene debunket - og de beste beviser for at mennesker bidrar til klimaendringer DEL 3



INNHOLD DEL 3

12. Klimarealistene
13. Alle klimaløgners mor - Tankesmien The Heartland Institute
14. Tilbake til Klimarealistene
15. PragerU og kreasjonisten bak
16. Klimarealistene anmelder bok
17. Konklusjon så langt



12. KLIMAREALISTENE

Her hjemme er det den kvasivitenskapelige konspirasjonsklikken Klimarealistene og Oljekrisa.no som er mest kjent for å systematisk feilinformere sine lesere om klima. Klimarealistene følger i fotsporene til kreasjonister og tankesmier i USA med sin pro-olje propaganda, sine konspirasjonsteorier og ideologisk/religiøse motiverte agenda. For dem betyr vitenskapen om klima lite eller ingenting. Klimakreasjonistene..unnskyld... realistene har etablert et gamlehjemsråd av pensjonerte oljelobbyister og cranks for å melke autoritetsargumentet til siste dråpe.Når de en sjelden gang får lagt bort partiprogrammet til FrP og bøkene til Ayn Rand kan det hende at noen av dem hoster ut noen fraser om at mer C02 er bra for oss. Eller at det er solen som styrer alt. Dette er litt avhengig av hvilken uke det er i fornekterland. En uke er det solen, den neste er det havet osv. Vi skal se nærmere på noen av disse oppblåste crankene.

Hvis du har vondt i en tann, går du til en tannlege/spesialist med relevant utdannelse, eller går du til en smed som påstår at han har “trukket en del tenner på si med godt resultat”?

Fysikeren Stein Bergsmark er Klimarealistenes "Dunning-Krueger" - konge.
Bergsmark er for klimaforskningen det Erich Von Däniken er for arkeologien; pseudo-vitenskap og fantasifulle hypoteser i en salig blanding.

Sjekk ut hans "Klimarapport". I den grad man kan kalle dette amatørmessige klipp og lim prosjektet fra diverse ugne internet-blogger for hans egen rapport. Den blir tilbakevist punkt for punkt her av Rasmus Benestad, D.Phil. Seniorforsker ved Meteorologisk institutt og leder for Tekna Klima:


"Stein Bergsmarks «alternative» klimarapport er trist lesning. Han forsøker å skape en forestilling om at hele forskningsmiljøet er råttent og presenterer et forkledd politisk manifest som har til hensikt å undergrave klimaforskningen.[...] Det lave faglige nivået i rapporten vises ikke bare gjennom ensidigheten, manglende objektivitet, ukritisk kildebruk og dårlig dokumentasjon. Bergsmark forklarer verken størrelsene som han presenterer eller metodene som er blitt brukt til å fremskaffe resultatene."

Men Klimarealisten Bergsmark gir seg ikke. Sjekk hva han lirte av seg nylig i Dagbladet. Det er de samme løgnene og “poengene” tatt ut av sammenhengen . Intet som ikke er debunket før, men Rasmus Benestad er snill og gjør det igjen.
Klimarealisten Bergsmark resirkulerer selvsagt også myten om at GW stoppet opp.

Og bare på gøy, fikk jeg lyst til å sjekke ut en av påstandene til Bergsmark fra den artikkelen i Dagbladet. En påstand som og ble tittel på hele artikkelen; "FNs klimapanel innrømmer selv at klimamodellene feiler".

Jeg siterer fra artikkelen:

"Klimapanelet har selv fortalt at klimamodellene ikke kan brukes til langtids spådommer om klimaet. I Panelets tredje hovedrapport heter det: «I forskning på og modellering av klimaet, bør vi være oppmerksom på at vi har å gjøre med et kaotisk, ikke-lineært koblet system, og at langtids forutsigelser av fremtidige klimatilstander ikke er mulig»".

La oss leke litt detektiv og se om vi kan finne ut hva Klimapanelet mener med dette.

Jeg fant Bergsmarks kirsebærplukkete sitat i IPPC sin AR3 rapport fra 2001. Sitatet er en del av avsnittet 14.2.2 Predictability in a Chaotic System: 



Sitatet er - ikke uventet - misbrukt og tatt ut av sammenhengen. Sitatet er altså fra et avsnitt som omtaler VÆRET (Chaotic system) som altfor kaotisk til å forutsi så veldig mye om. Det er nettopp det "future climate states" betyr! 


Climate states = værforhold/værvarsling.
Climate states er IKKE det samme som climate change.

Sitatet er altså en understreking av at klimaframskrivinger ikke er værvarsling. Dette kommer jo klart fram i neste setning. En setning som ikke er tatt med. Når sitatet blir resirkulert i klimafornekterland har det blitt klistret på en ny mening; -at klimaforskerne ikke kan forutsi eller modellere om fremtidens KLIMA. Som er noe ganske annet, og noe som forskerne FAKTISK kan.





For ordens skyld; "The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time. When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather"

Ok, siden vi nå er varm i trøyen. La oss ta en Bergsmark til. I den samme artikkelen finner vi også, jeg siterer:

"I Klimapanelets synteserapport fra 2014 skrives det om hvor dårlig klimamodellene treffer. På side 41 heter det: «For perioden fra 1998 til 2012, viser 111 av 114 tilgjengelige modellsimuleringer av klimaet en oppvarmingstrend som er større enn observasjonene». Klimapanelet forteller oss først at 97 % av klimamodellene gir for høye temperaturer. Deretter ønsker Panelet at vi fortsatt skal ha tiltro til deres modellbaserte scenarier."

Ok, jeg fant Bergsmarks sitat:

Å trekke ut denne setningen

"For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations" (AR5 Synthesis Report, side 43)

og samtidig utelukke neste setning:

"There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend"

istedenfor å bruke hovedkonklusjonen 7 linjer lengre ned i den samme boksen:

"For the longer period from 1951 to 2012, simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend (very high confidence)"

kan ikke kalles for noe annet en juks og løgn. Dette er et billig forsøk på å sverte IPPC og deres modeller. Og det er ikke første gang vi ser dette lavmålet.


En annen variant av det samme trikset: Å referere til det som står i den svarte sirkelen istedenfor det uthevede blå feltet. Boksen heter det den heter. Dette handler ikke om de langsiktige CMIP5 modellene; 

Box TS.3 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years

https://www.quora.com/Are-the-climate-computer-models-wrong






"There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the disagreement over the most recent 15-year period. Due to internal climate variability, in any given 15-year period the observed GMST trend sometimes lies near one end of a model ensemble, an effect that is pronounced in Box TS.3, Figure 1a, b as GMST was influenced by a very strong El Niño event in 1998." 




https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf


La oss kikke litt nærmere på Klimarealistene. 

På NRK -programmet Folkeopplysningen dret Klimakreasjonistene seg loddrett ut:


Av alle ting de kunne trukket frem for å fremme sin sak, velger de den utdaterte og misvisende Grønlandsgrafen som slutter i 1855. Snakk om å drite seg ut.


På hjemmesiden deres påstås det allerede i logoen at det er "sola som styrer klimaet".



 

Dette våset har vi oppklart allerede i Del 1, jeg gjentar her kun noen av poengene:

"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

Verdens ledende vitenskapelige magazin - Science - hva sier de?;
"Don't blame the sun for recent global warming. A new analysis, based on historical data rather than computer simulations, shows that our star's role in climate change has been vastly overtaken by other factors, particularly the human-induced buildup of greenhouse gases."

CarbonBrief setter skapet på plass her
"since 1970 global temperatures have shot up by almost 0.7 C, while the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth has actually declined. Similarly, the upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere warms, a clear fingerprint of warming from greenhouse gases rather than the sun."

Solen kan ikke forklare oppvarmingen vi ser nå:


Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue).

Videre publiserer selvsagt Klimarealistene løgnen som vi har vært innom allerede. Løgnen fra Daily Mail. Hvorfor sier de ingenting om at FLERE av verdens mest respekterte faktasjekkere allerede har debunket denne løgnen? Hvorfor poster de ikke nevnte linker som denne , denne , denne og denne? som alle debunker løgnen og svertekampanjen? Hvorfor sier de ingenting om at –“Wikipedia editors have said they will no longer accept links to Daily Mail stories to support citations because it is too unreliable.”? 

Hvorfor opplyser/oppdaterer de ikke sine lesere om at “skandalen” aldri var en skandale?

Og for å illustrere poenget ovenfor: Her er et typisk eksempel på hvordan klimatåkeleggernefortsetter å pushe løgner lenge etter at de er debunket. Fordi, det handler ikke om sannhetssøken om klima, men om tåkelegging.



Høsten 2017 måtte altså Daily Mail publisere en beklagelse. Hele historien VAR oppspinn: "We are disappointed with this finding, but we accept it and are publishing the adjudication with prominence in the newspaper and online.

Kan vi forvente at Klimarealistene oppdaterer sine nettsider med dette? 

Bjørnar Kjensli er redaksjonsleder i forskning.no, og forteller at det er en grunn til at de ikke bruker særlig mange klimaskeptikere som kilder i sakene sine.– Vi bruker bare forskere som har forska på akkurat det vi skriver om, og svært mange av klimaskeptikerne har ikke forska på det de kritiserer. Han sier at han uansett synes det er vanskelig å forholde seg til forskere som er uenige i hele premisset. – Når du er uenig i at CO er en klimagass, noe det har vært bred enighet om siden åttitallet, da har du definert deg ut av debatten. Klimarealistene er useriøse og uvitenskapelige. La oss se på hva annet de holder på med:

Klimarealistenes uærlighet og forutsigbarhet er påfallende. I denne artikkelen påstår de at alt er "naturlige variasjoner og sykluser" og at global oppvarming har stoppet opp i 1998! (Hørt det før?)


Her påstår de og, frekt nok, at adm.direktør ved Norsk Regnesentral,Lars Holden, Professor Odd O. Aalen og Professor Arnoldo Frigessi støtter deres syn om at "det er et tankekors at temperaturen flater ut (de siste 10-15 år), mens CO2-verdiene øker mye mer enn antatt". Men det er jo ikke det de sier. Fordelen med å poste 7 år gamle artikler her og nå, er at vi kan enkelt se hva som faktisk skjedde. I årene siden 2011 og frem til i dag har vi - som vi har bevist tidligere i DEL 1 - fått stadig flere varmerekorder. Videre påstås det at "vi IPCC-opposisjonelle mener at det er faglig korrekt å benytte de noe lavere temperaturøkninger fra satellittmålinger enn IPCCs bakkemålinger".

Det er nå 100% enighet om at satelittmålinger IKKE er de mest pålitelige.
Disse videoene oppklarer dette:







Også i denne artikkelen påstår de at - gjesp - global oppvarming har stoppet opp i 1998 og at IPPC sine prognoser har "feilet". Dette har vi allerede debunket.


Videre kommer - kjedelig nok - myten om at Co2 lagger bak varmeøkninger med ca 800 år. "Ser vi på de siste 420 000 år viser målinger av iskjerner i Vostok, Antarktisk (1999) at endringer av temperaturen etterfølges av en CO2 endring 800-1100 år senere.Denne myten har vi også debunket.


Til slutt kan vi ta med en nytt eksempel fra klimarealistene. Fra juni 2017. Den som ikke gråter allerede kommer til å gjøre det nå. For nå stuper de rett inn i pseudo-vitenskapens verden:

…stråling fra solen har forutsigbare perioder, styrt av de fire store planetene: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus og Neptun.


Sceptical Science, som utelukkende baserer seg på fagfellevurdert oppdatert klimavitenskap, beskriver dette som klimastrologi: "Trying to blame global warming on planetary movements is little more than 'climastrology' and curve fitting."

Learning through replication in climate research R.E. Benestad, H.O. Hygen1, R. van Dorland, J. Cook, D. Nuccitelli, S. Lewandowsky, K. Hayhoe6:

Scafetta (2012a) argued that celestial forcing in the form of gravitational forces from the giant gas planets explains most of the past climatic changes on Earth, and especially fluctuations of ~20 and ~60 years, proposing that solar 11 and heliospheric planetary oscillations would result in synchronous oscillations in Earth's climate, maintained by some resonance mechanism. [...] Scafetta (2012a) can be reviewed in terms of the physics and the statistical analysis. The account of the physics was vague, as Scafetta argued that resonant response could amplify the weak effect from the giant planets in the solar system, just like L&S11. He failed to acknowledge that resonance is an inherent property of a system, and will pick up any forcing with matching frequency. [...] 

Scafetta (2012a) furthermore implied that a model with no physics will outperform a physicallybased model, not understanding which aspects of the climate system the performance should be judged on. His analysis claimed to test climate models over the instrumental record, ignoring the fact that no GCM is ever expected to match the natural fluctuations in the observed temperature, and in doing so 14 setting up a strawman. In this case, it is fair to ask the models to reproduce various statistics of temperature observations (e.g. mean, power spectrum, higher order moments), but not the phase of these variations, which may be viewed as random. These points are well-known knowledge within the climate research community, however, Scafetta did not acknowledge this knowledge in addition to he fact that that he ignored literature on GCMs and relevant climate research. Furthermore, the paper presented no proper evaluation of the proposed model for out-of-sample tests.

For these reasons, Scafetta (2012a) belongs to Category D: starting from wrong logical premise (the phase information is relevant), applying erroneous analysis (confidence intervals, missing evaluation, and trend models), due to an inappropriate strategy for which the one answer was favoured, in addition to using wrong statistics. 

The same type of shortcomings were also present in the curve-fitting (over-fit) presented in Scafetta (2012b), in addition to a clear physical basis was lacking.
Scafetta (2010) assumed that changes in the Earth’s rotation rate, which he somehow associated with climate variability, is entirely due to planetary forcing (Jupiter and Saturn and the effects their alignment has on their gravitational forces), neglecting other factors such as changes in the circulation in the earth’s interior, which may be more important (Appell, 2012). There is no known mechanism explaining how the climate responds to minute changes in the planet’s rotation rate, and Scafetta offered no estimates for the Coriolis force or sensitivity tests with different values for the Coriolis coefficient. The idea of changes in Earth's rotation affects climate was picked up by Solheim and Humlum in the Norwegian magazine 'Fra Fysikkens verden' (1/11), however, it can traced back to a conference proceeding from 1992 (Mörner, 1992). It is hard to trace this idea further back in time than Mörner (1992), as 14 out of the 15 citations in his paper were made to his own work. These ideas have been promoted to Norwegian schools through the organisation "klimarealstene“, who include Solheim and Humlum. The most appropriate category for this paper would be B: applying erroneous analysis (not excluding other explanations), and the paper ignored contextual information such as physical mechanisms and other disciplines of geophysics (dynamis of the core).

Så hva koker det ned til? Bare enda et patetisk forsøk på å frifinne C02 som den drivende drivhusgassen. Bare enda et forsøk på å dytte "skylden" over på solen. At solen varmer opp havene som deretter frigjør C02, stemmer ikke. Elementær fysikk og kjemi bekrefter dette: "Measurements of carbon isotopes and falling oxygen in the atmosphere show that rising carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels and cannot be coming from the ocean." (Mer om dette.) "Observations show the oceans are a "sink" rather than a source of CO2 in the atmosphere"

Sceptical climate researcher won’t divulge key program!!


BONUS
La oss se på noen av de mest brukte crankende deres:

Crank #1 Henrik Svensmark 

har blitt debunket så mange ganger at det må føles som prikkedøden.

Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth.  So if the solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective.  Thus an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing the planet to warm.  

Therefore, in order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true:

Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.

Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements.

Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect

In fact cosmic ray flux has lagged behind the global temperature change since approximately 1970 (Krivova 2003). "between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase"

Benestad (2013) compared cosmic ray flux to global surface temperature changes and found "there is little empirical evidence that links GCR to the recent global warming." In fact, since 1990, galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth has increased - "the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures"

In fact, cosmic ray on flux recently reached record levels.(Lockwood 2007)

Peter Laut found errors in their paper and published a paper addressing the corrections. When the errors are removed the conclusions and assumptions of Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen simply do not stand. Solar can not account for modern global warming.

According to Richard Mewaldt of Caltech, "In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years."
Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming. Erlykin et al.(2013)

Sloan & Wolfendale (2013) examined the influence of cosmic rays on the climate over the past billion years. They found that changes in the galactic cosmic ray intensity are too small to account for significant climate changes on Earth. 
This was also the conclusion of Feng & Bailer-Jones (2013).    
 

Galactic cosmic rays can't explain global warming

In summary, studies have shown that GCRs exert a minor influence over low-level cloud cover, solar magnetic field has not increased in recent decades, nor has GCR flux on Earth decreased. In fact, if GCRs did have a significant impact on global temperatures, they would have had a net cooling effect over the past 50 years, especially over the past 50 years when global warming was strongest

Sloan & Wolfendale (2013) found that the contribution of solar activity and galactic cosmic rays (combined) to global warming is "less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century." The bottom line is that whether or not cosmic rays have affected the climate in the more distant past, they cannot explain our planet’s recent warming.
The papers (Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991; FL1991), Lassen and Friis-Christensen (1995; LF2000), Svensmark (1998; S1998), and Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997; SF1997) claimed that changes in the sun can explain a large part of the recent global warming. These papers have been used by Scafetta (see the earlier examples) and others as a support for their purports. Furthermore, they have contributed to the notion that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) play an important role for Earth's climate, that has been popularised through the media. They have also implied that GHGs, such as CO2, play a relatively small role for Earth’s climate, and dispute the view presented by the mainstream climate research community (National Research Council, 2001; Oreskes, 2004; Solomon et al., 2007). 

The conclusions from these papers rest on a curve-fitting exercise and are based on little physics. The data handling has also been questioned (Laut, 2003), and recent up-todate replication has suggested that the predictions diverge from the observations

Stauning (2011) took advantage of two additional solar cycles to recalculate the relationship between sunspot and temperature data. The trends in temperature and solar cycle length showed a strong divergence after 1976. These analyses are similar to the classical studies on the relationship between 23 sunspots and climate performed over the centuries and that eventually have failed to stand up to new data (Benestad, 2002). Another point is that there is no trend in the solar proxies over the last 50 years (Benestad, 2005, 2013b; Lockwood and Frölich, 2008). 

Svensmark (2007) did not answer the serious criticism forwarded by Damon & Laut (2004) and Laut (2003). The original analysis presented by Svensmark was based on total cloud cover, which later turned out to provide a poor fit, and he then replaced these with data describing low-level cloudiness. He then used a different version of the cloud data to others, claiming that the original data were incorrect due to calibration problems and that the recent global warming was caused by GCR (Laken, et al., 2012).  

Svensmark's theory failed to persuade most climatologists, however, because of weaknesses in its evidence. In particular, there do not seem to be clear long-term trends in the cosmic-ray influxes or in the clouds that they are supposed to form, and his model does not explain (as greenhouse explanations do) some of the observed patterns in how the world is getting warmer (such as that more of the warming occurs at night). For now, at least, cosmic rays remain a less plausible culprit in climate change.


CRANK #2 Jan-Erik Solheim


I denne saken publisert på forskning.no i 2008 konkluderer Jan-Erik Solheim med at: "Forfatterne Douglass et al. har vist at det på tross av en enorm innsats gjennom de siste 25 år både med hensyn til stadig bedre klimamodeller og bedre observasjoner, ikke er funnet overensstemmelse mellom observasjoner og modeller når det gjelder virkningen av klimagassene på den lavere atmosfære over ekvator der vi skal vente størst virkning. En skal derfor være forsiktig med å bruke klimamodeller i sin nåværende form til prognoser av fremtidens klima."

Denne rapporten forklarer hvorfor Klimarealistene tar feil - igjen:



Han har jo og, ifølge hans egen "CV" også vært en av dem som har pushet ideen om at ". planetenes baner som årsak til sol- og klimavariasjoner". Dette psuedo-tullet blir ALTSÅ av SkScience beskrevet som "Trying to blame global warming on planetary movements is little more than 'climastrology' and curve fitting". Dette tøvet har vi nettopp debunket.

CRANK#3 Segalstad

Bloggen til Segalstad, fra Klimarealistenes "vitenskapelige" råd (sic) ser ut som en hvilken som helst billig denierblogg. En amatørmessig hjemmesnekret klipp og lim gutteroms-googler-blogg full av tankesmie-propaganda med tydelige referanser til den Heartland Institute finansierte tulleorganisasjonen NIPCC. Gjesp. Dette er bare kjedelig.

CRANK #4 Ole Humlum

Ole Humlum has become the deniers expert for – CO2 increases are natural, and increased temperatures are just natural variations. Deniers may also cite that the last inter-glacial period was warmer, and that we are following a similar trend [which will ultimately lead to another ice age]. The message is don’t worry, it’s natural, the increased CO2 comes from the oceans, and humanity can carry on burning fossil fuels. 

The paper by Humlum et al. (2013) suggests that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1980 results from changes in ocean temperatures, rather than from the burning of fossil fuels. We show that these conclusions stem from methodological errors and from not recognizing the impact of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on inter-annual variations in atmospheric CO2.

Papiret til Humlum et al blir og avvisit her og her.

De fagfellevurderte papirer Humlum har vært med på blir grundig avvist her:

Looking at irrelevant aspects
Humlum et al. (2013; HSS13) argued that changes in CO2 follow changes
in the temperature, and that this implies that the increases seen in the Keeling curve are not man-made. Their claims implicitly support the CO2-curve 21 presented by Beck (2008), and the thesis that the increase in the CO2 concentrations seen in the Keeling curve is not due to the burning of fossil fuels, has long been an aspect of agnotology surrounding the global warming
issue. The analysis on which HSS13 based their conclusions filtered out the long-term signal through a correlation between the annual time differences in CO2 and temperature. This procedure removes the long time scales, and emphasises the short-term variations. Hence, HSS13 found the well-known link between El Niño Southern Oscillation and CO2. They then incorrectly assumed that this link excludes the effect of anthropogenic emissions.

HSS13 chose to analyse a short series from 1980 describing the global analysis of the CO2 concentrations rather than the almost identical series from Mauna Loa going back to 1958. They also applied a differencing operator (DIFF12) to the data followed by a lagged correlation, and in effect removed all trends and long time scales. 

A comparison between the shorter global and longer Mauna Loa series had some effect on the lagged correlation, however, the main problem was the use of DIFF12 followed by the correlation, as this strategy is designed to neglect trends. It is easy to demonstrate that the method Humlum et al. used is unable to pick up the longer time scales, as shown in replication Demos. In other words, the analysis emphasised the short time scales, and the analytical set-up was pre-disposed to ignore the anthropogenic component to the CO2 concentrations. Hence, the analysis contained a logical flaw since conclusions based on short-term fluctuations were drawn for the long-term time scales.

Another problem was that their study did not account for the carbonbudget such as sources and sinks. It is not clear whether the increased CO2 was assumed to originate from the ocean surface or the deep ocean, and their discussion ignored the literature concerning diffusion of trace gases in the oceans. They also neglected the work documented in the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (Solomon et al., 2007) regarding changes in the O2/N2 ratios, the acidification of the world oceans, and isotope ratios (Kern and 22 Leuenberger, 2013). Further criticism of HSS13 have been published in comments to the article (Masters and Benestad, 2013; Richardson, 2013). The way HSS13 fails logically suggests it can be attributed to category C: addressing a different question. Another point was missing relevant contextual information, such as facts about the carbon cycle and ocean dynamics.

Selective use of data Humlum et al. (2011a; HSS11a) suggested that natural cycles, e.g. the moon and solar variability, play a role a role in climate change on Earth, and that their influence is more important than changes in the greenhouse gases (GHGs). A replication of their analysis can provide a means for turning these contrarian claims into an educational exercise. The core of the analysis carried out by HSS11a involved wavelet-based curve-fitting, with a vague idea that the moon and solar cycles somehow can affect the Earth’s climate. The most severe problem with the paper, however, was that it had discarded a large fraction of data for the Holocene which did not fit their claims.
______________________________________________________

Dr. Bye, Prof. Humlum, and Dr. Stordahl (BHS) rely on the GISP2 database to draw their graph. Unfortunately, GISP2 is concerned with local temperatures which do not accurately represent the average global temperature – nor even the Northern Hemisphere. Drawing conclusions on the global climate based on GISP2 amounts to pretending that the whole world is affected by heavy rainfalls based on the precipitations in Bergen [a Norwegian city known for plentifull rainfall]. 


I have a new paper (Richardson, 2013) in the journal Global and Planetary Change that calculates the man-made and natural contributions to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide(CO2) since 1980. It comments on a study by Humlum and others (2013) and uses the same data and part of the same approach as them, but gets a completely different answer. I do this because I follow the maths to calculate the size of each effect and I find that the entire rise in atmospheric CO2 is man-made

Humlum innrømmer selv at denne grafen er bare tull:







Crank #5 Bjørn Lomborg

Klovnen Lomborg er en parantes, men vi kan ta med denne saken her, den er i det minste popcorn-vennlig. 

Some look at these data in an attempt to find something, anything, they can cherry-pick to claim that either global warming’s effect on sea level isn’t happening, or that we should look at it as “no problem.” A classic example happened nearly 10 years ago, when Danish climate “skeptic” Bjorn Lomborg wrote this in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian:



Lomborg er virkelig klimafornekting på lavt nivå.

Australia’s education department paid Bjørn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre $640,000 to help produce a report that claimed limiting world temperature increases to 2C was a “poor” use of money.

Lomborg har aldri skrevet noe fagfellevurdert om klima og er egentlig ikke noe å bry seg om. Lomborg blir grundig debunked her og av Rational Wiki.

Lomborg skriver selvsagt for den oljefinansierte ekkokammer-søppel-fornekter-bloggen WUWT:
 

Bjorn Lomborg’s New Paper ‘Appears To Have No Basis In Fact

Så før noen sovner, la oss se om vi kan finne ut hvor amatørene i Klimarealistene henter sine klimaløgner fra. Hvorfor de er så ekstremt opphengt i å angripe IPPC. La oss gå rett til kjernen. Til dem som produserer de aller fleste av klimaløgnene som dukker opp -også i sosiale medier i Norge. La oss se på de "proffesjonelle" tåkeleggerne.

13. ALLE KLIMALØGNERS MOR - TANKESMIEN OG TROLLFABRIKKEN THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE


er velkjent og beryktet for å spre løgner om klima - sponset av brent fossil-industrien- kan aldri bli en seriøs formidler av klimavitenskap. The Heartland Institute, som tidligere lobbet for tobakkindustrien, bruker nå de samme metodene på vegne av fossil-brensel-industrien. Ifølge dem selv er de “a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation.”

Vår venn Brian Dunning fra Skeptoid, som har Heartland på sin liste over mest antivitenskapelige nettsteder,  beskriver Heartland sin hjemmeside slik:

"The Heartland Institute is a free-market think tank, preparing research and reports for whatever clients want it. That's an important role in society and I respect the freedoms of every think tank no matter where they are on the political spectrum. Promoting the policies that support an ideology is a right, but denying hard science in support of that ideology is a no-no. And that's what you'll find on Heartland.org, one of the web's best funded and most comprehensive attacks on climate science. Resources like this are a very real problem for science, because they have the expertise and the means to change people's minds, but lack the ethics to change those minds for the better. This year they held their 10th annual "International Conference on Climate Change" in Washington DC, which they describe as the "the largest gathering of global warming 'skeptics' in the world," and strangely they put quotes around the word skeptics, which I would have done if they hadn't, since their process is certainly not one of skeptically interrogating the climate models. Instead, they start from their preferred conclusion, then work backwards collecting cherrypicked bits of information to build a path to get there." 

Tidsskriftet Nature beskriver Heartland slik:

"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."

Heartland lobber for hvemsomhelst som putter penger på dem. Tidligere var det tobakksindustrien:




“In the 1990s, it teamed up with Phillip Morris to challenge facts about the health risks of tobacco,” they wrote. “The tobacco industry’s conduct was found to be fraudulent. Using the same strategies, with funding from the Koch family foundations, ExxonMobil, and other fossil fuel interests, the Heartland Institute now seeks to undermine the scientific consensus about climate change.” 



Og, som vi kommer inn på senere, det er dem som står bak alle angrepene på Fns Klimapanel. Så sent som i 1998, publiserte The Heartland Institute-President Joseph Bast denne lederen der han sier rett ut at farene med sigarettrøyking er sterkt overdrevet. At moderat røyking ikke er forbundet med helsefare og at røyking heller ikke fører til avhengighet.

 


Heartland playing down the dangers of second hand smoking:
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/the-big-lie-of-secondhand-smoke


Why Defend Smokers?

Everywhere you look, anti-smoking groups are campaigning against smokers. They claim smoking kills one third or even half of all smokers; that secondhand smoke is a major public health problem; that smokers impose enormous costs on the rest of society; and that for all these reasons, taxes on cigarettes should be raised.

Heartland Institute 2018:

"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science".

Heartland Institute 2018:

"The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas."

Heartland Institute 2018:

“The association between (second hand) tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

Heartland Institute 2018:

"There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say. They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places."

More:

Anti-smoking activists give smokers a stark choice: Stop smoking or die! In fact, there is a third path: reduce the harm by shifting to less-hazardous products that provide similar enjoyment

Litigation against the tobacco industry is an example of lawsuit abuse, and has “loaded the gun” for lawsuits against other industries.

Appeals to “protect the children” don’t justify the war being waged against adult smokers.

Punishing smokers “for their own good” is repulsive to the basic libertarian principles that ought to limit the use of government force.

https://www.heartland.org/Alcohol-Tobacco/Smokers-Lounge/index.html

I det ene øyeblikket forsvarer altså The Heartland Institute tobakksindustrien, i det neste fossil-brensel-industrien. Du må se dette med egne øyne for å tro det, i dette Youtube-klippet forsvarer han motvillig påstandene:


Bast sier akkurat det som som sponsorene i oljeindustrien betaler ham for å si - at AGW bare er “naturlige variasjoner”:



HER KOMMER DEN STYGGE SANNHETEN:

 

Slik betales klima-skeptikerne:

 

Lekkasje avslører dollar-flom til klima-skeptikere: Her kan du lese navn og summer i lekkede dokumenter fra det liberalistiske Heartland Institute i USA.


I 2012 rystes The Heartland Institute av en "skandale" idet nettstedet desmogblog.com lekket ut konfidensielle styredokumenter. De avdekker et omfattende nett av klimaskeptiske forskere og andre som får betalt av Heartland for å undergrave konklusjonene til FNs klimapanel IPCC. Dokumentene viser detaljerte regnskaper, budsjett, prosjekter, hvem som finansierer instituttet og prosjektene, og hvilke klimaskeptikere som står på deres lønningsliste.

At styredokumentene er ekte kan vi se ved å kryssjekke dem med andre kilder og Heartlands egne offisielle budsjetter. Vi skal og straks se på en email som bekrefter alle strategiene beskrevet. WOW!! Heartland går ut med beklagelse til sine søkkrike donorer om at anonymiteten de var lovet, nå er brutt. Dette er altså opphavet til svært mange av klimaløgnene som spres i dag!

Is the Heartland "Strategy Memo" a Fake? Let's try using science!

"It is factually aligned with Heartland material. It is the style of Heartland documents, textually. Denial of it’s legitimacy by Heartland is expected and not meaningful."



La oss se nærmere på disse styredokumentene fra The Heartland Institute. Finner vi noe der som bekrefter 100% hvem som faktisk står bak alle angrepene på IPPC?

Ja, I strategiplanen deres står det avslørende nok svart på hvitt hva som er deres hovedagenda:

"At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports and paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered"


I papirene går det fram at Heartland i år skal bruke 300.000 dollar til å sponse et internasjonalt nettverk av vitenskapsfolk som skriver og snakker om klimaendringer.
Vel å merke for å gå imot det flertallet av vitenskapsfolk som støtter konklusjonene i FNs klimapanel IPCC, som advarer om faren for menneskeskapte klimaendringer.
Dette prosjektet omtales i de interne dokumentene som den mest omfattende og autoritative imøtegåelsen av FNs klimapanel IPCC.
Heartland Institutes styrepapirer legger ikke akkurat skjul på at ny klimavitenskap skal angripes med alle midler: 


WOW! Trekk pusten. I Heartlands styrepapirer står det altså svart på hvitt at FNs klimapanel, og all ny klimavitenskap, skal angripes og undergraves. Hovedsaklig gjennom bloggen WattsUpWithThat:

"Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science. Audit trail reveals that donors linked to fossil fuel industry are backing global warming sceptics.”




Heartland Institutes egne styrepapirer avslører også deres sponsorer, Donors Trust og Koch Brothers. Her står det og at Heartlands oppgave er å beskytte industrier som kan rammes av "feil" klimapolitikk:


 

I september 2017 holdt Heartland et møte som ble beskrevet slik:


On September 28, The Heartland Institute hosted a meeting of about 40 climate scientists, economists, lawyers, and other experts to discuss the possible creation by the Trump administration of a Red Team – Blue Team exercise on climate change. My notes from that meeting appear below.

Denne emailen fra president Joe Bast til Jim Lakely, director of communications and the primary media contact for The Heartland Institute, i etterkant av møtet, bekrefter den antivitenskapelige agendaen vi så i styrepapir-lekkasjen fra noen år tilbake, og avslører deres nye strategier:

* How to effectively market our ideas was a theme of many presentations, many remarks during the panels, and conversation over meals. Among the ideas I heard offered, we should… 

* be briefing news reporters and news readers at Fox News.
* reach the President by tweeting on the issue.
* hold more congressional hearings.
* simplify the issue by focusing on one or only a few arguments and images.
* identify a few good spokespersons and focus on promoting them.
* stop chasing the other side’s latest argument and focus instead on the benefits of CO2.
* focus on the “tuning scandal” that discredits the models.
* turn debate from referring to median temperatures to high temperatures, which show no trend.
* find independent funding for Roy Spencer, David Schnare, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, David Legates, etc.
* push Pruitt to start a proceeding for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding…he won’t do it without pressure.
* we need to be able to say “EPA is reconsidering whether CO2 is a pollutant.
 

Hele emailen finner du her.

 
 


Det er nå ingen tvil om at Heartland er selve hjertet til klimafornekter-propaganda-fornekter-industrien. Interessant at de to nye hovedstrategiene, å fokusere på de "positive" sidene med mer C02 og å bruke jukse-grafen til John Christy til å si at komputer-modellene feiler, begge er så lette å debunke. De vet at de ikke har noe å fare med vitenskapelig, så dette er veien å gå, for å skape fuzz og for å så tvil.
 
Nå, la oss se hvilke virkemidler Heartland Institute bruker for å spre klimaløgnene. 



Gamle hvite menn som fornekter AGW. Gjesp:
 

Når de selv pusher sine klimaløgner på YOUTUBE er det - brutalt - pakket inn i konspira, politikk og generell ufarliggjøring av utslipp og C02. Det er ingen diskusjon eller innspill til den eksisterende klimavitenskapen. De bare konkluderer med at det er en verdensomspennende konspira bak AGW og at global oppvarming egentlig er bra for oss. Selvsagt kommer og kommentarene om at "det er arrogant å tro at vi mennesker kan påvirke klimaet". (Bare Gud kan det). Helt i tråd med hva deres sponsorer fra olje og kullindustrien og kreasjonistvenner forventer at de skal si. Og nøyaktig det samme som Klimarealistene holder på med her hjemme. De som orker å se gamle gubber som fornekter AGW kan lide seg gjennom videoen. 

Påstandene i videoen er debunket over alt i dette dokumentet. Å referere til Heartland Institute-produsert propaganda i klimaspørsmål blir som å hyre inn Karius og Baktus som “eksperter” i tannhelsespørsmål.

Hvor lavt en kan synke er vel denne banner-kampanjen et eksempel på:

 

Heartland Institute er i tillegg blitt svært aggressive med å få propagandaen sin inn i skolene. Finner vi - igjen - noe i styrepapirene som bekrefter slike planer? Ja. Dette er heller ingen overraskelse. Dette kunne vi og lese i styrepapirene. Finansieringen skjer, som vi ser, gjennom Anonymous Donor (DonorsTrust).


I denne rapporten "Learning from mistakes in climate research"(Rasmus E. BenestadEmail author, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, John Cook) ser vi at Klimarealistene bedriver med mye av det samme her hjemme: 

"This Norwegian organization has fed the conclusions from contrarian papers into schools through leaflets sent to the headmasters (Newt and Wiik 2012), following an example set by the Heartland Institute. They have also used a popular website (www.forskning.no) to promote such controversial papers targeting schools and the general public."

I 2004 etablerte Fred Singer/ Heartland Institute altså sitt eget Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Deres agenda er, som vi har sett, å så tvil om Fns Klimapanels rapporter. Ingen seriøse klimaforskere tar dem på alvor.



 
Folkene som jobber for NIPCC har altså tette bånd til oljeindustrien og blir altså betalt av Heartland for å angripe IPPC og ny klimaforsking. (Bildet over). De blir ikke tatt på alvor av seriøse forskningsinstitutter eller universiteter. 

"Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors." [...]funded by Heartland, with Idso receiving $11,600 per month and Singer $5,500 a month, according to the 2012 budget. Heartland is also funding contrarians in Canada and other countries, the documents show. Craig Idso: He produces a weekly newsletter called CO2Science which is disseminated among climate sceptics. Has collaborated with most climate sceptic scientists in US to write various reports and papers criticising climate science and policies. The Heartland leak reveals the institute is currently paying Idso "$11,600 per month". His also collects a salary of more than $100,000 from his centre, which, until 2006, received funding from Exxon Mobil.


Heartland er en del av den pågående krigen mot vitenskapen. Deres kyniske og brutale lobbyvirksomhet for ojle og kullindustrien er av den aller verste sorten:



The Heartland Institute — a Chicago-based free-market think tank that pushes alternative climate science — nominated many of the current prospects.

Denne artikkelen fra Forbes debunker 6 av de verste og mest forslitte Heartland Institute mytene.

Heartland's '6 Reasons To Be A Climate-Change Skeptic' Are Six Demonstrable Falsehoods

It's no secret that the opinions of working climate scientists and that of the general public differ tremendously when it comes to the question of global warming. Is the Earth warming? Are humans the primary cause of that warming? Is that warming bad for the planet? And is there anything we can (or need to) do about it? On all four counts, climate scientists overwhelmingly conclude that the answer is yes, but many people across the world disagree. A few are climate scientists, but many more are influential politicians, thought leaders, industry executives or news makers. Earlier this week, Justin Haskins (the Executive Editor of the Heartland Institute) wrote a piece enumerating the six biggest reasons he's a climate-change skeptic. But are any of these reasons scientifically valid? Let's take a look at the science behind all six of them and see.


BONUS

Denne studien forklarer tankesmienes rolle:
Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks

The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review, allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites. 

With scientific evidence for AGW growing stronger and public awareness of global warming mounting (Nisbet & Meyers, 2007), in the late 1990s portions of corporate America—including some fossil fuels corporations—expressed acceptance both of the reality of AGW and necessity of reducing carbon emissions. Several corporations withdrew from the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), gradually leading to its demise in 2002, and it appeared that industry-funded attacks on the scientific evidence supporting AGW were subsiding (Dunlap & McCright, 2011). However, the conservative movement seemed dismayed by the corporate “sellout” and stepped up its already substantial efforts to deny the reality of climate change by attacking climate science and scientists (McCright & Dunlap, 2000, 2003). 

This transition is symbolized by the Cooler Heads Coalition, a coalition largely of conservative think tanks (CTTs) centered in the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), emerging to fill the void created by the GCC. Similarly, the Heartland Institute, a small regional think tank in the 1990s, emerged as a leading force in climate change denial in the past decade (Pooley,2010).
 

BONUS 2
Heartland Institute president Joseph Bast bruker utrolig nok den nevnte Oregon Petition-tulle-listen som et av sine hovedargumenter mot 97% konsensus-tallet:

 

BONUS 3
Det er ingenting som tyder på at Heartland Institute kommer til å trappe ned klimaløgn-propaganda-maskinen sin med det første. Den nye presidenten er, mildt sagt, sponset til oppunder ørene av big oil:

According to data from OpenSecrets, Huelskamp's top donor is Koch Industries and he has received the highest lifetime campaign contributions from the Oil and Gas industry, totally over one-quarter of a million dollars.

BONUS 4: AUSTRALIAS HEARTLAND-AVDELING


Et skrekkeksempel på hvordan klima-konspira, myndighetsskepsis, the sovereign citizen movement, med sine skatte og avgifts-protester er vevd sammen på senator-nivå; den australske koko-kullgruve-senatoren Malcolm Roberts.



Legg merke til at Roberts bruker både "global oppvarming stoppet opp i 1998"-argumentet og den falske NASA-grafen vi allerede har debunket HER.

La oss friske opp minnet:





Og hvor får denne Roberts sin konspira, paranoia og klimaløgner fra mon tro? Noen som vil prøve seg på million-kroners-spørsmålet?

"Roberts was listed by the climate sceptic group the International Climate Science Coalition as attending the first International Conference on Climate Change in New York, organised by fossil fuel-funded free market think tank the Heartland Institute."

"Roberts was listed as a member of the advisory committee of the Carbon Sense Coalition, a climate sceptic group established by Queensland coal industry veteran Viv Forbes. The voluntary group says “we oppose statutory limits on emissions of man-made carbon dioxide because we believe carbon dioxide plays a wholly beneficial role in our atmosphere. It is NOT a pollutant, nor does it drive global warming."

The Guardian oppklarer her

The Climate Skeptics Handbook: This is a comic book written by Joanna Nova, a performance artist in Australia, who has a deal with Heartland Institute to produce and distribute this comical presentation of false information. One of the handy tips is to whine of "personal attacks" whenever a real scientist rebuts the shoddy "science." So demonstrations that they are wrong are somehow made into "dismiss and demean" (which is a transparent attempt to deflect from the fact that they are wrong). Besides not being a scientist, Nova is hooked up with David Evans, an electrical engineer who also writes for the Australian version of Heartland Institute and yet has done no science research. The two of them sell software designed to speculate in gold. No climate science research or experience at all for either of them.

4 ways to resist climate change deniers:

In Australia too, the ruling Coalition government is a staunch supporter of fossil fuels. Most recently, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull appointed former coal lobbyist Sid Marris as his climate and energy advisor while the country’s treasurer Scott Morrison brought a lump of coal into a parliamentary session to make a case for the central role that ‘clean coal’ should play in Australia’s energy future. The fossil fuel industry is to blame for funding much of the political reluctance on climate action and propagating arguments that seek to undermine climate science, said speakers.[...]Climate denial has not gained as strong a foothold in the Australian public eye as it has in the United States, and this is because of a “deep-seated Australian respect for the common good, for science, and for knowledge-based policy and expertise,” said Schlosberg, who is also co-director of the university’s Sydney Environment Institute.

Climate change deniers now hold the highest political office in the world, and Australia’s political leadership is no better. Experts at a recent lecture in Sydney shared four ways to resist climate change denial.

Enda mer om Australias klimaløgnspredere.

The problem in Australia is less a culture turning against the Enlightenment, and more the direct political power and influence of the carbon industry. This is most evident not just in our poor emissions and climate policies, but also in the fact the Australian government is hell-bent on sabotaging an entire industrial sector.
I honestly do not understand how the sabotage of the renewables industry in Australia – an all-out attack on a clearly promising and innovative sector – is not treated as a form of industrial treason.
We have had a set of politicians, under the influence of a dying industry, undermining one of the most promising areas of our own economy. They do so for the sole benefit of carbon diggers, at the expense of the rest of Australia, of the next generation and of the planet.
And the justification for this is all based on falsehoods and lies, straight from the PR team of the carbon industry. We hear arguments for energy security, energy poverty and clean coal; we hear that renewables undermine the reliability of the grid. It’s all absolute bullshit.

Climate Science Deniers Have a New Hero and His Name Is Peter Ridd


BONUS 5:
ANDRE SENTRALE TANKESMIE-KLIMALØGNSPREDERE


American Enterprise Institute

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has routinely tried to undermine the credibility of climate science, despite at times affirming that the “weight of the evidence” justifies “prudent action” on climate change. [1]
For years, AEI played a role in propagating misinformation about a manufactured controversy over emails stolen from climate scientists [2], with one AEI research fellow even claiming, “There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming.” [3] A resident scholar at AEI went so far as to state that the profession of climate scientist “threatens to overtake all” on the list of “most distrusted occupations.” [4]
AEI received $3,615,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [5], and more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011. [6]

American Enterprise Institute

is a think tank in Washington DC, founded in 1938 as a joint project by a number of business executives. It functions as schmooze central for Beltway insiders and something of the more "mature," less "nutty," older brother to other conservative think tanks like CEI or Cato.

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is an influential right-wing think tank that advocates for lower taxes, fewer protections for consumers and the environment, and cuts to the social safety net.


Americans for Prosperity

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) frequently provides a platform for climate contrarian statements, such as “How much information refutes carbon dioxide-caused global warming? Let me count the ways.” [7]
While claiming to be a grassroots organization, AFP has bolstered its list of “activists” by hosting “$1.84 Gas” events, where consumers who receive discounts on gasoline are asked to provide their name and email address on a “petition” form. [8] These events are billed as raising awareness about “failing energy policies” and high gasoline prices, but consumers are not told about AFP’s ties to oil interests, namely Koch Industries.
AFP has its origins in a group founded in 1984 by fossil fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch [9], and the latter Koch still serves on AFP Foundation’s board of directors [10]. Richard Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries, also serves as a director for both AFP and AFP Foundation. [11]
Koch foundations donated $3,609,281 to AFP Foundation from 2007-2011. [12]

American Legislative Exchange Council

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) maintains that “global climate change is inevitable” [13] and since the 1990s has pushed various forms of model legislation aimed at obstructing policies intended to reduce global warming emissions.
ALEC purports to “support the use of sound science to guide policy,” but routinely provides a one-sided platform for climate contrarians. State legislators attending one ALEC meeting were offered a workshop touting a report by a fossil fuel-funded group that declared “like love, carbon dioxide's many splendors are seemingly endless." [14, 15] Another ALEC meeting featured a Fox News contributor who has claimed on the air that carbon dioxide “literally cannot cause global warming.” [16, 17]
ALEC received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [18], and more than $850,000 from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [19]

Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University

From its position as the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University, the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has published misleading analyses of clean energy and climate change policies in more than three dozen states. 

These economic analyses are at times accompanied by a dose of climate contrarianism. For example, BHI Director David Tuerck has claimed that “the very question of whether the climate is warming is in doubt…” [20] Claims such as “wind power actually increases pollution” can be found in many of BHI’s reports.

BHI has publicly acknowledged its Koch funding [21], which likely includes at least some of the approximately $725,000 the Charles G. Koch foundation contributed to Suffolk University from 2008-2011. [22]

Cato Institute

Cato acknowledges that “Global warming is indeed real…” But when it comes to the causes of global warming, Cato has sent mixed messages over the years. Cato's website, for instance, reports that “… human activity has been a contributor [to global warming] since 1975.” [23] Yet, on the same topic of whether human activity is responsible for global warming, Cato’s vice president has written: “We don’t know.” [24]

Patrick Michaels, Director of Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, has referred to the latest Draft National Climate Assessment Report as “the stuff of fantasy.” [25] The most recent edition of Cato’s “Handbook for Policymakers” advises that Congress should “pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide.” [26]

Charles Koch co-founded Cato in 1977. Both Charles and David Koch were among the four “shareholders” who “owned” Cato until 2011 [27], and the latter Koch remains a member of Cato’s Board of Directors. [28] Koch foundations contributed more than $5 million to Cato from 1997-2011. 

The Cato Institute (Akkurat som Heartland er disse forbundet med tobakksindustrien. Koch brother Charles var en av grunnleggerne. En hovedsponsor for klimaløgn-propaganda-maskinen.

Competitive Enterprise Institute

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has at times acknowledged that “Global warming is a reality.” [30] But CEI has also routinely disputed that global warming is a problem, contending that “There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming will cause damaging climate change.”  [31]

These kinds of claims are nothing new for CEI. Back in 1991, CEI was claiming that “The greatest challenge we face is not warming, but cooling.” [32] More recently, CEI produced an ad calling for higher levels of carbon dioxide. [33] One CEI scholar even publicly compared a prominent climate scientist to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. [34]

CEI received around $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil from 1995-2005 [35], though ExxonMobil made a public break with CEI in 2007 after coming under scrutiny from UCS and other groups for its funding of climate contrarian organizations. CEI has also received funding from Koch foundations, dating back to the 1980s. [36]

som tidligere lobbet for tobakksindustrien. CEI er høyreskrudd konservativ anti myndighets-propaganda på vegne av sine onkler i fossil brensel industrien.

Heritage Foundation

While maintaining that “Science should be used as one tool to guide climate policy,” the Heritage Foundation often uses rhetoric such as “far from settled” to sow doubt about climate science. [44, 45, 46, 47] One Heritage report even claimed that “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” [48]

Vocal climate contrarians, meanwhile, are described as “the world’s best scientists when it comes to the climate change study” in the words of one Heritage policy analyst. [49]

Heritage received more than $4.5 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [50] ExxonMobil contributed $780,000 to the Heritage Foundation from 2001-2012. ExxonMobil continues to provide annual contributions to the Heritage Foundation, despite making a public pledge in 2007 to stop funding climate contrarian groups. [51, 52]

Heritage Foundation (Sponset til opp under ørene av klimafornektere og Koch-Brothers. 

Institute for Energy Research

The term “alarmism” is defined by Mirriam-Webster as “the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger.” So when Robert Bradley, CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), and others at his organization routinely evoke the term “climate alarmism” they do so to sow doubt about the urgency of global warming.
IER claims that public policy “should be based on objective science, not emotion or improbable scenarios …” But IER also claims that the sense of urgency for climate action is due not to the science that shows the real and growing conequences of global warming. Rather, IER suggests that researchers “exacerbate the sense [that] policies are urgently needed” for monetary gain, noting that “issues that are perceived to be an imminent crisis can mean more funding.” [53]

IER has received funding from both ExxonMobil [54] and the Koch brothers [55].

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

The Manhattan Institute has acknowledged that the “scientific consensus is that the planet is warming,” while at the same time maintaining that “… accounts of climate change convey a sense of certitude that is probably unjustified.” [56]

“The science is not settled, not by a long shot,” Robert Bryce, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow has written in the Wall Street Journal [57]. At other times Bryce has expressed indifference to the science on climate change. “I don’t know who’s right. And I really don’t care,” he wrote in one book. [58]


The Manhattan Institute has received $635,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 [59], with annual contributions continuing as of 2012, and nearly $2 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [60] 


The Koch brothers -- David and Charles -- are the right-wing billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries. As two of the richest people in the world, they are key funders of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN). In SourceWatch, key articles on the Kochs include: Koch BrothersKoch IndustriesAmericans for ProsperityAmerican Encore, and Freedom Partners.

The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT
is an anti-environmentalist pressure group founded by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker in 1985.[1] They both have the academic backgrounds, lifestyles, addresses and PRguru mugshots of serious lobbyists. Three of the primary funders of CFACT are the Carthage Foundation, Exxon Mobil, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.[2] A whole host of prominent deniers have sat on its board of advisers at some time, including Sallie BaliunasRoger BateE. Calvin BeisnerMichael FumentoSherwood B. IdsoPatrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz. The organization funds Climate Depot, Marc Morano's online denialist outlet. In 2009, they helped to organize the Copenhagen Climate Challenge, the denialist response to the United Nations' Copenhagen Summit. 

Global Warming Policy Foundation, Englands største fornekter-smie,
pro olje propaganda, klimaløgner/myter, direkte linket til oljeindustrien

Independent skriver at denne tankesmien promoterer klimafornekting:

In September 2014, the Charity Commission ruled that the foundation had breached its guidelines by promoting climate change denial.

Mer om GWPF skitne agenda finner du her.

Vi var inne på det i del 2, men de som vil se hvordan hele klimaløgn-propagandamaskinen, som Heartland Institute er en del av, er bygd opp,  gå til siden til Union Of Concerned Scientists:


YOUTUBE-CRANKENE: HEARTLANDS FALSKE EKSPERTER OG OPPBLÅSTE AUTORITETSPERSONER.











Ok, la oss se på noen av de mange propagandavideoene som ligger på YouTube. Kan disse være tilknyttet Heartland mon tro? 

 

OK da....la oss sjekke ut denne Roy Spencer. Spencer har visst en høy stjerne blant kreasjonister og er en av Heartlands hovedcranker. La oss kikke litt nærmere på bloggeren og kreasjonisten Roy Spencer.


Tilknyttet både George C. Marshall Institute og Heartland Institute? Check!

Tilknyttet fossil-brensel-industrien? Check!

Crank-ekspert og oppblåst autoritet? Check!

Kristengal Kreasjonist? Check!

Laaang historie med å spre klimaløgner og stigmatisert kunnskap? Check!

Her blir hans forslitte klimaløgner debunket

Oppdatert: Enda flere løgner avdekket. 

Og husk at vi debunked en av Spencers kjepphester allerede i del 2. 


Ville du kjøpt brukbil av en fyr som mener at kreasjonisme er en bedre teori enn evolusjon?

Her er 6 grunner til at Spencer er helt ubrukelig og irrelevant som referanse i klimaforskningen:


1) Roy Spencer er en kreationist, noe som betyr at han er antivitenskapelig. Kreasjonisten Roy Spencer har signert på kreasjonistene i The Cornwall Alliance-petition--dokument som erklærer at "Gud" aldri ville tillate global oppvarming / klimaendringer å true mennesker.

2) I boken The Evolution Crisis skrev kreasjonisten Spencer:

"Jeg ble endelig overbevist om at teorien om skapelse faktisk hadde et mye bedre vitenskapelig grunnlag enn evolusjonsteorien, for skapelsesmodellen var faktisk bedre i stand til å forklare den fysiske og biologiske kompleksiteten i verden. [...] Vitenskapen har skremt oss med sine mange funn og fremskritt, men den har truffet en murvegg i sitt forsøk på å kvitte seg med behovet for en skaper og designer.
 
I dette gjesteessayet på hjemmesiden til kreasjonistene i The Cornwall Alliance skriver kreasjonisten Spencer:

"But there is no way to know whether “The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities…”, because there is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally caused climate change. To claim the changes are “unprecedented” cannot be demonstrated with reliable data, and are contradicted by some published paleoclimate data which suggests most centuries experience substantial warming or cooling."

Dette i motsetning til hva alle andre klimaforskere sier samtidig som det strider, som kjent, imot grunnleggende fysikk.

Fordi det ER et menneskelig fingeravtrykk på AGW:

Karbonet i atmosfærisk CO2 inneholder informasjon om sitt opphav, slik at forskere kan fortelle at fossilt brenselutslipp er den største kilden til økningen siden preindustriell tid.

Karbonet fra brennende fossilt brensel har et annet isotop-signal enn C02 som kommer fra naturlige kilder. Det er som et fingeravtrykk. Det er unikt og har ingen andre forklaringer.

3) Kreasjonisten Roy Spencer har blitt tatt i å lage bedragerisk forskning som han publiserte i Remote Sensing, noe som førte til at redaktøren måtte gå.

"the paper by [Roy] Spencer and [William] Braswel was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."

Her debunkes kreasjonisten Spencer og Braswel:

"Changes in outgoing radiation are both a consequence and a cause of changes in the earth’s temperature. Spencer and Braswell recently showed that in a simple box model for the earth the regression of outgoing radiation against surface temperature gave a slope that differed from the model’s true feedback parameter. They went on to select input parameters for the box model based on observations, computed the difference for those conditions, and asserted that there is a significant bias for climate studies. This paper shows that Spencer and Braswell overestimated the difference".

4) Roy Spencer conveniently forgot to factor in sensor degredation in his database for a LONG time until the scientific community forced him to issue the corrections.

The misleading graph:


In 2014, the truth came out: Spencer’s UAH team had made a huge mistake in the calibration of their data. Instead of negligible upper-atmosphere warming, they found that the upper atmosphere had been warming at +0.14 degrees per decade, double the 1880-2014 rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. The other major satellite data set, RSS, also found a calibration error, meaning the Earth warmed 140% faster since 1998 than previous conclusions indicated. At the same time, the ground-based data from NOAA, NASA, the Hadley center and BEST all displayed agreement with one another. Once the 2014, 2015 and 2016 data are also included, the graph shows the scientific truth: the models are very much in line with what we observe

"In fact out of all the temperature datasets — land, sea, weather balloons, and two from satellites (UAH and RSS) — only one dataset had shown unexpectedly slow warming in recent years, the RSS data. Unsurprisingly, that is the dataset deniers like Ted Cruz have glommed on to — despite the fact that it was widely believed the RSS data was being misanlayzed."

Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.

To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

The correctly adjusted graph:


So rather than, say, providing the public the best science, Spencer sees his “job” as persuading the public not to support efforts to reduce carbon pollution. So it’s no surprise that Spencer chose such a misleading headline, despite the fact that his own chart’s running 13-month average clearly shows that temperatures are rising.
___________________

Sorry deniers, even satellites confirm record global warming


If you’re wondering why Spencer plots a 13-month running average when 13 months do not actually correspond to anything relevant to homo sapiens, well, you’ll have to ask him. It is slightly easier to do the math. In any case, here is the more meaningful 12-month running average from Sou at HotWhopper:


John Christy and Spencer were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate explained a few years ago:

We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming, and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide.

But what would you expect from a guy who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book called Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that was funded by ExxonMobil?
____________________________ 

Spencer and Christy’s data set has undergone many major corrections to address various errors and biases. This is how science always progresses, but those who believe that adjustments to surface temperature measurements are part of a conspiracy (including Roy Spencer) always seem to neglect the major adjustments to the satellite data. In fact, in its early days, Spencer and Christy’s data set seemed to indicate the atmosphere was cooling, before a series of big adjustments were made. [..] Much of Spencer and Christy’s contrarian research has not withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny.

 

Ny forskning feier all tvil til side:

The existence of bias in recent global mean temperature estimates has been confirmed by multiple means. This bias leads to an underestimation of recent temperature trends. The evidence is as follows. Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Kevin Cowtan, Robert G. Way (2014) 

The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other midtropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites. It is also shown that the new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy. 

Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment Press Release: 2016 Tropospheric Temperatures. A new press release from Dr. Carl Mears using the Temperature Total Troposphere (TTT) dataset shows that 2016 is the warmest year since the satellite record began in 1979. The previous record, set during the last major El Niño in 1998, was broken by 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit.

5.) Det eneste "contrarian" fagfellevurderte papiret kreasjonisten Spencer noen gang gjort på klima, er ett han er medforfatter på, et papir som forsøkte å støtte Richard Lindzens forlengst avviste Iris-teori:

"The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting Lindzen's “infrared iris” hypothesis of climate stabilization".

Lindzen Iris theory long debunked.

6. Kreasjonisten Spencer er tilknyttet tankesmien Heartland Institue som altså er hjertet av klimafornekter-propaganda-maskineriet direkte sponset av Koch-brothers/oljeindustrien.

Her er en brutal debunking av kreasjonisten Spencers løgner.

Her er en herlig debunking av kreasjonisten Spencers 13 mest kjente løgner. Det vises til fagfellevurdert vitenskap hele veien!:

A mishmash of myths
Most of Spencer’s white paper consists of repeating a variety of long-debunked myths. It’s laid out in the form of 13 basic climate questions that Spencer tries to answer. Fortunately, SkepticalScience.com has a database of over 200 climate myths, and summaries of what the peer-reviewed scientific research says about each. This makes it possible to handle Spencer’s 13-point Gish Gallop by simply referring to the relevant myth rebuttals.

Med andre ord, kreasjonisten Spencer har aldri levert noenting som helst relevant for klimaforskningen i den fagfellevurderte litteraturen. Nada. INGENTING. Det er vel en grunn til at han kun blogger sine "funn". Det er påfallende at han kommuniserer gjennom blogger og YouTube, som foredragsholder for tankesmier, som gjesteskribent for kreasjonister. Aldri som etterprøvbar vitenskap gjennom akademiske kretser, i samtale med andre forskere eller gjennom fagfellevurderte artikler i seriøse publikasjoner, magasiner eller tidskrifter. Han er en stor oljefinansiert tankesmie kreationist fringe blogger. Thats it


 
















Lord (sic) Moncktons navn dukker opp. La oss ta en rask sjekk:

Gammel gubbe? Check!

Tilknyttet Heartland Institute? Check!

Tilknyttet fossil-brensel-industrien? Check

Crank-ekspert og oppblåst autoritet? Check!

Laaang historie med å spre klimaløgner og stigmatisert kunnskap? Check!

Ingen fagfellevurderte artikler publisert? Check! 

In 2015, scientists looked at one of his very few scientific papers to make it into the peer-reviewed literature and found it was “riddled with errors” — and published a response in the same journal.
Debunker vi Monckton debunker vi i praktisk alle Heartlands crank-eksperter. Dette fordi de alle resirkulerer nøyaktig de samme klimaløgnene. Se YouTube-bruker potholer54 sin geniale debunking av Monckton.Verktøyene er kritisk tenking og kildekritikk. Og oppdatert vitenskap fra klimaforskere. Denne videoen er en samling av potholer54 sine videoer om Monckton. De finnes og som del-videoer på YouTube.


Her er enda en oppklarende video:

Også denne videoen oppklarer hans sjokkerende laaange rekke med løgner.



Også Monckton resirkulerer den forlengst oppklarte myten om at global oppvarming stoppet opp i 1998:


Men siden vi er så godt i gang. La oss debunke enda en av YouTube-klimaløgn-sprederne. Jeg lander på denne Don Easterbrook.


Og, bare på gøy, la oss gå gjennom den samme sjekklisten:

Gammel gubbe? Check!

Tilknyttet Heartland Institute? Check!

Tilknyttet fossil-brensel-industrien? Check

Crank-ekspert og oppblåst autoritet? Check!

Laaang historie med å spre klimaløgner og stigmatisert kunnskap? Check! og Check!

Han står faktisk og henviser til tullelisten, Oregon Petition han også. Gjesp. Løgnene hans blir debunket her.

Antall fagfellevurderte artikler publisert? 1

Som vi ser, Easterbrook bommer ganke mye med sine modeller:



Her er tre videoer som brutalt debunker Easterbrook:








Ok, vi er i støtet, så vi tar enda en YouTube klimaløgn-spreder, Fred Goldberg.

Tilknyttet Heartland Institute? Check!

Tilknyttet fossil-brensel-industrien? Check!

Crank-ekspert og oppblåst autoritet? Check!

Tilknyttet Klimarealistene? Check!

Ingen fagfellevurderte artikler publisert? Check!

Laaang historie med å spre klimaløgner og stigmatisert kunnskap? Check!




Og, OK da.....noen som har savnet værmelderen Coleman som vi lo av i del 2? 
Ok, specially for you my friend, her er han


























Her finner du en oversikt over Heartlands mange crank-eksperter og oppblåste autoritetspersoner.

Her er en annen liste over såkalte Nobel Disease-cranks.

Vi trenger ikke gå gjennom flere Heartland videoer. Det er de samme forslitte løgnene som brukes om og om igjen. Alle ser tegningen og mønsteret så...

14. LA OSS GÅ TILBAKE TIL Klimarealistene og se om vi kan finne ut hvor de henter pseudovitenskapen og løgnene sine fra:  

 

Forskningsbladet forskning.no omtaler at Fred Singer, som tidligere ble betalt av tobakksindustrien for å bevise at røyking er ufarlig for helsen, nå altså driver og lobber for at mennesker ikke bidrar til klimaendringer, – betalt av The Heartland Institute.WOW. Så åpenlyst foregår det. ”Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”, var det noen som sa.

Ifølge Heartland Institutes (til nå) hemmelige lønningsliste får Fred Singer
i 2012 utbetalt snaut 30.000 kroner måneden. Dette er lønn for å bidra til Heartlands prosjekt «Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)» (Det frivillige internasjonale panelet om klimaendring). – C02 er ikke forurensning, har Singer blant annet slått fast. “Fysikeren Fred Singer hadde hatt en aktiv forsker-karriere innen romforskning under den kalde krigen, og hadde ledet framstående forskningsorganisasjoner i USA.

De siste årene hadde han imidlertid engasjert seg i en rekke andre forskningstemaer som står høyt på den politiske dagsorden, blant annet tobakk, via den konservative tenketanken The George C. Marshall Institute. Singer ble finansiert av tobakksindustrien og prøvde blant annet å så tvil om sammenhengen mellom passiv røyking og lungekreft.”

 

Men det kan ikke være sant? Bruker virkelig Klimarealistene Fred Singer, som var betalt av tobakksindustrien for å så tvil om sammenhengen mellom røyking og lungekreft, i sin propaganda? La oss se om dette stemmer?









































Wow. Dette er ille. Men det kommer mer: En annen “vitenskapsmann” på Heartlands fortrolige lønningsliste er meteorologen Anthony Watts, som går igjen i flere artikler publisert på hjemmesiden til Klimarealistene.





















At han er en sentral kilde for deres klimaløgner levnes det ingen tvil om her. Watts, som også omtales som en dyktig web-designer, har fått $90.000 til en blogg hvis formål er å spre klimaløgner. Heartland Institute sine styrepapirer avslørte, som vi så, at Anthony Watts' klimablogg Watts Up With That brukes til å angripe ny viten om klima. Og det koster å produsere klimaløgner: -We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website.

Bloggen (WattsUpWithThat) er selvsagt full av klimaløgner og var altså stedet der begge svertekampanjene mot klimavitenskapen, NOAA-saken vi har debunket, og den oppklarte Climategate-ikke-saken først ble “avslørt”. Tilfeldig? Neppe.

Kall den gjerne for edderkoppen i klimatåkelegger-nettverket. Leser du noe negativt om Fns Klimapanel eller at global oppvarming skyldes solen eller “naturlige variasjoner”, er det stor sannsynlighet for at det stammer herfra. Klimarealistene og amerikanske kreasjonister bader naken sammen i denne bloggen, som altså er kjøpt og betalt av The Heartland Institute. Klimarealistene avslører at det meste av deres propaganda altså kommer direkte fra en blogg som er direkte linket til fossil brensel egeninteresser. De skriver at "for redaksjonen har daglige besøk på WUWT blitt en selvfølge". RealClimate oppklarer om WUWT her. 

Noen som forresten husker den latterlige grafen vi så på i del 2? Grafen som var laget av en chemtrail-konspira-koko-kreasjonist? Den samme grafen finner du selvsagt regelmesssig her inne, som f.eks her:


Studien Epistemic rationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational, og denne bloggposten forklarer veldig godt hvordan konspirasjonsteoretikeren Watts og hans kult av tilhengere tenker.

"the first thing a cult does is tell you everyone else is lying "

Fornektere starter med en forutinntatt overbevisning, og så anvender de all sin kognisjon, altså tenkning, og bruker det til å støtte opp under forestillingen. Det er på mange måter det motsatte av hva en forsker gjør. En forsker vil ha en hypotese, ja, men så går vi ut og tester den og ser om det finnes bevis som kan støtte opp under hypotesen. Dersom det ikke finnes bevis, så blir hypotesen før eller senere lagt på hylla. Idet du sysler med kognitiv motivasjon, derimot, vil du gjøre alt du kan for å holde fast ved din opprinnelige forestilling.

Fornekterne er tilbøyelige til kun å skumme innhold på jakt etter biter de finner interessante, motstår å lese artikler nøye og engasjerer seg ikke i argumenter de finner ubehagelige. Intuitiv tenkning favoriserer korte, enkle argumenter som høres rimelig ut (som f.eks. overforenklede konklusjoner som "CO2 er plantefor").  


Bloggen What's Up With That Watts et.al jobber utrettelig med å debunked klimaløgnene til Watts og de andre trollene

En annen favoritt hos Klimarealistene er Richard Lindzen. Han kan da ikke være på lønningslisten til The Heartland Institute han også? Den samme Lindzen som Klimarealist Bergsmark støtter seg tungt til? Det kan da ikke være sant? Eller?

 


WOW. La oss da se litt nærmere på denne mannen. Lindzen, er en kjent klimatåkelegger som har fått betalt for å spy ut junk science i flere 10-år.

La meg først peke på at to av hans mest kjente teorier, Iris-teorien og hans teori om klimasensivitet, forlengst er havnet på historiens skraphaug. Av nyere og bedre forskning:

Ny forskning om klimasensitivitet:
A new study by Kate Marvel, Gavin Schmidt, Ron Miller, and Larissa Nazarenko at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies [...] drew upon previous research by Drew Shindell and Kummer & Dessler, who identified a flaw in studies taking the energy budget approach. Those studies had assumed that the Earth’s climate is equally sensitive to all forcings.

Lindzens argumenter blir og tilbakevist her. Hans junk-science om klima blir  ytterligere debunket her. En grundig gjennomgang av klimaløgnene hans finner du her.
Hvem er det som har betalt Lindzen mon tro?
“Meanwhile, we know from Harpers that, in 1995, he charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services,” his trip to testify before Senate in 1991 was paid for by Western Fuels, and his speech “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus” was underwritten by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries."

USAs største kulldriftselskap, Peabody Energy har finansiert minst to dusin grupper som har kastet tvil om menneskeskapte klimaendringer. Midlene gikk til bransjeforeninger, lobbygrupper og industri-interessegrupper og konservative tankesmier. Deriblant Richard Lindzen. “He's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest.

Klimarealistene lener seg altså tungt på en person som er betalt av Heartland for å spre løgner om klima på vegne av oljeindustrien.

15. PRAGERU OG KREASJONISTEN BAK

Lindzen sprer fremdeles grove løgner om klima. Her ser du ham i en nyere video fra kreasjonistene i PragerU som slapp gjennom sensuren til YouTube: “In the latest culture battle between YouTube and content providers, the site has listed 21 educational videos from PragerU under the “restricted mode” category, which is used for inappropriate and objectionable adult and sexual content. PragerU is a popular YouTube channel created by conservative scholar and radio show host Dennis Prager. The channel claims to produce educational content that adheres to Judeo-Christian values and supports “the concepts of freedom of speech, a free press, free markets and a strong military to protect and project those values.”

 

Vi kan ta med et annet eksempel fra PragerU, som altså er høyreskrudd Ayn Rand søppel og kreasjonist-propaganda, kamuflert som proffe “opplysningsvideoer” på vegne av et falskt universitet. 



I denne videoen gjøres det et stort poeng ut av at en tidligere “grunnlegger” av Greenpeace nå står frem som klimafornekter. Eller? Nei. Denne Patrick Moore var aldri med å grunnlegge Greenpeace. Han søkte medlemskap hos dem ca 1 år senere. 



Nøyaktig ett sekund tar det altså før den første løgnen kommer. Moore jobbet for Greenpeace fra 1981 til 86, men er et eksempel på hvordan grådighet og penger korrumperer. Klimafornektere ønsker å gjøre Moore til en større “autoritet” enn det han er og bruker selvsagt hans sidebytte som “bevis” mot AGW.
“While Moore was a leading figure with Greenpeace Canada, and worked with Greenpeace International between 1981 and 1986, he was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. Moore broke away from Greenpeace after he concluded that “[…] the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” Greenpeace contends that “what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters”.
Jeg vet det ikke var nødvendig å ta med dette bildet: Heartland og kreasjonistene i PragerU hånd i hånd. Tilfeldig? Neppe.



Denne fantastiske artikkelen treffer spikeren så utrolig på hodet. Alle må lese denne.
"It’s time to ignore dangerously ignorant corporate mouth-pieces like Patrick Moore -- people paid to fuel climate-change denial so as to protect greed and profit while diminishing the health of the planet that sustains us. It’s time to listen to the overwhelming majority of knowledgeable, informed scientists throughout the world who have reached near-unanimous consensus in regards to human-caused climate change. The science is in. It’s time we collectively move past denial towards acceptance and action. "

Vår venn potholer54 har en herlig debunk av PragerU's høyreskrudde propaganda:


Mannen bak PragerU, er altså den homofobe, paranoide, konspiranoide abortmotstanderen og kreasjonisten Dennis Prager. Les alt om hans skremmende agenda her.

"The Wilks brothers manage Interstate Explorations, an oil and gas field services company based out of Texas, and recently sold shares in the fracking and oil services enterprise Frac Tech, making them worth $1.4 billion each. In total, the Wilks family has donated $6,550,000 to PragerU.

"The religious right seems to believe that the education system is the perfect battlefield to win this 'culture war' taking place in America," writes Shea. "While conservatives continue to push for privatization, efforts on public schools center on curriculum. Whether by pushing creationism, lowering comprehensive sexual education standards, or refusing Common Core, with resources like Prager University and financial supporters like the Wilks, their efforts have been enormously strengthened."




For ham er selvsagt klimafornekting en del av "pakken”. Her er en gjennomgang av hans agenda forklart av vitenskapsformidleren Aron Ra.

 

YouTube-brukeren Godless engineer har en herlig debunking av PragerU her:


Også The Rational Channel har en herlig debunking av PragerU sin grelle høyreskrudde Ayn Rand koko-propaganda på vegne av fossil brensel industrien:


Og bare på gøy. La oss gå tilbake til Bergmarks innlegg. Selvsagt hviler han seg og tungt på den løgnaktige debunkete saken fra Daily mail! Heller ikke han oppdaterer sine lesere om at saken forlengst er oppklart og debunket. Noe som understreker at han ikke er sannhetssøkende, men bare ute etter å tåkelegge klimadebatten. Selvsagt er han også svært kritisk til IPPC. Som snydd ut av nesen til Heartland Institute. Videre: En hovedkilde i Bergmarks innlegg i Dagbladet er, allerede nevnte Prof John Christy. Du mener ikke at også han er ...




.... tilknyttet både Marshall Institute og The Heartland Institue??. Tankesmier som er betalt av fossil-brensel-industrien for å spre løgner om klima. Har virkelig ikke Bergsmark andre kilder å lene seg på enn klimafornekting-løgn-propaganda-maskinen til The Heartland Institute, deres crank-eksperter og oppblåste autoritetspersoner?

“Dr. Christy is listed as a "Roundtable Speaker" for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He is also listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute.” Her er en gjennomgang av feilaktige ting han har sagt.  Og enda mer: Her er enda en gjennomgang av hans klimaløgner, inkludert dette med modeller og observasjoner. 

The Guardian:
Christy and Spencer have also been affiliated with various conservative fossil fuel-funded think tanks. And Spencer is on the Board of Advisors of the Cornwall Alliance – a religious group that essentially believes God wouldn’t let damaging climate change happen.

Spencer and Christy made a valuable scientific contribution by creating their atmospheric temperature data set. However, given how few climate scientists dispute the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, it’s useful to examine their research and comments with a critical eye. When we do, it becomes clear that they have less in common with Galileo than with the scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer.  

16. BOKANMELDELSE


 Bilderesultat for The Delinquent Teenager

Men når Klimarealistene begynner å anmelde bøker da blir det virkelig komisk. Den canadiske freelance-fotografen Donna Laframboise sin bok «The Delinquent Teenager» er et bestillingsverk av et angrep på Fns Klimapanel fra dem du veit. IPPC ignorerer visstnok vitenskapelige rapporter som "ikke stemmer" med konsensus hevdes det blant annet. Javel. Som bevis for dette linkes det til, ikke le, nevnte Heartland Institute, og en artikkel og rapport som er skrevet av, ikke le, nevnte Fred Singer, Craig Idso og Robert Carter fra tulleorganisasjonen NIPCC. Uttrykket bukken og havresekken får en helt ny mening. Hva er det neste? Å få Karius og Baktus til å si at en ikke får huller i tennene av å spise for mye fløtekaramell? Påstandene i anmeldelsen er bare et oppgulp av ting vi har debunket allerede. Påstandene i boken er allerede oppklart her. Dagsavisen hadde denne saken om boken: Klimafornektelse på norsk.I boken blir parkeringsbøter tatt som bevis på at FN er korrupt, miljøvernere sammenlignes med vampyrer, og utfordringene med sur nedbør var en «ikke-krise".


 
I DEL 4  skal vi se enda nærmere på fossil-brensel og tobakks-industrien, inkludert den avslørende dokumentaren Merchants of Doubt. I dokumentaren får bla a. se at metodene klimaløgnsprederne i dag bruker for å tåkelegge klimadebatten, tidligere ble brukt til å tåkelegge helsefaren med tobakksrøyking. “In the months before the debut of the new documentary film "Merchants of Doubt," long-time climate denialist Fred Singer contacted more than two dozen bloggers, public relations specialists and scientists asking for help in derailing the documentary's release.” Så la oss se på hvem Singer henvendte seg til, og ikke le nå: Kjenner du igjen noen av navnene på denne listen?

BONUS:  Judith Curry har en lang historie med å spre klimaløgner.  Det tar aldri lang tid før hennes navn dukker opp i klimaløgnland. Her er en fin oppklaring av hennes mange klimaløgner. 

Og bare på gøy. Her er enda en av klimafornekter-tåkeleggervideoene fra YouTube. Se selv hvordan alle løgnene vi har vært innom brukes her. De falske ekspertene og de samme forslitte poengene, grafene og løgnene, alt er her:




17. KONKLUSJON SÅ LANGT
Dette er altså den brokete forsamlingen som står bak det meste av klimatåkeleggingen i Norge og ute. Veldig uvitenskapelige, uærlige, partiske og med veldig tvilsomme motiver. Alle, absolutt alle, argumentene og metodene deres er oppklart og tilbakevist. Som om ikke det var nok, kommer klimafornektingen altså ofte sammen med mørke konspirasjonsteorier. Klimarealistene/Oljekrisa.no’s sine argumenter er alle hentet fra The Heartland Institutes klimaløgn-propaganda- apparat av politisk missinformasjon, fake news og konspira. En merkelig verden der en støtter seg til føleri, synsere, bloggere, kreasjonister, konspirasjonsteoretikere, pseudo-vitenskap og klimafornektere med klare forbindelser til fossil-brensel-industrien, mens en fullstendig overser den beste tilgjengelige kunnskapen, forsket frem av dem som kan klima, gjennom den vitenskapelige metode. Forstå det den som kan.

Dette innlegget fra Bergens Tidende treffer spikeren på hodet:
«Klimaskeptikere» – eller «klimarealister» som noen av dem insisterer på å kalle seg – er en mangfoldig gruppe, og ethvert forsøk på å skjære alle over en kam vil være misvisende. Det finnes redelige akademikere som er genuint og legitimt skeptiske til enkeltstående publikasjoner som konkluderer med menneskeskapte klimaendringer, men også forskere som masseproduserer «klimaskeptiske» akademiske artikler med direkte pengestøtte fra forurensende industri. Det er imidlertid andre krefter som ligger bak floraen av bidrag i avisenes kommentarfelt. Mange av leserkommentarene har åpenbare paranoide trekk. De argumenterer for at FNs klimapanel er en gigantisk konspirasjon satt i verk ene og alene for å gjøre livet vanskelig for oss. Andre og litt mer nøkterne innlegg har kompliserte utredninger med kildehenvisninger til nettsider og tidsskrifter med imponerende navn, men som ved nærmere ettersyn er like lite troverdige som «publikasjonene» det vises til av andre beslektede aktivister: De som ikke er spesielt opptatt av at jorda er truet, men at den er flat, eller at den ble skapt i løpet av en knapp ukes tid.

INNHOLD DEL 4 - HVORDAN ALT ER VEVD SAMMEN
18. Klimafornekting i en konspirasjonskultur
19. Klimafornektingens røtter
20. Klimafornekting fra fossil brensel-industrien og hvordan den kopierer tobaksindustriens metoder
21. Sponsorene - den enorme pengestøtten bak klimaløgnene og taktikkene som brukes for å spre dem
22. Krigen mot vitenskapen
23. Kreasjonistene
24. Klima-kreasjonistene
25. Oppsummering
26. Avslutning
27. Bonus.
28. Faktaverktøy / Linker

1. Innledning
2. Klima som politikk
3. Stammetenkning og psykologi
4. Kildekritikk og kritisk tenkning
5. Den Vitenskapelige Metode
6. De beste bevisene for menneskeskapt global oppvarming og at det er C02 som er hovedårsaken
7. De vanligste klimamytene
8. Konsensus
9. Konsekvenser av klimaendringer

10. Klimaløgnmakernes taktikker, konspira, junk science, stigmatiserte kunnskap og uærlige budbringere
11. The Great Global Warming Swindle-filmen

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar

Magnetic poles / Earth's magnetic field

While the Earth's magnetic axis is shifting somewhat, Earth's rotational axis shifts only a little bit, mostly in response to th...